Ian Samms is joining us right now, the Harris Walls campaign senior spokesman. Good to finally be able to talk to you, Ian. Welcome.

Thanks, Neil. Thanks for having me.

Let me ask you a little bit about what our Ayesha Hasty might have gotten out of President Trump, maybe a small crack opening in the door to another debate. Is it your belief that despite his not wanting one, maybe he is hinting at one?

Well, I thought his exact The last wording was pretty interesting. He said, If he's in the right mood, he might do a debate. He seems awfully moody. I don't know if he's just working through his feelings after Tuesday night. But as the vice president has said, the American people deserve a second debate. They deserve to see the choice in this election between Kamala Harris and a proposed vision that brings the country forward and turns the page on the chaotic division of Donald Trump and is offering real plans, whether it's grocery costs, housing costs, things your reporter just talked about that she's put forward to take those things on? Or do we go back to Donald Trump and his show that he likes to put on that is very dependent on his mood, but with an agenda that's pretty scary. More tax cuts for those at the very top, taking away our freedoms, whether it's reproductive freedoms, voting rights, things like that. That's the choice that people get to see on stage in a debate. And so she thinks that the American people deserve another one. And I guess we'll see if President Trump's mood changes to allow him to do that.

You talk about the tax cuts that the former President wants to extend. Of course, Kamala Harris isn't a stranger to offering incentives as well for tax relief. Maybe it will extend not only to service workers and income tips and all. It could go to Social Security and the rest. Do you guys worry back and forth that you're driving us into debt with plans like that? Both sides. Five trillion dollars for Donald Trump, close to trillion dollars for you guys.

Well, you just hit the nail on the head. Independent economists have come out and said that President Trump would be way worse for the deficit in debt than President Harris would be. It's still trillions of dollars, right?

It's still trillions of dollars, right?

When it comes to people who care about the debt and deficit, I think that they want to see that people are willing to raise the revenues to pay for their plans. And I think with Vice President Harris, she's put forward a suite of proposals to make sure that we to have the right revenues to help pay for some of her proposals. For example, talking about making sure that billionaires pay a minimum tax, talking about quadrupling taxes on stock- But we don't get there, right?

Isn't that the problem where we don't really get there? She's still over a trillion shy. Now, I know these things really oftentimes on the left and the right aren't worth the paper they print on because things change. I get that. But it's not as if the debt is going to get smaller under President Harris.

Well, under the Biden and Harris administration, where she's been proud to serve as vice president, we have reduced the deficit. And so I think that there are ways where we can make good progress in this.

No, the deficit has come down. The debt, which is a combination of deficits, has not. It's increased by trillions. But go ahead. I'm sorry.

That's okay. And then if we can put forward a suite of proposals that help foster real economic growth, that's also going to help. And when you look at the two candidates who are running, for example, Vice President Harris has put forward just a couple of weeks ago, real plan for growing small businesses in this country. Right now, if you want to start a small business in America, it costs about $40,000 to get off the ground. But our tax code only allows a deduction for those people of $5,000. She wants to make it $50,000 so that we can actually help those small businesses grow and they can create jobs, and that can create revenues in local communities. These are the kinds of investments in real working America that she's proposing, whereas, again, President Trump and independent economists, Moody's and Nobel Prize winning economists have said that his plan would be an inflation bomb. He's offering plans that are completely all over the place and would actually explode this issue and make it worse, because as we know, when he was President last time, the debt increased significantly more than it did under democratic presidents. And so I think if you're a voter out there in this country who cares about the debt and deficit, there's only one candidate who even remotely comes close to offering forward a plan to take that on.

All right, you'll be surprised the other side says just the opposite. But, Ian, let me ask I'll give you this. I'm just curious because I hadn't had a chance to talk to you post the debate. I made no secret to the fact that I thought your candidate went hands down. In fact, convincingly so. But you do hear from the Trump people that your candidate got deferential treatment. She was not interrupted or fact-checked nearly as much as Donald Trump was. I've heard some of your surrogates and her surrogates say, Well, that's because his Wappers were bigger. I'm just curious, were you surprised the moderators did not interrupt her or fact-check her to the degree they did Donald Trump? In the end, you go into this meticulously planning things, right? That had to surprise you somewhat.

