Kamala Harris Falls Flat on her Face
01:07:24 Share

Explaining football to the friend who's just there for the nachos? Hard. Tailgating from home like a pro with snacks and drinks everyone will love? An easy win. And with Instacart helping deliver the Snack Time MVPs to your door, you're ready for the game in as fast as 30 minutes. So you never miss a play or lose your seat on the couch or have

to go head-to-head for the last chicken wing. Shop Game Day Faves on Instacart and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three grocery orders. Offer valid for a limited time. Other fees and terms apply. Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families.

Hello.

Hello, hello. What's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am Dave Smith. He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein. We're back from Dallas. What a fun weekend we had, huh, Rob? That was a great club. Packed house. Excited for some Casper, Wyoming. I think we're doing a theater or something. Something spectacular.

I don't know what we're doing, but I do know this weekend we will be in Casper, Wyoming. That much I know for sure. Tickets still available. Go to ComicDaveSmith.com to come see us in Casper, Wyoming this weekend. And then the following weekend we'll be out in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. So looking forward to all those shows. ComicDaveSmith.com.

for tickets. So go grab some and come see us. And I don't have the links out yet, but I am loading up on porches. I'll be filming in Denver. I got Michigan coming up. I got a whole bunch coming up. So be on the lookout. Porch dates dropping soon. Hell yeah. All right, so...

Um, we've, we've been hanging out this weekend and talking about some of this stuff, Rob, but of course, uh, you know, our schedule is, uh, you know, when Thursday night's not the best stuff, not the best time to do stuff for us. Cause then we're off until, uh, until Monday. Yeah. Someone can tell Kamala.

Yes, yes. If we could maybe I think that's what she's she's trying to duck the part of the problem heat that she's going to get. I understand. It's good strategy. It is. So, of course, on Thursday night, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since she's been running for president. It is it is remarkable that this is actually the strategy that they're going with. They are they are truly running a Joe Biden campaign now.

but just with someone else in a year where there isn't a global pandemic. So they're the same, you know, without the same excuses, but the same strategy of essentially we are not running a campaign. That's basically Kamala Harris. It's like, okay, Kamala Harris is in. Now the traditional norms would dictate that the Democratic candidate won their primary election.

That is different this time around. She did not win a primary. She's not had a vote casted for her. And typically, presidential candidates run on something. They typically have something that they're running on. That's also different with Harris. She is not running on her 2020 presidential campaign, and she's not running on Joe Biden's administration. She's just running on nothing.

That's the Kamala Harris campaign, in a nutshell. And I gotta say, as depressing a thought as this is, not the worst strategy.

Not the worst. It's better than her trying to explain an agenda. That's for sure. That's for sure. And, you know, there is she does benefit from this thing in a way. I mean, it's a listen, it's terrible and it's not a good sign for the country. But in a weird way, she is able to position herself as like, hey, I'm just some lady. It's Donald Trump versus some lady.

And let the media tell everybody about how amazing and exciting and joyful and, you know, let them handle all of that shit. And in a weird way, she kind of benefits from it because, and this is kind of what's strange here. Her presidential campaign for 2020, which was really in 2019 when she was running that campaign, was, it did so bad that

That it's not even a blip on the radar. I mean, this was a presidential campaign where she dropped out before the first contest in Iowa. She didn't really even run a campaign through the campaign. She just kind of pretended to run and then had to drop out because nobody got on board with her. And Tulsi nuked her off the debate stage and then she was gone. So it's not like...

You know, let's say, for example, let's say Bernie Sanders. Let's say Bernie Sanders in 2020 was trying to walk away from raising the minimum wage and universal health care and and, you know, whatever tuition free state colleges like the pillars of what he ran on. Let's say he ran that campaign in 2016. And then in 2020, he was like, I'm not for any of those things anymore. He never could have gotten away with that.

because that campaign made such an impact. He ran the campaign all the way up to right before the convention. He went through almost every single primary, I think every single primary he was in the campaign for. So it's not, you can't just back off of that because it's almost like those issues are branded with Bernie Sanders. That's a part of who he is.

But with Kamala Harris, the campaign made such little noise that it's like she's able to kind of slink away like, oh, yeah, I don't really stand for any of that stuff anymore. Now, remember, I said, you know, a little bit of it comes up in the interview. But if you remember, you know, I used to say I was for Medicare for all. I used to say I wanted to ban fracking. I used to say border crossing should be decriminalized. I don't I don't believe in any of that stuff anymore. And because her campaign made such a small impact.

She's able to get away from that. It's not like everybody doesn't know her as being branded with those issues. If she had been running on them for a full year, she'd have a much tougher time. But so she's able, in a sense, to get away from that. And then even though we all know right now, and everybody knows this, they know right now we don't have a president.

there is no president of the united states of america right now there's an there is a senile old man who legitimately has trouble pulling off 90 seconds of speaking like if joe biden could go 90 seconds without flubbing something up it's a good 90 seconds for him nobody thinks privately that guy is really running the show but even though everybody knows biden isn't really running the government

Nobody thinks Kamala Harris is nobody, including us. Nobody thinks that Kamala Harris is like the Dick Cheney of the Joe Biden administration who from the vice president's office is really pulling the strings. Nobody thinks that if you, if you ask anyone who knows what they're talking about, you're like, who do you think is really making the calls here? It's like, ah, maybe Sullivan. You know what I mean? Like it, but it's never her. She's never one of the people who's like,

And so in a sense, my point is, in a sense, she doesn't really own this administration. Like she can kind of vaguely just go like, yeah, no, no, no, I'm not running on a continuation of the Joe Biden administration. And so she's able somewhat plausibly to get away with this. And it's remarkable. It's just remarkable to watch. Listen, she sat down for her first interview with

Dude, Donald Trump does so many interviews that it's like not even it's not even that noteworthy. Donald Trump just did another interview with Mark Levin. We might play a little bit of that. He's he just did another interview. He's doing interviews with Theo Vaughn. He's doing interviews with people in the corporate media. Donald Trump could just do interviews. Kamala Harris in her first interview, they aired 18 minutes of it. Think about that for a second that she said. Now it gets so much worse.

