Last night, millions tuned in to watch Fox’s Bret Baier interview Vice President Kamala Harris in a brief but substantive exchange. One of the most interesting aspects of the interview was the purely pedestrian view of the presidency that Harris presented in the interview. Harris repeatedly responded with “I will follow the law” while refusing to say where she personally stands on immigration, transgender athletes, and other issues.
After confining interviews to largely softball forums like The View, Harris faced a serious journalist who pushed for actual answers on policies. While confined to a short time by the Harris campaign, Baier kept pulling Harris back to these questions to cut off the evasions that have characterized past interviews.
Baier noted that she has previously campaigned on some of these issues and publicly declared that she worked for such things as gender transitioning operations for undocumented persons. Harris now refuses to state her position on such issues and says “I will follow the law.”
Yet, Harris is not adopting that pedestrian model in other areas like abortion rights where she is pledging to use executive powers to resist pro-life laws. The Biden-Harris Administration has used such orders to negate both constitutional and statutory authority. That includes orders that were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on issues like the national eviction moratorium.
Notably, Harris did flip her position on decriminalizing unlawful entries. Despite running on that pledge in her earlier unsuccessful run for the White House, Harris now says that she is against such decriminalization. As with her past opposition to fracking and gun rights, the change is likely to draw criticism that Harris is adopting a new persona for a close race.
The refusal to give her position on these issues is reminiscent of Joe Biden’s last campaign where he simply refused to say if he opposed packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. What is different is that Harris previously stated strong and public positions on these questions but is now refusing to confirm that she continues to support those policies, including some that rank near the top of issues for voters.
Baier did a heroic job in trying to prevent the filibustering of the interview and push for answers on these questions. It was the first such interview where Harris faced a dogged interviewer. Given the frantic effort of the staff to end the interview (after showing up late), it is likely to be the last.
The mantra of “I will follow the law” ignores that a president plays a major role in the legislative process and has considerable executive powers in determining how such laws are enforced. The presidency is more than a promise of “joy” and compliance. It is about leadership on issues that matter to voters.
The interview had a seasonal feel with Halloween approaching like a political reading of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven where every question is answered by “Nevermore.”
That could well be the theme of the Harris campaign. When pressed on contradictions or controversies, Harris seemed to declare “Nevermore Trump” over and over again. We will see if that is enough in a matter of a few weeks.
In the meantime, real journalists will be left seeking answers that never come, exclaiming like Poe’s protagonist “tell me—tell me, I implore!” However, “Quoth the [Harris] ‘Nevermore.’”
Yeah, Kamala isn’t going to follow Biden’s policies. That includes getting a dog like Major that was biting staff & Secret Service.
Kamala will opt for a cocker spaniel puppy.
“Kamala will opt for a cocker spaniel puppy.”
Got one already. No, it isn’t named ‘Major’ like Biden’s dog – it’s called Command Sergeant Major. Serves as her emotional support dog.
Let me interpret. “I will not be following the law” Fixed it.
Kamala: Yes it’s tragic that those young women were raped and brutally murdered, because of my policies. Yes, I’m directly responsible for their violent deaths. But I don’t want to talk about that, let’s instead talk about what has happened just in the past nine months. And let’s talk about the overall immigration system instead of the border.
Pathetic. One thing she proved is that she is just as fatally flawed of a candidate as Hillary was. And her angry witch-like screeching also recalls Hillary . . . and will not win her a single vote.
In other news: Trump’s newest campaign ad just dropped. It is a video of Bret Baier’s entire interview of Kamala.
This was like the opening scene of Rocky III. Rocky was successful, famous and was weak and complacent. Mickey kept him out of real fights. Then he stepped in the ring with James “Clubber” Lang and took a severe beating.
Bret Baier is no “Clubber” Lang but he is a serious journalist willing to ask direct questions. She was unable to answer anything directly or logically. She took a beating until her staff called it off. You can imagine, as in the movie, her handlers yelling, “Nooo….” in slow motion as she hits the mat.
K.O.
