Kamala Harris Sits For Fox News Interview (original) (raw)

Special report: Last night, Kamala Harris sat for an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier. The roughly 25-minute segment was frequently contentious and revealing, mostly in that it reminded viewers how unique it is to see legitimately tough questions volleyed at Harris by a member of the media class.

"How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years?" Baier asked from the jump.

"I'm glad you raised the issue of immigration because I agree with you. It is a, it is a topic of discussion that people want to rightly have," responded Harris. "And you know what I'm going to talk about."

Baier pushed: "Just a number, do you think it's 1 million, 3 million?"

"Brett, let's just get to the point. Okay. The point is that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired," responded Harris.

"So your Homeland Security Secretary said that 85 percent of apprehensions—" continued Baier, before being cut off by Harris: "I'm not finished. I'm not finished."

Watch the full exchange here.

"When you came into office, your administration immediately reversed a number of Trump border policies," continued Baier. "Most significantly, the policy that required illegal immigrants to be detained through deportation either in the U S. or in Mexico, and you switched that policy. They were released from custody awaiting trial.…Included in those were a large number of single men, adult men, who went on to commit heinous crimes. So looking back, do you regret the decision to terminate Remain in Mexico at the beginning of your administration?"

Harris responded: "At the beginning of our administration, within practically hours of taking the oath, the first bill that we offered Congress—before we worked on infrastructure, before the Inflation Reduction Act, before the CHIPS and Science Act, before any, before the bipartisan Safer Communities Act—the first bill, practically within hours of taking the oath, was a bill to fix our immigration system."

"We recognized from Day One, that to the point of this being your first question, it is a priority for us as a nation and for the American people," she added. "And our focus has been on fixing a problem.…we have done a number of things, including to address our asylum system and put more resources, getting more judges, what we needed to do to tighten up penalties and increase penalties for illegal crossings, what we needed to do to deal with ports, points of entry between border entry points. That's the work we did and we worked on supporting what was a bipartisan effort, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Congress.…Donald Trump learned about that bill and told them to kill it, because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem," continued Harris.

A nonanswer answer: On a fundamental level, Harris didn't really grapple with the question, which was about the Biden administration's reversal of the Remain in Mexico policy, which required migrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain outside the country prior to their court date versus being let in while awaiting their court date. And Harris is partially correct that the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021—the bill she was ostensibly referencing—would have simplified the asylum-seeking process, reduced administrative burdens on people seeking employment-related visas, and provided a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country as kids through the DACA program. But making laws is about building consensus, and it requires contending with political realities, and Biden didn't have a solid enough majority in Congress to be able to get this legislation through the finish line. Harris is also correct that Trump has repeatedly alluded to sinking immigration legislation due to not wanting to give Democrats the W.

But still, all of this is a little beside the point, which is that the vast number of border crossings have happened since that legislation died more than two years ago—which was what Baier asked Harris about. She could have offered an answer—which might have played well with Fox viewers—about the administration's June crackdown on asylum seekers. She could have legitimately offered estimates of the number of entries or the number of border apprehensions. She could have conceded that it's a problem, or she could've mounted an offensive bid for the idea that this number of asylum seekers awaiting court dates inside our borders is no big deal at all, and that the dogs and cats aren't in fact being eaten.

The New York Times comically portrayed this not as Harris declining to answer the initial question, or Harris questionably blaming record-high numbers of border apprehensions on her opponent, but as malfeasance on Baier's part. "It took him less than 20 seconds to interrupt her for the first time. Ms. Harris, who is known as an effective practitioner of the filibuster, had hardly even begun to answer his opening question. That pattern continued for much of the interview." How is that the takeaway?

A pattern did continue for much of the interview, but I wouldn't characterize it as Baier being rude or failing to give Harris time to talk; mostly, he repeatedly pressed her when she retreated to boilerplate talking points, which seems like…exactly what an interviewer ought to do.

Around minute mark 24, Baier asks about Iran sanctions and Harris spends 38 seconds (I counted!) talking about Trump's rhetoric toward service members, ultimately failing to answer the actual question. She speaks, at one point during that answer, about how such discussions need to be grounded in facts, then declines the opportunity to actually do so. At times, Harris gave legitimately strong answers that will probably play well with her fans, but those were few and far between.

Fox has its flaws—namely, its role in spreading stolen-election myths, which has resulted in a huge loss of credibility (as well as $787 million dollars). But Baier pressing Harris was legitimately useful to watch, in part because it reveals how much of an empty suit she is.

An adversarial media gives us that information; a sycophantic media does not. Both sides should aim to perform that service for viewers and voters to the greatest degree possible.

Scenes from New York: Ha.

Dimwitted TikTokker tore down Greek flags at NJ restaurant thinking they were Israeli: 'My bad' https://t.co/zm153NzO1o pic.twitter.com/Yfm4vj91p0

— New York Post (@nypost) October 16, 2024

QUICK HITS

Manufactured diversity doesn't work. The University of Michigan spent $250M on DEI programs only to have a more hostile campus:

"Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics" pic.twitter.com/niz75wDvrZ

— Neetu Arnold (@neetu_arnold) October 16, 2024

To focus on Elon Musk's politics is to exhibit a ridiculous monomania that, among other things, badly misunderstands the wages of genius. Musk is a weirdo, yes. Most visionaries are. It's the least important thing about them. https://t.co/iQVGqkmmnn

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 16, 2024

This is weird. Violence doubled in many cities the day after civil unrest and the 3rd precinct was burnt by a mob in Minneapolis on May 28, 2020. I suppose we can debate causality, but to deny or be unaware of the reality? https://t.co/fk72RCwaQe https://t.co/mfYxZAUVl1 https://t.co/xr6ReAbzoG

— Peter Moskos (@PeterMoskos) October 16, 2024