Rumors Flying That ABC Whistleblower Will Expose ABC News For Debate Rigging

Rumors are flying online that a whistleblower is going to come forward today in the form of a sworn Affidavit to expose the alleged “rigging” of the Debate in favor of Kamala Harris.

We don’t just publish rumors here, we investigate and give you the straight scoop — as best we can determine.

It all started yesterday when reports like this started to go viral online from some pretty big, normally reputable accounts:

BOMBSHELL REPORT: ABC whistleblower to reveal Harris campaign was given SAMPLE QUESTIONS that were essentially the same questions that were given during the debate..

Reports also indicate they were provided SEPERATE ASSURANCES Trump would be fact checked and Harris would NOT..

BREAKING: ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit claiming the Harris campaign was given sample questions that were “essentially the same questions that were given during the debate,” as well as assurances that Trump would be “fact-checked” and she would not.

Tony Seruga, a famous whistleblower himself, says there are actually FIVE whistleblowers now:

See new posts Conversation Tony Seruga @TonySeruga · 19h FACT! Now what is the RNC going to do about it?

This should END Kamala ‘Kameleon’ Harris’ campaign! Quote Leading Report @LeadingReport · 21h BREAKING: ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit claiming the Harris campaign was given sample questions that were “essentially the same questions that were given during the debate,” as well as assurances that Trump would be “fact-checked” and she would not.

There are actually 5 whistleblowers now. Even former Clinton adviser Mark Penn is calling for ABC to probe if there was some effort at "rigging the outcome of this debate." Additionally, a very short video is circulating of Linsey Davis who is a sorority sister of Kamala Harris, off the cuff, confirming they a]were in the same sorority on a live broadcast. She boasted that ‘relationship’ with colleagues but is now publicly saying they had never actually met but there are recent allegations from two of the whistleblowers that they have talked in private phone conversations in the past two weeks. This was discussed in an ABC News meeting regarding the debate where Dana Walden, a senior Disney executive whose portfolio includes ABC News, is one of Harris’ “extraordinary friends,”, was present virtually.

The whistleblowers are reportedly set to blow the lid on two key “rigging” claims:

1. The Harris campaign received sample questions that were nearly identical to those asked during the debate.

2. There was a promise that Donald Trump would be fact-checked, while Kamala Harris would not face any scrutiny.

Not only that, but former Bill Clinton advisor Mark Penn is calling for an investigation:

Mark Penn, a former top adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, called Thursday for ABC to launch a formal internal investigation into its news division’s planning and execution of this week’s presidential debate to determine if there was some effort at “rigging the outcome of this debate.”

ABC News came under significant bipartisan criticism because its moderators fact-checked some of Donald Trump’s statements but not a single pushback at any made by Kamala Harris.

Trump said Thursday that the debate was three-on-one and declined to participate in another one before the election.

Anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis moderated the first debate between Harris and Trump, which drew 67.1 million viewers, making it the most watched presidential debate since 2008. But it has drawn scorn from both Republicans and Democrats for giving the appearance of bias.

“I actually think they should do a full internal investigation, hire an outside law firm. I don’t know how much of this was planned in advance,” Penn told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast.

“I don’t know what they told the Harris campaign. I think the day after, suspicion here is really quite high, and I think a review of all their internal texts and emails really should be done by an independent party to find out to what extent they were planning on, in effect, you know, fact-checking just one candidate and in effect, rigging the outcome of this debate. I think the situation demands nothing less than that,” he added.

Penn, chairman of the Harvard CAPS Harris Poll, also said Harris has done a “good job” defining Trump as the incumbent and herself as the change candidate even though she’s the sitting vice president. But he described the mainstream media’s coverage of Harris’ campaign as laughable.

“It’s a 50-50, race. He’s [Trump] got more obvious tools to get across the finish line than she does and part of the thing here is that if the referees have their finger on the scale, it’s harder to, you know, break through and overcome. And certainly, general media coverage has been fairly laughable,” he said.

President Trump himself says he believes the “rigging” is “very likely” and says if it happened ABC’s news license should be TERMINATED:

As of right now, all I can tell you is there has been no whistleblower come forward yet, and the more time that passes the less likely that becomes.

I actually found a really good and well-balanced analysis of the issue in the video below and I think this is a very fair analysis.

