Notarization means nothing regarding the truth of the statements, it only means that a notary witnessed the signature and attest to that signature being consistent with some id information presented at the time or that the person signing is personally known to the notary. This document does not appear to be part of any court proceeding - so there is no further assurance of its validity. I’m not saying its false, but this, by itself is proof of almost nothing. If it was filed in a federal court, there would be perjury and Rule 11 sanctions potential that would suggest its credibility. But this is just a piece of paper.
I took the notarization as being in place to prove the date of signing
These documents were created BEFORE the “debate”, apparently.
Yes all true. Except that he signed it 2 or 3 days before the debate, and sent out multiple copies with time stamped tracking data before the debate, including one copy to the Speaker of the House. That helps his credibility. It suggests he knew the fix was in before the debate even happened.
What you neglect to mention or do not understand it is the date of the notarization that validates the affidavit. It was notorized BEFORE the debate and predicted exactly what happened which is especially damning to ABC.
Do you think that the affidavit predicting exactly what happened adds to its veracity?
> by itself is proof of almost nothing <
Yep. The whistleblower document that I saw had every name blacked out, including the name of the notary.
Do I think there was collusion between ABC and the Harris team? You betcha. But as it stands today, that document is little more than a conversation piece.
I know itβs risky. But itβs past time for the whistleblower to do the right thing. He needs to put all his cards on the table.
ππππ ππ‘π’π₯πππ«π¬ (ππ’π―π’π₯ ππππ¨π«π§ππ²) π¦ππ€ππ¬ π¬π¨π¦π π―ππ«π² π¬ππ₯π’ππ§π ππ§π π’π§πππ«ππ¬ππ’π§π π©π¨π’π§ππ¬ π¨π§ ππ‘π’π¬. π π‘ππ―π ππ¨π©π’ππ π‘π’π¦ π―ππ«ππππ’π¦ πππ₯π¨π°:
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 βIβm going with βhe,β but we donβt know for sureβ then referred to liberal changes in ABCβs editorial policies since 1996 β 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.
Itβs 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, letβs 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 canβt 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:
β sent a certified letter containing the affidavit to himself, postmarked September 9th, which remains unopened;
β dispatched a FedEx package with the affidavit on September 9th, delivered to his residence on September 10th, which remains unopened; and
β 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 affidavitβs most potentially explosive claim, the whistleblower claimed he has recordings:
image 6.png
That allegation of recordings must make ABCβs lawyers extremely nervous. They donβt 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:
β Trump would be aggressively fact-checked, and Harris wouldnβt be fact-checked at all.
β Harris would not be asked any questions about covering up for Joe Bidenβs dementia.
β Harris would not be asked any questions about her record as Californiaβs Attorney General.
β 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 βBβ) of taxpayer dollars and is being floated for Attorney General in a Harris Administration.
β Harris received secret, pre-debate βsample questionsβ that were not exactly the same as the questions she was asked but were close enough to let her prepare canned responses.
β Harris got other accommodations, such as a special podium and promises of favorable split-screen coverage.
β Trump got no accommodations.
You missed the point completely.