Well, the funny thing about fact-checking is it only really is relevant when you're telling lies. The vice president wasn't really telling lies on stage, and President Trump was. In order to be able to fact check-There were so many woppers in there.

No, you're right. There were so many woppers in there compared to allowing the killing of infants after they're born and going back to the cat and dog eating thing. Those are woppers, you're quite right. But there were some areas where she stretched it and no one bothered to go after her about no combat going on around the world involving US servicemen or what was going on and the preference for dealing with what she was doing at the border and her, obviously, oblication around that. But it just didn't seem balanced in that respect.

Well, it's also quite telling of a candidate complaining about the moderators, how he performed in the debate. I think ABC did a good job. I think that they ran a tidy debate. I think that it allowed the American people to see the clear choice between the two candidates. And boy, oh, boy, did they get to see a choice between someone who was focused on the issues they actually care about and someone who was going to be focused on his health.

What did you think of that, Ian? Did that surprise you, Ian, that he did take the bait and that it was planned that you would throw this out there, that she would throw out the crowd size at his rallies, knowing that would irk him. Maybe the only surprise was, despite the fact he was advised not to lose his cool, he did. Did you expect that to happen?

Look, I think that Donald Trump's team and himself were signaling that he might be a more disciplined candidate. I think it's just not in his nature. He's uncontrollable. And so he clearly is provoked when he's called out for his own record and his own lies. He's also provoked when the vice President decides to provide the truth to the American people about some of his bombastic claims and hyperbolic claims, including about his crowd sizes. And so these are the kinds of things that we're used to seeing from Donald Trump. He's not really focused on real issues that people care about. He's only focused about himself and wanting to talk about himself and defend himself and lash out at people who criticize him. And I think it really is emblematic of what we would see if Donald Trump gets elected to the White House again, which is someone who's going to be completely unrestrained, especially now that the Supreme Court has said he can get away with whatever he wants.

That's not quite what the Supreme Court said, but let me ask you a little bit about the whole crowd size thing. The former President might stretch certain truths a little far, but when it comes to crowds in his rallies, he does pack them in. I think you would have to admit that. His crowds are significantly bigger than Kamala Harris's crowds. Would you acknowledge at least that I'm not sure if you've been watching crowds and the rallies over the last couple of months, and I don't think that's the case.

I think we've seen a lot of people who are wandering off in the middle of his 45-minute long rants about electric sharks and Hannibal Lector Whereas the vice president's packing people into a meeting.

I see some people leaving, and I do see some people leaving when I watch these things. I would hardly say it's a significant number any more than those who might wander out of a Kamala Haas rally. I guess I'm wondering, would you at least on that say, Say what you will of the former President. He can pack them in.

He used to. He's a fated image of his former self. I think in 2016, he had a lot more excitement, a lot more people showing up. I think now we're on season nine of this show, and maybe they've lost the plot a little bit, and I think would prefer a new set of characters.

All right, well, we can argue over numbers and all of that, but he doesn't seem to have any problem getting people to come up to venues hours, sometimes a day, ahead of an event. But having said that, what is your take on a candidate now? I know she has spoken, I believe, to a Philadelphia-area reporter today. That seemed to be the first sign that maybe she's engaging in more interviews, but the reputation or the rep she has right now is she doesn't want to do that. Maybe that's the campaign strategy to avoid exchanges like that. I'm just wondering why, given her debate performance, she seemed pretty on message, whether people like that or not. She was articulate, fast on her feet, very prosecutorial. So she seems to be able to handle herself. So why not more media interviews?

It's a funny question because as you just said, she literally did a media interview about an hour ago. And so she talked to one of the top anchors in the top station in Philadelphia. Obviously, Pennsylvania is a critical battleground state, decided by just 80,000 votes four years ago. You're going to see the vice president continue to talk to the press, continue engage with the media and do interviews. It's part of this campaign. I think that people are tuning in now that we've gotten through the first debate to really see what these candidates have to offer. She's going to continue to engage with the media. I think it's interesting because President Trump, for example, I know he likes to hang out in primetime on this network and do Twitter spaces with Elon Musk, but you don't see him very often sitting down taking tough questions from mainstream reporters like yourself.