Keep in mind, allegations that this debate was rigged started the moment the betting markets began implying that Donald Trump was losing the debate. Now, those are betting markets; they could be manipulated as well, and they fluctuate a lot. And yes, Kamala has pulled ahead in the betting markets. Some of the first rumors we heard were that Kamala Harris was wearing an earpiece and being fed information about what to say or zingers to say. Potentially, she was even wearing nano earrings that had a little speaker on them.

We’re going to get into this whistleblower complaint here, but that’s a major high risk. If you lose one of those, they fall down, and it’s just blatant evidence of cheating—it would be really bad. I don’t think that’s worth the risk. I think she had plenty of debate prep, and Donald Trump just didn’t prep as well as he should have. But let’s listen to these new whistleblower allegations to see if there’s any potential credibility here and what we should pay attention to.

There is now a serious allegation circulating that could totally be fake news, but we need to address it. There’s an allegation now circulating that somebody claiming to be an ABC whistleblower is going to, quote, “before the weekend release a signed affidavit,” alleging that the Harris campaign received or helped to draft the policy questions and debate questions that were asked during the debate between Trump and Harris, and that Harris was promised not to be fact-checked if she went on the ABC debate.

We have a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with where this speculation and rumor is coming from, and then I’ll give you my opinion on all of this. Keep in mind, it is coupon code expiration day. It actually expires in like 2 hours because, for some reason, we decided to do a 6:00 p.m. California time for it over at meetkevin.com. You know the drill—you get lifetime access; you pay once. You get to find out my multi-million dollar trade: soft landing or recession. It’s not a short; it’s actually a long position. It’s not a short, and it’s also not a bet against the Q’s, for example, or any individual stock. That’s why I think it can do well when and if we have a recession. I think it’ll do extremely well, and if we don’t have a recession, I also think it’ll do well. But obviously, there are ways it could do poorly as well. And if you want to sort of watch my positions change over time and discuss them with the course members, you pay once, you get lifetime access forever, and you’re guaranteed to get the lowest price. So as these sales expire, the price just goes up over time.

Alright, so Bill Amman quote-tweeted this, and this is where I saw it. Bill Amman tweeted, “If this turns out to be true, this is a serious breach of journalistic ethics and a death blow to the ABC Network’s reputation.” So at least Bill Amman is acknowledging that it could potentially not be true, which is something we have to consider at this point. This could be made up, and it could just be disinformation that’s being used to try to promote the Trump campaign right now. Rita here replies and says, “The way moderators conducted the debate was a serious breach and death blow to ABC’s reputation.”

Okay, so obviously, even since debate night, I was commenting on it. I was tweeting, “Hey, why does it seem like Trump has gotten fact-checked four or five times here?” Now, in fairness, some of the stuff that Trump was getting fact-checked on, he should have been fact-checked on, and some of the things he should not have been fact-checked on. So some of the fact-checks were wrong, and some of them were accurate. But Kamala Harris, when she made a misstatement, like for example, saying that Donald Trump suggested anti-Semites were very fine people—which we know isn’t true if you look up the quote. Trump said, “There are some people in the crowd who are very fine, and then there are others who are very evil.” Look up the quote yourself; look at the context. There was no fact-check of Kamala Harris.

Okay, we called that out immediately when it happened. So, we all saw the same debate; we knew this was likely to be a three-versus-one. There’s a reason why I tweeted, “Trump should have prepared more.” He knew this was going to be a three-versus-one debate but didn’t come as prepared as he should have been. That led Kamala Harris to land many attacks.

You know, I also argue that Taylor Swift is so good at branding. We all know she hates Trump, and by endorsing Harris after the debate, Swift implies she made her decision during the debate. And then I wrote, “Yeah, right, she was always for Harris, but brilliant branding move, implying she was waiting for the debate to make up her mind and therefore you’d be smart to make up your mind after the debate too.” I love Taylor Swift, but I called BS on that one.

Okay, 57 minutes into the debate, Trump has not talked about the future. ABC needed to stay neutral—they have not. They fact-checked Trump, and they stayed on hard for Trump topics longer. Right, Harris is doing well—not perfect, but respectable. She did very well. And, wow, ABC has fact-checked Trump at least three to four times now, zero fact-checks by ABC for Harris. Again, I didn’t have too many fact-checks, I will say, for Harris either, but there were definitely a few opportunities to fact-check her, and I called them out anytime I saw them. I’m like, “No, that’s wrong; that’s basic.” You saw me cover this live. There were more opportunities to fact-check Trump, but the fact that she got zero fact-checks, and he got four to five, is helping lead to the speculation that, okay, what kind of rigging was going on here?

