Univision gave then-Vice President Kamala Harris a very soft spot to land on over the course of the 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns. With speculation about 2028 already underway, the former VP goes back to a familiar haunt for familial treatment. The portion of the interview that has aired so far comes in at around 3 minutes, and opens with a critique of President Trump’s current immigration policy, which is harshly framed by anchor and 2024 GOP primary debate co-moderator Ilia Calderón: WATCH: After being the point person for an immigration policy that ultimately let tens of millions of illegal immigrants into the country, Kamala Harris goes on Univision and complains about the Trump deportations. pic.twitter.com/h6Ax2WKsPp — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) December 22, 2025 ILIA CALDERÓN: I want to start with something, a topic that is impacting our hispanic community. President Trump promised to support criminals.  KAMALA HARRIS: Yeah CALDERÓN: Yet, we have seen law abiding immigrants being violently detained on the streets… HARRIS: Yeah. CALDERÓN: …separation of families, racial profiling- what are your thoughts about what we are seeing across the country today? HARRIS: It is important that America has enforceable laws. And he promised that what he was going to do in terms of immigration enforcement was go after criminals. That's not what it's been. It's been about creating profound fear in communities where children are afraid to go to school- parents are afraid to send their children to school. And it is inhumane to create this kind of fear among whole communities of people that are hard working and are in every way abiding by the law. If he's going to go after criminals, do that, but this has not been what that enforcement action has played out as. Because the interview is so heavily edited, distilled down to three questions as published on all of Univision’s platforms, we don’t know if Calderón followed up or pushed back. There is only the set up and Harris taking a clean shot, then cut to the next question. There should have been some follow up, given the Biden administration’s role in facilitating the inflow of tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country. But we get none, in keeping with Univision’s historic role as an immigration advocacy superPAC with a broadcast license.  The conversation shifts to Venezuela, where- surprise- Harris objects to another Trump policy: pressure upon the Maduro regime. Kamala Harris objects to the Trump administration's pressure against the Maduro regime who played the Biden-Harris admin for fools, especially wrt the 2024 election. No visible pushback from Univision's Ilia Calderón. pic.twitter.com/RQ1myhHM6p — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) December 22, 2025 CALDERÓN: I want to talk about Venezuela, Madam Vice President, because the opposition has tried many ways to remove Maduro from power, including elections where the opposition got 70 percent of the vote against 30 percent of the vote for Maduro, but still he remains in power, he refused to leave. Now United States have been putting pressure on the regime. Do you think that justifies the pressure and the possible action of United States? HARRIS: I strongly believe the American government should not be attempting to change regimes around the world. The American people do not want to go to war and and do not want to go to war in the Caribbean, do not want to send American troops to fight this fight, whatever this fight is that Donald Trump thinks that he has the sole authority to wage. This exchange is funny because the collapse of Venezuela is a “root cause” of the migrant crisis and Harris was supposed to handle “root causes”. So much of the conversation in the media regarding Venezuela seems to be that the regime is awful and something must be done, but not by Trump and not like this. Again, no visible followup but I would’ve liked to see whether Calderón asked about the various times the Biden admin got played by Maduro, such as the releases of the “Narconephews” and of regime bag man Alex Saab in exchange for free and fair elections that never came.  Finally the conversation pivots to 2028: Harris is asked point blank about 2028, and she issues a non-responsive response (she's at least looking at it) pic.twitter.com/r0eueVyOT9 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) December 22, 2025 CALDERÓN: You mentioned that you are not running and you clarified you're not running for the governor of California, and you haven't been clear about if you're running or not for president in 2028. You said that you are not done, but I would like to know what would you base that decision on. HARRIS: There are going to be many factors. Um- I've obviously run for president before and I can tell you that it’s not a decision one makes alone. Running for president, I think it may look easier than it is and it involves a lot of people, especially the people who love you and are in your life and care about you. Um, you have to know why you're running and as far as I'm concerned you have to do it when you understand and have a sense of connection to what the people need and want. There is just enough mystery to suggest that perhaps Harris might run. At a minimum, the door is not shut on 2028.  