Not only did she do 18 minutes, she did it with a partner, with her vice president. So take that 18 minutes of time now that she's got to fill, and roughly you split it up, like nine minutes each. Except there's also time when the interviewer is asking questions. So, like, I mean, I don't know the exact number of time that Kamala Harris spoke for, but it's in, like, five minutes. Something like five minutes is what she got. With Dana Bash, the most...

sympathetic, you know, person for the Kamala Harris campaign. So she sat down after not giving us anything since she's been running for president. She gave us five minutes of a softball interview and did terribly. She could not pull it off. She could not just do a decent job for the few minutes that she was speaking.

It did. I mean, I'm curious to get your thoughts. We're going to play. We're going to go through some of the interview here. It did certainly, at least for me, reinforce that.

your understanding of why they're trying to avoid her doing these type of interviews. It's pretty obvious, even from just the few minutes of questions that if the questions were not given to her already before the debate, they were easily predictable. Let's just say that there were no questions that were asked that weren't like you obviously would have been game planning for that. There was a very obvious questions and she just could not pull it off. It was unbelievable.

You know, while you're talking, it's kind of what you were saying in theme last week with the machine. And it's basically a deep state presidency where we can all pretend like this lady's in charge. Just vote the deep state back in and then we can all clap for ourselves that we got a lady in who's not actually going to run the show. Well, you better hope not.

Yeah, well, look, I mean, right. Yeah, maybe it would be worse. But look, with Joe Biden, you there's several things that were revealed from Joe Biden's political collapse. And one of them is, is that look, obviously, like after that debate and his subsequent interviews, it was very clear Joe Biden is just he's just deteriorated too much to be able to run for president. But you got to imagine, right?

And nobody understood that deterioration more than the people who are around Joe Biden. It's not like us, where we just see what is publicly available. These guys are in meetings with him. Like, if you're—if we're all just being real, the people who are around Joe Biden all day long, every day, they've—

They've clearly seen how bad it is and they've known for quite a while. And so the other thing that's kind of revealed from the Joe Biden experience is that that was never an issue for them. The fact that the president of the United States is cognitively impaired was

So that's quite fine with the powers that be. Now, they may have been upset that they were like, oh, he's so bad that he can't actually win an election. And they clearly don't want Donald Trump to get back in there. But it does kind of let you know that, look, nobody, nobody, not one powerful person

has come out and said anything even indicating, right? Like when you found out Joe Biden was too senile to run for president, none of them have gone, well, we got a real problem here because if he's senile, he can't be president until January. It was till January 20th, we got a new president. And this guy is clearly, he's not up to debating someone. If he's not up to debating someone, he's not up to doing interviews, then he's not up to the job. The job is way more difficult than that.

You know what I mean? And so it lets you know that actually the people who are the most powerful in our system are quite happy with not having a president. They're like, yeah, let us let us just run this. That's fine. And so, right. That lets you know. And that seems to be if you couple that with how Kamala Harris is running her campaign, it's like, yeah, that's essentially that's what they're going for here. It's another four years of just not having a president.

And yeah, you're right. Kamala Harris certainly wouldn't be the one who's in charge. I just I guess I can't overstate as somebody who does what I do, how crazy it is that she cannot pull off a five minute interview with Dana Bash.

She can't pull off just saying five minutes worth of stuff that you go, that sounds about right. That's pretty good. I mean, in this world that we're in, we do three hour-long shows a week. I do tons of interviews. And I've done so many over the years that I couldn't possibly even quantify. I don't even know what the ballpark number is. Hundreds? Thousands? A ton? Yeah.

And we do like these long form shows. I mean, how crazy is it that like the new kind of like the new, like,

of big shows, like at least just say the ones I do, right? Where there's like millions, the shows where like millions of people watch. Rogan, Tucker, Tim Pool, Patrick Bet-David, just did Flagrant with Andrew Schultz. These are all like two to three hours long. I think my longest with Rogan was like three hours and 40 minutes. There's, you know, me and Schultz just did three hours of,

the other day. Patrick, but David's always, I think two hours and change Tim pool about the same two hours and change. How insane is that?

that we live in this information economy where in order to be like, say, a successful voice in the podcast space, you have to be capable of doing multiple three hour long interviews. Let's say, I don't know, at least several a quarter. You know what I mean? You at least I at least do like two or three of those every few months.

And yet that's not demanded from the people who want to be the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world. Like, wouldn't it just given like the technology that we have, where the landscape in this kind of world is, wouldn't it just be like the most logical conclusion that, I mean, I'm saying something reasonable, something like maybe once every other month, right?

Once every other month, the candidates would be required to sit down for like a real three hour grilling with an opposition interviewer. You know what I'm saying? Like, doesn't this just sound like it would be such common sense that this would have to happen? And can you, and yet this chick stumbles in a few minutes with a softball with the easiest questions. I thought I,

I thought it was interesting some of the questions that Dana Bash asked and that she brought up some of the...

lies that they've already been caught in and basically said hey would you like an opportunity to address this and they basically said no we will pass on our opportunity to clarify thank you for having us on it was almost like that for most of the interview where it was kind of just kind of like hey i'm gonna bring up a thing that's somewhat controversial about you and then give you the floor to spin it in any way you want to here you go and she'd go

well that's just silly stuff and but you just have nothing i think the most talent well you had uh tim walls was not even grilled grilled would be the wrong term hi would you like an opportunity to clarify the comments you made in regards to uh being at war or holding weapons of war whatever his dumb statement was of pretending like uh his military service was more than 18 years of a paycheck

Followed by, hey, guys, lucky for me, I've been around long enough that when we're actually going to war, I'll just take my retirement check. So good luck to you. And I hope you have as good of a career here as I did that, you know, if they ask you to actually do anything, you can just leave. And so they asked him about this and he just goes, I would never disparage other people. The merit. That wasn't the question. No one said that you were disparaging other people, the military.