E.M.
This put on full display how and why up till now she would only do softball interviews. Getting into the ring with Baier, he had her on the ropes the entire time with real questions, he pressed her lame responses and non-answers and she took a beating to continue with the boxing analogy. Her attempts to deflect blows to “Trump! Trump! Trump!” were evermore so weak and lame. Of course her staff had to throw in the towel.
I heard her staff called the interview off, but so far only through third parties. Didn’t they set a time limit? I also heard they were late to do so, but, the question is was there a time limit and did the interview end after the time limit.
S. Meyer,
I read that four members of her staff were trying to end the interview as Harris was crashing and burning.
There was a time limit. She was 15 min late. That’s it. The interview was for an hour. it was cut short because they ran out of time.
Svelaz-George, considering your history where data is concerned, how do you know you are correct this time? 15 +27=42. That is an unusual time length and doesn’t add up to an hour. I prefer to trust those with far superior records to yours. Until shown otherwise I will believe ” her staff were trying to end the interview as Harris was crashing and burning.”
The key is not what Ms. Harris’s position on an issue is on October 16. It is what her position will be on January 20,2025. I think we can all expect her positions will be the ones she has held most of her adult life, not the conversions of convenience.
When she said she would follow the law, it meant following the law that Congress still has not fixed. Letting illegal immigrants go because the caseload for immigration judges is staggering, and, by law, even illegal immigrants are entitled to due process. That did not change even before Trump was elected. The law still requires that each immigrant who crosses illegally and asks for asylum or something else is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. That’s the law. Do we want to prevent more illegal crossings? How about improving the legal immigration process? The bill proposed by Republicans and Democrats would have done that. Increased resources to deal with the overwhelming caseloads would also have been addressed by the bill, which would have shortened the time immigrants would have to wait to learn whether they could stay.
Congress is the problem, not the Biden administration. Congress can change the law, reform it, fund more resources, and reduce red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that would slow down immigration courts. Republicans were all for it until Trump said no because it would have severely undermined his most effective campaign issue. Immigration. He couldn’t campaign on the economy because it is not failing and it’s been stable. He can’t campaign on other policies because he has not done anything else besides whining and complaining. He has nothing to offer except fear-mongering and lying.
What nonsense. In the first place, the “follow the law” answer came in response to a question about sex change surgeries for prisoners. Second, even if it had been about immigration it was hogwash. Her admin revoked the exec orders that allowed for the massive influx of illegal immigrants w/o need to remain in Mexico. “Follow the law” would seem to be a statement that she would not do anything as the executive to change things, but with Kamala who knows?
Of course, you didn’t cite the law she supposedly ignored. Following the law means following the law that allows transgender inmates to have the surgery or care. They also followed the law on immigration. The same law Trump was required to follow. Remember, Biden issued an executive order revoking Trump’s executive orders. It was perfectly legal and, of course, according to the law.
Revoking Trump’s EO does not mean they were not following the law. Trump issued an EO because the law did not explicitly allow him to do what he wanted without the help of Congress.
“ Follow the law” would seem to be a statement that she would not do anything as the executive to change things, but with Kamala who knows?”
Well, who makes the law? Congress. If Congress passed H.R. 3602, she would have to follow it. She can’t really change things unless Congress acts on reforming immigration law. Her only option would be to issue another EO, which would be well within her power. Congress needs to step up. Republicans are arguing she does things only Congress can fix.
On immigration, the Left contends that: “Congress is the problem, not the Biden administration.”
The D’s are all over the map on this issue.
First they claim that the border is fine. Now they assert that it’s Congress’ fault for not fixing problems (that don’t exist).
Then there’s this obvious fact, that they wish to evade:
The Biden-Harris border policies were enacted by Executive orders and bureaucratic changes to border policies. So that which was done by those powers cannot be undone by those same powers?
Asylum is to be granted to the first friendly country a person comes to, and can only be granted if their govt is persecuting them. So the only people the US should be taking as asylum seekers are people from Mexico or Canada. What we have going on at our borders is a free for all. These people are coming for the welfare so don’t kid yourself. The only due process they have is to be treated humanely.
