Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan torched CNN’s Dana Bash during a tense segment on whether President-elect Donald Trump would enact retribution on his opponents.

During an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Jordan got into a heated exchange with Bash over Trump’s campaign rhetoric promising to be his supporters’ “retribution.”….

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan was at the center of a fiery exchange during a tense interview on CNN’s State of the Union, where he vehemently defended President-elect Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding retribution against his opponents.

The heated segment unfolded when CNN anchor Dana Bash pressed Jordan on Trump’s campaign statements, which included promises to exact retribution for those who had opposed him during the election.

Bash asked Jordan about the implications of Trump’s rhetoric, questioning whether such statements, including his promises to “pay back” his political adversaries, could be interpreted as dangerous or divisive.

“Do you believe this kind of rhetoric sets a dangerous precedent, especially when it comes from the incoming president?” Bash asked.

Jordan, known for his staunch defense of the president, was quick to respond, accusing Bash of misinterpreting Trump’s words.

“What you’re doing is trying to spin what President Trump has said into something negative, when, in fact, it’s about fighting back against the establishment and the Washington elite who have ignored the will of the American people for too long,” Jordan argued.

The exchange grew even more intense as Bash continued to press Jordan on whether Trump’s talk of “retribution” could be seen as an invitation for political retaliation, a suggestion Jordan rejected outright. “This isn’t about personal vengeance,” Jordan fired back

. “It’s about holding people accountable for their actions, as any leader would do after being elected by the people.”

The back-and-forth highlighted the sharp divide between Trump’s supporters, like Jordan, and critics who argue that such rhetoric is reminiscent of authoritarian tactics.

Jordan dismissed the concerns, arguing that Trump’s focus on accountability was a reflection of the president-elect’s commitment to fulfilling the promises he made during his campaign.

The interview ended with no resolution, leaving viewers divided on the implications of Trump’s language and whether it represents a broader political strategy or a dangerous step toward division.

As Trump prepares for his presidency, the tensions surrounding his rhetoric—particularly regarding retribution—are likely to remain a hot topic on the national stage.