It was a gamble for Kamala Harris to agree to this interview – Fox News is the place where no Democrat likes to go.
But in an election so unbelievably close, and with less than three weeks to go, she knew it was a gamble she needed to take.
She needs to reach a new audience. There are undecideds out there. They will decide this election.
Many are staunch Republicans who can’t stomach Donald Trump. Fox News is where she will find many of them.
Was it worth it? Did it pay off?
It was combative for sure. The interviewer, veteran Fox host Bret Baier, gave her a hard time; the sort of grilling she has consistently avoided through this campaign.
And at times you could see why. She was not agile in her answers. She was evasive. She did not articulate clear policy that will improve Americans lives. She deflected to Trump.
More on Kamala Harris
Related Topics:
Image: There are less than three weeks to go until the election, and polls are tight. Pics: AP
Immigration was a dominant focus; the chaos that’s worsened on the southern border through her time as vice president.
Harris dodged a direct question on how many undocumented migrants had entered America.
Advertisement
She had no decent answer when asked about the three young women murdered by undocumented migrants over the last few years.
She could have seen this coming- apparently she didn’t.
There were moments where Harris looked like she knew it wasn’t going well. She lost her temper a few times. That reflected discomfort at the questions, but also allowed her to show her spikiness.
She stood up to many of Baier’s tough questions, often deflecting, yes, but with answers as combative as the lines thrown at her.
To the Fox viewer who’s heard she isn’t tough – she might have surprised. Her prosecutorial side came through, and remember, many of Fox News’ audience won’t have seen her perform like this.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:47
Will religion impact the US vote?
However, her defence of her record at the heart of the incumbent administration was tricky for her.
She was rattled and deflected – throwing it back on Trump.
“More than 70% of people think the country is on the wrong track,” Baier put to her.
“Why are they saying that if you are turning the page? You have been in office for three and a half years.”
Picking up on his sentence, Harris said: “And Donald Trump has been running for office since…”
Baier interrupted her: “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
She replied: “What I am talking about is that over the last decade… it is clear to me, and certainly the Republicans who are on stage with me, the former chief of staff to the president Donald Trump, former defence secretaries, national security advisor, and his vice president warn that he is unfit to serve, that he is unstable, that he is dangerous”.
“If that’s the case,” Baier interjected, “why is half the country supporting him? Why is he beating you in a lot of swing states? Why, if he’s as bad as you say, that half of this country is now supporting this person who could be the 47th president of the United States? Why is that happening?”
“This is an election for president of the United States. It’s not supposed to be easy.” Harris replied.
Her unwillingness to distance herself from President Biden partly reflects her lack of agility, but is also partly because she believes admitting faults would be damaging (I don’t think it would at this stage) – as well as the fact that she is proud of core Biden achievements.
Under the Biden-Harris presidency, inflation is down, unemployment is down, crime is down, record legislation has been passed.
That’s the Biden legacy she naturally wants to attach herself to.
Image: Kamala Harris was unwilling to distance herself from President Biden. Pic: AP
Her deflections to Trump exposed insecurity of her own track record but also allowed her to warn of the dangers she sees in Trump.
This was interesting and reflects an urgent shift in strategy by the Democrats.
When she became the candidate, she moved away from Biden’s looped warnings about Trump being a “threat to democracy”. Instead, with her, it was all about “joy” and the future.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Now, with less than three weeks to go and the polls so tight, she has pivoted back to the core of Biden’s “Trump’s a grave danger” argument.
The net outcome of this interview? Anyone she pulls in from the Fox News demographic is a win for her. She may have pulled some with her tough combative style.
But against that, her answers on immigration and her record as vice president will have cemented some other Fox News waverers to Trump.
There are developments in the quest for peace in Ukraine.
It’s been one of those days when different snippets of news have come together to create a picture of sorts. The jigsaw remains complicated, but the suggestion is neither the Ukrainiansnor the Europeans have been privy to the developments.
The most intriguing development came at lunchtime on Thursday.
“He must have got this from K…” wrote Donald Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff on X. He clearly thought he was sending a private message.
He was replying to a scoop of a story by Axios’s Barak Ravid.
Image: Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy for the Middle East and trusted Ukraine peace plan man. Pic: Reuters
The story revealed a “secret” plan to end the Ukrainewar. The report suggested the Americans had been talking secretly to the Russians about a renewed effort to bring the war to an end, which involved Ukraine ceding land it still controls to Russia.
Who is “K” in Witkoff’s message? It’s probably Kirill Dmitriev, who has become Putin’s unofficial and unlikely envoy to Washington. Kyiv-born and Stanford-educated Dmitriev is, essentially, Witkoff’s Russian opposite number.
In a sense, they are the yin and yang of this geopolitical puzzle. Witkoff is a real estate mogul. Dmitriev is an economist. They are opposing forces with backgrounds that are, on the face of it, equally unsuited to geopolitical conflict resolution. Yet their two leaders are trusting them with this huge task.
Image: Kirill Dmitriev was in Alaska for the Trump-Putin summit earlier this year. Pic: Reuters
‘Territorial concessions’ in 28-point plan
So, back to the developments to have emerged over the last 24 hours.
First, we know senior US Department of War officials, including Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, have arrived in the Ukrainian capital to meet their counterparts there.
Their visit was scheduled but the focus shifted. The plan to discuss drone technology and the winter offensive morphed into a discussion about a Russian-presented peace plan Witkoff and Dmitriev had been discussing.
Image: Rescue workers clear rubble after a Russian strike on Ternopil, Ukraine. Pic: AP
This is the second development. The Axios report – which Witkoff seems inadvertently to have suggested came from Dmitriev – claims the two envoys met recently in Florida (Witkoff’s base) to discuss a 28-point plan for peace.
