'Unedited ‘60 Minutes’ Kamala Interview Proves Again The Democrat 2024 Campaign Was A Media-Driven Psyop'
<https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/06/unedited-60-minutes-kamala-interview-proves-again-the-democrat-2024-campaign-was-a-media-driven-psyop/>
'Now that the full ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris is out, it’s more clear that the media were all in assisting her failed
campaign.'
't’s been three months since the election, and there are still so many unanswered questions as to what exactly happened in the very obvious partnership that took place between the dying national news media and
the Kamala Harris campaign. But a little more clarity was offered this
week when Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, released the full nearly hour-long interview CBS “60
Minutes” aired with Harris several weeks before Election Day.
The disclosure of the raw footage came as CBS cooperated with a
complaint to the FCC from the Center for American Rights, a
right-leaning law firm that accused the network of news distortion. The allegation followed a discrepancy observers noted between the short
tease that CBS released in advance of the full “60 Minutes” episode and the final cut that aired and showed Harris offering a different answer
to the same question.
What we know now is that CBS’s original explanation for the issue, that
it merely used a separate portion of a longer answer in the production
that went to air, is true. But that doesn’t clear the network of its questionable decision to clean up not only that newsworthy portion of
the interview, in which Harris’s fuller answer is hysterically confused, but in other parts, too.
Another highly suspect omission from the final cut was an extended
portion in which Harris wasn’t asked some convoluted question on geopolitical matters or macro economics, but on why she wants to be president. “There are many reasons but probably, um, first and foremost,
I truly believe in the promise of America,” she droned in an alarmingly slow cadence. “I do. And I love the American people. You know, we are a people who have ambition and aspirations and dreams and optimism and
hope.”
Without even being able to see interviewer Bill Whitaker, you can feel
his eyes mentally rolling to the back of his skull. The portion was
surely nixed for its banality, but it’s a fundamental question the
average voter would want an answer to, regardless of whether Harris has
a deeply superficial, deeply boring answer.
In another portion, Whitaker asks another obvious one — what was
Harris’s explanation for changing her position to the opposite of her previous stances on virtually every major issue.
Here’s what “60 Minutes” included from that answer:
“In the last four years I have been vice president of the United States
and I have been traveling our country and I have been listening to folks
and seeking what is 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 that we have leaders who can build consensus. Where we can figure out compromise and understand it’s not a bad thing
as long as you don’t compromise your values to find common sense
solutions. And that has been my approach.”
But what “60 Minutes” ultimately aired was actually a spliced and diced mashup of two separate answers that Kamala offered, first to the direct question as to why her positions have changed and then to a follow up question about whether it was a matter of “evolution or, as your critics say, opportunism.”
The program did not air the more critical follow-up question and omitted
most of what Harris said in response to the initial one, including a
flippant remark wherein she said, “First of all, a lot of the positions that you’re talking about have been discussed and dispensed with in
2020, four years ago.”
Instead of including that bit, which suggests an admission by Harris
that she had simply abandoned past policy positions without needing a
reason (no biggie!), “60 Minutes” solely used the more positive portion about “building consensus.”
At the time of the initial controversy over the one editing discrepancy
last year, CBS refused to release both the full transcript and footage
of the interview, something it routinely did voluntarily with interviews otherwise. Of course not. The election wasn’t over yet, and the media
was still engaged in a psychological operation against the voters in an attempt to convince them she was something she never was'
'Unedited ‘60 Minutes’ Kamala Interview Proves Again The Democrat 2024 Campaign Was A Media-Driven Psyop'
<https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/06/unedited-60-minutes-kamala-interview-proves-again-the-democrat-2024-campaign-was-a-media-driven-psyop/>
'Now that the full ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris is out, it’s more clear that the media were all in assisting her failed
campaign.'
't’s been three months since the election, and there are still so many unanswered questions as to what exactly happened in the very obvious partnership that took place between the dying national news media and
the Kamala Harris campaign. But a little more clarity was offered this
week when Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, released the full nearly hour-long interview CBS “60
Minutes” aired with Harris several weeks before Election Day.
The disclosure of the raw footage came as CBS cooperated with a
complaint to the FCC from the Center for American Rights, a
right-leaning law firm that accused the network of news distortion. The allegation followed a discrepancy observers noted between the short
tease that CBS released in advance of the full “60 Minutes” episode and the final cut that aired and showed Harris offering a different answer
to the same question.
What we know now is that CBS’s original explanation for the issue, that
it merely used a separate portion of a longer answer in the production
that went to air, is true. But that doesn’t clear the network of its questionable decision to clean up not only that newsworthy portion of
the interview, in which Harris’s fuller answer is hysterically confused, but in other parts, too.
Another highly suspect omission from the final cut was an extended
portion in which Harris wasn’t asked some convoluted question on geopolitical matters or macro economics, but on why she wants to be president. “There are many reasons but probably, um, first and foremost,
I truly believe in the promise of America,” she droned in an alarmingly slow cadence. “I do. And I love the American people. You know, we are a people who have ambition and aspirations and dreams and optimism and
hope.”
