Connect with us

International

Dan Crenshaw says he’ll “f*cking kill Tucker Carlson” on video

Published

3 minute read

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Republican Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw was caught on video saying he would “f*cking kill” Tucker Carlson if he ever met him, only to deny the threat shortly afterward. The footage, released by GB News, contradicts Crenshaw’s denial and raises questions about his remarks toward the Daily Caller co-founder.

Key Details:

  • GB News reporter Steven Edginton posted a video showing Crenshaw making the violent comment after an interview in early February.
  • Crenshaw denied the accusation when questioned by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, responding with “lol, no” on X.
  • GB News then released a video where Crenshaw explicitly stated he would “f*cking kill” Carlson, doubling down when Edginton initially laughed it off.

Diving Deeper:

The controversy began when GB News reporter Steven Edginton shared on X that Crenshaw made the threat after an interview earlier this month. According to Edginton, when he asked Crenshaw if he had ever met Tucker Carlson, Crenshaw responded, “I would kill him if I saw him.” When Edginton laughed, Crenshaw reportedly reiterated, “No seriously, I would kill him.”

After Edginton’s post, Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly questioned Crenshaw about the accusation. Crenshaw responded dismissively, writing, “lol, no.” However, less than 30 minutes later, GB News released a video that contradicted Crenshaw’s denial.

The footage showed Edginton asking, “Have you ever met Tucker?” as the two removed their microphones. Crenshaw responded, “No, we’ve talked a lot on Twitter. If I ever meet him, I’ll f*cking kill him.” Edginton laughed, but Crenshaw continued, “No, seriously, I’ll kill him. He’s the worst person I’ve ever met.”

The release of the video prompted widespread backlash and demands for clarification. The Daily Caller reached out to Crenshaw’s office for comment, and a spokesperson responded, “No, of course not,” when asked if the statement was serious.

Crenshaw’s remarks are particularly controversial given his position as a sitting U.S. Congressman. Threats of violence, even if intended as a joke, carry serious implications and have sparked debate over the tone of political discourse in America.

This incident also adds to the ongoing tension between Crenshaw and Tucker Carlson, who have clashed over policy issues and public commentary. Carlson has been a vocal critic of establishment Republicans, a group with which Crenshaw is frequently associated.

The fallout from Crenshaw’s comments is likely to continue as political figures and media outlets react to the video. Neither Crenshaw nor Carlson have issued further statements regarding the incident at the time of this report.

Dan Crenshaw” by Gage Skidmore, licensed by CC BY-SA 2.0.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Liberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight     Dan Knight

After parroting a Chinese bounty on a Canadian citizen, Chiang exits the race without once mentioning the regime behind it—opting instead to blame “distractions” and Donald Trump.

So Paul Chiang is gone. Stepped aside. Out of the race. And if you’re expecting a moment of reflection, an ounce of honesty, or even the basic decency to acknowledge what this was really about—forget it.

In his carefully scripted resignation statement, Chiang didn’t even mention the Chinese Communist Party. Not once. He echoed a foreign bounty placed on a Canadian citizen—Joe Tay—and he couldn’t even bring himself to name the regime responsible.

Instead, he talked about… Donald Trump. That’s right. He dragged Trump into a resignation about repeating CCP bounty threats. The guy who effectively told Canadians, “If you deliver a Conservative to the Chinese consulate, you can collect a reward,” now wants us to believe the real threat is Trump?

I haven’t seen Donald Trump put bounties on Canadian citizens. But Beijing has. And Chiang parroted it like a good little foot soldier—and then blamed someone who lives 2,000 miles away.

But here’s the part you can’t miss: Mark Carney let him stay.

Let’s not forget, Carney called Chiang’s comments “deeply offensive” and a “lapse in judgment”—and then said he was staying on as the candidate. It wasn’t until the outrage hit boiling point, the headlines stacked up, and groups like Hong Kong Watch got the RCMP involved, that Chiang bailed. Not because Carney made a decision—because the optics got too toxic.

And where is Carney now? Still refusing to disclose his financial assets. Still dodging questions about that $250 million loan from the Bank of China to the firm he chaired. Still giving sanctimonious speeches about “protecting democracy” while his own caucus parrots authoritarian propaganda.

If you think Chiang’s resignation fixes the problem, you’re missing the real issue. Because Chiang was just the symptom.

Carney is the disease.

He covered for it. He excused it. He enabled it. And now he wants to pose as the man who will stand up to foreign interference?

He can’t even stand up to it in his own party.

So no, we’re not letting this go. Chiang may be gone—but the stench is still in the room. And it’s wearing a tailored suit, smiling for the cameras, and calling itself “leader of the Liberal Party.”

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump says ‘nicer,’ ‘kinder’ tariffs will generate federal revenue

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump says the slate of tariffs he plans to announce Wednesday will be “nicer,” “kinder” and “more generous” than other countries have treated the U.S.

Trump plans to unveil reciprocal tariffs on all nations that put duties on U.S. imports Wednesday, which the president has been calling “Liberation Day” for American trade.

Trump’s latest comments on tariffs come as he aims to reshape the global economy to reduce U.S. trade deficits and generate billions in federal revenue through higher taxes on imported products.

Trump’s trade policies have upended U.S. and global markets, but the president has yet to get into specifics ahead of Wednesday’s planned announcement.

At the start of March, Trump told a joint session of Congress that he planned to put reciprocal tariffs in place starting April 2.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

On Sunday night, Trump said on Air Force One that U.S. tariffs would be “nicer,” “kinder” and “more generous” than how other countries have treated the U.S.

Last week, Trump announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles, duties that he said would be “permanent.” The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two. Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Trump predicts his protectionist trade policies will create jobs, make the nation rich and help reduce both trade deficits and the federal government’s persistent deficits.

The “Liberation Day” tariffs come after months of talk since Trump took office in January. On the campaign trail, Trump frequently called “tariff” the most beautiful word in the English language.

James Dorn, senior fellow emeritus at the Cato Institute, said Trump’s rhetoric on tariffs doesn’t match the economic reality of Americans.

“Tariffs expand the scope of government, politicize economic life, increase uncertainty, and reduce individual freedom,” he wrote. “Government officials gain arbitrary power while market participants face fewer opportunities for mutually beneficial exchanges and greater uncertainty as the rules of the game change.”

Dorn said consumers would pay the price.

“Tariffs are levied on U.S. importers as goods – both final and intermediate –subject to the tariff enter the country,” he wrote. “Importers and consumers typically end up paying the tariffs, as they cut into profit margins and drive consumer prices up.”

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the foreign products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. The president also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X