HAPPENING NOW: The Kamala Campaign is in big trouble now. The whistleblower affidavit has been released showing that ABC colluded with the Kamala campaign, proving illegal collusion. This is textbook fascism and should result in Kamala Harris immediately being removed from the ballot. This should be resolved before the election so we know the exact extent before voting. At this point, how can anyone call themselves anti fascist and vote for Harris/Walz?
Looks like possibly the $10m for Russian false information is being poured out here. Regarding the Affidavit:
REAL or FAKE? The ABC News whistleblower's affidavit has been released and there is an ongoing debate about its authenticity
The document doesn't contain many obvious grammatical or spelling errors, but some of the phrasing is awkward or overly informal for a legal affidavit. Affidavits are typically very formal documents, and any sloppiness can signal potential problems:
Example 2: "where issues that were important to everyday Americans would be discussed": The phrase "everyday Americans" is a colloquialism more often found in political rhetoric or news commentary than in legal documents. While this isn’t inherently incorrect, it is not typical for legal affidavits to use such informal language.
Example 3: "Chief Executive Officers of my employer": While this isn’t grammatically wrong, a lawyer drafting such a document would more likely use "executives" or name specific roles rather than this awkward phrasing.
"significant concerns about potential retribution" feels like jargon that a layperson might use when trying to sound "legal" without understanding the proper terminology. It’s worth asking whether a lawyer would use such language.
Inconsistent Formality
In legal documents, tone consistency is key. This document flips between formal legal language and informal colloquial expressions, which raises concerns.
Example: "For the record, I do not endorse Donald Trump..." A lawyer would likely phrase this in a more formal manner, like "It is noted that the affiant does not endorse Donald Trump..." The current phrasing feels like it is designed for media consumption or the court of public opinion, rather than an official affidavit.
Inclusion of specifics: Normally, legal affidavits provide facts, not opinions or generalized observations like "many employees of ABC who were looking for a fair and honest debate." Such language doesn’t belong in an affidavit and sounds more like an op-ed or public commentary.
Unprofessional Content and Tone
Allegations without evidence: The document makes several serious allegations, such as claims about bias and specific restrictions imposed by the Harris campaign. However, these are presented as factual but without the kind of backing or documentation you'd expect in an affidavit. If this were meant for legal purposes, there would likely be more effort to cite specific communications, dates, names, etc.
Unusual Evidence Documentation: The statement about sending a certified letter to oneself and keeping it unopened, as well as mailing an unopened Federal Express package to themselves, feels strange. While it's a method used in some cases to establish a paper trail, it’s an antiquated practice when modern communication methods (e.g., timestamped emails) are widely available and reliable. The focus on "remaining unopened for any future investigations" feels almost like a theatrical gesture rather than a necessary legal step.
Affirmation Process and Scope of Documentation
Certified letter to Speaker Mike Johnson: This might raise suspicion. If this were a legitimate whistleblower case involving potential media bias, why is the letter being sent to the Speaker of the House? It could be perceived as a political move rather than a formal, legal whistleblower process.
Timing: The affidavit is sworn just one day before the scheduled debate, and all the documentation is tied to a very tight timeline. This raises questions about why this was only documented at the last minute. If the whistleblower had these concerns for a while, why not come forward earlier to ensure the issues are addressed?
General legal structure: The document lacks certain key components of a well-drafted affidavit. For example, affidavits normally focus heavily on factual information, with clear and numbered paragraphs laying out the affiant’s statements. This document reads more like a narrative. It also does not clearly distinguish between observed facts and hearsay/opinion, which is essential in affidavits.
Verification: The final section, where the affiant states they are making the affidavit under penalty of perjury, is standard, but there’s no indication in this version that it was witnessed by a notary public. (This could just be redacted, but it’s worth noting.) Additionally, the affidavit lacks legal specificity in asserting the consequences of false statements—affidavits often emphasize the legal weight of "perjury" more directly.
While there are no glaring spelling errors or wildly incorrect grammar, the overall tone and structure suggest the document was not written by a professional lawyer accustomed to drafting legal affidavits. The mix of informal language, opinion-based statements, vague claims without strong backing, and the emphasis on political theater rather than legal procedure raises several red flags. It is possible this document was designed to serve more as a political statement or public relations tool than a formal legal whistleblower affidavit, which would require much more precision and rigor.
This document contains elements that may indeed point to it being a hoax or, at the very least, a politically motivated piece rather than a legitimate legal submission.
Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS
@DocNetyoutube
www.theguardian.com
en.wikipedia.org