“These people are coming for the welfare so don’t kid yourself.”
It’s quid pro quo: undeserved welfare and grants in exchange for voting for Harris and the other Demons.
Letting illegal immigrants go because the caseload for immigration judges is staggering, and, by law, even illegal immigrants are entitled to due process.
How did tens of millions of Illegal Aliens suddenly appear in the USA to create staggering caseloads for immigration judges? Did they all just sprout from the earth all of a sudden after Obama and Border Czar Harris replaced Trump in office?
And so, there he goes again. George starts today’s BBBBUUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!! by defending Border Czar Harris throwing the borders wide open to Illegal Aliens, fentanyl, and crime.
George claims Border Czar Harris is a captive of the law, and that requires her as Biden’s Border Czar to flood America with tens of millions of Illegal Alien (Guest Democrat Voters) because they are entitled to due process.
George hopes the Democrat Memory Hole erases people remembering that an Administration can keep Illegal Aliens OUT of the USA, rather than let them in to live, work, and live lives of crime while awaiting due process. As Trump’s Remain In Mexico policy did, as just one example.
George hopes nobody remembers that SCOTUS said Remain In Mexico is constitutional.
George hopes that nobody remembers that SCOTUS has NEVER ruled existing immigration law violates Illegal Aliens rights to deport/remove them.
George hopes nobody remembers that, if Border Czar Harris and Bribery Biden hadn’t violated the oath of office to enforce the existing laws of the USA (like the immigration law she says she will suddenly start following if elected), there WOULDN’T be that massive backlog of tens of millions of Illegal Aliens living here on the taxpayer’s dime and committing crimes while awaiting due process.
Of course, as a legal scholar, George knows that there is no category in American law of “illegal immigrants” – that’s Democrat Deflection word salad. The proper term is “Illegal Alien” – the one SCOTUS has used in relevant decisions concerning Illegal Aliens. George just can’t bring himself to call them what they are… it hurts his soul to think of acknowledging them as what they are: criminals.
But to close with the words of somebody George knows like they’re a family member. George has “done nothing here besides whining and complaining. He has nothing to offer except fear-mongering and lying.”
The law also states that they must request asylum in the first country they enter.
Bret Baire, isn’t he the guy that sent an email in November 2020 to his Fox cohorts to lie and say Biden didn’t win Arizona?
A lying pice of crap pretends to be a “journalist”. Baire lied about trumps calling for violence against his “enemies”. Why would Baire do that?
More liberal tears over kamala’s disaster debate. I’m lovin’ it!
Ah, the ever popular ad hominem.
Bret Baire, isn’t he the guy that sent an email in November 2020 to his Fox cohorts to lie and say Biden didn’t win Arizona?
How weird! That supposedly happened and Liz Cheney didn’t haul him in front of the J6 Soviet Show Trial? How did she miss THAT!!!
No, you’re thinking of the CNN interviewers who got a Pulitzer Prize for sending an email to their colleagues at CNN and the other cable news networks with the plan with how they’d sell the “Trump Russia Dossier” to Americans in hopes of rigging the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.
There’s a lot of lying pieces of Democrat crap here who will enthusiastically make up crap, throw it against the law, and hope they think some of it sticks.
I thought she was awful. she was combative, rude and condescending. She didn’t answer a single question. All she had were her attacks on President Trump. God help us if this brainless, idiot wins. If she wins, America looses.
LAW =BLM =??????
Sure, she, and the likes of alvin bragg etc,. they will pursue the law as far as it will take them in either bedeviling their opponents or furthering the creation of a progressive, communist state.
The fact that the Trump campaign reposted the entire interview with no edits should say it all. No one is buying the DNC’s bs anymore.
The have quite literally nothing but fear mongering left, and they are too narcissistic to realize what people actually fear is further dem rule and more dem policy/evisceration of our common and inalienable rights. They have gone waaaay too far, too far to ever walk it back and rekindle trust. Trying to gaslight us out of our own (recent) memories takes the cake.