We're claiming that maybe you've stolen some some valor here and claim that you had a better or you did more with your career than you actually did. And he definitely has, by the way. I mean, there's been a few different instances where he's pretty clearly. I mean, I don't know if there's a clip of him actually saying, like, I was a combat vet or I am a combat vet or something like that. But he's.

several times intentionally said things in a way that like make it sound like he's saying he fought in war, which he didn't.

Now, that is a big no-no in the military. You're not supposed to claim you've done these things that you haven't done, you know, for understandable reasons. I just saw someone sent another clip to me a day or two ago where he's doing it again. And it's not exactly that easy to pin him down, but he says something like, he's like, you know, I told the boys in Afghanistan, right?

blah blah blah blah and he's referring i guess his defense could be to when he took a trip over to afghanistan when he was in congress

But he sure does say it in a way where, like, if you were just listening to it quickly, it would sure sound like he's saying he served in Afghanistan. It's like Frank Reynolds when he goes, when I was served, when I was over. I'll fix it. But it's like Frank Reynolds when he's like, when I was over in Vietnam, and they were like, yeah, you had shirt slaves there. Yeah, because you went to Vietnam in the 80s or something.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Moink. If you guys have been listening for a while, you know I absolutely love this company. Let me tell you about it. Moink is the way to avoid all of this questionable meat that we find in this country and go straight to family farms. The business is simple.

Moink meat comes from animals raised outdoors where a pig is free to be a pig. Their farmers are given an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and they deliver meat straight to your doorstep at prices you can actually afford. Born, raised, and harvested right here in the United States of America. So you can keep American families farming by joining the Moink movement today at moinkbox.com slash P-O-T-P. Plus, you get delicious meat.

healthy meat delivered right to your door, and you don't have to go to the supermarket and buy the kind of questionable stuff that they got there. Sign up today and get a free gift in your first order. That's moinkbox.com slash P-O-T-P, M-O-I-N-K-B-O-X dot com slash P-O-T-P. All right, let's get back into the show.

All right, let's, as Rob is hopefully fixing his camera here, let's pull up the first start from the top. Let's start from the beginning of the CNN long-awaited interview with Kamala Harris and company. Governor Harris: Madam Vice President, Governor Walz, thank you so much for sitting down with me and bringing the bus. The bus tour is well underway here in Georgia.

You have less time to make your case to voters than any candidate in modern American history. The voters are really eager to hear what your plans are. If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House? Well, there are a number of things. I will tell you first and foremost, one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class. Okay, just pause it already.

Pause it already. We are seconds into Kamala Harris speaking and she is already, this is just terrible. Oh my God. It's so bad. It is. Look, I don't even know how to say it. It is the most like stock question ever.

Is that a good way to put it? It's the most like if you if you just said like like if you were talking to like an AI program and you said, write me, you know, five of the most generic questions to ask a presidential candidate. One of them would be, what are you going to do on day one?

And the whole point of asking someone the question, and this is why Dana Bash opens with the question, is because it's a lob. It's a big softball right down the middle. All you got to do is swing. You're going to knock this one out of the park. The way you do it, the whole game here is you're supposed to just seem competent, right?

And the way you just seem competent is you have specifics. That's kind of the goal of a question like this, to go, hey, what are you—you know,

If you ask me, right, with my views, you go, Dave, what are you going to do when you get in there day one? Like right off the top of your head, you could just go like, well, I'm going to pardon Ross Ulbrich and I'm going to I'm going to commute his sentence. I'm going to give a full pardon to Julian Assange and Ed Snowden. None of these guys ever should have been charged the way they were. But you know what I mean? Like you just you can say some things that are consistent with your agenda that it's like, hey, look, here's something tangible the president can do. And I'm going to get this done on day one.

Her answer immediately, you're supposed to give specifics to that question. And she goes, good stuff for the middle class? You go, what? That's OK. Here, let's keep playing. Listen to her answer, how incoherent this is. Inspirations, the goals, the ambitions of the American people. I think that people are ready for a new way forward.

in a way that generations of Americans have been fueled by hope and by optimism. I think sadly, in the last decade, we have had in the former president someone who is

really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans, really dividing our nation. And I think people are ready to turn the page on that. All right, let's pause it here.

Dana Bash has to repeat the question. That's how bad she does on the first question. She just says nothing. Just vague. By the way, she does this thing. I'm sure you noticed this, Rob, but it's like one of her techniques. And this, of course, is at the center of the Kamala Harris strategy here is that she has nothing to say.

She has nothing to say. And so what she'll do is draw out every point, try to take up as much time. She is the, do you remember Rob? Like, okay. So when we were, when we were young and like computers had, were fairly new and like writing a paper on a computer was kind of a new thing in our generation. I know for you young people listening out there, that sounds crazy, but like,

People used to always figure out what font would take up the most space.

So like there would be like if you had to write a three page paper, there'd be some fonts where you would you'd be at two and a half pages. But then if you change the font, it would take up three pages. And so you'd go, oh, look, I got my three pages that that's the whole Kamala Harris campaign. And she's like, how big can I make the font? What font can I put this in that gets me through here? And this is why she repeats synonyms. She'll she'll use three words that all mean the same thing.

You know, the hopes, the goals and the aspirations of the American people. OK, was it really necessary to say all three of those things? No, but it's because you don't actually have anything to say.

Over the last 10 years, Donald Trump has really pushed a program and a climate and a culture and an environment of downplaying the best of America. It's like the question was day one. The whole point of that is that you give specifics and then Dana has to just repeat the freaking question. Just all I'm saying, man, like you can't overstate this. Imagine you're finally doing an interview.

You get the easiest interviewer you can possibly find. You bring your vice president with you. It's only going to be 18 minutes long, or at least that's what they're going to give us is 18 minutes. You only have to speak for a few minutes. The first question is a question that you easily could have predicted. Within the first 10 minutes of sitting down with your people, you go, this is the question you're going to get asked. So script an answer for this question.

