Signed Affidavit By ABC Whistleblower On Rigged Debate

X ^ | 9/15/2024

[CrosscutSaw]

Here are the 6 pages of the affidavit for easier sharing. I made an error in the original posting. I duplicated page 5. I would also like to note that there are several pages after the verification page that were specifics about the job the whistleblower did and a transcript of the recordings he had made. The transcripts are even worse than the affidavit.

[PIF]

We learn that Tony West, Kamala’ brother who may be included in her putative administration, faces allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in tax-payer funds.

Another Democrat crime family.

[Brown Deer]

[dware]

Something about this feels fishy. This whole thing has broke through the “black insurrectionist”. I have no idea who this is, and I tend to pay close attention.

[Yardstick]

Wonder why this is being released by “Black Insurrectionist” on X? Does anyone know who this person is?

[cgbg]

We will know soon enough—no need to be concerned about whether this is legit at this point.

It is a data point—could mean a lot, could mean nothing.

[CTyank]

They said the same about Drudge back in the day.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

To make it easier to read, I extracted the relevant and substantive items from the affidavit pdf document below. It's very damning.

1.) My name is [redacted]. I reside at [redacted] New York.

2.) I have worked for ABC news for over 10 years in various technical and administrative positions.

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

4.) For the record, I do not endorse Donald Trump in his capacity as candidate for President of the United States. The intent of this affidavit is to address concerns regarding perceived biases within news reporting within my employer's debate that will be hosted on September 10,2024

1. Observations on Debate Communication: Since the debate of President Trump and Vice President Harris had been announced to be broadcast on ABC, various members of staff had expressed hope of a debate where issues that were important to everyday Americans would be discussed and there had been promises made that the candidates would be held to firm discussions regarding their proposed policy stances and that the debate would not deteriorate into an ad campaign whereas both candidates would simply make blanket statements without specific policy or explanation as to [redacted].

2. Political Position Clarification: Many employees of ABC who were looking for a fair and honest debate questioned the clear biased that is well known throughout the company. It is common knowledge that Debate Moderators as well as Chief Executive Officers of my employer are well known not to support Donald Trump, this led to several employees speaking up in regards to how fair the debate was going to be. We were given assurances that the debate would be fair and neither the Harris campaign nor the Trump campaign would [redacted] unfair advantage.

3. Concerns Regarding Journalistic Integrity: It is my belief that contemporary news organizations, including ABC News, no longer adhere to impartiality. The influence of commercial interests and substantial donors appears to affect news presentation, resulting in selective reporting and biased narratives. I have personally witnessed news stories being cut from programming and not reported at all due to the influence of certain corporations linked to our parent company

4. Observations Pertaining to Debate Fairness: I have noted specific instances related to the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris that raise concerns about procedural fairness: The specific instances of perceived bias are as follows

• The Harris campaign received particular accommodations, including, but not limited to, the providing of a podium significantly smaller than that used by Donald Trump, and assurances regarding split-screen television views that would favorably impact Kamala Harris's appearance relative to Donald Trump.

• It was agreed that Donald Trump would be subjected to factchecking during the debate, while Kamala Harris would not face comparable scrutiny. This was widely known throughout the company that Donald Trump would be fact checked. In fact, various people were assigned to fact check observations it was perceived candidate Trump would make during the debate. In fact, Harris campaign required assurances that Donald Trump would be fact checked. This was done via multiple communications with the Harris campaign whereas the Trump campaign was not included in the negotiations. To my understanding, any rules negotiations and conversations pertaining to the debate should have had both the Trump and Harris campaign involved, the Harris campaign had numerous more calls regarding the debate rules without the Trump campaign aware or on the call.

• The Harris campaign was provided with sample questions that, while not the exact questions, covered similar topics that would appear during the debate.

• Furthermore, the Harris campaign-imposed restrictions on the scope of questioning, including:

- No questions regarding the perceived health of 
President Joe Biden.

- No inquiries related to her tenure as Attorney General in San Francisco.

- No questions concerning her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and who may be involved in her administration if elected.

5. Internal Organizational Climate: I have observed a pronounced bias against Donald Trump within ABC News. Employees expressing favorable views towards him experience significant concerns about potential retribution.

6. Purpose and Documentation of Affidavit: This affidavit is executed to document and provide transparency regarding the issues of fairness and impartiality in the debate process and broader concerns about journalistic integrity at ABC News.

[Leaning Right]

I get why a whistleblower would want to remain anonymous. But that X posting has no names. Even the name of the notary is blacked out.

So as such, it is next to worthless. Heck, any competent high school kid could have made a similar document as a prank. And I say that with regret. For the good of the country this story needs real traction.

[R_Kangel]

.... There are reports this morning that this whistleblower died in a car crash. If true ... the timing of the accident would be a tiny bit suspect.

.

[italianquaker]

True or not a lil investigation would be nice
Now let me go admire my lawn

[eclectic]

Big if true

[cpdiii]

This one of two things.

1. The truth and it is devastating for Kamala.
2. A false flag operation to be blamed on Trump.

? ? ? ?

[Labyrinthos]

There is a disconnect between paragraph 2 and paragraph 3: The whistleblower has only worked for ABC for 10 years, but claims he has observed “significant transformations in the nature of news reporting at the organization since the acquisition of ABC in 1996.”

[CrosscutSaw]

Thank you!

[DocRock]

Ping

[CrosscutSaw]

Thank you!

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Good catch! I missed that. That would appear to be a huge disconnect, wouldn’t it? How do you reconcile 28 years vs. 10 years?

[notdownwidems]

It says, “I have worked for ABC for OVER ten years”... could easily be since 1996.

[philippa]

Perhaps the whistleblower is talking about changes he observed just by watching the news, before he worked there. Most of us here observed the same thing.