He just did a press conference today. He He just did a press conference today. So he does embrace and go with the press and all of that. And he's open to these extemporaneous exchanges. Now, many people might criticize how he goes about that, but he does it a lot more than your candidate, right?

Oh, she also just about 20 minutes ago stood inside of a store and took questions from the reporters who were with her. And so, again, this is part of a campaign. She's going to continue to engage with the media and press. President I guess, will continue doing 45 minute long rants at a podium with reporters sitting there wondering what he's talking about. But we'll continue to engage with the media and share her vision for the country and why she's running and what her priorities would be as President.

Now, I know you alluded to it in the beginning, and I don't want to misquote you, but obviously, her strategy is to make sure the rich pay their fair share. I believe there's this idea of a minimum tax for the very wealthy for corporations. But I am curious what you think, what she thinks is a fair share. Getting outside the billionaire community because they're rarefied air, we used to have a top income tax rate of 90% in this country. Then it was in the 70%, then it was in the 50's %. It's been dancing in and around 37, 39, around 40%. That's just the federal top rate, and that apparently is not a fair share in your eyes. So could I ask you what is?

Well, we have a situation in this country where you have corporations and certain CEOs and billionaires who are paying nothing in tax because of the loopholes that exist within our tax code. And I think what the vice president has put forward is a suite of proposals that help balance the playing field a little bit, whether it's increasing the corporate tax rates.

I understand, but could you attach a number to that? Because if it's 37, 38% right now and we want to get back up to at least the 39.6% we had before the Trump tax cuts. What should that top rate be? If that includes the rich, should that rate be significantly higher? And what would it be?

Well, again, I was talking about the suite of proposals that she has, including the corporate tax rate, which she says should be 28 %. We talked about capital gains taxes last week when we were talking about our small business plan. For example, you have a situation where President Biden proposed increasing the top capital gains tax rate all the way up to about 40 %. The vice President thinks that's a little too high. She's proposed it being at 28 % as well so that we continue to have the ability for our tax code to reward investment in entrepreneurs and small businesses across this country.

But what would make it a fair share? If these guys are getting away with not paying their taxes in. I don't want to be obnoxious about it. What would it be? Because it's always they're not paying their fair share. They're not doing what they should. For those hundred or so billionaires who might be paying a very low rate, if a rate at all, I mean, what is it for the wealthy, however defined, with a top rate that is now around 37, 38 %. What should it be?

Well, Neil, again, I'm explaining the suite of proposals that she has, including a billionaire minimum tax, including expanding four fold the stock buyback taxes. There's a suite of different options at our disposal here to ensure that those people at the top are paying their fair share in taxes because a lot of them get away from the normal income tax rate and income tax code through the loopholes that we have in our system. And so I understand what you're asking, but it's a bigger and more complicated picture than that to take across all of these different issues, across all of these different types of tax giveaways and tax loopholes that exist to ensure that in all of them, we are actually implementing a system that does hold them accountable and does ensure tax fairness, while also, like I said on capital gains, having an incentive so that people can continue to invest in the entrepreneurship that makes this country great. And so she is going to continue talking about these issues throughout the.

But if you keep raising that capital gains tax, they're going to be less inclined to take those investment incentives.

Here I am, Neil, on Fox News. I thought maybe that people would say, Well, President Biden proposed going all the way up to 40 %, and she's proposing going to 28 %. I think that, again, we have to understand that this is someone who sees that we can do both. We can both have tax fairness, and we can use the tax code to incentivize the investment that really does help the economy. That's the approach that she's taking in this campaign, and she'll continue talking about that.

Well, we certainly appreciate you coming here and answering those questions. Try to give us a better idea where you're coming from. Be well.

I appreciate you having me, Neil.

Click here to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page to catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You won't get it anywhere else.