Witness it for yourself. Fox News interviews Harris.
Vice President Kamala Harris grilled on pivotal issues as election nears on 'Special Report' Fox News - Official video (26:56 min) [Oct 16, 2024]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk
Each will have a view, opinion, and perspective, no doubt. Online article after article is also available for journalist and pundits take on the interview.
Google landing page for Fox News Harris Interview
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … +interview
Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?Live fact-checking Kamala Harris’ interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier by Politifact (Oct 16, 2024)
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024 … w-with-fo/
Note: Timeline from the top of the feed is last to first.First I have to say WOW... there is NO Main Stream Media source that I could find trying to cover this IMPARTIALLY...
I'm not going to say there is none, but damned, even places where I thought I could find some balance are taking a stand of Harris did great or Harris bombed.
So... like more Americans every day are doing, I went to alternate sources to get a read, here are a couple of the more interesting and insightful ones I found:
Kamala BLOWS UP During Heated FOX NEWS Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNT-liNEROs&t=4s
"We Can't Blame Trump For the Border," Kamala Harris Destroyed By Fox News On Migrants, Immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npNTIC3LAoI
I find it impressive that "average" Americans do have such a grasp of what is really going on... gives me some hope for America.
BTW if you think the people who create such opinion videos don't matter, look at how many people watch them... hundreds of thousands.
Also... lets put the Border Issue to rest... Trump DID find solutions to stem the flow of Migrants into America.
And Biden DID on day one of the Biden/Harris Administration rescind those efforts and joined the UN Global Compact on Migration."And Biden DID on day one of the Biden/Harris Administration rescind those efforts and joined the UN Global Compact on Migration."
GOOD.
The headline I'm expecting today...
"Harris stumbles over word; Trump sways to music for 39 minutes on stage: is her campaign doomed?"
She more than held her own in what seemed more like a debate than an interview. Big thumbs up for going into hostile territory. Will we see Trump on msnbc? I doubt it, he seems to be either canceling these days or hiding out with those who coddle him while he talks about Alphonse Capone and Hannibal Lecter...
Baier treated the interview like a full-blown argument. It was a very "put the woman in her place" vibe. He constantly spoke over her. It really just seemed like an attempt to prevent the viewers from hearing her. His behavior was rude and disrespectful.
Fox has certainly never come close to using that style and those tactics on Trump, have they? They sit back and let his mouth run uninterrupted.
Kudos for Harris in pointing out the disingenuous clip played by Fox in which Trump tried to downplay his recent unhinged ramblings about how Americans who don’t support him are “the enemy from within.”
Harris:
“I’m sorry and, with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within, that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That’s not what you just showed.”
Deftly handled.
A highlight for me?
Baier tried to play gotcha with Harris at one point when he asked about Trump supporters, saying, “So are they misguided, the 50%? Are they stupid?”
Without hesitation, she said, “I would never say that about the American people.”
It was one of her finer moments in the interview, reminding Baier that it is Trump who disparages those who don’t support him.
Points for not storming out and immediately whining , denigrating the interviewer afterward. I think she should go on Fox at every opportunity... I don't think she'll be invited back though.It was interesting to watch. Within the first two minutes she had been asked two questions (several times each one) and steadfastly refused to answer either one, rambling off on what SHE wanted to talk about instead.
The rest of the interview was much the same; an absolute refusal to answer any questions, instead blaming Trump for her many failures.
But she did very, very well. Right!The first question was pertaining to how many came to the border and claimed asylum...
Baier said that roughly 6 million were released.
Can we put this into context that our immigration law gives folks the right to come to the border, in any number, there is no cap, to claim asylum and then it also affords them the right to wait inside the country for their claim to be adjudicated.
Her answer, was completely correct that the system is in need of reform. I wished that she would have gone into more of an explanation of immigration law but it's clear that a lot of folks can't or actually refuse to understand that we have a immigration law that dictates what happens at the border.
Discussing immigration without acknowledging the law is meaningless."The first question was pertaining to how many came to the border and claimed asylum..."
No it wasn't. She was specifically asked how many illegal aliens she has spread into the interior of the country.
And her reply was that we have a broken immigration system. Asked again for an estimate of the number her administration has released into the country, she still refused to answer. Correct or not, her answer was NOT an answer to a very specific question.
You're as bad as she is, refusing to actually listen to the question, and then just assume it was something else."No it wasn't. She was specifically asked how many illegal aliens she has spread into the interior of the country."