Will Univision be there for Harris in 2028 as they were in 2020 and 2024? That is yet to be determined, but we’ll be watching. If there is more to this interview and Univision decided to publish it, we’ll be on it as well. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on Noticiero Univision on Thursday, December 18th, 2025: ILIA CALDERÓN: Former Vice President Kamala Harris criticized the Trump administration’s immigration policy. She says he is causing fear throughout the communities. In an exclusive interview, I spoke to her with regard to this and other issues such as Venezuela, the Democratic Party and her political aspirations. I want to start with something, a topic that is impacting our hispanic community. President Trump promised to support criminals.  KAMALA HARRIS: Yeah CALDERÓN: Yet, we have seen law abiding immigrants being violently detained on the streets… HARRIS: Yeah. CALDERÓN: …separation of families, racial profiling- what are your thoughts about what we are seeing across the country today? HARRIS: It is important that America has enforceable laws. And he promised that what he was going to do in terms of immigration enforcement was go after criminals. That's not what it's been. It's been about creating profound fear in communities where children are afraid to go to school- parents are afraid to send their children to school. And it is inhumane to create this kind of fear among whole communities of people that are hard working and are in every way abiding by the law. If he's going to go after criminals, do that, but this has not been what that enforcement action has played out as. CALDERÓN: I want to talk about Venezuela, Madam Vice President, because the opposition has tried many ways to remove Maduro from power, including elections where the opposition got 70 percent of the vote against 30 percent of the vote for Maduro, but still he remains in power, he refused to leave. Now United States have been putting pressure on the regime. Do you think that justifies the pressure and the possible action of United States? HARRIS: I strongly believe the American government should not be attempting to change regimes around the world. The American people do not want to go to war and and do not want to go to war in the Caribbean, do not want to send American troops to fight this fight, whatever this fight is that Donald Trump thinks that he has the sole authority to wage. CALDERÓN: You mentioned that you are not running and you clarified you're not running for the governor of California, and you haven't been clear about if you're running or not for president in 2028. You said that you are not done, but I would like to know what would you base that decision on. HARRIS: There are going to be many factors. Um- I've obviously run for president before and I can tell you that it’s not a decision one makes alone. Running for president, I think it may look easier than it is and it involves a lot of people, especially the people who love you and are in your life and care about you. Um, you have to know why you're running and as far as I'm concerned you have to do it when you understand and have a sense of connection to what the people need and want. CALDERÓN: More of the interview on all of the news programming on Noticias 24/7, on Vix.  

A pattern emerges: after years of ignoring Joe Biden’s glaring mental decline, the elitist media want to manufacture an early cognitive decline narrative with regard to President Donald Trump. We earlier spotlighted CNN’s attempt: here’s ABC’s. Watch as This Week rotating host Jon Karl (who, unlike his CNN counterparts, joins Martha Raddatz in sharing equal billing with the “star” moderator), breathlessly teases an exchange with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, wherein she will proffer evidence of “Trump’s mental incapacity:”  “Coming up, the event this week that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told me is evidence of Trump’s quote ‘mental incapacity’” – tease from @JonKarl on @ThisWeekABC pic.twitter.com/U3ZOrbQcec — Brent Baker ???? ?? (@BrentHBaker) December 21, 2025 JON KARL: Coming up, the event this week that former speaker of the E Nancy Pelosi told me is evidence of, quote: “Trump’s mental incapacity.” What could this irrefutable evidence of cognitive decline be? Upon what proof does Pelosi establish her diagnosis? It turns out that she bases this on Trump’s address on the economy: The subsequent clip from @SpeakerPelosi, about Trump’s ‘mental incapacity,’ played by @JonKarl on @ThisWeekABC pic.twitter.com/kmyljCd1is — Brent Baker ???? ?? (@BrentHBaker) December 21, 2025 NANCY PELOSI: I didn't even think about his speech, but I did see some of it in the news afterward, and I think it was a demonstration of his mental incapacity. KARL: What do you mean by that? PELOSI: Well, it was a ridiculous speech. Of course, we were all offended because of what he said about Rob Reiner just a few- and Michelle just a few days before after the tragedy. Something's wrong there, and something's wrong with the people around him that they don't stop him from his ridiculousness. KARL: Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on the president's prime-time address and his response to the brutal murders of Rob and Michelle Reiner. Our roundtable on Trump’s strange week when we come back. Ridiculousness is Pelosi’s bar for mental incapacity. Karl just sat there, like a bump on a log, as Pelosi went on about “ridiculousness.” These same people surrounded Joe Biden like a Roman phalanx and shielded him from similar scrutiny. Seldom did anyone ask Pelosi to weigh in on any of Biden’s disastrous public appearances. When they did, they were chastised and then redirected to whatever Pelosi wanted to put out into the broader conversation. In fairness, Nonna Pelosi is showing a couple miles off of her fastball, but the Elitist Media don’t dare mention that. Instead of scrutiny, they gave her a 21-microphone salute as she announced that she and her stock market winnings were riding off into the sunset after this Congress. Karl never did discuss Pelosi’s remarks with the assembled panel. It should be noted that a full interview of Pelosi did not air on This Week, nor is it available on ABC’s YouTube channel. One wonders whether there is also “ridiculousness” at play there. If it weren’t for double standards, there'd be none at all.

After four years of pretending President Joe Biden didn’t suffer severe cognitive decline, there appears to be a sudden desire to scrutinize every utterance made by President Donald Trump, in the hopes of finding a kernel of dementia upon which to seize. CNN’s Scott Jennings rightly called that out on today’s State of the Union panel. Watch as Jennings shuts down a couple of Biden-Harris operatives: WATCH: @ScottJenningsKY dunks on panel libs suddenly interested in presidential cognitive decline after hidin' Biden for the prior four years pic.twitter.com/63Ykgs4R70 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) December 21, 2025 BAKARI SELLERS: I don't know. I love my panelists that are here on this holiday season, but nobody acknowledged the fact that Donald Trump's old. Like, he's extremely old. And he is burgeoning on senility, and we can see that. And the fact that we just went through a president who went through that. And Scott and Kristen, they can't -- they will not... JENNINGS: Are you really going to try this today? SELLERS: They are not going to say anything without... JENNINGS: After Biden? SELLERS: ... mentioning Joe Biden -- exactly, exactly. JENNINGS: Come on. Come on, Bakari. SELLERS: But this president is old. JENNINGS: Unbelievable. SELLERS: And what -- that's what we're seeing. It's not unbelievable. It is. I mean, he's talking about undergarments, panties. He's talking about, -- it's not a weave. That's not what we're seeing. We're seeing somebody's old uncle. I mean, let's just call it what it is. Yes, yes, the American public saw Joe Biden get old and decrepit in the White House. JENNINGS: But we didn't see him for a while. He wasn't... (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: What they're seeing right now is Donald Trump doing the same thing. Let's just admit -- let's call it what it is. BEDINGFIELD: Absolutely, he is old. I think there are questions about whether he's all there. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask, given what we've seen. But I would say, I think the big difference here politically from 2024, where he would give these rambling speeches that his base loved, is, he has lost the command and control of his caucus of the Republican Party. We're seeing increasingly splits on key issues. They're divided on health care. There's -- this question of Israel is absolutely ripping the new right, as Senator Lankford is calling it, apart. HUNT: Yes, we're going to talk about that next, yes. BEDINGFIELD: And so, when you are -- when you have lost control of your party, giving these rambling speeches that maybe leave some question as to whether you're totally in command, that is an issue that's going to keep compounding on itself. JENNINGS: This is like maybe your Christmas wish, but it is not a reality. The president is the head of the Republican Party. He's never been stronger among Republicans than he is right now. And he's always had a broad... HUNT: He's fallen a little bit back with Republicans in some polls. BEDINGFIELD: Is that why he spent six