<![CDATA[2028 Elections]]><![CDATA[DNC]]><![CDATA[Donald Trump]]><![CDATA[Jimmy Kimmel]]><![CDATA[Kamala Harris]]>Featured

New Kamala Interviews—Including Comments on Epstein Files—Show Why She Should Not Be a 2028 Candidate – RedState

Kamala Harris is still doing her best to hawk her book. 

She had two interviews that got attention on Wednesday, one with former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Jaime Harrison and one with Jimmy Kimmel on his ABC late night show. Both interviews were just another window into why Harris would be a terrible candidate for 2028, given the comments that she made. 





Harrison asked Harris about 2028, and she left the door wide open. Meanwhile, the interviewer cried when asked by his wife when the time would come for black women [to be president].

Um, guys? She didn’t lose because she was black, any more than Hillary Clinton lost because she was white. They lost because they were lousy candidates. 

Kamala continued to prove her lack of judgment by praising the dissents of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Harris claimed they were “brilliant.” 

I’m not sure that’s the conclusion that most people would draw from Jackson’s dissents. Indeed, here’s what Justice Amy Coney Barrett had to say about her colleague’s dissent in Trump v. Casa. (Click on the opinion to enlarge.) 


READ MORE: Hot Takes: Amy Coney Barrett’s Stinging Rebuke of Ketanji Brown Jackson in Injuctions Ruling LIghts Up X





Big: Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Cases


Decisions are also supposed to be about what is constitutional, not about the “heartbeat” like what Harrison said, or whatever Kamala said about “equity.” Yes, please read the decisions, but not for the reason Harris says. 

Then, on Kimmel’s show, the host asked Harris if she and her husband, Doug, drank after the 2020 loss. She looked a bit uncomfortable with that question, and acknowledged it took them “some time” [to recover].

Among the softball questions, Kimmel did ask one good question about the Epstein files and why the Biden/Harris team never released them. That’s been a big albatross around their necks for years. Yet her answer was seriously lacking. She claimed it was because they wanted to keep an independence from the Department of Justice and not tell them what to do, that the DOJ should be “independent” of politics. 

“To give you an answer that will not satisfy your curiosity, I will tell you, we, perhaps to our damage, but we strongly and rightly believed that there should be an absolute separation between what we wanted as an administration and what the Department of Justice did. We absolutely adhered to that and it was right to do that.

 “The Justice Department would make its decisions independent of any political or personal vendetta or concern that we may have, and that’s the way it worked.”





I think Ed Morrissey at our sister site Hot Air has the best response to this one, if I might quote him here: Bwa-hahahahahahahahaha.

There are so many things we could talk about, but let’s talk about the “independence” of the DOJ when they proceeded to raid Mar-a-Lago, the private home of Joe Biden’s political opponent, even when the FBI was reportedly raising questions about probable cause. 

Then, too, maybe Democrats being all over the Epstein records might have factored into the matter, too. We saw from a release from the Epstein estate, Epstein’s texts with the Democratic Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Stacey Plaskett, for example. 


READ MORE: Bombshell Emails Reveal FBI Agents Did Not Believe They Had Probable Cause to Raid Mar-a-Lago

Oh My: Dem Received Texts from Epstein During 2019 Congressional Hearing – and It Gets Worse


Bottom line? If they had anything on President Donald Trump, given how their DOJ behaved, they would have released it in a red-hot second. Meanwhile, it was the Trump administration that actually was prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein in 2019 before he died. 

But perhaps the most unbelievable comment from Harris was what she said happened when she called Trump to see how he was after the assassination attempt in September 2024, the incident at the golf course with alleged wannabe shooter, Ryan Routh. 





She claimed she heard Trump in the background talking about selling his book. This sounds like an entry for “things that I don’t believe really happened,” and a shot to make him look bad, even after an assassination attempt. But even if it were true, she’s got the nerve to chastise him over how he responded to an assassination attempt. 

Then, can I also note she’s using the interview and this comment about the call to sell her own book? 

She may decide to run in 2028, but these comments show again why Harris should be soundly rejected. 


Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!





Source link

Related Posts

1 of 1,063