If you are a sentient, self-reliant person – sure…you are tired of the progs. But…if you are a parasite living off the system (and by that I mean all government handouts, employed government paper pushers, universities and others receiving grants and corporations living off the government contract teat – you will want the system to continue as it is. I wonder if there are enough self-reliant individuals left to overcome the demographics of parasites.
Baker was borderline obnoxious and it basically forced Harris to take his lunch money…, which, of course, she did.
And Turls, here we have another little soul death op Ed push piece from you where you’re trying to deflect from your support of an orange anti democratic fascist wannabe of a shriveled old baw bag — and thereby renouncing whatever principles originally driving you. You’ve done the sell out thing, Jon. Now it’s time to rocket ride the sheer failure of being a trump lawyer.
** Baier
Try getting the name of the interviewer correct before descending into name calling
Spell check on my phone did an automatic rewrite of Brett’s last name and I hit send before spell checking spell check. ..
Apologies for upsetting your delicate sensibilities.
He can’t get his own name (s) right, too many to remember!
Maybe a good question or two would have been, “did you follow the law regarding student loan forgiveness?” Or, “do you just want to follow the law regarding abortion?”
This doesn’t include homosexuals who are cissex and transgender in their sexual orientation. As for immigration reform, transAmericans are equitably and inclusively responsible for immigration reform forcing excess homicides, rape-rapes, rapes (i.e. sodomy), assaults, progressive prices, labor arbitrage, Diversity (e..g. racism, sexism, hate crimes), George “Fentanyl” Floyd syndrome (i.e. Chinese sourced precursors,
illegal migration), and other affirmative acts of American Civil Liberties Unburdened.
Harris talked about the border and explained that there was indeed a solution. She correctly pointed out that the Republicans did agree to the bipartisan border bill that Biden was perfectly willing to sign despite objections from some Democrats. They had a solution in hand. Brett Baier did not want to let Harris continue to point out the sad fact that Trump called on Republicans to renege on the bill because it would have undermined a significant part of his campaign platform to use immigration as an issue. Harris correctly pointed out Trump was not interested in a solution; he wanted to use the issue as political fodder to inspire rage and anger among his supporters. President Biden and Democrats AND Republicans were ready to implement the immigration reforms that Republicans wanted. Baier kept ignoring the Vice President’s valid point to deflect from the facts she was putting out. Fox News does not wish its viewers to wonder if she could be right or hear things Fox News is not telling them. Baire had that concerned look every time Harris mentioned things Fox News did not want to be mentioned to its viewers, and that’s part of the reason why he kept interrupting her.
Emigration reform to mitigate progress and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout. People should not feel compelled to emigrate, and exploited in labor arbitrage. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform should not compensate for planned parenthood (i.e. human rites for “burdens” and reduced carbon footprint) and other sexual dysfunction in liberal culture.
George, I am uncertain as to why you (and Gigi) continue to push this silliness about Trump controlling the outcome of Republicans on the border bill. I wish for you to do a little more objective research (instead of seeking out Wikipedia/Google searches that comport with whatever opposition you wish to voice against Turley) –and you will see that congressional Republicans are NOT controlled by Trump. I think they did a pretty good job of articulating their reasons for not voting, and you seem to forget that it was Lankford’s small negotiating group of Republicans who agreed on the proposed legislation.
https://www.majorityleader.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2033
Why don’t you tally how many Republicans did NOT vote to overturn the election? who voted against Trump’s emergency border wall plan? who condemned J6?
Truth be told, the numbers show that Republicans can generally be counted on to vote their conscience, -even when such is contrary to a position taken by Trump. Can you contemplate that perhaps they agree with Trump on many issues only reflects that they share common Republican ideology on many divisive issues. Indeed, I would venture to say that more Republicans vote their conscience(s) than Democrats, who seem united in their retaliatory votes to “get Trump.”
Thanks anyway.