months fighting his party on the Epstein files? (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: You guys have been desperate for 10 years to find the moment where Donald Trump is no longer going to be accepted by the -- he is the leader of the Republican Party. He is going to continue to be the leader of the Republican Party. The record must reflect that the segment was predicated upon a dishonest compendium of out-of-context snippets from President Trump’s recent speech on the economy in North Carolina: After four years of pretending President Joe Biden didn’t suffer severe cognitive decline, there appears to be a sudden desire to scrutinize every utterance made by President Donald Trump, in the hopes of finding a kernel of dementia upon which to seize. CNN’s Scott Jennings rightly called that out on today’s State of the Union panel. DONALD TRUMP: I'm probably very neurotic. I always say controlled neurosis is good, being neurotic, no good. But if it's controlled, that's OK.  (VIDEO SWIPE) I would look at a chair. The arm of a chair was very important to me. I said, “I like that chair, but this arm has to be a different shape.”  (VIDEO SWIPE)  They went into my wife's closet.  (VIDEO SWIPE) Her undergarments, for some reason, is sometimes referred to as panties. They're folded perfect.  (VIDEO SWIPE) I think that she steams them. KASIE HUNT: That was President Trump in North Carolina delivering what was technically billed as an economic speech. This network, among others, basically Rip Van Winkled its way through the Biden presidency. One of the hosts for whom Kasie Hunt filled in this morning routinely dismissed any talk of a Biden decline as mockery of an elderly man’s stutter, only to turn around and monetize Biden’s decline via a book. But now, the decline narrative. Trump’s remarks were just thrown together with no contextual rhyme or reason, as if he just rambled on about the First Lady’s undergarments. The Kevin Liptak column upon which the segment seems to be predicated makes clear that the reference to undergarments was within the broad context of the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago: “I think she steams them,” he offered at one point, hoping to underscore the violation Melania Trump felt when, in his telling, FBI agents rummaged through the pristine undergarments — “sometimes referred to as panties” — during their 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago. The FBI didn’t think they had probable cause for that raid, by the way, but this wasn’t discussed either. Scott Jennings had none of this, shutting down both Bakari Sellers and Kate Bedingfield, deriding their speculation as yet another “walls are closing in” moment where they wishcast that THIS IS THE MOMENT where the base ditches Trump. Not so. It will be interesting to see how far the media will go to try and enable the cognitive decline for Trump after playing Praetorian Guard for Biden. As is often the case: it’s (D)ifferent. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, December 21st, 2025: DONALD TRUMP: I'm probably very neurotic. I always say controlled neurosis is good, being neurotic, no good. But if it's controlled, that's OK.  (VIDEO SWIPE) I would look at a chair. The arm of a chair was very important to me. I said, “I like that chair, but this arm has to be a different shape.”  (VIDEO SWIPE)  They went into my wife's closet.  (VIDEO SWIPE) Her undergarments, for some reason, is sometimes referred to as panties. They're folded perfect.  (VIDEO SWIPE) I think that she steams them. KASIE HUNT: That was President Trump in North Carolina delivering what was technically billed as an economic speech. My panel is here with me now. Scott Jennings, the tangents that we saw from the president were off of the affordability message that his team would like him to stay on. SCOTT JENNINGS: Look, the president for a long time now has done the weave. He gives these speeches. He hits different topics. And the crowds like it. It's what he does. I mean, he did hit affordability messages last night. And he's going to continue to hit messages about what the Republicans are doing and his plan versus the hole the Democrats left us in. But this is the way he does his rallies. And the people like it. And so I don't think it's going to change. HUNT: Kate? KATE BEDINGFIELD: Well, I think the people are liking it less and less. The MAGA base likes it, but we see evidence that Trump is dropping with independents, he's dropping with moderates, as we're looking toward a midterm election where people are concerned about costs. When you have him out there in his opportunity to say to people, I get it and here's what I'm doing to make your life better, and you have him talking about armchairs and God knows what else, that's a missed opportunity. And I think he is going to pay a price for that. KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON: From my