The other day, a very intellectually unimpressive sort posted on TikTok that Elon Musk should be assassinated. Actually assassinated. If you haven't seen it before, you can here. (Trigger alert: Big Giant Smart Girl Glasses.) On top of that, she said that she had not paid income taxes for eight years. Certainly, the latter will get her looked at, but the former will, too.
Around the same time, Rep. (R) Dan Crenshaw of Texas said on video that he would "kill Tucker Carlson" if he ever met him personally. I've listened to that video a few times, and while that part is intelligible, the "I'm not kidding, I'd kill him" part is less clear, and I don't want to rely on some editor's subtitles to make the decision for me. So maybe that's there, I just couldn't pull it out of the background noise very well.
Idiots Gonna Idiot: TikTokker Self-Incriminates, Draws Attention of US Attorney
Crenshaw Finds out Slamming His Colleagues May Not Work out Well for His Ambitions
Threatening someone with harm or death can be a felony under federal 18 U.S.C. § 875. It's punishable by fine or jail time, or both. People say "I will kill you" to others quite often, and most of the time, it gets filed into the "I was just spoutin' off" category. Oftentimes, that's probably the case. Maybe what makes this different, though, is the publicity surrounding Ms. TikTok and Mr. Crenshaw and the close proximity within which the videos came out. Either way, I wanted to see how this would fare with the Flip Test.
The Flip Test, as you can imagine, is simply when you put the shoe on the other foot and see if your logic still holds up. For example, Donald Trump is found with classified material in his home, and he is raided at dawn by the FBI, Attack Helicopters, and the USS Ticonderoga anchored just offshore at Mar-A-Lago. (Okay, that's slightly exaggerated.) And you think this is perfectly justifiable.
When Joe Biden is later found to have classified material in his home, at Penn State, and chocking up his Corvette in the garage, he doesn't get raided by law enforcement. He is paid a midday visit by nebbish librarians from The National Archives, and you think this is fair and appropriate.
Obviously, your convictions are situational, and your ethics are anchored in whatever you happen to be feeling at the time.
Likewise with the Crenshaw/TikTok case. Now, I think action should be taken, pursuant to the law, against the TikTok lady. Calling for the assassination of Musk demands that the matter be investigated at least. With Crenshaw saying that he would kill Tucker Carlson if he ever met him, he should be subjected to the same treatment. A good many refer to Crenshaw as a RINO, and maybe he is. I don't really follow him, and all I know is that he is a vet, and he, for the most part, supports the president. But since he did threaten to kill Tucker Carlson, he's got to fall under the same rules as the rest of us. So should the TikTok Lady...and at least she had the wherewithal to stand by her words. Crenshaw ran away from his. That's disappointing.
What separates conservatives from progs is that we believe in a single standard, they believe in a double standard. If we're going to be consistent, we have to stick to principle regardless. And if you cut Crenshaw a break, then you don't have standards. But I want to be forthright. I'm not saying Crenshaw ought to be charged because legally, there are a few parameters for that. I am saying that he should be investigated to see if his threat meets such a level as to warrant a charge. Certainly, law enforcement is going to do that to the TikTok Lady. They have to do it to Crenshaw as well if we're going to be consistent in the belief that the same law applies to all of us.
Maybe it will also be a signal to conservative politicians and spox not to say stupid things. The Left is already so good at that we do not want to encroach on their turf.