Harris’s glib taking of the border issue, in addition to her condescension toward Baier, and her hand/head nodding demeanor when trying to force her evasive responses, seems to have turned off many more than she hoped to catch. This is my opinion, George, and I will not impose it upon you as authoritative fact.
Thanks anyway.
It was not silly when Trump demanded that Republicans reject the bill. The Republican party is subservient to Trump. It’s all about Trump for them. The objections to the immigration bill came only after Trump got involved and started demanding and, in some cases, insisting Republicans say no. What you don’t show or won’t acknowledge is that the majority of the bill comprised demands and changes to the law Republicans wanted. They were getting what they wanted for a long time and this was a grudging concession from democrats who opposed those demands. A voting majority of republicans AND Democrats supported this. That was enough to guarantee passage of the bill UNTIL Trump started saying no and cowing Republicans to backtrack on their support. The fact that the legislation had an excellent chance of passing, WITH significant Republican backing, threatened Trump’s campaign platform is precisely why Trump oppsed it. Because he had nothing else to campaign on that would be effective as a fear-mongering tool to instill in his supporters.
Lankford’s ‘small’ negotiating group represented Republicans who were willing to be a part of a solution instead of just sitting there complaining about nothing being done. That small group was not beholden to Trump because they wanted a solution. The rest of the MAGA Republicans wanted to keep immigration as a campaign issue. They didn’t have anything else to campaign on. Passing the bill would have undermined that. Trump Republicans did not want to give Biden credit for passing legislation that could have addressed the immigration and border issue using Republican ideas and demands. Biden was willing to do that and Republicans did not expect that.
Trump told Republicans to reject the bill. Despite having no idea what was in it. Remember, Republicans and Democrats spent months negotiating, and Republicans succeeded in getting the vast majority of what they wanted on the bill, and Democrats agreed. Those are the facts. Trump crapped all over it to save the only campaign issue he could use to fear-monger and instill in his supporters.
He could not campaign on abortion, the economy, or even fundamental kitchen table issues. No, he had immigration and the scaremongering of letting rapists, murderers, and criminals “invade” the nation. If the bill passed, Trump would have been without the benefit of using the issue to his advantage. He would have had nothing except culture war issues and the ‘woke’ agenda to rely on.
Harris was not being evasive. Baier constantly interrupted her, not letting her fully answer his questions and explain the details of her position. Baier did not want Fox News viewers to understand what she stood for. To say she was being evasive is dishonest. Brett posed many loaded questions, and when she tried to explain in detail why a question was wrong or unfair or disagreed with what he tried to imply, he cut her off or interrupted her. Baier was not making a reasonable faith effort to let her answer in a way that would have allowed Fox News viewers to see what Fox News has not been telling its viewers.
Whether she ‘turned off’ viewers or not is irrelevant. What mattered is that she got to point out things that Fox News refuses to put forth for its viewers to consider. If some viewers got to the point where they would google things, she said, they would, at the very least, have some reason to doubt what Fox News has been telling them.
It was not silly when Trump demanded that Republicans reject the bill. The Republican party is subservient to Trump.
George, SIX Democrats rejected that secret bill negotiated without any input or review of drafts from members of even one of the parties in Congress. That bill was killed by SIX Democrats within hours of coming out in public. It wouldn’t have passed even if Trump had said instead “I love this bill better than the border bill HR2 that has been sitting on Schumer’s desk for years!”
And those SIX Democrats announced they would not vote for it, LONG before Trump got a chance to jump on board with those SIX Democrats rejecting the bill.
You’re lying again, George. Poorly, but uniformly.
Harris talked about the border and explained that there was indeed a solution. She correctly pointed out that the Republicans did agree to the bipartisan border bill that Biden was perfectly willing to sign despite objections from some Democrats.
George lies in defense of Border Czar Harris – as expected. Doing so first in both claiming Harris answered or explained concerning the border.
Second, (like all Democrats from Biden and his White House Liar Cringe Jean-Pierre all the way down to Border Czar Harris and George) in lying that there actually was a bipartisan border bill. There were SIX of Chuck Schumer’s Democrats that rejected that secret deal. Democrats killed it – the Republicans didn’t have to try and defeat the Democrat controlled Senate.