You understand that migrants have a right under our law to wait in the country? What do you propose we do as an alternative that is legal? Asking a question about how many people were released, is ignoring the entire process that is governed by our immigration laws. Lol... Does Biden have a choice of whether he has to follow the law or not concerning immigration? If migrants come to the border, claim asylum, they are allowed to wait in the country.... We have no cap on the number of who can approach the border and claim asylum.
If our. immigration system were reformed, asylum laws reformed, there would be a reduction of migrants waiting in the country for their claims to make their way through the system. Her answer was spot on but people don't understand the law.
This whole "they're just letting them in". mantra is nonsense.Same-o same-o, right?
You do understand that the rights of illegal aliens have zero to do with the question Harris was asked, OR with your desire to change the question to something it was not?
Her answer of "we have a broken immigration system" is NOT "spot on" to the question of "how many illegal immigrants did you release into the country". The answer requires a number to answer, the answer given (and yours) does not contain a number.
Harris could have answered "Zero" if what you say is actually true and factual, but she didn't. Why not? Because she brought millions of illegal aliens into the country, she knows that and so does everyone else. Any such foolish answer and she would be torn apart by media.Our immigration law is what allows any number of migrants, at any time, to claim asylum.... Asking a question about how many have come in is irrelevant because only an act of Congress could change the laws that allow them to do so...not Biden, not Harris.
Asking such a question and attempting to correlate the number who have come into this country with any specific policy enacted by this administration is disingenuous.
It is taking advantage of an audience, for the most part, doesn't know any better.Why then did she not answer "Zero"? If they were all legal (yes, I understand that is the primary reason illegal entry has gone down), then she should answer that way? Why didn't she?
I think we all understand why the interviewer simply wanted her to throw out a number. She has absolutely nothing to do with that number. I am very clear on immigration law, it is also just as clear that many folks don't have a clue
Yes, very clear on immigration law, at least from the liberal point of view. What you do NOT seem clear on was the question, however simple it was.
As the "Czar" of immigration, I would have to say she DID have something to do with the number. In addition, she has stated she would not change anything Biden did, including opening the border, telling illegal aliens they would become citizens, flying them all over the country, etc. etc.
So why didn't she answer the question? Or the next one, for that matter? Perhaps because it leaves her wide open to massive criticism for the way she (and Biden) have handled the border crises for the past 4 years?"Yes, very clear on immigration law, at least from the liberal point of view."
Liberal point of view? The law is the law. Pretty simple.
She was never given the title of "czar". She was tasked for root causes of immigration from specific countries.
Biden didn't "open" the border either. He has operated within our immigration law. If he had done anything to violate immigration law, such as so-called opening the border, there would be a deluge of lawsuits.
The only lawsuits against his immigration policy currently... His executive order that restricts asylum.
For people who understand immigration law, it makes perfect sense she didn't throw out a number on Fox News. She can't give a lesson in immigration law to Fox viewers. Putting out a number is meaningless unless the people who are listening understand why the number is what it is."The law is the law. Pretty simple."
Of course! That's why we had decades of RvW, now gone, right? Because the law is the law.
The number in question is what it is primarily because Biden/Harris dismantled most of the work Trump had done on the topic. NOT because "the law is what it is".
(Biden's decree to eliminate deportations from the interior is in line with the laws of the US? Don't make me laugh!)"Of course! That's why we had decades of RvW, now gone, right? Because the law is the law".
I think that, at least a few of us, understand the process in which law is made and changed.
What did Biden "dismantle".?
If you're speaking of title 42, it's legal usage ended when the public emergency of covid ended. Those who think that it will somehow be brought back when we have no public health emergency are mistaken.
The remain in Mexico policy? There are statements from the government of Mexico that they are not interested in participating any longer.
So please, with specificity, what was dismantled? Biden can't make new law or change existing law with executive order.
There is a clear lack of understanding of immigration law on this forum.
If Trump somehow won reelection, 2 million people could show up on the border on his inauguration day... What would happen? The laws would work the same exact way that they work today. Those who claim asylum and have a credible fear would be allowed to wait here while their claims are processed. Would he take credit for that number? Or would he blame broken immigration policy? Let's get the facts straight.
And when was Harris bestowed the title of borders czar?"What did Biden "dismantle"
Can start with wall construction. Then move on to "stay in Mexico" and incarcerate criminals that cross illegally. If you need more, research the past 5 years.
