ABC whitleblower Avidavit

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

LOl that doesn't logically follow at all. Someone made a claim, the network was asked about the claims by the media, they denied the claims. The question of the actual document as a sworn affidavit is irrelevant.

It follows fine if you understand logic. 

We're received an affidavit  from a former employee that's alleging various things

Response a:  That does not appear to be a legitimate document and we don't believe it's got anything to do with our staff. 

Response b:  The allegations are untrue. 

they went with b.  Apparently they didn't have a problem believing that it was  a real document OR that it was a former employee. They just contest the charges. 

I can't make this much more clear without using crayons, could you at least try to get your head around it on your own?

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It follows fine if you understand logic. 

We're received an affidavit  from a former employee that's alleging various things

Response a:  That does not appear to be a legitimate document and we don't believe it's got anything to do with our staff. 

Response b:  The allegations are untrue. 

they went with b.  Apparently they didn't have a problem believing that it was  a real document OR that it was a former employee. They just contest the charges. 

I can't make this much more clear without using crayons, could you at least try to get your head around it on your own?

They only contested one charge and that was giving them questions and even the way they said it gives them wiggle room.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

They only contested one charge and that was giving them questions and even the way they said it gives them wiggle room.

Exactly. If they're innocent they say we don't know who this person is but they should come forward and identify themselves immediately to answer for these allegations. And then you sue the bejesus out of them for defamation

Instead they come back with the equivalent of "waaaaaat?  Naaaaawwwww,,,  waaaaat?"  and don't call any question about the validity of the document or the person behind it. 

[Black Dog]

On 9/20/2024 at 2:53 PM, CdnFox said:

It follows fine if you understand logic. 

We're received an affidavit  from a former employee that's alleging various things

Response a:  That does not appear to be a legitimate document and we don't believe it's got anything to do with our staff. 

Response b:  The allegations are untrue. 

they went with b.  Apparently they didn't have a problem believing that it was  a real document OR that it was a former employee. They just contest the charges. 

I can't make this much more clear without using crayons, could you at least try to get your head around it on your own?

Except they never said that or have acknowledge the affidavit itself in any way, you truly are the world's dumbest person.

[WestCanMan]

On 9/20/2024 at 1:53 PM, CdnFox said:

We've received an affidavit  from a former employee that's alleging various things

So ABC actually referred to it as "an affidavit" then....

I guess Black Dummy owes you an apology then, because he was here crying that it wasn't an actual, notarized affidavit. 

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So ABC actually referred to it as "an affidavit" then....

No dummy, Cdnfux is making shit up again. ABC has never acknowledged the affidavit in any public statements.

This is the sum total; of their response to media inquries:

ABC News followed the debate that both campaigns agreed on and which clearly state: No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates."

Quote

 

I guess Black Dummy owes you an apology then, because he was here crying that it wasn't an actual, notarized affidavit.

 

It's not. I mean, it's been more than a week and there's been no further evidence the thing is real or even exists outside one twitter posts, nor any evidence of the secret recordings alleged to prove its claims. What's the hold up?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Except they never said that or have acknowledge the affidavit itself in any way, you truly are the world's dumbest person.

Sure they did, which is why you're resorting to silly insults rather than offering any evidence.  As you always do when you're wrong. .

If i point out you're even MORE wrong you'll probably start in with your sexual fantasies as usual. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

So ABC actually referred to it as "an affidavit" then....

I guess Black Dummy owes you an apology then, because he was here crying that it wasn't an actual, notarized affidavit. 

I'm sure he'll get right on that

The interesting thing is that it's dated and notarized the day BEFORE the debate - but contained a lot of details that happened during the debate such as the different podium sizes, the fact checking of trump but not harris etc etc. before any of that was known to the public. 

Edited September 23, 2024 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

 

ABC News followed the debate that both campaigns agreed on and which clearly state: No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates."

 

They'd never lie about that  

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

ABC News followed the debate that both campaigns agreed on and which clearly state: No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates."

🤣 You stupid sh1t.

Does that actually mean anything to you?

ABC's fact-checkers lied and called Trump's comments inaccurate, and then let Kamala lie on multiple occasions while they said nothing. Do you think they didn't go over the questions and the order of the questions with Kamala's team in advance? 