And she blows it. She blows it so bad that the interviewer has to just repeat the question. I don't know, man. It's like unbelievable. And she doesn't she doesn't have the Joe Biden excuse. It's not like, yeah, man, she's in her 80s and hit her bad. So it's kind of like she's in her 90s. All right. She doesn't have that. Just I don't know.

Just not very impressive. I think mixed with some anxiety about these situations, mixed with the fact that she's actually not running on anything. All right. Let's keep playing. Day one, it's going to be about, one, implementing my plan for what I call an opportunity economy. I've already laid out a number of proposals in that regard.

which include what we're going to do to bring down the cost of everyday goods, what we're going to do to invest in America's small businesses, what we're going to do to invest in families, for example, extending the child tax credit to $6,000 for families for the first year of their child's life to help them buy a car seat, to help them buy baby clothes, a crib.

There's the work that we're going to do that is about investing in the American family around affordable housing, a big issue in our country right now. So there are a number of things on day one. What about you? Okay. So let's, again, this is, even when she's asked the question again, all of this, look, it's just vague nothingness. Invest in people. Yeah.

enhance the child tax credit. I mean, she listed off three things that are, I will say as a dad, you do need all three of those things. Like that's impressive. What did she say? Car seat, baby formula, clothes. You're like, okay, that's good. Those are three things that humans need when they are reproducing. But she didn't like explain the plan. And all of these things are just vague, you know, investments in the middle class, tackling housing costs,

the affordability of the economy. It's like, okay, you've said that, like you've broadly mentioned issues. There's nothing about what your plan is or what you're going to do. And by the way, none of that was a day one answer. These were all things that you'd need legislation from Congress for. Day one should be like, what executive orders are you gonna write? You know, like what with the power of the presidency can you alone do?

Nothing, just nothing on it. So I don't know. I mean, like, obviously, I'm biased, but I even watching it could not believe it started off like that. That's the opening of the interview. Couldn't even just nail one thing.

Yeah, you would think have some sort of a plan. This is the softball question. Hey, what's your plan day one? Day one, we're bringing down prices. You know, I'm going to bring down prices and then just say something. Have something. Not we're going to, oh, well, on the first day, we're going to get together and we're going to hold hands. We're going to tell everyone things are going to be better. And then we're going to start thinking about what we can do to help the people in the middle and maybe the people on the bottom too. And then maybe we'll even get to the people on the top.

Like your answer, your first thing is implement my agenda? Well, yeah. But what is that even? It's like, what's the first thing that you're going to do as president? I will be the president. Yeah, sure. But like, I don't know, something.

Okay. Let's actually go to the second clip that they have here because it's, you know, it drags on like this for not very long. Even there, it's kind of funny because Bash goes, hey, Tim, you got anything you want to add to this? You want to cover for Dummy over here? Well, yeah, it is like,

Yeah, it is kind of like a thing where it's like, all right, well, now go to you. Can you crack something? Can you get on base? Because nothing from there. And then he basically it's just I'm with stupid sticker. That's it. And just goes, I'm here for whatever she's going to do. I'm on board with it. It's exciting stuff. All the things she said we're not actually going to do and bribe families with the six thousand dollar tax credit and whatever else she said, I think is great.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Babbel. If you want to learn a new language, the best way is to uproot your entire life, drop yourself in the middle of a new country and figure it out from there. But if you're not ready for that, you can still learn a language the next best way. And that is Babbel.

Speak like a whole new you with Babbel, the science-based language learning app that gets you talking. Wasting hundreds of dollars on private tutors is the old school way of learning a new language, but Babbel's 10-minute lessons are quick, they're handcrafted by over 200 language experts, and they're ready to get you talking your new language in three weeks. Because talking is the key to really knowing any language.

Babbel is designed by real people for real conversations. Babbel gets you talking. Babbel's tips and tools are grounded in real life stuff you'll actually need. Everything is focused on conversations, so you'll be ready to talk wherever you go. I've heard nothing but great things about Babbel.

I've always wanted to learn another language. I might have to check this out myself. There's studies from Yale, Michigan State University, and beyond. They continue to prove that Babbel works. One study found that using Babbel for 15 hours is the equivalent to a full semester at college. And with over 16 million subscriptions sold, Babbel's 14 award-winning language courses are backed up.

by a 20-day money-back guarantee so there's no pressure. And here's a special limited-time deal for our listeners. Right now, you can get up to 60% off your Babbel subscription, but only for our listeners at babbel.com slash problem. Get up to 60% off at

babbel.com slash problem. That's B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash problem. Rules and restrictions may apply. Babbel.com slash problem. All right, let's get back into the show. All right, let's go to the second clip. Another issue, big one, is immigration. As vice president, you were tasked with addressing the root causes of migration in southern California.

countries and northern part of Central America, the northern part of Central America that deals with that affects the southern border of the US. During the Biden Harris administration, there were record numbers of illegal border crossings. Why did the Biden Harris administration wait three and a half years to implement sweeping asylum restrictions?

Well, first of all, the root causes work that I did as vice president that I was asked to do by the president has actually resulted in a number of benefits, including historic investments by American businesses in that region. The number of immigrants coming from that region has actually reduced since we began that work. But I will say this, that

Joe Biden and I and our administration worked with members of the United States Congress on an immigration issue that is very significant to the American people and to our security, which is the border. And through bipartisan work, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Congress, a bill was crafted, which we supported, which I support,

And Donald Trump got word of this bill that would have contributed to securing our border. And because he believes that it would not have helped him politically, he told his folks in Congress, don't put it forward. He killed the bill.

A border security bill that would have put 1,500 more agents on the border. And let me tell you something. The Border Patrol endorsed the bill. And I'm sure in large part because they knew they were working around the clock and 1,500 more agents would help them. That bill would have allowed us to increase seizures of fentanyl. Ask any...

community in America that has been devastated by fentanyl, what passing that bill would have done to address their concern and the pain that they've experienced. So you would push that legislation again? Can we take this apart? Yeah, let's pause this for a minute because it is worth taking apart because this is, and I will say, on the Kamala Harris curve, she reasonably at least answered that question and she's got at least the talking point memorized. This is what they're going with.

