[wildcard_redneck]

"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 it's 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."

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?

[laconic]

Anyone who watched the debate and had an ounce of intelligence could tell it was stacked by the ABC network and its biased “moderators” against Trump, with him being called for fact checking and not Kamala, him being interrupted and not Kamala, him being shown side by side to enhance Kamala’s position and height, him being derided and her respected, him being the victim of lies told by the moderators and not her. The sworn affidavit explains this biased corruption of a “debate” that we could all openly see and the one-sided fact checking was confirmed by words out of the mouth of the female moderator, Kamala’s sorority sister. So its not a big surprise, just further confirmation which is very helpful in scoping the truth out about the utter lack of objectivity in the “news” business.

[Leaning Right]

> 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.