[Black Dog]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they did, which is why you're resorting to silly insults rather than offering any evidence.  As you always do when you're wrong. .

I posted ABC's statement addressing the claims which make no reference to the document. You as usual haven't provided any evidence for your claims. Deflecting will not save you.

Quote

 

I'm sure he'll get right on that 

The interesting thing is that it's dated and notarized the day BEFORE the debate - but contained a lot of details that happened during the debate such as the different podium sizes, the fact checking of trump but not harris etc etc. before any of that was known to the public. 

 

There's no evidence it was notarized and it wasn't actually released until five days after the debate you gullible mook.

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They'd never lie about that   

More deflection, you're really really bad at this.

[Black Dog]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

🤣 You stupid sh1t.

I'm not your lunch, shiteater.

Quote

 

Does that actually mean anything to you?

ABC's fact-checkers lied and called Trump's comments inaccurate, and then let Kamala lie on multiple occasions while they said nothing. Do you think they didn't go over the questions and the order of the questions with Kamala's team in advance? 

 

I see that like your little yes man, you're too stupid to grasp the point. That statement, whether you choose to believe it or not, was the only one ABC made on the "affidavit" and does not mention anything about the alleged document, contrary to CdnFux's claims.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I posted ABC's statement addressing the claims which make no reference to the document. You as usual haven't provided any evidence for your claims. Deflecting will not save you.

There's no evidence it was notarized and it wasn't actually released until five days after the debate you gullible mook.

More deflection, you're really really bad at this.

LOL wow.  Denial - not just a river in egypt  

Ok well if you're right and ABC isn't treating it seriously then go ahead and show it's denial that it's a real affidavit or that the person worked for them or that it's anything other than a hoax. 

No?  But they WERE asked if they knew if it had been filed anywhere and they refused to answer.  Interesting  

testimony from one former employee is evidence but it's not proof. However it does look like they had inside knowledge given that it was done before the event even took place and contained information that wasn't available to the public until  afterwards like the podium heights and that kamala would not be fact checked.

I get that it upsets you that your side cheats like hell.  But cmon - it can't be coming as a surprise. 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

34 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'm not your lunch, shiteater.

Only Demis think about people eating people, and people eating sh1t.

Quote

I see that like your little yes man, you're too stupid to grasp the point. That statement, whether you choose to believe it or not, was the only one ABC made on the "affidavit" and does not mention anything about the alleged document, contrary to CdnFux's claims.

You clearly don't know what an affidavit is. 

It's not 100% proof that something happened, it just means that someone swore in a legal document that something happened. 

People lie on affidavits all the time. Dr Ford even went right into congress and lied her face off. People lie in regular courtrooms all the time. The FBI even alters evidence and then gives it to judges. Dem AGs lie all the time, and hide video from the public to help incite riots. 

This affidavit isn't a big deal. Everyone with an IQ over 12 knows that ABC cheated for Kamala. 

[Black Dog]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL wow.  Denial - not just a river in egypt  

Ok well if you're right and ABC isn't treating it seriously then go ahead and show it's denial that it's a real affidavit or that the person worked for them or that it's anything other than a hoax. 

Or how about, since you're the one here claiming that it's real, that ABC acknowledged its existence and that the person worked for them, YOU post some evidence and not something you invented. 

The fact is you can't because ABC has not acknowledged its existence at all.

Quote

No?  But they WERE asked if they knew if it had been filed anywhere and they refused to answer.  Interesting  

They were? Where? By whom? Where's the evidence?

Quote

testimony from one former employee is evidence but it's not proof.However it does look like they had inside knowledge given that it was done before the event even took place and contained information that wasn't available to the public until  afterwards like the podium heights and that kamala would not be fact checked.

And here you are still pretending to believe this twitter post (no point pretending its a real document anymore) was actually made before the debate lol. 

Edited September 23, 2024 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Only Demis think about people eating people, and people eating sh1t.

You clearly don't know what an affidavit is. 

It's not 100% proof that something happened, it just means that someone swore in a legal document that something happened. 

People lie on affidavits all the time. Dr Ford even went right into congress and lied her face off. People lie in regular courtrooms all the time. The FBI even alters evidence and then gives it to judges. Dem AGs lie all the time, and hide video from the public to help incite riots. 