(If Mexico doesn't like the "remain in Mexico" let Mexico deport them. To where they came from, not a country they have never seen before, like the US. We are not obligated to provide for all the "visitors" Mexico let into Mexico. Or Mexicans, for that matter.
It is true, though, that the majority of blame lies with Congress. Perhaps had Biden pushed so hard for an actual solution to the immigration problem rather than pushing for ways to bring more in, we might have had a change in policy.A wall does not stop people from claiming asylum. Migrants have learned, As Trump stated in 2018, the secret password... All you need to do is walk up to that big beautiful wall and claim asylum and you have gained the right to stay in this country for at least 7 years.
Stay in mexico? You need the cooperation of the Mexican government to do that and they have said repeatedly that they are not interested in returning to that policy.
Trump is now claiming he would increase of funding to supply more border patrol agents... Something the bipartisan bill included. There's not a snowball's chance in hell if he became president that he would get any cooperation in Congress for anything on immigration when he killed the last bill. 60 votes for anything is a pipe dream.
And Biden's executive order on asylum that is currently in effect (almost certainly to be struck down in court) is responsible for ...
'The number of migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border reached its lowest point under President Biden in September. The drop comes after the administration implemented strict new asylum policies, which have sharply limited who can seek refuge in the U.S.".
His order will be only temporary but the fact of the matter is, the border bill would have made it law.
It is very obvious that many on this forum have neither read nor understand the bipartisan bill
https://www.boundless.com/blog/biden-ad … rn-border/"Stay in mexico? You need the cooperation of the Mexican government to do that"
Why? Do you expect Mexico to bring them into the US inside tanks? Just what do you think Mexico will do if we require them to be accepted for asylum before entering?
Trump didn't get money to build his wall, either (or not enough)...but it didn't stop him.
"'The number of migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border reached its lowest point under President Biden in September."
So we are told. Now, how many of those entering would have been called "illegal" just a few years ago? In other words, how many are now "legal" because Biden says so?
Outside of that tiny question, I do agree that we're being told the flood has slowed. Just not sure I believe it. Or that it won't pick right back up when the weather down there cools."Just what do you think Mexico will do if we require them to be accepted for asylum before entering?".
Once again, that is not our law. If a migrant's fear is deemed credible, their asylum claim goes into the pile and they get to wait here until it makes its way through the system... 7 to 10 years. Your idea requires a change in the law.You failed to answer the question. Was that intentional or did you not understand it?
What question?
"many of those entering would have been called "illegal" just a few years ago? In other words, how many are now "legal" because Biden says so?".
This question? The answer is obvious. The immigration laws have not changed between Trump and Biden."In other words, how many are now "legal" because Biden says so?
Do you see those two little words? They indicate a number is the answer, not a string of words. "The immigration laws have not changed" is not a number; it cannot be an answer to the question.
But the most recent question was "Just what do you think Mexico will do if we require them to be accepted for asylum before entering?". And your answer was "Once again, that is not our law.", which does not even approach answering the question.
You are no better than Harris: when asked a question she just goes on about whatever she would like to say, ignoring anything she doesn't want to talk about. So do you."In other words, how many are now "legal" because Biden says so?
ZERO because Biden doesn't make law.Very good! Biden has let in no illegal aliens! And you can believe that until Hell freezes over and it still won't be true.
Now for the original question; just what do you think Mexico will do if we refuse to allow entrance to illegals until processed? You said Mexico would not allow it - what will they do?Our immigration law allows people to claim asylum at the border and they have the right within that law to wait in the country as the claim is adjudicated. You cannot force them, without a change in law, to wait elsewhere.
But the most recent question was "Just what do you think Mexico will do if we require them to be accepted for asylum before entering?".
How about you explain the process in which such a scenario could happen. Please, detail how this would work, taking into account the immigration laws that are already on the books which must be adhered to.
Let me go back to a statement from Trump 2019 that I actually agree with....
"Now is the time—this is the moment—to finally secure the border and create the lawful and safe immigration system Americans, and those wanting to become Americans, deserve.
This crisis is only worsening as 2,000 inadmissible migrants arrive at our border every day and overwhelm our immigration system.
We do not have the resources needed to hold them...
Immigration courts are overwhelmed, with a backlog of over 800,000 cases.
