My fellow Americans, this is what a legitimate news outlet looks like. Just in case we've all forgotten.
For the last couple of months, the Protection Racket Media has given Kamala Harris a tongue bath over her memoir 107 Days rather than a tongue-lashing over her participation in the cover-up of Joe Biden's cognitive incapacities. Even those who raised the subject during her tour politely complied when Harris changed the subject to Orange Man Bad.
Not Sarah Ferguson of Australia's ABC, which clearly has no relation to America's ABC. Ferguson raises the issue of Biden's obvious incapacity when Harris complains about the headwinds her campaign experienced, and completely ignores Ferguson's question to shift the toplc back to her bete noire, Donald Trump. Ferguson refuses to play along, and Harris looks like a deer in the headlights while sputtering a barely coherent response:
🚨NEW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Sarah Ferguson *REPEATEDLY* CALLS OUT Kamala Harris for ducking question on Biden's decline🤣
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) October 29, 2025
FERGUSON: "Wasn't his refusal to recognize his own frailties the reason that you faced a nearly impossible task?"
HARRIS: *Rambles about… pic.twitter.com/RO8jiBabcl
“I want to interrupt you because that is a world-class pivot, but it is not the question that I asked you, which is about Joe Biden’s failure to recognize his own frailties and what that did to you,” Ferguson said. “The question is about Joe Biden. Are you still reluctant to criticize the former president?”
After some back-and-forth, during which Harris claimed Biden “was not frail as president,” Ferguson pointed to Biden’s poor performance in a June 27, 2024, CNN debate with Trump, during which Biden froze at least twice, lost his train of thought, appeared stiff and made multiple verbal gaffes.
“But he had frailties. We all saw the debate,” Ferguson said, with Harris claiming, “I do believe that Joe Biden had the capacity to be president of the United States, and I’ve never doubted that he had the capacity to be president of the United States. If you want to talk about whether he had the ability to endure what a race for president of the United States would require in that political environment in 2024, as I’ve said in the book, I had concerns.”
Ahem. Is Harris seriously arguing that Biden had the capacity to serve four more years as president, but not enough to serve as the nominee for four more months? Yes, indeed, that is precisely the argument she makes while looking stunned at Ferguson's ferocity. To her credit, Harris sounded a bit more coherent in framing that argument than usual, but since the argument itself is inherently incoherent, that's easy to miss.
This in particular made me laugh: "If you want to talk about whether he had the ability to endure what a race for president of the United States would require in that political environment in 2024," Harris said, "as I’ve said in the book, I had concerns.” Well, let's talk about those "concerns." Biden had announced that he'd run for a second term at least a year earlier, at the same time Democrat donors began raising their own concerns over Biden's cognitive decline. Why didn't Harris raise her "concerns" then? Why didn't she raise "concerns" when the DNC rigged the 2024 primaries to prevent any other Democrat from forcing Biden to compete honestly? Why didn't Harris raise her concerns after the Jimmy Kimmel fundraiser, where Biden froze on stage and needed an assist from Barack Obama to exit?
More basically: why didn't a Vice President who had concerns over Biden's ability to endure a short general-election campaign raise those issues with Biden's Cabinet? That was her responsibility under the 25th Amendment. Her job was to uphold and defend the Constitution, including and especially the issue of presidential incapacity. Harris' absurd rationalization that Biden's incapacity was a bigger issue for campaigning than for being the Leader Of The Free World is an excuse to avoid accountability for her own dereliction of duty.
And most importantly, these are questions that the American media should have been asking at least since the April 2022 White House Egg Roll event, when the Easter Bunny was sent to stop Biden from interacting on the rope line. Reporters and interviewers should have asked Harris about the debate and its implications when it happened in June 2024. Every media interview with Harris after Biden's withdrawal from the nomination -- the first in American history at that point in an electoral cycle -- should have demanded answers to these questions, with Ferguson-style follow-ups when Harris equivocated or misdirected the interviewer. Only Bret Baier offered any resistance on this point, while other media outlets rushed to collude with Harris to prevent any discussion of the issue.
Ferguson just depantsed the entire American media industry, with Baier the only exception.
This ties into my observations for the 2028 cycle, too. Harris' defenders argue that Biden's exit left her unprepared for a presidential campaign, but this exchange reveals that Harris is simply too incompetent to succeed at it. Not only that, but these questions will follow Harris for the rest of her career. If the Protection Racket Media ever starts responding to the market pressures of their credibility collapse, Harris will make an easy target for reporters in the US at some point as well, just as a way to establish some independent bona fides. Bari Weiss at CBC News and Will Lewis at the Washington Post are already turning the rudder on their respective ships. Success at those platforms may incentivize others to remove their lips from the collective rectum of the progressive elite that covered up the Biden Regency and anointed Harris to keep the corruption in place.
At least, we can hope for success. Until then, maybe we need to get Aussies to report on American politics more often. Here's a salute to Sarah Ferguson, from the US Marine Corps band. Well done, indeed.
