After twice being pressed to do so in a Wednesday interview, Vice President Kamala Harris only sort of apologized to the families of victims killed by illegal immigrants let into the U.S. by the Biden-Harris administration — and immediately followed the apology with “but…” before launching into tired talking points about Donald Trump.

The moment came during the Democrat nominee’s “Special Report” interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. After naming U.S. citizens who were allegedly “brutally assaulted and killed” by illegal aliens released by the administration into American communities, the network host asked Harris if she owes the families of these Americans “an apology.”

Baier specifically cited remarks issued by Bill Clinton earlier this week, in which the former president admitted that Laken Riley, a 22-year-old University of Georgia nursing student allegedly murdered by an illegal alien earlier this year, would still be alive had Biden-Harris properly vetted foreign nationals entering America.

While acknowledging there’s “no question” those deaths are “tragic cases,” Harris initially declined to issue an apology to the aforementioned families. Instead, she deflected by hyping a congressional bill introduced earlier this year that would have enshrined the ongoing border invasion into law.

“I can’t imagine the pain that the families of those victims have experienced for losses [that] should not have occurred,” Harris said. “So, that is true. It is also true that if a border security [bill] had actually been passed nine months ago … that [would have ensured] that no future harm would occur.”

Baier pressed

The State Election Board (SEB) passed a rule last month that sought to ensure the number of physical ballots counted matches the Election Day machine count total at the precinct level. But after Democrats launched a lawfare campaign, a Georgia judge blocked the rule on Tuesday despite acknowledging it would simply provide “confirmation that the machine counts match reality.”

Rule 183-1-12-.12 (a)(5) stated that “three sworn precinct poll officers” shall count by hand the “number of ballots removed from the scanner … until all of the ballots have been counted separately by each of the three poll officers.” If the machine count total does not match the hand count total, “the poll manager shall immediately determine the reason for the inconsistency; correct the inconsistency, if possible; and fully document the inconsistency or problem along with any corrective measures taken.”

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney himself acknowledged the rule “may be” “smart election policy,” but that “the timing of its passage make[s] implementation now quite wrong.”

“On paper, the Hand Count Rule — if properly promulgated — appears consistent with the SEB’s mission of ensuring fair, legal, and orderly elections. It is, at base, simply a check of ballot counts, a human eyeball confirmation that the machine counts match reality,” McBurney ruled.

But the judge blocked the rule from going into effect in his Tuesday decision, arguing the rule comes too close to an election and there is not enough time to properly train election workers.

The hand count rule was one

Americans’ trust in mass media hit a new low again in Gallup’s annual survey on confidence in the press, while faith in the Supreme Court inched upward.

Gallup reported the results of the group’s latest poll on trust in the news media Monday. The poll found just 31 percent of Americans maintain a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in newspapers, television networks, and radio to report on events “fully, accurately and fairly.” The number of Americans reporting a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media has not increased in Gallup’s survey since 2018, when at 45 percent, the press enjoyed its highest level of confidence since 2009.

Today, 36 percent of those surveyed reported no confidence in the media, while 33 percent said their level of trust could be described as “not very much.”

Americans’ opinions of the Supreme Court, on the other hand, have begun to improve following the drop and subsequent plateau in support from 2021 to 2023, when the high bench faced unprecedented attacks from Democrats politicizing controversial decisions.

As of September, 44 percent of Americans approved of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, according to Gallup. Fifty-one percent, or roughly half, disapprove, representing a 7-point drop from the same month in the previous two years after justices overturned the abortion precedent established by Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

“The Court currently has a higher approval rating now than before the