BREAKING: ABC Whistleblower Says Harris Camp Allegedly 'Restricted the Scope' of Trump Debate Questions

Red State ^ | 09/15/24 | Becca Lower

[SeekAndFind]

Late last week, there was word that an ABC News whistleblower was set to expose both the network and the Kamala Harris presidential campaign for allegedly rigging the network's Sept. 10th debate in the Democrat nominee's favor and against former President Donald Trump. The information that they said would be revealed was that Harris was given advance notice on what questions would be asked, and that Trump would be fact-checked live.

Now, the whistleblower has released a sworn, notarized statement, which is dated Sept. 9, 2024--the day before the debate. They say the Kamala Harris campaign allegedly "restricted the scope" of the ABC News debate questions, that the campaign allegedly demanded that only Donald Trump would be fact-checked during the debate:

BREAKING.🚨

ABC News whistleblower swears under penalty of perjury that the Kamala Harris campaign dictated the terms of the questions during the presidential debate.

Furthermore, the Harris campaign insisted upon live "fact checking" of Donald Trump during the debate.

ABC News "fact checked" Trump at least five times and did not fact check Harris once, despite the Democratic candidate telling provable lies, such as the "fine people hoax" and the blo*dbath hoax."

The whistleblower signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, the notarized document states.

The unnamed individual states that he or she is in possession of secret recordings that will prove that ABC News rigged the presidential debate.

ABC News committed election interference. This is a MASSIVE scandal.

pic.twitter.com/vRvaOdgUln— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) September 15, 2024

The whistleblower wrote:

I have worked for ABC news [sic] for over 10 years in various technical and administrative positions.

Since the acquisition ABC news [sic] in 1996, I have observed significant transformations there in the nature of news reporting at the organization. These changes suggest a shift from unbiased reporting to a model influenced by external factors.

They also clarified the purpose of releasing the statement and information, stating in the document that they "do not endorse Donald Trump in his capacity as candidate for President of the United States," but are sharing it "to address concerns regarding perceived biases within news reporting within my employer's debate that will be hosted on September 10, 2024."

They said that the Harris campaign "imposed restrictions on the scope of questioning." They allegedly included "no questions regarding the perceived health of President Joe Biden," "no inquiries related to her tenure as Attorney General in San Francisco," and "no questions concerning her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and who now may be involved in her administration if elected."

The whistleblower added that they sent several copies to themselves, and a copy has been sent to Speaker Mike Johnson. They also claim to have secret recordings buttressing the claim on the fact-checking stipulation, and "what questions were not to be asked under any circumstances," or the Harris campaign would not appear at the debate.

As this is a breaking story, RedState will provide updates as they become available.

Editor's Note: The story was edited for clarity after publication.

---

Read related:

Quiet Part Out Loud? ABC Debate Co-Moderator Makes Eye-Opening Admission on Why They Fact-Checked Trump

[kiryandil]

The Gaslight Media and their Democrats believe that Power is their Divine Right, and that it’s OK for them to seize it by any means necessary.

[lee martell]

Why would they not control what questions were asked, if they were permitted to do so?
Their cheating was sided and abetted by the network, probably enthusiastically!

[nathanbedford]

any new information on whether this story is real or sham?

[lasereye]

The unnamed individual states that he or she is in possession of secret recordings that will prove that ABC News rigged the presidential debate.

Unless he/she releases the recordings soon it will tend to make him/her less credible. There doesn't seem to be any reason to withhold them - unless they broke a law by making or obtaining them. If that is the case why reveal that they are in possession of them? It does them no good.

[cockroach_magoo]

any new information on whether this story is real or sham?

Remember "believe all whistleblowers?" By Democrat standards, it shouldn't matter who the whistleblower is, or whether the accusation has any merit.

Reasonable people (i.e. non-Democrats) actually want to get to the truth, but it's important to remember where we'd be if the shoe were on the other foot.

[BenLurkin]

Somebody ask her these questions. Maybe she really wants them to asked.

“no questions regarding the perceived health of President Joe Biden,” “no inquiries related to her tenure as Attorney General in San Francisco,” and “no questions concerning her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and who now may be involved in her administration if elected.”

[Bullish]

The Gaslight Media and their Democrats believe that Power is their Divine Right, and that it’s OK for them to seize it by any means necessary.

Marxists always believe that.

[nikos1121]

If this is a sham then it’s a pretty good one.

Do we have the name of the attorney, as that would give some credence to its authenticity.

[Chgogal]

Mickey Mouse made the “journalists” do it.

[Chgogal]

Mickey Mouse made the “journalists” do it.

[nikos1121]

Did you see this?

“It is noteworthy that the affidavit was signed, notarized, and mailed out BEFORE the debate.”

This was sent out before the debate took place.

I think that pretty much tells me that it is legit.

EVErything he says is true.

I noticed how the camera angles favored her esp when she was talking and pointing her finger at him at the precise time she gave a critical shot to him, like when she said he was a disgrace to the military or something to that effect. At the precise moment you get a wide angle shot of both of them, as if the director asks for the shot just then.

[nikos1121]

“It is noteworthy that the affidavit was signed, notarized, and mailed out BEFORE the debate.”

[Political Junkie Too]

The only area of criticism that I initially saw that could be used to discredit this person is mentioning "Attorney General of San Francisco." Cities don't have Attorneys General, they have District Attorneys. States have an Attorney General and Harris was both.

This was probably a mental brain freeze while crafting the document. The whistleblower probably meant DA in San Francisco and put in Attorney General by mistake, and the brain didn't see the mistake during proofreading because Harris held both positions in her career in California.

Still, we know how the LAAP-dog media will grasp onto a piece of minutiae and treat it like it was the whole thing in order to discredit it. They will say that if this person were really an ABC News insider for "more than 10 years," he or she would have known the difference, and therefore the whole thing is a fake and is...

...debunked.

That's just how they roll.

-PJ

[nikos1121]

Hmmm, I think you’re right.

Didn’t the WB say sometime ahead of releasing the affidavit, that he had an attorney? It seems to me, until he names an attorney, the whole thing is suspect.

OTOH, he predicted everything that happened pretty much.

Now the other thing, the WB could still have concocted the scam, ie putting together a “phony” affidavit that was postmarked September 9, when in reality it was released after the 10th.

The real proof will be if Johnson and the others received the affidavit postmarked the 9th.

If Johnson confirms that he received a postmarked September 9th affidavit, then that pretty much seals it for me, that the WB is real.

What do you think?

[nikos1121]

I went ahead and posted this.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4265077/posts

[Does so]

You’ve been gone for a while?

[enduserindy]

Where would this employee have an office to over hear or take part in this? What are the recording laws of that state? That’s all I’ve got and it’s late.

[enduserindy]

If NYC it is one party consent.

[nathanbedford]

Father time might take a half step but the passion remains, always lurking.