Or maybe George isn’t lying – maybe he just suffers from reading and comprehension problems as he claims those who rebut his proclamations suffer from.
Harris did not explain her Border Czar effect on the border – instead she made the pronouncement and excuse near and dear to George’s heart: BBBBUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!
Second, that old lie that there was a bipartisan border bill. That “bill” was nothing but an agreement negotiated IN SECRET, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS by ONE Republican (James Lankford) with Chuck Schumer and a Democrat troika.
No Senate committee negotiated that bill – one Republican and a handful of Democrats crafted that deal without allowing any of their fellow members in the Senate know what they were doing and have input into the drafts.
When that single Republican along with Schumer & Company then showed their “bipartisan deal” to all the Republicans and Democrats, it was swiftly rejected by those six Democrats.
Like Border Czar Harris did to ram other Biden policies through the Senate, if Democrats wanted that “bipartisan” border bill, all they had to do was put it to a vote in the Senate they controlled, with Border Czar Harris as president of the Senate casting the deciding vote. They couldn’t do that because Democrats didn’t support that secret deal.
It didn’t fail because of Republicans, and not because of BBBUUTTTT… MUH TRUMP!!!!!. If failed because the Democrat controlled Senate wouldn’t agree to use their majority to pass it.
George hopes the Democrat Memory Hole will prevent readers from remembering Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc rejecting the bill because it didn’t leave the border even more open than Border Czar Harris already had it open.
George also hopes the Democrat Memory Hole will prevent readers from remembering that secret deal negotiated by one Republican with Democrats was already declared dead on arrival when it was revealed in the Senate – LONG before Trump got on the bandwagon to also demand that it be rejected as it made the border invasion worse.
George is a very incompetent liar, in part because he believes the audience here is stupid and don’t have a memory longer than the last two months.
“Following the Law” is now an extremist Democrat position. Republicans sure as hell don’t follow the law.
“Following the Law” —
as interpreted by the likes of Laurence Tribe.
We’d be safer with anarchy.
“Following the Law” is now an extremist Democrat position.
Sammy… want to explain how Biden and Border Czar Harris refusing to continue enforcing existing immigration law as it stood and was enforced under Trump before them is Democrats following the law? You know, like that Oath Of Office has them swear they will enforce existing laws when they take office? Particularly an allegedly ferocious prosecutor like Border Czar Harris with the text of immigration law there before her?
Or would you prefer to ignore that and revert back to “Trump Russia Dossier” and explain how illegally hiring foreign spies to write that campaign smear was following the law – as was sending the Obama/Biden Attorney Generals and FBI Directors off to perjure themselves to FISA courts that it was all verified was a magnificent example of Democrats “following the law”.
Sammy, your elementary and basic problem here is that the audience isn’t nearly as abjectly stupid as you are. Leaves you with a wee bit of a credibility/maturity problem selling your bovine excrement.
This morning, all the headlines are the interview was a disaster. Many voters, Democrats, say they dont know who she is, what her policies are as she refuses to say. If we are to base off her previous policies when she ran for president, where she said what she was for and against, we would find the majority of Americans are against those policies. It is no wonder she is not doing well. Some are even saying this was her version of the Biden/Trump debate. She might be done.
Only one thing you need to remember about Kamala Harris: Kamala said ““I will follow the law”. But she did NOT “follow” the the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.
Can you really ‘follow the law’ but not the Constitution? Especially after you have sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and failed to do so?
Dude what? Harris has never needed to be involved in the 25th. Also you have no idea what has happened outside of the public view.
Sammy
Tampons are available in the Minnesota boys restroom.
LOL, ‘Dude’! “Harris has never needed to be involved in the 25th”???