It is. You go ahead. I'll jump in with with my thoughts. We've talked a bit about this before. OK, first is the fact that they don't mention the framework of the question is very forgiving and that they don't talk about parole in any capacity, which was one of the big tools by which they got a lot of people over the border, kept them out of detention centers and incentivize people to come into the country.

The question was, over the three years that you were in charge, why was it as high? And she doesn't address that. She basically says, well, towards the end, we're able to fix it. The reason it's dropped off is because coming into the election season, it's so unfavorable. They got rid of the amnesty. And so you don't have as many people coming over. This whole thing about them having some sort of a plan to fix it, they were trying to legalize what's been illegal so far.

Joe Biden basically claimed, hey, I'll start closing the border after 5,000 people cross a day without explaining why you can't just do it now, why you don't have authority to do so. And by the way, no mention of the parole system whatsoever, which essentially is they just parole people and say, hey, you're now allowed to be in the U.S. They don't even go through the amnesty thing. This administration did what it wanted to do to get as many people over the border as it could.

Possibly because they're looking for voters down the line or they have some other agenda and they want... But they wanted this amount of people to come over the border and they successfully got this amount of people over the border. And so just one, she's not answering the question of the three years that you were supposed to... By the way...

borders are. You were the borders are you're already shifting the question here to be favorable to go. Oh, you were root causes just in the Northern. No, they called you the borders are, and they called you the borders are because Joe Biden didn't want to look bad doing this and said, Hey, I got dummy over here. And I guess she's good for one thing, which is I can label her as being responsible for this problem. That's why you were given the title. So just to,

Put a button on it. Okay, yes, sir. No, no, no, go ahead. No, I'm just saying it was already a favorable question that you didn't ask her about the borders are thing. You're not mentioning parole. So you're already kind of giving a turn saying, all right, giving her the opportunity to say, well, I had a more limited position and it worked in year three without actually addressing, well, what about parole and what about amnesty? And why is it that you guys lied about the 5,000 person limit and what happened here? So the whole thing is bullshit. So what it is is that

And this is something we've extensively broken this down. I think people who listen and watch this show will kind of know this by now. But there is a very easy to detect difference between an actual tough interview...

When the corporate press is actually has the knives out for someone and what this is, where it's it's designed to give the appearance of, hey, I asked you the tough question. But of course, as you've pointed out there, Rob, precisely, she's not actually asking the tough question.

She's she's basically going, hey, this is the knock on you. Now, here's a platform for you to to dispel that idea. And what she's not going to do is be constantly interrupting or do the thing, the bookmark thing that I've pointed out before, where like if it was with Trump or like one of the Republicans who they really have the knives out for, she would ask the question in a much tougher way.

let you give the answer, interrupt a few times while you give the answer. And then at the end, she would go, experts have concluded that everything you said is just wrong, but moving on. But you know what I mean? Like that, like they're not going to do that with Kamala Harris. Look, leave aside for a second, because what's interesting about this answer is that this is one of the answers where Kamala Harris actually, you know,

got it right in the sense that she memorized their talking point. And she's like, I have something to say about this. I remember we were coached on this. I'm going to say the thing. And you're like, this is what they're going with. Now leave aside the fact that the bill she's referring to was horrible. It would not have solved the problem at all and was just terrible. Leave that aside. Let's say her point here is correct.

That, OK, let's say the bill was perfect and the bill would have solved the problem. You've got a few major issues with this defense that I think is going to make this a very difficult sell. Number one, as Dana Bash even alluded to in the question, which, of course, will not get answered. And then there'll be no one pushing back on like, hey, but you didn't answer the point she was making. Why did it take three and a half years?

This is the first one that's really, really difficult for you to get. You go, you come in to your administration. There is a crisis. It's the worst it's ever been. It is this way for three and a half years before you finally get a bill that you claim would have solved it. It wouldn't have, but leave that aside for now. Now you're going to go with this thing that it's Donald Trump's fault that it failed. Now, I will be honest here.

I have heard it repeated by many Democrats that Donald Trump got on the phone with Republicans to kill this deal. I do not know if that's true or not. It seems like they've been fairly light on the actual evidence that this happened. But OK, you know what? For the sake of argument, let's grant you that that did happen. It certainly is possible that—and this is the way politics works, unfortunately—

If the Biden administration was about to solve the immigration crisis, of course, Republicans and Donald Trump would be kind of incentivized not to let them solve that problem. This is not a Trump issue. This is a politics issue. This is very—it's all—look, the incentive structure is just all out of whack. So if—

A demo, if there's a Republican president and a Democrat running against them in an election year, they don't want that president to solve any problems. They want all the problems to still be there so they can run against the problems up until November and then they can say they're going to solve the problem. That's the way it works. So it's not beyond, you know, the realm of possibility that maybe Donald Trump was trying to kill that bill.

Regardless of that, the major problem you're going to have if you're Kamala Harris trying to sell this is that you're still at the end of the day, your administration still failed to solve this problem. And you're blaming a guy who was out of power at the time.

It's just it's kind of like if if let's say in the 2020 election, there was some type of crisis. I mean, there were there were a lot of crises in 2020. But let's say that there was any major crisis and Donald Trump said it's Obama's fault.

It's just politically, it's a very tough sell to say four years later, it's the guy who was in power four years ago's fault. That's already just a tough sell. But the real killer, the real killer to all of this is that Donald Trump owned the issue of closing the border.

That was his issue, not yours. He ran on building a wall. You guys ran on how racist and awful it is to build a wall. And now your claim is essentially we would have got that wall built if it wasn't for the big bad Donald Trump who came and – you know what I'm saying? Like there's just – there's no way that Kamala Harris can credibly sit here and say, no, no, no, no, we would have closed the border. It's just this pesky Donald Trump. Like –

It's just too impossible. It was your central it was his central issue and your central issue was opposing that. So anyway, I mean, Donald Trump should be able to find a way to tear this apart. We'll see if he actually can. But anyway, so it was it was probably of the interview, one of her better answers to the questions.