Now, the allegation apparently—and this is where we have to really question the source of this—keep in mind, like, I don’t like this release. I think this is kind of… it potentially is true, but it’s also potentially total bullcrap. I hate how they’re setting this up. So, first of all, it’s “Black Insurrectionist I Follow Back True Patriots” is the account. Okay, so, so far the source is a little looney already. And when you scroll through their profile, most of their tweets or posts—since it’s now on X—are basically just all pro-Trump. “Here is how the left honors 9/11,” and, you know, implying more terrorism comes from Trump. “First it was DOS attacks, now the mail.” You know, basically, everything about this person’s channel is doing whatever Trump wants. Like, it almost sounds like an alt for Trump.

“Will you join me in calling phone number 202-225-27777, whatever? This is the number for Speaker Johnson. Please tell him to shut the government down unless the SAVE Act is passed. We need every single person who believes in fair elections to show them. Please join them.” It’s already illegal to vote in an election if you’re not a documented citizen. Obviously, the SAVE Act is designed to strengthen some of the prosecution here.

But the account is certainly not an unbiased source, right? This is clearly a pro-Trump account. It may even be a Trump campaign account. Nonetheless, they are now staking their account reputation on the following: “I will be releasing an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower regarding the debate.” Okay, now, first of all, an affidavit doesn’t necessarily mean anything. An affidavit is a sworn statement, but anybody can make a sworn statement. If you went to, you know, the cameraman at ABC and you’re like, “Hey, 500 grand to you or to your wife so nobody sees, or whatever, I need you to sign a sworn statement that you swear you know something,” it’s still not proof, right? Like, proof would be, here’s an email from ABC to the Kamala campaign. I’m just making an example of what proof would be; obviously, there could be other forms of proof, recordings, or whatever. A sworn affidavit is going to be on the weaker end of evidence. Actually, a sworn affidavit really isn’t evidence at all. As Judge Judy could say or would likely say, “Hearsay, even though it’s sworn, it could be complete BS.”

“I have just signed a non-disclosure agreement with the attorney of the whistleblower.” Okay, so if there’s an attorney of the whistleblower, is there going to be a lawsuit? Because if there’s going to be a lawsuit, then there’ll be evidence, and then we can actually go through it. “The affidavit states how the Harris campaign was given sample questions…” Okay, you can’t even have grammar flow here correctly. “…which were essentially the same questions that were given during the debate, and separate assurances of fact-checking Donald Trump and that she would not be fact-checked.” Well, it is true that she was not fact-checked, and it is true that Donald Trump was fact-checked, and we know ABC leans left. This is not evidence that ABC did release questions, nor is it evidence that ABC gave assurances that there would be fact-checking of Trump.

Accordingly, “the affidavit states several other factors that were built into the debate to give Kamala a significant advantage. I have seen and read the affidavit, and after the attorney blacks out the name of the whistleblower and other information that could dox the whistleblower, I will release the affidavit. I will be releasing the affidavit before the weekend is out.” Okay, so now if we have an anonymous affidavit and no evidence, we really have nothing. This could be complete fugazi. It could literally be Donald Trump that is the ABC whistleblower. “You know, I was there that night,” and it’s literally Donald Trump. So I take this with a substantial grain of salt.

Now, but I will say, would it surprise me that, you know, maybe verbally, the Harris campaign was given a promise not to be fact-checked? No, it wouldn’t surprise me. And would it surprise me that the Harris camp had some of the questions beforehand? No. But then again, let’s be real, do we really think that either campaign didn’t know these things would come up? I mean, think about the flow of the campaign. I mean, I certainly didn’t have any answers beforehand, and I knew Trump was going to get asked about abortion, and I knew he was going to f*** it up. That’s not a hard prediction to make. It’s not a hard prediction at all to make; it was actually pretty freaking obvious that Trump was going to get hit on abortion, and he was going to screw it up.

The flow of the debate was intro, intro, Trump, tariffs, after Trump tariffs, and some parts about the economy, we get into China and Taiwan, and then straight into abortion. All of these are super predictable topics. We get into IVF; we get into Afghanistan; we get into liability for presidents via the Supreme Court; we get into J6. None of this was a surprise. There was not a single surprise topic here. You could have prepared for all of this—fracking, oil, climate change, defund the police—come on. I could have written these questions. You could have written these questions. None of these questions were a surprise. Trump could have been substantially more prepared, and he chose not to be. That’s on him. I think it may have been an ego thing. But honestly, this debate is just going to blow over, and we’re still going to have a tight election here.

