There's a reason that they haven't been putting Kamala Harris out there to do interviews. But I think they're so desperate to move the numbers that they've had to put her and Trim Walz out there. But as we've seen in the 60 Minutes clips released already, it didn't go well. 

The first clips they released were about Israel and the Gaza war. Kamala gave a ridiculous word salad answer and she also managed to throw Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under the bus. She wouldn't even say that Bibi or the state of Israel was an ally. 

Then she showed her lack of understanding of the economy saying she was going to pay for the spending she was proposing by making the rich pay their fair share. The interviewer Bill Whitaker asked how she was going to do it, but she couldn't really answer. On top of that, it's just a lie and bad policy. The rich are already paying their fair share; the top 10 percent pay most of the taxes. Making them pay more isn't making them "pay their fair share." Plus if you put more taxes on businesses -- which is what she wants to do -- you raise prices even more and you cost people jobs because businesses have to find that money. She seems just ignorant of this, plus she seemed to think that she could by fiat, order this, "I plan on making it fair!" Well, no, you can't, not without Congress. 

READ MORE: Kamala Trips Over Huge Word Salad and Throws Bibi Under the Bus in '60 Minutes' Interview

Next Migraine-Inducing Clip of Kamala Harris' 60 Minutes Interview Drops, Interviewer Calls Her Out

However, she didn't stop there. The full interview is now out and this interview -- If there was any justice -- should kill her campaign because it confirmed again how vacuous and wrong she is. 

Whitaker asked a good question about people not knowing what she stands for since she seems to have flipped on all her policies including fracking, the border, and Medicare for all. Her answer was a ridiculous word salad. Watch for the edit at about 45 seconds. 

She said she traveled the country "listening," seeking what was possible in terms of common ground. 

"I believe in building consensus. We are a diverse people, geographically, regionally, in terms of where we are in our backgrounds. And what the American people do want is we have leaders who can build consensus. Where we can figure out compromise and understand that it's not a bad thing, as long as you don't compromise your values, to find common sense solutions."  

Huh? What does that mean and how does that explain her flipping her positions on everything? That's not an answer. She still doesn't say what she believes. 

Did you notice something else too? At 45 seconds, there's a big edit. Was there something more there to that answer? Was it an even more incomprehensible word salad? Or did she say something even worse that they took out? 

Whitaker says she was basically handed the nomination. That's not how it's supposed to work and some people still don't know her. Her response is incredibly ironic. 

“No one should be able to take for granted that they can just declare themselves a candidate and automatically receive support. You have to earn it.” 

She didn't even get one vote of the people in the primary for the position for which she's been nominated. She hasn't earned anything. She's a replacement puppet. And she was hiding from interviews until she realized that wasn't going to work, she wasn't going to be able to skate by. But doing interviews isn't helping her at all either. The more people do see her, the more they don't like. 

Whitaker's question on the border was good, asking her if it was a mistake to loosen border strictures because illegal entry then quadrupled under Biden-Harris? 

"It's a long-standing problem," she huffed. That had been checked by former President Donald Trump that she made worse, as Whitaker noted. 

"Solutions are at hand," she claimed, gaslighting up a storm. How? 

"From Day One, we were offering solutions," she argued. No, on Day One, you destroyed the security that had been in place under Trump.

She tries to claim they cut some entries, and you can see Whitaker basically indicating why wasn't that done earlier. So she wasn't even getting her gaslighting by him. 

She was asked about the war in Ukraine and whether she would support Ukraine being in NATO. Again, she can't give a straight answer or even discuss the pros and cons of such an idea. She just deflects and then attacks Trump saying if he were in power, Vladimir Putin would be in Kyiv now. 

The problem with this is that Putin didn't invade under Trump. Trump represents strength. Putin invaded under the weakness of Obama-Biden/Biden-Harris. Bad things happen in the world when weak Democrats are in power. 

We can see that with the situation in the Middle East as well, which the Biden-Harris team made worse. Trump brought more peace. Listen as Kamala says now that she thinks Iran is our "greatest adversary." 

So then why did Biden-Harris lift sanctions and cut loose billions to Iran? That doesn't even begin to make sense. 

Whitaker did ask her what kind of gun she owned, a claim that many doubt. Her cackling and manner didn't help her here at all. And bizarrely, she posted this clip that made her look so bad. 

Notice she doesn't capitalize Glock. Does she know it's a brand? 

She said she had a Glock and that she fired it on the shooting range, because she was in "law enforcement," as she shook her head "No." "So there you go." Her own body language seemed to contradict her. She wants to make it sound like she was a law enforcement officer when she was a District Attorney and an Attorney General. 

Most didn't believe she had a gun, and some noted if she actually had a Glock, she probably would have said what kind. He should have asked - especially since there are no Glock models on the California "Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale," which came about due to a law she supported and which she expanded as Attorney General, as California attorney Kostas Moros pointed out on X.

Note that California law classifies ALL Glocks as "unsafe handguns" because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping.

The only… https://t.co/ksE5BaQzkn

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 8, 2024

He wrote:

Note that California law classifies ALL Glocks as "unsafe handguns" because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping. 

The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still "unsafe handguns". We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states).

She supported the Unsafe Handgun Act and expanded it such that microstamping began to be enforced in 2013. So why does she own an "unsafe handgun"?

The fact that she keeps insisting that she's a moderate/centrist who supports the Second Amendment shows she knows she's in trouble for being too radical with the public. 

Some also pointed out how she had supported a proposition to ban people from purchasing, selling, or possessing handguns. 

So she just proved what a hypocrite she was as well. 

I'm not sure what she thought she was going to get out of this interview. 

But it just showed how unfit she was.