Co-conspirator says “what?”
According to a new excerpt from her book 107 Days, Kamala Harris wants to spill some tea — all over Joe Biden. Suddenly, Harris wants us all to believe that she was trapped by “loyalty” to serve “an individual’s ego” in choosing to stay silent about Biden’s cognitive incapacity. Oddly, Harris reserved this accusation for her book-publishing schedule rather than, y’know, protect and defend the Constitution when it mattered:
Former Vice President Kamala Harris has blasted the “recklessness” of then-President Joe Biden’s controversial decision to run for a second term — writing in her forthcoming memoir that the choice should not have been “left to an individual’s ego.”
The ex-veep’s stunning dig at her former boss was laid bare in an excerpt of her book, “107 Days,” which was obtained by The Atlantic on Wednesday.
“Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness,” Harris writes of her decision not to convince Biden to drop out of the 2024 race earlier.
“The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.”
Harris defended her decision not to chime in “during all those months of growing panic” about Biden’s cognitive health as a sign of her being a “loyal person.”
This argument is as coherent as … well, any other argument Harris could make. In the excerpts (as reported by the New York Post), Harris claims that Biden resisted the idea of stepping down in part because of lies told about her competency to him by the White House staff. She writes that any good news having to do with her work got buried, and that his staff let Biden think she was not competent enough to step out and take over.
Now, those of you who recall the Kamala Harris Experience may be scratching your heads about what those successes might have been. Harris routinely fumbled assignments; when Biden put her in charge of border policy, Harris then proceeded to avoid the border like a biblical plague for the next three years. In attempting to explain her absence on the front, Harris told Lester Holt in a prime-time interview that she’d never been to Europe either, and thought that was a win.
Small wonder the White House then buried her until the re-election campaign began. There was talk of finding a more suitable running mate in early 2024 based on her lackluster campaign performance too, right up until Democrats had to pretend that she was Brat McJoy to explain her weird cackles and non-sequitur word salads.
Honestly, the best evidence that the Biden team assessment was correct all along was the 107 days of the campaign. Harris got a huge burst of polling support, had $1.5 billion in hand, and proceeded to screw up almost every single day of the campaign. Harris’ argument comes across about as well as Fredo Corleone’s:
And the incoherence only gets worse. Harris refers to “months of growing panic” about Biden’s cognitive “health,” which is a longer timeline than the three weeks between the debate and Biden’s withdrawal. Harris claims she didn’t speak up out of “loyalty,” but Harris wasn’t supposed to be loyal to Biden. She swore fealty to the Constitution, and if Harris had “months of growing panic” about Biden’s unfitness for the job, the Constitution provides the mechanism to deal with it. Harris could have convened Biden’s Cabinet and then gone to Congress with those concerns, and had him removed from office over incapacitation.
However, Harris then argues that there was no reason for “months of growing panic” in the first place:
“Many people want to spin up a narrative of some big conspiracy at the White House to hide Joe Biden’s infirmity. Here is the truth as I lived it. Joe Biden was a smart guy with long experience and deep conviction, able to discharge the duties of president. On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best,” the excerpt says.
“But at 81, Joe got tired. That’s when his age showed in physical and verbal stumbles. I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser.”
“I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country,” she writes.
So … what was the “months of growing panic” about, then? Why gripe now about having to remain silent out of loyalty? Harris wants to eat her cake and have it at the same time with this argument. It seems likely now that some in the White House will admit to Biden’s incapacity while in office and implicate Harris as being aware of it. In her book, Harris appears to be providing cover stories to cover all bases, even when those stories contradict each other.
Imagine having this person as a Commander in Chief. When we say we dodged a bullet along with Trump, we are more lucky than we thought.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians like Kamala Harris and all of her co-conspirators in the Biden Regency.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
