Cibalo said:

---

Just did a Google search on this and no MSM is taking about it. I suspect they won't touch it unless it is proven to such an undeniable point they have to mention it and spin it as no big deal.

However if Trump was accused of thus it would be national headlines. Regardless of how much factual info they have.

---

Hit the nail on the head!

Quote:

---

Affidavit filed the day before the debate with several key details that were confirmed in the debate.

---

Again- no affidavit has been "filed" anywhere. A heavily redacted document that could be faked in 10 minutes after the fact, has been socialized. Copies of the "document", allegedly saying it was sent by certified mail to the speaker the day before. But you sure don't see pics of that piece of mail, do you?

If it was real- why wasn't the redacted version released beforehand?

C'mon.

I could literally, tomorrow, go get an affidavit that says "I believe LogosSticks and aggiehawg are posting things on the internet that aren't true", have it notarized, redact all personal information, and send it via certified mail to myself, Speaker Johnson, and the media, before the debate.

I haven't perjured myself. I haven't filed anything (which nothing has been). And I haven't shown anyone proof of who I am, or when such recorded documents were recorded/sent.

If it were real, everything relevant wouldn't be redacted.

Has Speaker Johnson commented yet?

Why doesn't the whistleblower release the tapes he has?

aggiehawg said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

I could literally, tomorrow, go get an affidavit that says "I believe LogosSticks and aggiehawg are posting things on the internet that aren't true", have it notarized, redact all personal information, and send it via certified mail to myself, Speaker Johnson, and the media, before the debate.

I haven't perjured myself. I haven't filed anything (which nothing has been). And I haven't shown anyone proof of who I am, or when such recorded documents were recorded/sent.

If it were real, everything relevant wouldn't be redacted.

---

And that would be called, subornation of perjury since you solicited the affidavit and perhury by the affiant you solicited.

But by all means, carry on.

---

What's the perjury in his example?

And I don't think you can suborn your own perjury

Quote:

---

And that would be called, subornation of perjury since you solicited the affidavit and perhury by the affiant you solicited.

---

Da hell are you talking about?

I would be the "affiant". And there is no "subornation of perjury".

Not great lawyering here.

A good lawyer could tell you that was has been released shows absolutely nothing.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Affidavit filed the day before the debate with several key details that were confirmed in the debate.

---

Again- no affidavit has been "filed" anywhere. A heavily redacted document that could be faked in 10 minutes after the fact, has been socialized. Copies of the "document", allegedly saying it was sent by certified mail to the speaker the day before. But you sure don't see pics of that piece of mail, do you?

If it was real- why wasn't the redacted version released beforehand?

C'mon.

---

OK, not filed, but signed.

After the fact?!?! WTH are you talking about? If that is real and was witnessed/signed by a notary on that date - the day before the debate - they have conveyed several details which were confirmed by the debate itself which lends credibility to it. As far as redacted info, you mean like the person's name?! LOL, well duh!

As far as releasing it beforehand, that would be dumb. So you tip your hand to ABC news?! Just because ABC News discussed doing those things internally doesn't mean they had to, or were going to, follow through with them.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

And that would be called, subornation of perjury since you solicited the affidavit and perhury by the affiant you solicited.

---

Da hell are you talking about?

I would be the "affiant". And there is no "subordination of perjury".

Not great lawyering here.

A good lawyer could tell you that was has been released shows absolutely nothing.

---

When you say "go get an affidavit" that does not translate to you writing your own affidavit, counselor. Hence you would not be the affiant, unless you no longer can type, add the section for the noatry and then seek a notary signing it in their presence.

Words matter. You did not say, "I could write an affidavit."

People cloud real estate titles with false affidavits all of the time, they are not using lawyers to do so in most instances.

I think they're still a real possibility that this thing is legitimate. I'm with you on the reason to not release it early, that's the reason for mailing it. To establish when it was done. That's why I asked if we've heard from Johnson's office. Did he receive it?


As for the notary, that name is also blacked out, so it's not established that it is even properly notarized.


Lots of unanswered questions on this, I hope someone in Washington is asking them

EMY92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It was so obvious but I did have to rewatch to truly pick up on all of it.

