Posted on 09/15/2024 9:00:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
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!
any new information on whether this story is real or sham?
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.
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.
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.”
Marxists always believe that.
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.
Mickey Mouse made the “journalists” do it.
Mickey Mouse made the “journalists” do it.
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.
“It is noteworthy that the affidavit was signed, notarized, and mailed out BEFORE the debate.”
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
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?
You’ve been gone for a while?
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.
If NYC it is one party consent.
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.