perspective, the rallies, you're right, he always does this weave. He goes all over the place. But, for me, what's more notable is, this week, he did have a speech with a teleprompter. He gave an address to the country where he was talking about affordability. The problem that I think is not that he's not on the right topic, because now he's actually has shifted mostly to being on the right topic if he's talking about cost of living. My next step of advice for him would be to talk about it in the right way, which would be finding a way to acknowledge that, even though he wants to champion what he thinks is a great economy, Americans aren't feeling it yet. If you have too big a disconnect on that question, it's going to turn out politically perilous for him. Acknowledge that there's a way to go. Acknowledge that people are not necessarily feeling great now. That's the only way that this affordability message is going to land with the types of voters that I think need to hear it. BAKARI SELLERS: I don't know. I love my panelists that are here on this holiday season, but nobody acknowledged the fact that Donald Trump's old. Like, he's extremely old. And he is burgeoning on senility, and we can see that. And the fact that we just went through a president who went through that. And Scott and Kristen, they can't -- they will not... JENNINGS: Are you really going to try this today? SELLERS: They are not going to say anything without... JENNINGS: After Biden? SELLERS: ... mentioning Joe Biden -- exactly, exactly. JENNINGS: Come on. Come on, Bakari. SELLERS: But this president is old. JENNINGS: Unbelievable. SELLERS: And what -- that's what we're seeing. It's not unbelievable. It is. I mean, he's talking about undergarments, panties. He's talking about, -- it's not a weave. That's not what we're seeing. We're seeing somebody's old uncle. I mean, let's just call it what it is. Yes, yes, the American public saw Joe Biden get old and decrepit in the White House. JENNINGS: But we didn't see him for a while. He wasn't... (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: What they're seeing right now is Donald Trump doing the same thing. Let's just admit -- let's call it what it is. BEDINGFIELD: Absolutely, he is old. I think there are questions about whether he's all there. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask, given what we've seen. But I would say, I think the big difference here politically from 2024, where he would give these rambling speeches that his base loved, is, he has lost the command and control of his caucus of the Republican Party. We're seeing increasingly splits on key issues. They're divided on health care. There's -- this question of Israel is absolutely ripping the new right, as Senator Lankford is calling it, apart. HUNT: Yes, we're going to talk about that next, yes. BEDINGFIELD: And so, when you are -- when you have lost control of your party, giving these rambling speeches that maybe leave some question as to whether you're totally in command, that is an issue that's going to keep compounding on itself. JENNINGS: This is like maybe your Christmas wish, but it is not a reality. The president is the head of the Republican Party. He's never been stronger among Republicans than he is right now. And he's always had a broad... HUNT: He's fallen a little bit back with Republicans in some polls. BEDINGFIELD: Is that why he spent six months fighting his party on the Epstein files? (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: You guys have been desperate for 10 years to find the moment where Donald Trump is no longer going to be accepted by the -- he is the leader of the Republican Party. He is going to continue to be the leader of the Republican Party. BEDINGFIELD: It used to be the case -- it used to be the case that Donald Trump's wish was their command. And it is the case that, for the last six months, for example, they have bucked him on the Epstein files, to the point where they are now releasing... JENNINGS: The Clinton files. The Clinton files. BEDINGFIELD: Yes, because it was Bill Clinton who's really suffered for the last six months in terms of the shattering of his coalition... JENNINGS: I'm sorry. I saw the pictures, the Clinton files. BEDINGFIELD: ... and his inability to govern, yes, absolutely, Scott. HUNT: OK, so let's -- I want to take some time to put the Democrats in the barrel for a minute, because we have now talked about Trump quite a bit. The Democratic Party, Kate, did an autopsy on why they lost in 2024. But they're not going to release it to the public. How is this not a continuation of all of the reasons why the public doesn't trust the Democratic Party, thinks that they are... SELLERS: This is laughable. So why put Democrats in a barrel? Because the facts are, Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: They have an 18 percent approval rating. HUNT: Well, 18 percent of Americans approve of Democrats