This affidavit isn't a big deal. Everyone with an IQ over 12 knows that ABC cheated for Kamala. 

Whatever you need to do to cope with Trump's disastrous performance big guy.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Whatever you need to do to cope with Trump's disastrous performance big guy.

Undecideds considered it a disaster for cackleditz. She completely failed to point to a single actual plan that she has to help the economy. She just had some gimmicks. It's nothing compared to Trump's successful track record. 

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Undecideds considered it a disaster for cackleditz. She completely failed to point to a single actual plan that she has to help the economy. She just had some gimmicks. It's nothing compared to Trump's successful track record. 

[WestCanMan]

So, Black Dummy is finally admitting that he was wrong, and there was an affidavit, and now he's posting unrelated memes to try to distract us from that. 

Geez, there's a pill for that now?

Demis used to have to take emotional support animals with them everywhere or scream at clouds when they were upset. 

Edited September 23, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Black Dog]

24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So, Black Dummy is finally admitting that he was wrong, and there was an affidavit, and now he's posting unrelated memes to try to distract us from that.

LOL I get you guys live in your own world of make believe but don't drag my ass into your fantasy delusions.

Quote

 

Geez, there's a pill for that now?

Demis used to have to take emotional support animals with them everywhere or scream at clouds when they were upset. 

 

Take the whole bottle grandpa.

Edited September 23, 2024 by Black Dog

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

LOL I get you guys live in your own world of make believe but don't drag my ass into your fantasy delusions.

Take the whole bottle grandpa.

Get your emotional support goat while supplies last, Black Dummy. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

🤣 You stupid sh1t.

Does that actually mean anything to you?

ABC's fact-checkers lied and called Trump's comments inaccurate, and then let Kamala lie on multiple occasions while they said nothing. Do you think they didn't go over the questions and the order of the questions with Kamala's team in advance? 

Obviously they didn't. Harris was unprepared to answer the very first question, which should have been a home run. 

Was there anything in that debate that wouldn't have been covered in debate prep? No, there were no surprises. 

[Black Dog]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Obviously they didn't. Harris was unprepared to answer the very first question, which should have been a home run. 

Was there anything in that debate that wouldn't have been covered in debate prep? No, there were no surprises. 

It's so funny they think Harris must have had the questions in advance because it was so one-sided when there's a perfectly rational explanation: her team did the prep while Trump was too busy getting the old gluck gluck from Laura Loomer.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

 

They were? Where? By whom? Where's the evidence?

 

The daily mail actually, hardly a 'right wing' source.  Look it up

6 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

It's so funny they think Harris must have had the questions in advance because it was so one-sided when there's a perfectly rational explanation: her team did the prep while Trump was too busy getting the old gluck gluck from Laura Loomer.

Did her team also prep not having the moderators fact check her?   That's a neat trick

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

It's so funny they think Harris must have had the questions in advance because it was so one-sided when there's a perfectly rational explanation: her team did the prep while Trump was too busy getting the old gluck gluck from Laura Loomer.

Plausible. 

Her answers ranged from missed opportunities to prep-based semi answers to a few strong answers and lines. She clearly didn't get the test beforehand. Trump was just a rambling firehose of non-answers and lies. The contrast made Harris look wildly competent by comparison, not any scheme.

[Black Dog]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The daily mail actually, hardly a 'right wing' source.  Look it up

1. The Daily Mail is, in fact, a right wing source.

2. here's how the Mail framed it:

Quote

But the network still has not confirmed whether the document was written by an ABC staffer, or where it was filed before it emerged on X. 

Which makes it sound like they were asked and refused to answer. But it turns out the Mail only received the same statement that ABC gave to other outlets: 

Quote

However, an initial statement from ABC did not address the specific claims made within the document, saying: 'ABC News followed the debate rules that both campaigns agreed on and which clearly state: No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates.'

So it seems that ABC is just responding to any inquiry with the same statement and not addressing the twitter post at all. 

And why would they when it's clearly fake as f*ck?

3. It hasn't escaped my attention that you've shifted your claim from "ABC acknowledged the affidavit and that means it's legit" to "ABC hasn't acknowledged the affidavit, so it must be legit" lmao.