GOP to Crockett: Dems Calling for Violence? ‘Challenge Accepted!’

Jasmine Crockett clearly spends too much time on TikTok. And not nearly enough time paying attention to her own party. 

The new presumptive nominee for the Senate in Texas offered up a challenge during an interview on The Breakfast Club a couple of months ago, discussing political violence. “I challenge somebody,” the House Democrat declared, “to go and find a clip of a Democrat invoking violence!” Crockett might have offered a tougher challenge by daring someone to find any notable Democrat who doesn’t use violent language or outright threats of violence these days.

Now that Crockett has declared her candidacy for the Senate, the GOP’s rapid-response team answered Crockett’s challenge with a top 20 campaign ad that necessarily runs a full two minutes long. Let’s hope they can turn this into a series for Texas TV in the upcoming campaign:

Oops! Sorry, wrong video. I meant to use this one:

Democrat Aftyn Behn, who is running to represent Nashville in Congress, refuses to denounce her previous comments calling for the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department to be dissolved and suggesting that burning down a police station is justified.pic.twitter.com/bibgiiEJeD

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) November 24, 2025

Doggone it … how do I keep getting the wrong links into these posts? I must write a strongly worded memo to our development team. (But also, can I ask whether burning down a police station qualifies as violence? Asking for a Nashville-hating friend.)

Let’s try this again:

All right, give me a moment. I’m pretty sure we’re getting closer, just like the violent protesters that Democrats incited into violence against ICE agents and the National Guard soldiers that now have to defend them. 

Here we go:

🚨 HOLY CRAP! The GOP just released a DEVASTATING ad against US Texas Senate candidate Jasmine Crockett. Absolutely brutal.

CROCKETT: “I challenge somebody to go and find a clip of a Democrat invoking violence!”

ALSO CROCKETT: “You punch […] We about to beat you down!”

And… pic.twitter.com/w8TJRToVc3

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 10, 2025

All of this is devastating, but the LaMonica McIver clip is the most egregiously obvious rebuttal. A ruling in federal court that came a month or so after Crockett’s dippy ‘challenge’ exposes the absurdity even more than the video of her assault on ICE personnel did. McIver challenged the indictment not because she didn’t get violent, but because she claimed congressional immunity for her actions during the incident. Federal judge Jamel K. Semper, a Biden appointee, shut that down hard:

A federal judge in New Jersey ruled on Thursday that the Justice Department could proceed with its case against Representative LaMonica McIver, a Democrat accused of assaulting immigration agents outside a privately run jail where thousands of migrants awaiting deportation have been held. …

In his decision, the judge, Jamel K. Semper of U.S. District Court in New Jersey, also rejected Ms. McIver’s argument that she was being selectively and vindictively prosecuted by President Trump’s Justice Department because she was a Democrat.

“Even if a presumption of vindictiveness could be invoked in the pretrial context,” Judge Semper wrote in a 41-page decision, Ms. McIver had “failed to demonstrate that such a presumption is appropriate here.”

In his ruling, Judge Semper notes that McIver got more physically obstructive and violent than Mayor Ras Baraka’s own security detail did when ICE agents detained him:

Count One of the indictment alleges that when ICE agents were attempting to handcuff the Mayor, Defendant “placed her arms around him in an effort to prevent HSI from completing the arrest” and that during that attempt to prevent his arrest, Defendant “slammed her forearm into the body of V-1” and “reached out and tried to restrain V-1 by forcibly grabbing him.” (Ind., Count 1 ¶¶ 12, 13.) The indictment further alleges that though Defendant “initially remained inside the secured area of Delaney Hall[,]” once DHS agents escorted the Mayor to the unsecured area outside the Security Gate and attempted to effectuate his arrest, Defendant “hurried outside towards the agents and attempted to thwart” the arrest. …

Here, the predominant purpose of Defendant’s acts alleged in Count One was not to engage in fact-finding in connection with oversight of the facility. After DHS officials announced they were arresting the Mayor, Defendant left the secured area of the facility and opposed the arrest outside of the facility. Defendant’s opposition to the Mayor’s arrest went further than the Mayor’s security detail, 21 who watched as Defendant wedged herself between the Mayor and V-1. (Def. Ex. I, 1:28-1:39.) Defendant was not acting pursuant to her congressional oversight authority when she exited the Security Gate and made herself an active participant in a “scrum. . . in a public parking lot.” (Mot. I at 3.) As Defendant objected to the Mayor’s arrest, the incident deteriorated into “a serious scuffle involving a great deal of physical contact.” (Mot. II at 11.) Defendant’s strong opposition to the Mayor’s arrest is akin to “lobbying on behalf of a particular party” which remains “outside the constitutional safe harbor” of the Speech or Debate Clause. Menendez, 831 F.3d at 169. Indeed, Defendant’s conduct is analogous to “efforts to intervene in decisions pending before the Executive Branch that would mainly affect one particular party,” which are beyond the scope of Speech or Debate protection. Id. at 168. Impeding an arrest, whether lawful or unlawful, goes beyond any reasonable definition of oversight and, accordingly, exceeds the safe harbor of legislative immunity.

Worth noting too: Although the ruling came after Crockett’s challenge, McIver’s personal assault on federal law enforcement officers took place in March. Crockett must have heard about it, right? Or has she been too busy hanging out with podcasters to do her job?

At any rate, let’s all congratulate Democrats for clearing the field in Texas for Crockett. Let’s see what else she decides to make an issue for Lone Star State voters over the next eleven months. And beyond. 

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Hot Air, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. Sometimes, however, we just point and laugh, and let the radical Left embarrass itself. This is one of those times.

Help us continue to point, laugh, and expose the idiocy of progressive elites. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!