The President is calling on Congress to stop the political games and come together and address the crisis we are facing.
Congress has a responsibility to protect the safety and security of the American people and it needs to meet that responsibility by providing the funding needed to secure the border."
And he continued...
President Donald Trump on Thursday pressed Congress to change “our ridiculous immigration laws,”
“We should be changing our laws, building the Wall, hire Border Agents and Ice and not let people come into our country based on the legal phrase they are told to say as their password,” the president tweeted Thursday morning.".
He criticized current policies as “insane.”
"Congress must pass smart, fast and reasonable Immigration Laws now. Law Enforcement at the Border is doing a great job, but the laws they are forced to work with are insane....".
Really? Insane? Well they're the same ones that Biden is working withTrump has zero to do with Harris's refusal to answer questions. What about this do you not understand?
You are right. Trump is responsible for his own failures: convictions, riots . . .
Also kudos for Harris for bringing something to the fox audience that they rarely see...fact.
She was asked about gender affirming care in prisons.
"I will follow the law. And it's a law that Donald Trump actually followed," she said. "I think, frankly, that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing stones when you're living in a glass house."
While Trump was president, his administration kept in place "hormone or other necessary medical treatment" for transgender inmates.
In a February 2018 budget memo to Congress, bureau officials wrote that under federal law, they were obligated to pay for a prisoner’s “surgery” if it was deemed medically necessary.
The Bureau of Prisons is the only federal agency under court order to provide gender-related surgeries. But the number of inmates requesting such operations within the bureau is minuscule, with only two known surgeries approved via court action.
The ads that Trump is running on this issue are very disingenuous. If he is so deeply against these provisions, why didn't he attempt to change them during his administration?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-anti … -spending/"She was asked about gender affirming care in prisons."
No she wasn't. She was asked about her feelings as to that care. Something she never answered, just like nearly everything else she was asked in that interview.What do her feelings matter about a law? A law that Trump left in place, didn't even try to challenge during his administration? This law is rooted in the eighth Amendment of the Constitution... It's not going to matter what anyone "feels" about it
Do you have the exact phrasing of the question?
Actually, I went back and listened to the interview and she was not asked about her "feelings" at all.
You can listen around the 11 minute mark
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363352689112When someone asks you "When did you stop beating your wife?" the best thing is not to answer.
Meanwhile, Trump spent his media appearances Wednesday defending Jan. 6, doubling down on false claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets , calling himself the "father of IVF" and saying he learned about IVF from the "fantastically attractive" Katie Brit..... Things you can really sink your teeth into!
The good news? at least he wasn't standing on a stage swaying to music for 40 minutes.All anyone needs to know about Trump is January 6th. There is no defending that.
The true high/low point came when Harris brought up Trump’s multiple references to “enemies from within” and his stated intent to turn the military on those who disagree with him.
Baier thought he was ready for her, throwing to a clip from a Fox town hall that aired earlier that conveniently edited out the section showing him saying those very things.
What he might not have expected was Harris calling out that fallacy... Which she did splendidly.
Baier absolutely knows that. Trump used the phrase on Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday morning program and at his rally in Aurora, Colo., on Friday. Baier discussed and tried to sane-wash Trump's use of the phrase on his Oct. 15 show. But he also knows the typical Fox viewer won't fact-check him, especially if that would prove the evil liberals might be on to something.More than 7 million watched Harris Fox News interview
More than 7 million people tuned in to watch Vice President Harris’s interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, according to Nielsen Media Research data.
The less-than-half-hour sit-down between the anchor and Democratic nominee for president delivered 7.1 million viewers for the top-watched cable channel, including 882,000 in the advertiser-coveted 25-54 age demographic.
I doubt it changed the mind of any regular Fox viewer, but who knows.
Btw,
Fox had both candidates for president on its airwaves Wednesday, with a prerecorded town hall with former President Trump focusing on women’s issues notching just under 3 million viewers during the network’s 11 a.m. hour.
He must be furious. Ha.
Fox with their typical, predictable BS....
Baier said on “Special Report” on Thursday that he “did make a mistake” when it came to clips shown in the interview.
“I wanna say that I did make a mistake,” Baier said, with Fox News’s Harris Faulkner also on his show, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “When I called for a sound bite, I was expecting a piece of ‘the enemy from within,’ from Maria Bartiromo’s interview to be tied to the piece from your town hall, Harris, where you asked the former president about ‘the enemy from within.’”