The wording goes like this in the 25th: ‘the Vice President AND a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide… their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office…’
Kamala’s actions leading up to and since Biden’s announcement not to run AFTER he had clinched his party’s nomination says it all. So Kamala thinks that Joe is incapable of winning an election wherein he is the duly nominated candidate solely based on a bumbling debate performance yet he is capable of remaining the POTUS? What a stretch. If that is your hypothesis, surely Kamala will withdraw after her bumbling interview, eh?
Sammy, why not share with us “what has happened outside of the public view.” and your sources if those events support that position that the 25th should not have been invoked? C’mon ‘dude’, why not be transparent and shine the light of day on your claim? The whole world knows the shape Biden is in and only the Democratic Party is attempting to keep the citizens of the US in the dark.
BTW, Sammy, did you ever get a chance to read the Espionage Act as you were a little shaky on that to previously.
Ex Dem,
Thank you. I think the majority of us who read the 25thA reference knew exactly what it meant. Sammy on the other hand, well . . .
Dude what? Harris has never needed to be involved in the 25th.
Sammy… Dudette… you should go read that amendment before stepping off the short bus for Jerry’s Kids to make that comment.
You hoping readers have forgotten the Democrat House passing a resolution demanding that Vice President Pence enact the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office?
No, of course you don’t because three years ago you were still trying to complete Grade 3 in school – or you’re a liar.
Anyone watched the Obama/Biden conversation? Biden’s face tells all, a fearful puppet taking orders from Obama. The desperation is evident in Obama’s face, he knows it’s over for them. His transformation of OUR Nation has failed. He knows Trump is going to take Kamala’s lead and follow the law, right to the head of the snake. Tulsi Gabbard has revealed it, Trump should pursue it!
Baier’s supposed “aggressive questioning” involved a bunch of loaded questions. Then he kept insisting on her answer while interrupting her attempt to answer. He was not letting her say what she wanted about the question. It was apparent that Brett was not interested in her more detailed answers. He was setting her up for gotcha questions and loaded questions. When she did get to explain her answers, you could tell Baier was struggling to prevent her from fully answering the questions.
Her answers may not have been satisfactory to most Fox News viewers for obvious reasons, but she still gave coherent and substantive answers when Brett stopped interrupting. That was way more than could be said of Trump’s poor performance at his town hall meetings, abandoning Q&A at a recent rally and choosing to dance to god-awful music for nearly 40 minutes straight awkwardly. Trump avoids answering questions, and when he does choose to ‘answer,’ he goes off on an incoherent rant about anything that pops up in his head.
What, pray tell, in this abbrevited ‘interview’, was a coherent answer by Ms Harris?
Onward through the Fog (Davey, Anonymous). Did you not watch it? I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t.
She gave coherent answers to Brett’s questions. When she tried to answer, he kept interrupting her. He was pushing loaded questions, and she explained the problem, but Brett would not let her continue her answer by interjecting and insisting she answer the loaded question.
I watched every abbreviated minute of it. Any answer that takes longer than thirty seconds is entering the blather, lying and pure bulls hit territory. He interrupted her because she was wandering off again into filibuster land where she charges ten dollars for a twenty-five cent answer. The result is nobody will pay the ten dollars and further, nobody believes her lying answer.
she did not answer one question directly. Her circumnavigation around implicating herself for our current mess was an instruction manual for obfuscation and misdirection. I am certain that if she were asked what was her name – we would not get a straight answer.
George – your post is the most glaring example of, “tell me you didn’t watch the interview without telling me you didn’t watch the interview.”
Baier’s supposed “aggressive questioning” involved a bunch of loaded questions.
For George, while attempting to defend Harris and her wide open border, it’s a loaded question to ask her questions about that border, including asking her about removing all the Trump policies like ‘Remain In Mexico’. And trying to get her to answer questions instead of deflecting to pronouncements that it’s all Trump’s fault, is interrupting with loaded questions.
George hates Professor Turley almost as much as he hates Trump and and Fox.
Oh, George proclaims it was Brett Baier that was struggling, not Vice President Harris struggling to answer simple, basic questions. George has spoken!
George the Russian Judge gives Harris the win in this interview!