And it's just still you're like, dude, that's like that is that is a really tough sell to any group of people, even Americans. And in any interview with a follow up questions or a slightly more critical person asking the questions, she's not going to be able to dodge or weave her way out of it. Yeah, it's going to be very tough, very tough. I mean, but like what you would love to see is almost what we were able to do with Cuomo, which is borders are all right. Well, here's the video.

Right, right. Yeah. What do you mean you weren't the borders are? So then what was that claim?

And then, OK, when you say that you guys had a comprehensive bill, why was it that you don't have the authority to work on the border with the 5000 people? And then, by the way, I don't think they changed the amnesty thing till afterwards. All right. Well, getting rid of the amnesty has seemed to reduce the border crossings by this. Why didn't you do that right away? Why did you guys wait more months after the Republicans, you know, rejected your 5000 bill? Why wouldn't you bring down the 5000 person number?

You've paroled this many people in and you made no mention of that in your amnesty bill. Why is it that you've paroled so many people? What's your plan for parole? There's just so many things that you could very easily be asking. And by the way, we deserve answers on. But I don't think I don't think we'll ever actually have that conversation. Yeah, probably not here. Let's keep playing the interview a little bit.

Not only push it, I will make sure that it comes to my desk and I would sign it. Just one other question about something that you said in 2019 when you first ran. There was a debate. You raised your hand when asked whether or not the border should be decriminalized. Do you still believe that? I believe there should be consequence. We have laws that have to be followed and enforced.

that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally, and there should be consequences. And let's be clear, in this race, I'm the only person who has prosecuted transnational criminalization. You've got to pause again. I'm sorry. I didn't catch this the first time, but that doesn't answer would you prefer that it's decriminalized. It's unbelievable. The question was, conceptually, do you think that we should just have an open border and anyone should be allowed to come in because we need to be nice to everybody? Now, how does that play out?

Whatever. We don't even need to go with follow up questions. Do you think that we should just have an open border? And her response was, well, at the moment it's illegal. So I would enforce the fact that it is illegal. And by the way, I'm the one person that knows how to enforce illegal stuff because I was a prosecutor. But while I was president, I tried to get his or vice president. I was a part of administration that tried to get as many people over as possible.

But that's quite a pivot from the actual question of do you believe that this should be decriminalized? Well, I think it needs to be enforced because it's not. It's literally like if I was like if I stood up and I go, hey, I think marijuana should be decriminalized, which I do.

Um, and it is for the most part in most, I think in most places these days, uh, at least when you walk down the street, sure smells like it is. Um, but okay. So if you go, if I go, Hey, I think, uh, marijuana should be decriminalized. There could be a lot of arguments for why you think, you know, I don't think people should go to jail for marijuana or whatever. Uh,

And then you asked me two years later, you went, well, now you're saying people should go to jail for marijuana. So like, did you change your mind from back then? And I go, what I've always believed is that there's laws and there ought to be consequences and there ought to be penalties. But that's the opposite of saying it should be decriminalized. The whole point of saying something should be decriminalized is that there shouldn't be penalties for it.

That's the crime part. And the D part is when you're saying there shouldn't be penalties for it. So obviously she's like, it's just impossible to say you haven't changed on this, which like,

Again, you could just come up with a reasonable answer for why you changed your mind on this. But she doesn't want to sound weak or admit that she changed her mind. But what we all know is that it's just like, yeah, she's like, I don't know. I was running in a primary in 2019. And back then it was real popular to say, open the borders. And then we opened the borders and it turned out the consequences of that were very unpopular. And so now.

i'm going with the the popular opinion again which is like yeah we should stop the flow of migrants coming into the country but this look this is the essence of kamala harris i mean this is her right here is that she doesn't believe in anything you know she doesn't believe in anything other than getting power and that's kind of what's revealed it's like i don't know if the path to getting power

was to promise to open the borders, then she'd promise to open the borders. And if the path to getting power is to promise to close the borders, then she'll promise to close the borders. Anything in between. It's really that simple.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is ProtonVPN. Proton created ProtonVPN to further protect the journalists, activists, and everyday citizens who use ProtonMail. ProtonVPN breaks down the barriers of internet censorship, allowing you to access restricted online content.

Proton's secure VPN sends your internet traffic through an encrypted VPN tunnel to keep your browsing data safe, even over public or untrusted internet connections. As a Swiss VPN provider, Proton does not log user activity or share data with third parties.

Their anonymous VPN service keeps your browsing history private and enables an internet without surveillance. ProtonVPN is available on all of your devices, including PCs, Macs, smartphones, and even routers. A secure internet connection you can trust is essential

to maintaining your privacy on your laptop at home, your mobile device on the road, or your workstation at the office. And to check out an exclusive and limited time offer, go to protonvpn.com slash Dave Smith. This is a limited time offer, so go check it out today. The site, one more time, is protonvpn.com slash Dave Smith. All right, let's get back into the show. Here, let's keep playing a little more of this interview.

through trafficking guns, drugs, and human beings. I'm the only person in this race who actually served a border state as Attorney General to enforce our laws. And I would enforce our laws as president going forward. I recognize the problem.

Generally speaking.

If you saw firsthand that there was a criminal consequence to people just being able to come up over our border, why would you not want to have more control over the border? Well, look, I mean, your argument could be, and I don't agree with this argument in terms of immigration, but, like, let's say you could have an argument that that's why we have to decriminalize border crossings. No, but you would have to decriminalize—

Drugs, you'd have to decriminalize the weapons. You'd have to actually get rid of the black markets. But let's just say you were like, hey, you could make an argument that like, hey, if you just decriminalize the border crossings, then it's not going to be underground anymore. Then they don't the people coming over don't have to rely on coyotes and things like that. Like I'm just saying there's an argument that you could make there. I'm not saying it's the correct one, but you could make an argument there.