in Congress. SELLERS: Listen, Republicans control the House, the Senate. HUNT: We're an equal opportunity -- by the way, television show, OK? (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: You guys are down to friends, family, illegals, and health insurance executives. That's who you got right now. You need an autopsy. (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: Do we have the... (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: You're trying to pay them billions of dollars. BEDINGFIELD: In all of the Washington swirl around this report, I think let's look back at -- look, post-2016, where there was a similar there was a similar sense of concern. There were multiple reports. There was a congressional investigation into why the Democrats lost in 2016. There was a lot of hand-wringing about it. And the Democrats won in 2020. They ran a competitive primary. I was there on the front row, and they won, and they took back the White House. So the idea that an institutional report that is largely going to be a lot of axe-grinding by individuals who felt angry about different elements of the campaign, the idea that is going to reveal to us something that we don't know about why the Democrats lost in 2024, I think, is a little silly. And I think, if you look back at 2017 and the way this played out, it didn't hinder the Democrats' ability to win in 2020. SOLTIS ANDERSON: Introspection can be a good thing. It can be a good thing when you lose to sit back and say, let's really figure out what happened. And there have been times when Republicans have had to go on that journey as well. I think a lot of people sort of remember the Republican autopsy after Mitt Romney after Barack Obama. BEDINGFIELD: Oh, I was there for that. SOLTIS ANDERSON: They mostly remember it in terms of this document that said, oh, you have to get more moderate.  If you actually read the text of that document, you have to get more moderate on immigration was one of like 50 different things, a lot of which were very tactical and weirdly are things that Donald Trump did. Meet voters where they are, show up places where voters don't expect you, use digital data effectively. Weirdly, that autopsy gave a lot of interesting road map points that ultimately Donald Trump did use very successfully. So I think avoiding hard truths is not a way for a party to succeed. HUNT: All right, when we come back: Why are prominent voices in the MAGA coalition turning on each other?  

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post uncorked their alarm on the front page on Friday when the Trump administration declared it would ban federal funding from any hospital that provides gender-denying care to minors. The Post headline was “Trans care for minors targeted.” The Times headline was “U.S. to Halt Care for Trans Youth.” The surprise here was neither of these stories used the Orwellian term “gender-affirming care” in their left-tilting dispatches. “Gender transition care” or “gender-related care” were the replacements. The Times story – penned by Azeen Ghorayshi, Amy Harmon, and Reed Abelson – was more panicked. “The administration’s action is not just a regulatory shift but the latest signal that the federal government does not recognize even the existence of people whose gender identity does not align with their sex at birth.” The E-word erupts again later: Thursday’s announcement follows the clear road map set out by Mr. Trump in executive orders issued in his first days in office that denied the very existence of transgender people. “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the president wrote. That’s not denying the existence of people – it’s denying their delusions. The Times quoted from three leftist groups – the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Movement Advancement Project, without a label, but they squealed about an “ultraconservative Republican majority” in Congress willing to back Trump. The Post story by Paige Winfield Cunningham did the same, citing the ACLU and the HRC without a label. They were simply "LGBTQ+ advocates." But she warned “Conservatives and some former transition care providers have charged that young people questioning their gender identity are being given sometimes-irreversible interventions too quickly.” Using “care” as the antonym of “transition” draws quote marks: “Assistant Secretary for Health Brian Christine, who before his appointment called for transgender youth to undergo “corrective care” instead of transitioning…” The Post online story used the phrase “transition care” 13 times, including twice in the headline block. The Washington Times put this story on page A-6 on Friday under this headline: "HHS moves to cut funds to hospitals offering 'sex-rejecting' care to minors." HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. used the term "sex-rejecting," which is much more accurate than "gender-affirming."

