Well my apologies, you argue like a liberal: It's Trump, so it can't be true.

I also don't fall into the game of believing everything put out, and will think for myself, but that is a lot of effort put in by someone to be a lie. Literally putting their life at stake

I hope Congress does something, but I don't have faith they will. If it's fake, I'll eat my crow, no problem, but this thing has a legs, and just assessing how our extremely biased media handles things no way anyone would have done anything before hand.

The democrat way is Shout the lie whisper the truth. All of heels statements have proven to be lies and whispers about that now,but this comes out against her and posters like you say, well that's a lie. That's why I made my comments but happy to apologize for assumptions

No one has any response to the question. If this was legit, and this person was so concerned about election tampering, why didn't the Trump campaign have access to it before the debate?

Pretty simple question.

Fwiw, I don't think she was fed the questions because she basically didn't answer them. She had a rolodex of memorized mini-speeches that she would recite vs giving answers. That said, she absolutely benefitted from no pushback on not answering, no fact checking, no truly tough questions, and she had the moderators on her side jumping only Trump. We don't need an affidavit for that. We all saw it. And IMO, it is just as egregious as giving her the questions.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

So a person signs an affidavit stating these things, swears to be willing to testify before Congress, putting their own life at risk (yes heels will have them killed) mind you, sends copies , certified copies that is, to themselves and others for proof during investigation, but it's fake because their name is redacted. That's a lot of effort for fake.

---

You also don't know what fake is.

You've seen nothing that says that a real person has sworn to testify before congress, and has sent any certified anything to anyone.

You've seen a nameless faceless document that hasn't been verified by ANYONE, saying that they did that, which no one can verify that. And they chose NOT to do that before the debate.

Mhmmm. Smells legit.

---

The whistleblower not only made sure his affidavit was dated the day before the debate, he sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson postmarked return receipt the day before the debate and will agree to testify in front of Congress if Mike Johnson requests. He has also unopened…

— Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS (@DocNetyoutube) September 15, 2024

Apparently, they did send it before the debate

.

"Apparently", or "Allegedly"?

Again- your source is a MAGA crazed Twitter feed.

If this was real- why wasn't it sent to the appropriate parties, which would include the Trump party.

If this alleged person sent it to the Trump party and it were real, they would have been all over that.

None of those things happened.

If you want to move the goal that's fine. You asked why they didn't send it out prior to the debate and the source says they did.

We'll find out how true it is over the next few days one way or another.

Exactly what would you have Trump do with this information? Claim it's rigged? Refuse to go on? I honestly think the right move was to expose ABC for who they are and let them go through with it.

aggiedent said:

---

There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.

It's such a ridiculous excuse.

---

I understand your point, but if you have the questions in advance in the order that are coming, it's a very different approach to being prepared. Also, if you know that the moderators are going to fact check Trump you can make comments, hoping he responds in a certain way that would create the fact check opportunity. Think about that for a moment.

Quote:

---

If you want to move the goal that's fine. You asked why they didn't send it out prior to the debate and the source says they did.

We'll find out how true it is over the next few days one way or another.

Exactly what would you have Trump do with this information? Claim it's rigged? Refuse to go on? I honestly think the right move was to expose ABC for who they are and let them go through with it.

---

I didn't move it at all. I said if it was real, someone would have have the "affidavit" before the debate. It's only existence, or saying that someone had it before, is crazed MAGA Twitter accounts.

If it had any legitimacy, whatsoever, Trump's campaign leaks it beforehand. And then frequently pounds the mods about why they aren't fact checking her during her rebuttal time.

Boom. Easiest strategy in the history of playbooks.

20ag07 said:

---

"Apparently", or "Allegedly"?

Again- your source is a MAGA crazed Twitter feed.

If this was real- why wasn't it sent to the appropriate parties, which would include the Trump party.

If this alleged person sent it to the Trump party and it were real, they would have been all over that.

None of those things happened.

---

If he sent it to Trump you'd claim Trump was a sore loser and making it up.

Isosceles_Kramer said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

So dumb that people will believe this redacted "affidavit" is legitimate, and not a fake thing after the fact.

If such a person was so concerned that they had facts, that they needed to go get an "affidavit" THE DAY BEFORE the debate, then why wouldn't this have been released to the Trump campaign, so they could 1) adjust, 2) pull out, 3) release beforehand.

Mhmmm. If it was real, it would have happened before, given the dates of the clearly fake "affidavit"

---

---

Isosceles_Kramer said:

---

Wow

You're going to pull a muscle with these mental gymnastics

"the totalitarian government, known as the Party, instructs citizens to reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears"

---

What mental gymnastics. I had the same question. Why not warn Trump ahead of time?

GenericAggie said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.

It's such a ridiculous excuse.

---

I understand your point, but if you have the questions in advance in the order that are coming, it's a very different approach to being prepared. Also, if you know that the moderators are going to fact check Trump you can make comments, hoping he responds in a certain way that would create the fact check opportunity. Think about that for a moment.

---

^
^
Kamala and ABC were collaborating in a good cop/bad cop type of way.