But then why would you flip back again? Right. Why would you why would you be for decriminalizing it? And now you're for criminalizing it. If you're if your argument is that, no, I saw all this stuff as a prosecutor in California. Then I was for decriminalization. Now I'm for criminalization. You're still not getting like a through, you know, like through all of those without having an answer. But that's that's what she's attempting to do. All right. Let's keep playing.

How should voters look at some of the changes that you've made, that you've explained some of here in your policy? Is it because you have more experience now and you've learned more about the information? Is it

because you were running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you're saying now is going to be your policy moving forward? Dana, I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed. You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed and I have worked on it that the climate crisis is real.

that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. We did that with the Inflation Reduction Act. We have set goals for the United States of America and by extension, the globe.

around when we should meet certain standards for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as an example. That value has not changed. My value around what we need to do to secure our border, that value has not changed. I spent two terms as the Attorney General

of California prosecuting transnational criminal organizations violations of American laws regarding the passage, illegal passage of guns, drugs and human beings across our borders. Let's pause it for a second. Do you not just see, I mean, look, the point I'm making here, right, that she is doing an interview here for a few minutes.

Right? Like, if you do all the math of how long she's actually talking in her first interview, it's a few minutes. And she's, do you see the way she's repeating herself? Making the same point that she just made? Like, in this few minutes? Like, you can't be like,

People give me shit sometimes if I'll go on Rogan and I'll make a point that I've made before on Rogan. Like I made it like four years ago. And then it comes up again and it's like, yeah, I don't know. Dude, I don't know. We've done 85 hours since then. I don't even remember that I made this point here. But it's like at five minutes I repeated myself shit. I shouldn't have done that. In those 18 hours, I shouldn't have repeated myself for five minutes of them. She's repeating herself in a matter of a few minutes. And then, like I said before, the techniques where she just uses filler.

She just says more words than are necessary. So she can be like, is that font good enough now? Did I fill three pages? Like she literally says we have to have metrics and deadlines around time. If you if you use the word deadline, do you think it's necessary after that to specify that it'll be around time?

Rob, it won't be one of those timeless deadlines that you're used to, right? One of my favorite things about the word deadline is that it already has built into it an assumption that this exists in the context of time and that a time will be embedded in said deadline, right?

You don't need to say a deadline attached to time, but she does this constantly and it's all to just get away from the bullshit, which is that she's clearly changed her position on these things. You used to be for the Green New Deal. Now you're not for the Green New Deal. Talk to me all day about deadlines for time, but that's different. And you can't just say, oh, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. That was basically the Green New Deal.

It was like, I don't know. It sure sounds like from the name of that bill that it was supposed to reduce inflation. Now, you got a pesky little problem that inflation rose after the bill was passed. So you had an increase in inflation. So now we're supposed to look back at a bill and still call it the Inflation Reduction Act, yet brag about how it tackled climate change, a.k.a. made things more expensive.

I don't know. Any thoughts, Rob? Yes. Well, for starters, I love her. The interview name, her name is Dana Bash.

Dana or Dana. I don't know how you say it. Well, okay. We should be able to, that's a white name. We should be able to get it right. But I liked it. I think Kamala gets it wrong and calls her Donna, which is just funny for being the person making a stink out of how people pronounce her name. I've always called her Dana Bash, but I might be saying it wrong. Well, Camelot calls her Donna, which is funny. And then also Dana is,

does a nice thing where she goes, is it experience? She gives her the answer to go, yes, I've learned a lot in my last couple years of what the American people are looking for. And as I want to make sure that I'm representing them, and then that's why I have this new position.

But what she does here is what I have, man, I already forgot what what was the question about? It was about the Green New Deal. Right. Her values have not changed. Right. It was about all the flip flopping. But it's incredible to go. My values haven't changed. And wait, now you want to implement policy that doesn't represent your values.

Why is that your goal? So you're going to go through all the process of becoming president. You think you've got better ideas for how we should work everything, but you're not going to implement the ideas around your value. And then how are the voters supposed to know? So what policy will you implement? So if you had values a couple of years ago that you said were deeply profound to you and people like those values, should they not be voting for you because you won't be implementing policy properly?

around those values? Well, the thing is, look, I mean, if I'm going to be a stickler here, look, you could argue that your values haven't changed and your policies have. Like, that can happen. I mean, like, I've changed my mind on a lot of issues over the years, and I think I could say my values didn't change, but my...

my positions changed. Like you could say, like, my value is always that, like, you know, my values are that we do what's good for people or that we have human flourishing or that we have whatever. Then I used to think this policy was right, but now I think it's wrong. But that has nothing to do with the question. The question is, you used to support this policy. Now you're against it. Why did you change your mind?

And so to just like make this like appeal to like vague values, like, OK, fine. But the question is, why did you change your mind? Like if you used to be for, you know, like loose immigration restrictions and now you're for tighter immigration restrictions, I could say, well, my values haven't changed. I've always been for what's best for the country.

You'd be like, "Okay, but that's not the question." The question is, why did you change? You'd be like, "Oh, okay, well, I saw these studies that suggested that it actually does hurt wages when immigration is too high," or something like that. So it just has nothing to do with the actual question.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Prolon. Forget everything you know about fasting. Prolon by El Nutra is the only patented fasting mimicking diet that combines the benefits of prolonged fasting with a science-backed nutrition plan so you can hit your health and weight loss goals without actually having to give up all food.

Prolon is a revolutionary plant-based nutrition program that nourishes the body while making cells believe they're fasting. Researched and developed for decades at the University of Southern California's Longevity Institute and backed by leading US medical centers, Prolon helps promote healthy blood sugar, supports cardiovascular health, and reduces abdominal fat. But Prolon isn't a diet. Prolon is science. Science based on Nobel Prize winning discoveries in medicine.

