A Texas congresswoman used her podcast to question whether a knife that pierced a 17-year-old's heart and killed him should count as a deadly weapon, then went further, suggesting she might have done the same thing the convicted murderer did.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat and attorney, made the remarks on a Tuesday episode of her podcast "Clock It with Crockett," days after a Collin County jury convicted 19-year-old Karmelo Anthony of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas. The jury deliberated roughly three hours before returning a guilty verdict and sentenced Anthony to 35 years in prison.

Crockett, who did not respond to a request for comment from the New York Post, used the episode to cast doubt on the weapon, the verdict, and the victim's role in the confrontation. In doing so, she offered a public defense of a convicted killer that managed to minimize the death of a teenager who bled out on a track field.

What Crockett said, and what the evidence showed

On her podcast, Crockett reacted to the size of the knife Anthony used, comparing it to something harmless. After a guest likened the weapon to a Swiss Army-style multi-tool, Crockett agreed:

"Yeah, like with the little scissors and everything and whatever. So it was small."

She then made the claim that would draw the sharpest backlash:

"Well, I would argue the size of it alone, you wouldn't even think it's a deadly weapon."

But the facts presented at trial told a different story. The knife was a semi-serrated, 5-inch pocket knife. It penetrated Metcalf's sternum and entered his heart. Metcalf suffered a "gaping" 2-inch stab wound and bled to death. Law enforcement recovered a blood-stained 3.5-inch folding knife from the stadium bleachers after Anthony's arrest.

Collin County District Attorney Bill Wirskye called the stabbing a "sneak attack."

Crockett went beyond questioning the weapon. She constructed a hypothetical scenario in which a larger person attacked her, and argued that in such a situation she would not limit herself to fists:

"If a 300-pound man is beating me, like on top of me and beating me down, I'm not limited to fists."

The implication was unmistakable: she was saying she, too, would have used a weapon. But the trial evidence did not describe Anthony being beaten down by a 300-pound man. Metcalf was 6 feet tall and 200 pounds. Anthony was listed at 5 feet 11 and 162 pounds. Witness testimony indicated Metcalf shoved Anthony before Anthony pulled the knife and stabbed him in the chest.

The facts Crockett left out

Eighteen-year-old witness Eddie Parra testified that Anthony became aggressive when confronted. Metcalf had been trying to remove Anthony from the track team's tent at a meet held at Memorial High School in Frisco last April. Anthony responded by putting his hand inside his bag and making statements to indicate he had a weapon, telling Metcalf "touch me" and "you're going to have to move me."

What followed was not a prolonged beating. Metcalf shoved Anthony. Anthony pulled a knife and stabbed him once in the chest. Metcalf died from the wound.

The Collin County jury, composed of white, Asian, and Hispanic members, rejected both self-defense and sudden-passion arguments before convicting Anthony of first-degree murder. They reached their verdict in about three hours.

Crockett, an attorney by training, framed the episode around questions of justice and race. But the jury heard the testimony, saw the evidence, and reached a swift conclusion. Crockett's podcast aired after the verdict, meaning she had access to the same public facts, yet chose to mischaracterize the weapon, inflate the size disparity, and invent a scenario that bore little resemblance to what happened on that track field.

A pattern, not an accident

This is not the first time Crockett has inserted herself into a charged situation involving someone accused of serious wrongdoing. She previously rushed to defend a security guard killed during a Dallas SWAT standoff who had allegedly impersonated police and operated a fraudulent business.

On a separate podcast appearance, Jonathan Van Ness' "Getting Better", Crockett offered a statement that captures her operating philosophy in these matters:

"Just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn't make them a criminal."

That line deserves a moment's consideration. A Collin County jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Karmelo Anthony committed first-degree murder. He was sentenced to 35 years. Austin Metcalf, 17, is dead. And a sitting member of Congress went on her podcast to argue the weapon wasn't really deadly and to suggest she might have done the same thing.

The response on social media was swift. Users on X pushed back hard on Crockett's reasoning. One wrote: "Why does it matter what he used to kill him? A rope isn't a deadly weapon until it's used to strangle someone." Another was more direct: "Pretty sure Metcalf is dead, so it sounds like a deadly weapon to me."

Crockett's remarks arrive at a moment when House Democrats are already wrestling with internal credibility problems and struggling to explain their disconnect from ordinary voters on crime and public safety. Her comments are unlikely to help.

The congresswoman is described as a "lame-duck" representative and failed Senate candidate. Her political future may be uncertain, but her willingness to use a public platform to second-guess a jury verdict and sympathize with a convicted murderer, while a grieving family buries a 17-year-old, tells voters everything they need to know about where her priorities sit.

Who pays the price

Austin Metcalf was a track star. He was 17 years old. He went to a track meet at his high school and tried to get someone to leave his team's tent. For that, he was stabbed in the chest with a knife that went through his sternum and into his heart. He bled to death.

His family watched a jury deliver justice, only to hear a congresswoman from their own state go on a podcast and suggest the weapon that killed their son wasn't really a weapon at all. And then suggest she might have done the same thing the killer did.

Crockett is not the only House Democrat whose public positions raise questions about judgment, but few have managed to combine legal recklessness with moral tone-deafness quite this efficiently. She had every opportunity to say nothing. She chose to record a podcast episode instead.

The broader pattern among certain Democratic officials, from internal party fights over accountability to reflexive sympathy for people on the wrong side of the law, continues to erode public trust. Voters who care about public safety, about victims, and about the basic premise that a jury verdict means something have every reason to take note.

A 5-inch knife went through a teenager's sternum and into his heart. A jury called it murder. A congresswoman called it debatable. That gap tells the whole story.