By Andrea Widburg
The Black Insurrectionist did the legwork and obtained what appears to be a duly signed affidavit from an ABC employee attesting under oath to the network’s staggering corruption to ensure that Kamala Harris won her single debate against Donald Trump. Secret negotiations, bias, squashed issues, sample questions…it’s all there. Of course, we have only this unknown employee’s sworn assertion that these things happened but, if they did…oh my!
Here’s the tweet with the somewhat redacted affidavit:
The introductory material in the affidavit says that the employee is a technical and administrative worker who is not endorsing Trump. He (or she) simply wants want all Americans want—a fair debate allowing Americans to hear what the candidates have to say on the issues that matter most. The key substantive allegations (which currently have no verification other than this sworn testimony) are as follows:
The important people at ABC involved in the debate were known to be biased, which worried employees:
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 the Trump campaign would [redacted] unfair advantage.
In fact, nothing was fair.
ABC allegedly agreed to Kamala’s demands for accommodations so that she would not appear at a visual disadvantage compared to Trump (accommodations that our geo-political opponents such as Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-un won’t be making):
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.
ABC News allegedly ensured Kamala’s team that it would make every effort to fact-check anything Donald Trump said. (What’s implied, although not stated, is that no such effort would be made to fact-check Kamala.) The Trump campaign was shut out of these negotations.
It was agreed that Donald Trump would be subjected to fact-checking 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.
While Kamala did not receive the exact question the moderators asked, she allegedly received sample questions so she’d know generally what to expect. This assertion, if true, explains the very careful language ABC used when it denied any allegations that it gave Kamala the questions before the debate: “Harris was not given any questions before the debate.”
The Harris campaign was provided with sample questions that, while not the exact questions, covered similar topics that would appear during the debate.
Kamala allegedly put several topics off limits, including Joe Biden’s mental state, her time as Attorney General in San Francisco (this probably means her stint as District Attorney in San Francisco, when she convicted hundreds of low-level drug offenders, most of whom were black), and her brother-in-law, Tony West, the man who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to hard-left NGOs.
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.
The affidavit closes by saying, among other things, that the affiant “sent a certified letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, dated September 9th, 2024, to establish a record that the correspondence was sent before the debate commenced.” And—what should worry ABC and Kamala’s campaign—the affiant claims to
have secretly recorded several conversations that will prove that the Harris Campaign insisted upon not only the Fact Checking of Donald Trump, but also insisted on what questions were not to be asked under any circumstances or else the Harris campaign would decline to participate in the debate.
Again, we currently have only one unnamed source, although that person seems to have been willing to subject himself or herself to the penalty of perjury. Moreover, she or he may have recordings to back this up. If you want additional corroboration for the claimed bias, Linsey Davis admitted that she went out of her way to “fact check” Trump (although, as it turns out, Trump was factually correct, and Kamala was wrong).
It’ll be interesting to see whether the dam now breaks with other people coming forward to back up these accusations. It will be even more interesting to learn whether Americans care that a major media outlet allegedly connived with the Democrat candidate to throw the debate her way and destroy Donald Trump.