Without even being able to see interviewer Bill Whitaker, you can feel
his eyes mentally rolling to the back of his skull. The portion was
surely nixed for its banality, but it’s a fundamental question the
average voter would want an answer to, regardless of whether Harris has
a deeply superficial, deeply boring answer.
In another portion, Whitaker asks another obvious one — what was
Harris’s explanation for changing her position to the opposite of her previous stances on virtually every major issue.
Here’s what “60 Minutes” included from that answer:
“In the last four years I have been vice president of the United States
and I have been traveling our country and I have been listening to folks
and seeking what is 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 that we have leaders who can build consensus. Where we can figure out compromise and understand it’s not a bad thing
as long as you don’t compromise your values to find common sense
solutions. And that has been my approach.”
But what “60 Minutes” ultimately aired was actually a spliced and diced mashup of two separate answers that Kamala offered, first to the direct question as to why her positions have changed and then to a follow up question about whether it was a matter of “evolution or, as your critics say, opportunism.”
The program did not air the more critical follow-up question and omitted
most of what Harris said in response to the initial one, including a
flippant remark wherein she said, “First of all, a lot of the positions that you’re talking about have been discussed and dispensed with in
2020, four years ago.”
Instead of including that bit, which suggests an admission by Harris
that she had simply abandoned past policy positions without needing a
reason (no biggie!), “60 Minutes” solely used the more positive portion about “building consensus.”
At the time of the initial controversy over the one editing discrepancy
last year, CBS refused to release both the full transcript and footage
of the interview, something it routinely did voluntarily with interviews otherwise. Of course not. The election wasn’t over yet, and the media
was still engaged in a psychological operation against the voters in an attempt to convince them she was something she never was'
On 2025-02-06, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> wrote:
'Unedited ‘60 Minutes’ Kamala Interview Proves Again The Democrat
2024 Campaign Was A Media-Driven Psyop'
<https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/06/unedited-60-minutes-kamala-interv >>iew-proves-again-the-democrat-2024-campaign-was-a-media-driven-psyop/>
'Now that the full ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris is
out, it’s more clear that the media were all in assisting her
failed campaign.'
't’s been three months since the election, and there are still so
many unanswered questions as to what exactly happened in the very
obvious partnership that took place between the dying national news
media and the Kamala Harris campaign. But a little more clarity was
offered this week when Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission, released the full nearly hour-long
interview CBS “60 Minutes” aired with Harris several weeks before
Election Day.
The disclosure of the raw footage came as CBS cooperated with a
complaint to the FCC from the Center for American Rights, a
right-leaning law firm that accused the network of news distortion.
The allegation followed a discrepancy observers noted between the
short tease that CBS released in advance of the full “60 Minutes”
episode and the final cut that aired and showed Harris offering a
different answer to the same question.
What we know now is that CBS’s original explanation for the issue,
that it merely used a separate portion of a longer answer in the
production that went to air, is true. But that doesn’t clear the
network of its questionable decision to clean up not only that
newsworthy portion of the interview, in which Harris’s fuller
answer is hysterically confused, but in other parts, too.
Another highly suspect omission from the final cut was an extended
portion in which Harris wasn’t asked some convoluted question on
geopolitical matters or macro economics, but on why she wants to be
president. “There are many reasons but probably, um, first and
foremost, I truly believe in the promise of America,” she droned in
an alarmingly slow cadence. “I do. And I love the American people.
You know, we are a people who have ambition and aspirations and
dreams and optimism and hope.”
Without even being able to see interviewer Bill Whitaker, you can
feel his eyes mentally rolling to the back of his skull. The portion
was surely nixed for its banality, but it’s a fundamental question
the average voter would want an answer to, regardless of whether
Harris has a deeply superficial, deeply boring answer.
In another portion, Whitaker asks another obvious one — what was
Harris’s explanation for changing her position to the opposite of
her previous stances on virtually every major issue.
Here’s what “60 Minutes” included from that answer:
“In the last four years I have been vice president of the United
States and I have been traveling our country and I have been
listening to folks and seeking what is 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 that we have
leaders who can build consensus. Where we can figure out compromise
and understand it’s not a bad thing as long as you don’t
compromise your values to find common sense solutions. And that has
been my approach.”
But what “60 Minutes” ultimately aired was actually a spliced and
diced mashup of two separate answers that Kamala offered, first to
the direct question as to why her positions have changed and then to
a follow up question about whether it was a matter of “evolution
or, as your critics say, opportunism.”
The program did not air the more critical follow-up question and
omitted most of what Harris said in response to the initial one,
including a flippant remark wherein she said, “First of all, a lot
of the positions that you’re talking about have been discussed and
dispensed with in 2020, four years ago.”
Instead of including that bit, which suggests an admission by Harris
that she had simply abandoned past policy positions without needing a
reason (no biggie!), “60 Minutes” solely used the more positive
portion about “building consensus.”
At the time of the initial controversy over the one editing
discrepancy last year, CBS refused to release both the full
transcript and footage of the interview, something it routinely did
voluntarily with interviews otherwise. Of course not. The election
wasn’t over yet, and the media was still engaged in a psychological
operation against the voters in an attempt to convince them she was
something she never was'
Consider how close the US came to having this box of rocks Kamala
Harris elected as POTUS.
Think about that for a few minutes.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:25:09 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,717 |