In a Fox News interview Wednesday evening, Bret Baier asked Vice President Kamala Harris a question that has long been on the minds of the American people and, of course, her answer was evasive.  

It was the question about President Joe Biden’s mental status and Harris’ role in concealing his cognitive decline, prompted by Harris’ comment that former President Donald Trump is “unstable.”

“You say now [Trump is] unstable, he’s not well, you say he’s mentally not stable,” Baier said, before noting that Harris “told many interviewers that Joe Biden was on his game” and “ran around circles on his staff.”

“When did you first notice that President Biden’s mental faculties appeared diminished?” Baier asked.

Harris paused for three beats, mouth hanging open, eyebrows furrowed. She was not expecting that question. After all, Biden announced his departure from the race on July 21, some 87 days before this interview. Perhaps she thought folks had forgotten about the mental decline thing.

She responded in a defensive tone.

“Joe Biden, I have watched in — from the Oval Office to the Situation Room. And he has the judgment and the experiment — experience to do exactly what he has done, in making very important decisions on behalf of the American people,” Harris said.

Baier tried for a follow up question, “There were no concerns raised…”

“Bret!” Harris interrupted, speaking louder and over him. She tried to overpower him with her voice and body language, her hand extended flat, palm down as

What happened Wednesday night to Kamala Harris on Fox News may have been the equivalent to what happened to President Joe Biden at that infamous debate in June — irreparably exposed her as unacceptable to voters.

In what was widely seen as a Hail Mary move by Kamala’s campaign, the vice president agreed to an extended interview on Fox News, one of the exceedingly few national TV interviews she’s done since she was anointed the Democrat Party’s post-Biden nominee. Remarkably, she offered nothing new in terms of her weak, often confusing answers to obvious questions, but she did finally face probing lines of inquiry and necessary follow-up when time after time she attempted to change the subject from her performance in the White House to attacks on Donald Trump.

The entire interview was tense, an obvious effort by Brett Baier to wring direct answers out of Kamala on questions that for months she has responded to with professions of her “middle-class family,” and her delight in the “ambitions,” “dreams” and “aspirations” of Americans. She was visibly upset and exasperated by the countless interruptions and redirections, but only because until then she had faced none.

The most plain and self-evident questions a person would have for Kamala are why she’s campaigning as though she’s not currently in the White House; how her administration would be recognizably different from the one in which she serves right now; and when did she decide to take the exact opposite position on several major policy

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