And this all starts with Prolon's five-day program, snacks, soups, and beverages, all designed to keep your body in a fasting state. I will tell you, I have heard nothing but people raving about intermediate fasting and all these fasting diets. And yeah, like many of you, the problem for me is I don't want to fast all

all the time. But Prolon has figured this out. It's no wonder why thousands of doctors now recommend Prolon to support healthy blood sugar and cardiovascular health. Right now, Prolon is offering part of the problem listeners 15% off their five-day nutrition program. All you got to do is go to ProlonLife.com slash P-O-T-P. That's P-R-O-L-O-N-

L I F E.com slash P O T P prolon life.com slash P O T P. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, let's play it. Let's play a little bit more of this. Uh, and then we'll, we'll wrap up soon.

Values have not changed. So that is the reality of it. And four years of being vice president, I'll tell you one of the aspects to your point is traveling the country extensively. I mean, I'm here in Georgia. I think somebody told me 17 times since I've been vice president in Georgia alone. I believe it is important to build consensus.

And it is important to find a common place of understanding of where we can actually solve problems. On that note, you had a lot of Republican speakers at the convention. Will you appoint a Republican to your cabinet? Yes, I would. Anyone in mind? No one in particular in mind. I got 68 days to go with this election, so I'm not putting the cart before the horse. But I would. I think it's really important. I have spent my career inviting people

diversity of opinion. I think it's important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences. And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my cabinet who was a Republican.

All right, we can leave it there. Liz Cheney. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah, we can end the video there. Exactly. Liz Cheney. It's just funny. Like, it's like, it's all, all this stuff is to give the illusion of something.

some type of, yeah, we totally like report, appoint a Republican. That way you have Democrats and Republicans. And that way we have diversity of thought or something. It's like, no, you would hire a Republican who already supports the status quo because that's what you are, a supporter of the status quo. It doesn't matter even like if you were to say, oh, do they have the same positions as her? Like what positions?

doesn't have any positions it's like yeah if it'll help her get power then sure she'd put a republican in there the thing is that and i think more and more people are on to this it's like yeah because the republicans suck that's why it's like yeah it's like the democratic establishment and the republican establishment are the they're the two most corrupt organizations in the country

So sure, she'll put one of them there. But that doesn't mean anything because the divide isn't over Republican and Democrat. The divide isn't over left and right. It's not even over libertarian and statist. Like, that's not really the divide that matters. The divide is the establishment versus the dissidents, the corrupt versus the not corrupt.

those fighting for like big moneyed interests and those fighting on behalf of the people. That's the only divide that really matters. And so, yes, she would be quite happy to reach across the Democratic establishment, Republican establishment divide. But that's not what matters. Would she reach across the divide of regime shill versus dissidents? No, you will not see a dissident in Kamala Harris's government.

Will you see someone who's not corrupt? No. That's all that really matters. Okay. So I don't know what else to say other than what we started with. If I'm zooming out and saying my takeaways, I'm kind of shocked by how bad she did.

In this. And I didn't think she'd do well, but when I found out, so first it was like, I found out that it was Dana bash on CNN. Then I found out she was bringing him along with her. And then the day of, I found out that they were only releasing 18 minutes of it.

And I kind of, my attitude was like, wow, I can't believe. So they're actually going to do that so that she can pull it off and look fine. You know, she'll have like a few, literally all you had to do was come in with like three scripted answers and you'd be like, okay, fine. So she pulled it off. It's like nothing, basically nothing came of this. That's what I was expecting. And she did a lot worse than I expected. And I got to say, you know, here, I'll say this to wrap. If you just zoom out over where we are right now,

I don't know how much you can trust the polls, but there's clearly has been like a change since Harris got in the race and Biden got out. But the latest I was just looking over, they had it was essentially tied. I mean, it was in the margin of error. And so that is there is an accomplishment there for the Democrats that they've gotten this thing back to a coin flip of a race that that seems to be the best indication.

I would just say this, and this is why I would still say right now, assuming, you know, there's a legit election, assuming, you know, assuming to some degree that we have free and fair elections or something close to that, I would say Donald Trump is still the real favorite right now. And I would say it like this. Donald Trump has always done better than he's polled.

The point I make a lot. He was down in the polls to Hillary Clinton. He did better than he was polling. He was down in the polls to Joe Biden. He did better than he was polling in 2020. Against Joe Biden, due to what a disaster his four years have been and the fact that the guy literally lost his mind, Donald Trump, for the first time in one of these presidential elections, was up by a pretty substantial margin in the polls. At one point, he was winning every swing state, I believe.

Now they've had this switch out, and now the polls have essentially returned back to not – back to better than typical for Donald Trump. So he's doing better in the polls right now than he was against Hillary Clinton in 2016. He's doing better in the polls right now than he was against Joe Biden in 2020.

So he's still doing better than historic, just not as good as he was against Joe Biden a few months ago. But the major thing you got going on here is that Kamala Harris is going to have to debate Donald Trump at least once.

And she's going to have to do at least a couple more of these interviews. There's no way they're going to be able to get her over the finish line without that. Maybe they'll try. Maybe they'll try to find some excuse for why she can pull out of the debate or some excuse for why she won't do more interviews. But I'm going to guess they're going to have to send her out on a few more of these.

And that becomes the big X factor. You know, like after seeing her do this, this interview, it really does. Even though I think we all knew what the game here was, it does just make you have a whole different appreciation. You're like, oh, this is why they're avoiding. This is why they're avoiding her doing these interviews. And a debate is going to be even tougher for this type of thing. So,

That being said, you know, that essentially, I think just analyzing the thing, that's kind of where we're at. Donald Trump is probably the slight favorite right now. And he's got some big opportunities for her to do damage to herself. So this will be this will be fun to keep an eye on. But I think that'd be my my analysis on the state of the race right now.

And good luck in a debate. Mike's on or off. Doesn't matter. Good luck, lady. Yeah, it's going to be tough. It's going to be tough either way. Okay. All right. That's the show for today. Thank you guys very much for watching. I appreciate you guys. Come out and see us in Casper, Wyoming this weekend. Comic Dave Smith for all those ticket links and PorchTour.com for all Rob's solo shows. All right. Catch you guys next time. Peace.