Video: The Spectacular Moment Jasmine Crockett Attacks Trump's IQ and Makes Ignorant 3rd Grade English Mistake in Same Sentence

Rep. Jasmine Crockett has made a name for herself in Washington — not for legislative insight or persuasive debate skills, but for theatrics. The Texas Democrat, routinely praised by the establishment media as a “firebrand,” seems far more focused on cable news notoriety than seriousness of governance.

Crockett isn’t unintelligent — she’s an attorney with a prep school background. She knows exactly what she’s doing. But when you spend your public life performing as someone unserious, eventually the act becomes the reputation. And on CNN this week, Crockett tried — and failed — to insult President Donald J. Trump’s intelligence while stumbling over the most basic rules of the English language.

The exchange stemmed from President Trump’s lighthearted remark following his annual health exam at Walter Reed Medical Center, where he joked about taking an “IQ test” and compared his cognitive sharpness to that of Crockett and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“They have Jasmine Crockett, a low IQ person. AOC is low IQ. You give her an IQ test, have her pass, like, the exams that I decided to take when I was at Walter Reed,” the president said. “Those are very hard. They’re really aptitude tests, I guess, in a certain way, but they’re cognitive tests. Let AOC go against Trump.”

“Let Jasmine [Crockett] go against Trump. I don’t think Jasmine– The first couple questions are easy: a tiger, an elephant, a giraffe, you know. When you get up to about five or six and then when you get up to 10 and 20 and 25, they couldn’t come close to answering any of those questions.”

As anyone familiar with President Trump’s style already understands, this is standard political ribbing — the same strategy that forever branded political figures like “Low-Energy Jeb” and “Little Marco.” The smart move is always to let the moment pass.

Crockett, however, eagerly took the bait during her CNN appearance.

“Listen, I’m waiting on a reporter, and maybe it’ll be you, Kaitlan, that finally ask him: What is his IQ?” Crockett said. “Because he is constantly talking about — he doesn’t even know what a low IQ is. He don’t even know which scores are low. And I can guarantee you that whatever score, if he’s taken one, anytime recently, I’m sure that his qualifies as low.”

In attempting to call the president “low IQ,” Crockett delivered her remarks with elementary grammatical errors — ironically proving the opposite of what she was arguing.

She continued:

“I wish people would look at the fact that you have a president of the United States who consistently [sic] is obsessing over two women of color that are members of the House. You are the president. You have a lot more power than we do.”

“But obviously, you consistently feel threatened. And that is why we have seen the attacks on black women in general from this administration. I don’t know what black woman hurt him in his past, honey, but it is really taking him through it [sic, I think].”

Crockett’s staged “street talk” isn’t accidental — it’s part of a crafted persona. But even some on the left have begun to question the tactic.

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith recently criticized Crockett’s approach bluntly:

“This educated, brilliant black woman representing over 750,000 people is engaging in verbiage and rhetoric for the streets! And that’s fine when you in the streets,” he said.

“How many of y’all bring the streets to the table when you at the negotiating table trying to get a deal done? How many of you are able to think that for a second that you able to bring street verbiage to Capitol Hill and that’s going work for you? You literally have Republicans telling the networks, ‘Please, please, please put her front and center on camera.’”

“Why would they do that?” Smith said. “Because they know it wins for them.”

Smith’s critique hits the core issue: Crockett is deliberately choosing a persona that undermines her own credibility — and the credibility of the office she holds.

This isn’t just political theater. It’s self-caricature.

And in the end, when a sitting member of Congress attempts to mock the intelligence of the President of the United States — while publicly fumbling the basics of grammar — the result isn’t a takedown.

It’s self-inflicted humiliation.