Even avowed Democrats such as Mark Halperin, was immediately appalled at ABC stooping that low and said so the moment to debate ended.

And that is the reason Kamala has not had any type of bump from the debate. Too lopsided by the moderators to be able to objectively judge what happened. And that has pissed and frustrated most indy undecideds who don't know that much about Kamala.

---

That's very true. My sister hates Trump, but after the debate she is voting for him based on the moderator's bias.

---

Please give her a hug from most of this forum. Starting to hear quite a few more stories like this one each and every day. These left wing, power hungry lunatics are just flaunting it in everyone's face now, and people are finally seeing the light and getting sick of it

You are not very good at this.

You have seen no proof that anything was notarized with a date before the debate. Zero.

Second- it's not tipping your hand to ABC to release it beforehand. This is EXACTLY what you do if you want to disarm them. Because when they do it, you stand on the stage and say "see, we were told this what they were going to do."

If it's real, you force them to pivot.

Again- I'm not an ABC fan or a dem voter.

What I'm not into is conspiracy theories, and trying to stretch out things that can be easily be faked. And attaching fancy legal jargon around them to make people think they could be more real than they really appear to be.

David_Puddy said:

---

EMY92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It was so obvious but I did have to rewatch to truly pick up on all of it.

Even avowed Democrats such as Mark Halperin, was immediately appalled at ABC stooping that low and said so the moment to debate ended.

And that is the reason Kamala has not had any type of bump from the debate. Too lopsided by the moderators to be able to objectively judge what happened. And that has pissed and frustrated most indy undecideds who don't know that much about Kamala.

---

That's very true. My sister hates Trump, but after the debate she is voting for him based on the moderator's bias.

---

Please give her a hug from most of this forum. Starting to hear quite a few more stories like this one each and every day. These left wing, power hungry lunatics are just flaunting it in everyone's face now, and people are finally seeing the light and getting sick of it

---

Trump, the great bug zapper! Makes himself openly vulnerable to attacks by AK 47's, verbal assault, lawfare, justice system, search warrants, rigged debates, impeachments, the deep state, etc. The attackers are drawn into the kill zone and destroy themselves. Reminds me of a similar story, "that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil." Hebrews 2:14. Will they ever learn? 1 Cor 2:8. Evil, if allowed to, self destructs. He wins in the end. They lose by defeating themselves.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

What does "the affidavit has been released" mean?

---

Just a wild guess, but probably means made available to the public.

---

Where might I find this publicly available affidavit? Can you share a URL? Or perhaps OP?

You can find the redacted version at the "Black Insurrectionalist" 's Twitter feed.

And that's the only place.

Because it's fake.

After the Donna Brazile debacle, it's hard to believe there would be any emails or recorded convos between ABC officials and Kamala camp. At best, it may be internal hear say rumors. For this to really explode, there will need to be multiple whistleblowers with corroberating sworn statements.

Trump needs to use it to pivot and get a second debate with Brett B or Megan Kelly, for Kamala to disprove the ABC allegations. But Trump won't do this, because he consistently does/says the wrong thing when campaigning.

So you mean the person, KH, who in just about every previous debate, town hall, and any live event, that that KH stumbled, cackled, and word salad all moments with a microphone. This same KH who couldn't contain her emotions and at times lost her composure (exhibiting pushed answers with extreme confidence) when debating Trump.

You mean to tell me she was cheating in the one debate where she presented a live, miked debate where for the FIRST time ever KH sounded competent……heck I would have never guessed.

If Trump does another debate, he needs to have fact checkers on Twitter and Truth Social, and tell people to log into them during his first answer.

taxpreparer said:

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

What does "the affidavit has been released" mean?

I have trouble believing it was "released" to a Twitter-user "Black Insurrectionist" alone. If someone like that has access, surely others would.

---

You have trouble believing anything negative about the Dems or positive about Trump.

---

No, I have trouble believing anything solely sourced from random twitter accounts. Looks like I was correct here, too.

Cite examples to back up your claim, please.

This whistleblower story seems way too convenient.

They'll turn around and accuse Trump of having paid this guy off.