Following the deadly mass shooting at Brown University on  December 13th,  it took five full days before police in Salem, New Hampshire found the body of Claudio Manuel Neves-Valente, a Portuguese national, and former student at Brown, who had also shot and killed MIT Professor Nuno Loureiro last Monday in his home in Brookline Massachusetts, in a storage unit in Salem. Disturbing press conferences were held regularly by Providence and Brown officials from the day of the shooting right through to the discovery of the killer's body, which was made possible by information provided by a homeless man. While most in the media accepted what was being said at face value, some, like Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham of Fox News couldn't hide their disgust at the apparent incompetence and dismissive attitudes of those addressing the media. On last Friday night's edition of The Ingraham Angle, Ingraham let it fly in summing up what viewers had been subjected to for the previous five days. INGRAHAM: Here's a headline for you, "homeless man smarter than high paid officials at Brown University." Now since last Saturday, it's been nothing but a showcase of incompetence. At the state, local and university levels are people who check various boxes but not the one that's labeled common sense...We saw them waste time by detaining the wrong person, we heard them admit that they didn't even know how many people were in the classroom, then we listened as they dismissed a connection to the MIT shooting. Then they confused the public about the location of video cameras. And then they told us they weren't even sure how long the shooter was in the building. But somehow, last night, (Wednesday) they thought that they would put it all and all doubts to rest. Ingraham then played a clip which included Providence Police Chief Colonel Oscar L. Perez saying he was proud of his department, and the D.A. Peter Neronha praising his "team". and Brown University Police Chief Rodney Chatman, who praising Chief Perez. This led to more outrage from Ingraham. "The Providence crew went on and on, and on, it was interminable. All we wanted to hear was the name of the shooter, how the case broke open, any information on motive... Just what we didn't want five days after these killings, a self-congratulatory confab where the left-wing mayor acted like he was kind of an MC for the awards ceremony. She then played video of Providence Mayor Brett Smiley, who praised everyone you could imagine, which led Ingraham to call for the firing of all of them, with the exception of the FBI Special Agent Ted Docks, who she said "Knew what he was doing." She called it a "complete and total embarrassment." And she saved the worst for last. "And the worst of the worst, the College(Brown) President (Christina Paxson) who makes $3 million a year.." Paxon failed repeatedly to explain why there were no cameras in the part of the building where the shooting took place. She instead praised neighborhood cameras, which she claimed "help crack this case." Two days prior, on Wednesday's Jesse Watters Primetime, Watters, who had been equally as critical of those assembled on the podium throughout the ordeal, exposed just who some of them are and how they got to where they are. He started with Brown Police Chief Chapman. WATTERS: We just discovered the Brown University Police Chief isn't really a big fan of policing. He once said this, 'communities don't want policing done to them'. How this guy came to Brown is a crazy story. He was the head of campus security at the University of Utah and right after he was hired there he was immediately suspended because he didn't have the proper credentials. ... So Rodney resigned and Brown said we will take you. Right before this shooting, Brown's police union issued a vote of no confidence in Chief Rodney... He's obviously completely unqualified. And Watters revealed that the Providence Police Chief Perez, "could be compromised", explaining, "Turns out the Chief's nephew was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for running one of the largest fentanyl rings in Rhode Island. And Mayor Smiley promoted him to Chief knowing his family was trafficking. Why would Smiley do that? Because Smiley and the Chief speak the same language. The Chief's main goal is to diversify the department. It's too white." Watters pointed out that the Providence City Council Chief of Staff (June Rose), who attended the pressers, "is a genderless bisexual who was arrested for protesting at Trump Tower this year." Watters also informed the audience that Brown President Paxon, "..has been heckled for years by Muslim underclassmen. . Over the summer, radical left human rights groups demanded Brown disable their security cameras so Palestinian activists could raise hellunder the radar. Did they cave? We asked. No response." Watters correctly said that the whole city of Providence, "is a DEI mess". Many questions remain. Most of the media will never address them. Bravo to both Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham for focusing on the incompetence and political correctness that may have led to the death of two students and injuries to nine others. Now let's get answers.