Well golly gee Brett. Do they really think people are this stupid? I don't even think Brett is that stupid. BS piled on top of misinformation, it's what fox is all about. Harris pulled the mask off fox in real time.
His quote...
"I think the bigger problem are the people from within,” Trump said. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics.”
Such a double standard in the way media approaches these two candidates.
Trump isn’t being held to account on his lack of tough interviews, dismal knowledge of policy or the anti-democratic tone of some of his remarks.
She has put herself out there over a multitude of appearances while he sticks to safe spaces and cancels interview after interview.
The bar has been set higher for Harris, even as it has continued to drop lower and lower for Trump, who still can’t manage to clear it.
Did anyone see his Chicago economic club appearance? You want to talk about not answering a question and utter lack of knowledge...The REAL reason Kamala Harris agreed to the Fox News interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vamFOl7iY-c
Good insight, worth the watch, evaluates the interview.It's sort of laughable at this point the level of dissection applied to Harris as your candidate is swaying to music for 40 minutes in order to avoid questions.... Like I've said, the bar for her is incredibly high while his is on the floor... And he's applauded when he barely clears it.
The lack of knowledge on this forum about how our own government works, about how laws are made and the role of each branch of government is absolutely stunning.
In her recent interview with Bret Baier on Fox News Harris appeared visibly uncomfortable, struggling to offer substantive answers to the host's questions. Instead of addressing the issues directly, she frequently veered into rehearsed talking points, launching into long-winded, nervous monologues that lacked focus and coherence. Her demeanor often resembled a "deer in headlights," a trait she exhibits frequently when speaking without the aid of a teleprompter.
While some might commend her for venturing into a perceived "lion's den" at Fox, it's hardly praiseworthy for someone running for the highest office in the country to avoid giving a true press conference. The reluctance to face unscripted media scrutiny seems to go unnoticed by many these days. Throughout the interview, rather than offering insight into policies or her own vision, Harris repeatedly resorted to bashing Donald Trump, a move that appeared more rehearsed than genuine. Compared to Trump, who has consistently handled tough interviews head-on and isn’t afraid to provide answers his audience might not want to hear, Harris came across as a puppet — reciting lines handed down from her handlers without demonstrating any depth or command of the issues.
It's hard to see her Fox interview as anything other than a display of nervousness, where she struggled to address current issues with even a hint of common sense. What I saw was exactly what I've witnessed every time I've watched her in interviews or at rallies: a complete mess.
It’s time to wake up, folks. Trust what you're seeing and hearing when it comes to Harris."Trump, who has consistently handled tough interviews head-on"
Which were those? I frequently see him on The Big comfy couch of Fox and Friends... Where they don't ask questions, preferring to let him bloviate unchecked.
He canceled 60 minutes and CNBC squawk box.... Did you catch the latest economic club appearance? He didn't answer anything. The interviewer had to keep reminding him of what the actual questions were.
As far as the Baier "interview". He was disingenuous playing an edited clip of Trump's enemies within comment and his "questions"? They were all MAGA talking points.
Related Discussions
- 183
Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2B81M5Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are at a 21-year high.Through the first nine months of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported it “encountered”...
- 26
President Donald Trump is Time's Person of the Year
by Readmikenow 4 days ago
Nobody deserves being made Time's Person of the Year more than President Donald Trump."For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction...
- 78
"I could ‘shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters"
by Mike Russo 2 months ago
Actually in 2016, Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."After much thought and contemplation, I have come to realize what he is really saying is I can lie my a** off forever and not lose any voters. After him...
- 38
Obama Administration REFUSES to PROTECT OUR BORDERS
by MikeNV 13 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on the South Korea/North Korea Border.And the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES to...
- 2
Is Biden's CBP One App Exacerbating America's Immigration Crisis?
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
Note---Yes, it's clear that we need completely new immigration laws—that's a given, no need to dwell on that. My main focus here is the CBP One app. I'm hoping to get some feedback on this specific issue—does this app compound the immigration problems we're already facing? Let's keep the discussion...
- 22
Do you think Trumps "plan" he released for funding the wall is possible?
by Annsalo 8 years ago
Do you think Trumps "plan" he released for funding the wall is possible?While I am not a Trump fan I do think we need something done about illegal immigration. Trump released his plan and part of it included stopping wire transfers to Mexicans. Since it is commonly known Mexican illegal...