Ripped out of the playbook that says if your attack is going too well; it's an ambush.

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

What does "the affidavit has been released" mean?

I have trouble believing it was "released" to a Twitter-user "Black Insurrectionist" alone. If someone like that has access, surely others would.

---

You have trouble believing anything negative about the Dems or positive about Trump.

---

No, I have trouble believing anything solely sourced from random twitter accounts. Looks like I was correct here, too.

Cite examples to back up your claim, please.

---

I think the proper protocol is you feed the story to a news source, they report it, then you claim you have confirmed sources citing the news story as the source. Is that the proper way?

Surely by now someone has found the recorded version of this Affidavit?

By that, I mean one filed in the public record and not redacted (i. e. subject to perjury).

Anyone got the recording info with which County Clerk's Office and in which State?

Even the crappiest of lawyers must realize an unrecorded, redacted Affidavit is basically toilet paper.

Where exactly should it be recordered? Does the NY county clerk have a random affidavit filing department? lol

You are clueless. There's no reason to record this affidavit or any place to do so!


Has Speaker Johnson commented? That's the key here!

Donna Brazil strikes again! Democrats cheat. Water is wet.

Im Gipper said:

---

Where exactly should it be recordered? Does the NY county clerk have a random affidavit filing department? lol

You are clueless. There's no reason to record this affidavit or any place to do so!


Has Speaker Johnson commented? That's the key here!

---

The entire purpose purpose of an Affidavit is to put something in the public record.

Usually you would file one in the County Clerk's Office, or you would submit it in a matter before a court. In both cases, perjury would attach.

There's no such thing as a redacted Affidavit never filed anywhere but Twitter.

They really hate one American that bad. It's crazy to watch the last 8 years play out. Dems have gone all in from pure fear of one American telling the truth from a microphone they gave him when they thought he'd be good for ratings. Now that he turned out to be good for the country, it's a problem.

Logos Stick said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Affidavit filed the day before the debate with several key details that were confirmed in the debate.

---

Again- no affidavit has been "filed" anywhere. A heavily redacted document that could be faked in 10 minutes after the fact, has been socialized. Copies of the "document", allegedly saying it was sent by certified mail to the speaker the day before. But you sure don't see pics of that piece of mail, do you?

If it was real- why wasn't the redacted version released beforehand?

C'mon.

---

OK, not filed, but signed.

After the fact?!?! WTH are you talking about? If that is real and was witnessed/signed by a notary on that date - the day before the debate - they have conveyed several details which were confirmed by the debate itself which lends credibility to it. As far as redacted info, you mean like the person's name?! LOL, well duh!

As far as releasing it beforehand, that would be dumb. So you tip your hand to ABC news?! Just because ABC News discussed doing those things internally doesn't mean they had to, or were going to, follow through with them.

---

Dude.

Why are you ignoring the possibility that the whistleblower used time travel to go back in time to send that fake document? You conspiracy theorists will believe anything, and no amount of logical explanation, like the possibility of time travel, will change your mind.

What a luddite.

Im Gipper said:

---

Where exactly should it be recordered? Does the NY county clerk have a random affidavit filing department? lol

You are clueless. There's no reason to record this affidavit or any place to do so!


Has Speaker Johnson commented? That's the key here!

---

No. He has not. And I know Megyn Kelly has reached out to his office for comment without reply. That implies that he has NOT received the document this guy claims to have sent.

Dude is an X troll

Getting Looney Tunes Loomer involved and a filing a SEC complaint is not helping the credibility of this person

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE:

🚨🚨🚨🚨

The ABC Whistleblower who claimed ABC News gave @KamalaHarris the Presidential debate questions ahead of the Presidential debate has exclusively given me a copy of the official complaint they filed with the SEC today.

See screenshots of the… pic.twitter.com/T0m1hwzyKi

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) September 20, 2024

The same people who heard the term "affidavit" and went crazy that that meant something will now see "SEC" and think that means something.

Going to be hard to top that one! Well
Done!!

Texas Tea said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

The same people who heard the term "affidavit" and went crazy that that meant something will now see "SEC" and think that means something.

---

It just means more.

---