A defence official told our partners at NBC News that Driscoll has been briefed on the 28-point plan. Driscoll and his military staff are thought to have been presenting an initial brief to the Ukrainian side of this Russian-sponsored plan.
Ukrainian sources have suggested to me in clear terms they are not happy with this Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Sources tell me it includes “territorial concessions” and “reductions in military strength”. The Ukrainian position is the plan represents the latest attempt to “play the American government”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:50
Death toll rises after Russian strikes
What’s happening with security guarantees?
Ukraine wants security guarantees from the US. Trump signalled during Zelenskyy’s last visit to Washington that he was willing to provide those. This was framed by the Europeans as a huge positive development, even though the White House did not spell out the crucial detail – what would these guarantees actually entail?
The latest reporting, from Axios, suggests the security guarantees (still undefined, publicly at least) are dependent on Ukraine giving up the whole of the Donbas region – this would include about 15% of territory Russia does not currently hold.
Crucially, the areas of the Donbas from which Ukraine would withdraw (the 15%) would be considered a demilitarised zone. The plan is very similar to one floated by Vice President JD Vance in the months before Trump won last year’s election, which was roundly rejected as a non-starter at the time.
Another source, from a third country close to the negotiations, has told me the Qataris are playing a role in the talks and were present at the weekend when Steve Witkoff met Ukraine’s national security advisor Rustem Umerov last weekend.
Qatari and Turkish mediation, along with the multipoint peace plan for Gaza, is being projected as a model transferable to Ukraine despite the conflict, challenges, and root causes being wholly different.
Other European sources told me this morning they were not aware of this Russian-American plan. It’s worth remembering it’s in the interests of the Russians to be seen to be engaged in peace proposals in order to avoid secondary sanctions from the US.
Zelenskyy has been in Turkey over the past 24 hours, where he singled out Trump’s efforts to find peace.
Image: Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a press conference in Ankara. Pic: AP
“Since the beginning of this year, we in Ukraine have supported every decisive step and the leadership of @POTUS, every strong and fair proposal aimed at ending this war.” Zelenskyy wrote. “And only President Trump and the United States have sufficient power to make this war come to an end.”
The letter sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said members wanted to talk to him because of the widely reported allegations that have been made against him, which he denies, and because of his relationship with Epstein and what he may have seen.
The committee is looking into Epstein’s crimes and his wider sex trafficking network. Andrew was given until today, 20 November, to respond.
Legally he isn’t obliged to talk to them, and to be honest it’s hard to imagine why he would.
The only time he has spoken at length about the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein was that Newsnight interview in 2019, and we all know how much of a disaster that was.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:35
Releasing the Epstein files: How we got here
Yes, this could be an opportunity for him to publicly apologise for keeping up his links with Epstein, which he has never done before, or show some sympathy towards Epstein’s victims, even as he vehemently denies the allegations against him.
But while there is the moral argument that he should tell the committee everything he knows, it could also raise more uncomfortable questions for him, and that could feel like too much of a risk for Andrew and the wider Royal Family.
However, even saying no won’t draw all this to a close. There are other outstanding loose ends.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:31
The new Epstein files: The key takeaways
There could also still be a debate in parliament about the Andrew problem.
The Liberal Democrats have said they want to use their opposition debating time to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons, while other MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have signalled their intention to look into Andrew’s finances and housing arrangements.
And then there are the wider Epstein files over in America, and what information they may hold.
From developments this week, it seems we are edging ever closer to seeing those released.
All of this may mean Andrew in other ways is forced to say more than he wants to, even without opening up to the Congress committee.
Donald Trump has signed a bill approving the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein by the US Justice Department.
“I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” he said in a Truth Social post, following a lengthy preamble aimed at discrediting the Democrats.
“Democrats have used the ‘Epstein’ issue, which affects them far more than the Republican Party, in order to try and distract from our AMAZING Victories,” he continued.
Image: Donald Trump speaking in Washington earlier on Wednesday. Pic: Reuters
The Justice Department now has 30 days to release the documents it holds on the paedophile financier.
WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY MUST BE RELEASED?
All files relating to Epstein, including investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters;
All files relating to Ghislaine Maxwell;
Flight logs or travel records for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Epstein or any related entity;
Individuals named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigations;
Entities with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks;
Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates;
Internal DOJ communications concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates;
All communications concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of files related to Epstein;
Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including witness interviews and autopsy reports.
How did we get here?
Mr Trump promised during last year’s election campaign to release the Epstein files in full, but has since spent months decrying them as a Democratic “hoax”.
His links to the Epstein have long been subject to scrutiny. Mr Trump has always denied any wrongdoing.
“Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor [sic] of passage,” Mr Trump wrote in his late-night post announcing the signing of the bill.
The House of Representatives was indeed near unanimous in voting for the material to be released, with 427 in favour and one against.
Hot on the heels of that vote, which was met with cheers in the chamber, the Senate said it too would pass the bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:35
House passes bill to release all Epstein files
Trump tries to tie Democrats to Epstein
Mr Trump’s post repeatedly labels Epstein as a Democrat, citing his past associations with the likes of Bill Clinton.
Emails, photos and other documents released by Congress in recent weeks have included references to Mr Trump, the UK’s since sacked US ambassador Lord Mandelson, and former British prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who has faced calls from members of the committee to give evidence.
Like Mr Trump, both Britons have denied any wrongdoing and expressed regret about their relationship with Epstein.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
What’s at stake for Andrew at US Congress committee?
Unrest in MAGA world
The issue has proved to be a major source of division within Mr Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, a long-time Trump backer who publicly fell out with the president just days ago, stood with Epstein survivors on the steps of the Capitol ahead of Tuesday’s Congress votes.
She said: “These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight. And they did it by banding together and never giving up.”