Now, Donald Trump apparently is now also coming out suggesting that not only should there be no tax on tips, but there should also be no tax on overtime pay. Now, boy, that would be really interesting because overtime pay is usually time-and-a-half to double-time pay, right? You work more than eight hours, you usually get time-and-a-half; you work more than 12 hours in a shift, you get double time—double pay. Dude, if you didn’t get paid tax, like if there was no tax on overtime pay, that would literally—I mean, think about this for a moment. Let’s say you make 30 bucks an hour, okay? 30 bucks an hour, and on overtime, you make $45 an hour. Well, divide that by your tax rate—so, you know, I don’t know—one minus your tax rate, call it 67%, and we’re going to divide it by that, saying you pay 33% of taxes. That means ordinarily you would have to make about $67 to be left with $45 after. So, in other words, if you were working time-and-a-half and that extra time was not taxed, it would be like working for $67 an hour at time-and-a-half. So normally your wage is $30 an hour; time-and-a-half not taxed would be like $67 an hour. Double time not taxed would actually be like 3x pay, and it’d make a lot of people want to work overtime, that’s for d*** sure.

So, interesting. Can any of these presidential plans from Harris or Trump actually really pass? Well, they’d really need to sweep, and they’d need to have some form of majority. I think there’s a higher likelihood of Republicans controlling the House and the Senate, just because of where the dynamics sit right now— which seats are up for grabs, seats that Democrats might not hold on to, or Republicans might win. But it’s a toss-up right now in terms of who’s going to win the election. So you’re probably going to have a divided government, and you’re probably going to be in a situation where a lot of these big plans don’t go through anyway. But we’ll see. It’s certainly not going to be like 2008, where you had 60 votes in the Senate for Democrats, and you were able to basically have a filibuster-proof majority and you could slam dunk whatever you want, like the Affordable Care Act or otherwise, you know, Obamacare.

We’ll see. Either way, I saw this news and wanted to cover it. We got a coupon code expiring in 2 hours. Thank you so much for watching; we’ll see you in the next one. Go to meetkevin.com to learn more. If you have questions, or for some reason you missed the coupon, whatever, email us at staff@meetkevin.com. Thanks. Bye.

Why not advertise these things that you told us here? I feel like nobody else knows about this. We’ll try a little advertising and see how it goes.

Congratulations! You have done so much. People love you. People look up to you, Kevin.

PA there, financial analyst and YouTuber, Meet Kevin. Always great to get your take. Even though I’m a licensed financial adviser, licensed real estate broker, and becoming a stockbroker, this video is not personalized advice for you. It is not tax, legal, or otherwise personalized advice tailored to you. This video provides generalized perspective, information, and commentary. Any third-party content I show shall not be deemed endorsed by me. This video is not and shall never be deemed reasonably sufficient information for the purposes of evaluating a security or investment decision. Any link or promoted products are either paid affiliations or products or services we may benefit from. I also personally operate an actively managed ETF. I may personally hold or otherwise hold long or short positions in various securities, potentially including those mentioned in this video. However, I have no relationship to any issuer other than House Hack, nor am I presently acting as a market maker. Make sure if you’re considering investing in House Hack to always read the PPM at househack.com.

In this kind of digital “news cycle” they are trying to quash this— on Friday data dump so it doesn’t spill over to Staphylococcus’s show on Sunday and all other of the nearly meaningless mainstream networks. The main network handling this is X— the one where the interview with Elon went to data shown 30 million minimum in the US and total of nearly 90 million. Real penetration of a market ka-muimalo-la cannot break.

It will come out and verified- tend to doubt there are 5 whistleblowers but perhaps so- and they may all be in a bidding war for a payoff— disney are such whores, and queers all over. Penn- was clinton’s go to clown on top you will recall. Plouffe (obamaumao’s boy) is running kamuimalola’s debacle (so no doubt Penn is “helping” to nacht und nebel the entire expose).

Waiting for the actual whistle-blower affidavit to show up. Until then, this is a nothing-burger.

Until then it is a distraction from the many PROVABLE issues with the debate and coverage following.

For the record, I have had my attorney put a call into @Abc advising them that myself and possibly others will be releasing the whistleblower affidavit over the weekend. The ABC denials that have been put out thus far have not denied giving the Harris campaign "Sample" questions…— Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS (@DocNetyoutube) September 13, 2024

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.