Posted on 09/16/2024 5:23:56 PM PDT by Nicojones
ABC News has yet to comment on a document said to be from an anonymous 'whistleblower' that claims there was close collaboration between the network and Kamala Harris’s team before the debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
> What you neglect to mention or do not understand it is the date of the notarization that validates the affidavit <
The document that I saw had the notary’s name blacked out. In such a case, the date means nothing. With no notary’s name, we don’t know if the document was even properly notarized.
If someone (maybe Speaker Johnson) can produce an unredacted document, that would be huge.
My complaint is not with the allegation. I’d bet my retirement account that there was collusion. My complaint is with the whistleblower not hitting hard and fast.
I dunno. Maybe there is a strategic reason for these half-measures. But my fear is that the public will lose interest as time goes on.
that’s a great tweet. press hard on these aholes
Well... As we all know, "It's not a crime when a Democrat does it".
Well we do have the witness of Black Insurrectionist, the poster on X who’s working with the whistleblower and breaking all of this online. Presumably he’s seen the original unredacted documents.
“Where is Donna Brazile these days?”
Golden Corral line?
If it’s election interference, wouldn’t it be a crime?
Only if it’s a republican doing it. If it’s a democrat, it’s a duty.
“they immediately jumped on the Twitter reports several days ago and refuted the debate was rigged, this is not a good look.”
The people in the propaganda media are word specialists. One of the things they do best is not answer the question asked. They answer something else so that when the answer to the original question is actually no, they can say yes, but not directly. Perhaps it is something in the definition of the word “rigged”.
WOW are you okay? That seems to be some warped thinking, IMO.
I think ABC (and any outlets that defended them or refused to consider that they acted with malfeasance) is hoping to ignore this entire situation as long as possible. With their efforts to conspire against DJT, I expect they will succeed at making America forget the debate was rigged. JMHO
If they REALLY wanted this to be a STORY, they’d have put the whistleblower on Fox, Newsmax, The Blaze, Rumble, YouTube, livestream it in Twitter, and a dozen other platforms. Issue press releases, flood the media, post the unredacted notarized statement online, have Trump bring him to a rally, interviews on Andrew Wilkow on XM Patriot, book him in Joe Rogan.
Instead, we (once again) get a knee-jerk slobberfest over some rando pushing hopium on concerned Americans, followed by “just wait…”
Over the past 5 years we have seen oodles of these charlatans, with the end result being nothing burgers and our side looking gullible. Remember the kraken we were supposed to see in late 2020?
Yea, the MSM lies. That doesn’t mean every alternative media jackwagon with a Twitter account is the next Buckhead.
I would think that if there was nothing to it they would have issued an unambiguous denial.
“he says he has recordings, they won’t know what lies to tell.”
The O’Keefe method.
:)
Has any of their partners in propaganda pulled out the ‘baseless’ ‘debunked’ defense of ABC yet?
𝐉𝐞𝐟𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 (𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲) 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰:
In the potentially explosive affidavit, a whistleblower (name redacted), first stated he lives in Manhattan and has worked for ABC for over ten years in various technical and management positions. He —I’m going with ‘he,’ but we don’t know for sure— then referred to liberal changes in ABC’s editorial policies since 1996 — suggesting he has worked at ABC for a long time.
He claimed ABC has a massive anti-Trump bias, and then described details about close, unfair pre-debate coordination between ABC and the Harris campaign.
It’s important to remember that anyone can type up and sign an affidavit. Affidavits are considered evidence, but they are subject to rebuttal, and are evaluated for credibility. So, before we look at the claims, let’s consider the most remarkable and most credible feature of this affidavit: it was prepared, signed, and notarized before the September 10th debate.
The affidavit accurately predicted, ahead of time, exactly what we all saw play out the next day. You can’t get any more credible than that.
True, the pre-debate date could have been faked. But the whistleblower anticipated that challenge, and so (according to the affidavit), he also:
— sent a certified letter containing the affidavit to himself, postmarked September 9th, which remains unopened;
— dispatched a FedEx package with the affidavit on September 9th, delivered to his residence on September 10th, which remains unopened; and
— sent a certified letter with the affidavit to Speaker Mike Johnson on September 9th.
Call all that life insurance. (Initial online rumors he died in a car crash were just that, and my best is intentional disinformation.)
In other words, the whistleblowing affiant can prove he signed his prophetic affidavit before the debate. But he offered even more evidence. In the affidavit’s most potentially explosive claim, the whistleblower claimed he has recordings:
image 6.png
That allegation of recordings must make ABC’s lawyers extremely nervous. They don’t know exactly what they can safely lie about.
Now for the claims. The whistleblower claimed that the Harris campaign insisted on certain secret conditions, to which ABC agreed, including that:
— Trump would be aggressively fact-checked, and Harris wouldn’t be fact-checked at all.
— Harris would not be asked any questions about covering up for Joe Biden’s dementia.
— Harris would not be asked any questions about her record as California’s Attorney General.
— Harris would not be asked about her brother-in-law Tony West, a former top Obama DOJ official and Uber executive, who was alleged to have helped embezzle billions (with a ‘B’) of taxpayer dollars and is being floated for Attorney General in a Harris Administration.
— Harris received secret, pre-debate “sample questions” that were not exactly the same as the questions she was asked but were close enough to let her prepare canned responses.
— Harris got other accommodations, such as a special podium and promises of favorable split-screen coverage.
— Trump got no accommodations.
It’s just a matter of time.
We don't really know what went on with "the kraken".
What I DO know about that story is that there was no way on God's green earth that we were going to see any evidence of the very real vote fraud.
There were threats a-plenty behind closed doors. This was a matter of the life-and-death of our phony government, phony courts and phony "elections".
The kind where you tell the people that want to spill the beans what's going to happen to them, their families and their friends if they don't stand down.
You know very well who we're dealing with, DoodleBob.
yep, strange that ABC is silent…. Makes them look guilty!
I do.
I also know when I’m being strung along.
The most credible story of Trump’s election 2020 unraveling came from Patrick Byrne.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3931465/posts
I find Byrne to be a bit of a self-aggrandizer. But his description of what happened and went wrong rings (largely) true.
If so, the reality is less sensational….there was no Deep State threat, no Spy vs Spy drama, no Michael Corleone in the wings. Basically, Trump put the football into the hands of friends who were not capable of winning.
As I wrote then, I still think Powell got caught up in the moment - the Kracken comment and countless times she was on TV swearing she’s not trying this case in the court of public opinion, torpedoed many people’s opinions of her. Including me...I want my lawyer to be competent, not a showboater. That’s why I believe Byrne gravitated to Powell...affinity-bias.
I do NOT believe there was a Deep State threat - there was no need. Powell imploded. That answer is less juicy, but it’s closer to the truth.
Do I think ABC et al colluded with the Harris camp? Yes. Do I believe the moderators were biased? You bet. Do I think Harris is the most incompetent, bumbling Veep since Dan Quayle and would be a terrible President? Unequivocally.
Do I think this notarized statement is a distraction? Yes…I hope I’m wrong. But I suspect I’m not.
That gets a big Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm from me.
And yes, I am familiar with Patrick Byrne's stuff on 2020.
It’s most telling that the other networks ARE NOT covering this. Think about it: if your competitor was showing a sign of weakness, you’d naturally go after that weakness. NBC, CBS, and the rest would be giving their eye-teeth to take a swing at ABC. But... nope! And, of course, we all know why but hey! that’s just a stupid conspiracy theory.
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.