The Gutfeld Panel Unleashes a Brutal Takedown of Kamala Harris, Exposing a “Failed Candidate” and a Political Hypocrisy That Leaves America Stunned

In the world of political commentary, few shows command attention quite like Greg Gutfeld’s. Known for its sharp wit, satirical humor, and unapologetically direct analysis, the show has become a staple for viewers who crave a perspective that often stands in stark contrast to the mainstream media. But a recent episode transcended the usual comedic and political banter, delving into a segment that has since sent shockwaves through the political landscape. The target? A much-anticipated interview featuring a high-ranking political figure that, according to Gutfeld’s panel, was a masterclass in political tone-deafness.

The segment, which began with Greg Gutfeld’s trademark “Leftovers” of jokes that didn’t make the cut, quickly pivoted to a more serious, yet equally biting, topic: Kamala Harris’s appearance on Stephen Colbert’s show. The interview was supposed to be a promotional stop for Harris’s new book, a move that is a routine part of the political-media circuit. However, as the Gutfeld panel would later argue, it became something else entirely—a bizarre spectacle that left a trail of confusion and pointed criticism in its wake. The panelists, including Todd Pyro, Sherrod Small, Emily Compagno, and Joe Devito, took turns deconstructing the interview with surgical precision, leaving no room for a flattering interpretation.

At the heart of their criticism was what they perceived as a profound sense of hypocrisy. Harris, who has spent her career as a fixture within the very “system” she was now disavowing, told Colbert that she does not want to go back into “the system” for the time being. This comment struck a nerve with Todd Pyro. Pyro, with a look of genuine disbelief, argued that it was astonishing for someone who had climbed the political ladder to the very top, benefiting immensely from that system, to now speak of it with such disdain. “Here’s a woman who has been in the system, has been made very wealthy and very successful by the system, and now she’s criticizing the system,” Pyro stated, highlighting a disconnect that he found both illogical and insulting to the public. He suggested that her decision not to run was less about personal desire and more about the simple, cold reality of a lack of donor support—a brutal and cynical, yet perhaps accurate, take on the financial realities of modern politics.

The conversation then moved to the palpable awkwardness of the interview itself. Comedian Sherrod Small brought a comedic, yet equally pointed, perspective, joking about Harris’s relentless promotion of her book. He noted her frequent mention of the title, “107 days,” which he said she “kept saying” over and over. Small’s lighthearted jab underscored a more serious point: the interview often felt less like a genuine conversation and more like a forced commercial, lacking the authenticity that viewers crave. This observation was echoed by Joe Devito, who described the interview as feeling like “a canceled TV show with a failed candidate.” Devito’s comment was particularly sharp, highlighting the sense of unfulfilled promise and public disappointment that has dogged Harris’s political career. He also pointed out a cringeworthy moment where, despite Colbert’s prompting, Harris seemed unable to articulate what was in her book, fumbling for a coherent answer. This moment, more than any other, seemed to capture the panel’s collective frustration with the interview’s lack of substance.

Emily Compagno, a legal analyst and co-host on the show, added her own layer of critique, focusing on Harris’s comments about “not letting anyone take your power.” Compagno found the entire interview “irritating” and a stark reminder of Harris’s time as Vice President, particularly her seemingly detached public persona. Compagno’s analysis was a powerful indictment of a political figure who, in her view, uses feel-good phrases without grounding them in any real-world action or tangible impact. The panel collectively seemed to agree that the interview was not just a misstep, but a fundamental misreading of the public mood, a performance that felt staged and insincere in a time when genuine connection is more important than ever.

In a striking and ironic twist, the same show that was tearing down one high-profile interview then celebrated another. Following the scathing critique of the Harris-Colbert segment, Greg Gutfeld announced he would be appearing on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. His praise for Fallon was both heartfelt and a clear juxtaposition to the previous conversation. Gutfeld lauded Fallon for being a “genuine guy who wants to make people laugh,” and for his willingness to host guests with differing political views. He pointed to Fallon’s famous interview with Donald Trump as a testament to this openness, a moment that many in the media had condemned but that Gutfeld saw as a sign of a more inclusive and fun-loving approach.

Gutfeld’s message was a hopeful one: that despite the deep political divisions that plague the country, it is still possible for people to come together, have fun, and find common ground. He suggested that “things are changing,” and that there is a growing desire for people to move beyond the rigid partisan lines that have defined so much of public discourse. This part of the show served as a powerful counter-narrative, a beacon of hope in a segment that had been defined by cynicism and disappointment.

The episode, with its sharp juxtaposition of two different television interviews, offered a powerful commentary on the current state of media and politics. The panel’s brutal takedown of the Harris-Colbert interview exposed a deep-seated frustration with political posturing and a perceived lack of authenticity. It was a moment of truth, a raw and unfiltered look at the disconnect between what the public sees and what they believe is real. In contrast, Gutfeld’s upcoming appearance on Fallon’s show, and his praise for the late-night host’s genuine nature, offered a glimpse of a different path—one where humor and humanity could bridge the political divide, even if just for a single night.