ABC whitleblower Avidavit

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL nope.  I usually post links and evidence and make sound logical arguments.

LOL nope.

Quote

Your problem is that no matter WHAT evidence is put in front of you you just pretend it doesn't exist and carry on    "I WANT EVIDENCE" this is evidence, signed and noterized by god. "THATS NOT EVIDENCE!!! I WANT REAAAAL EVIDENCE!!!"

It's easy to claim someone doesnt' provide evidence if your position is no matter what they present it's not evidence   

But it's very left wing of you to demand that your inability to look facts in the face is somehow my fault

This isn't true of course. And judging by your cope emojis, you know it's not true too.

Quote

Ok snowflake!

Lol putting this in the middle of a screed when you're clearly triggered by being called out for being a bullshitter is *chef's kiss*

Quote

 

Not only did i provide proof kiddo, the proof is readily available.  AND was posted in other threads and by other people as well. 

Gab Founder Publishes Alleged FBI Letter On Trump Shooter Data (dailydot.com)

There's been entire threads on it. 

THAT THING YOU POSTED?!?!? YEAH YOU NEVER POSTED THAT!!!! 

Well done kiddo  

 

1. you didn't provide that link in the exchange in question where you made the claim

2. saying "other people have posted about this" is a chickenshit dodge

3. Actual proof would be the actual social media posts the guy made, not third party hearsay.

Quote

Looked it up did you    A sworn statement does not include recordings from other people.    How stupid do you have to be to think it does. 

Prove it. The fake-ass affidavit makes specific claims about conversations the fake-ass whistleblower claims to have witnessed and recorded, there's no reason details from those conversations could not be included (eg. "On x date at x time I witnessed so-and-so from ABC telling so-and-so from the Harris campaign 'we will only fact check Trump'" But this fake-ass "affidavit" doesn't even do that.

Quote

nope  This is YOUR testimony, it's not a pleading or an essay or anything like that. You don't just throw anything in there. 

You can attach things after an affidavit but the affidavit would not contain them.  An affidavit is a statement. Period. Thanks for playing  

It's a sworn statement of something this person claims to have witnessed yet you think they can't include details of the thing they witnessed for some reason. FOH dumbass.

Quote

And once again when you don't have an argument its' either lies, false accusations or weird porn fantasies. Thanks for sparing us the third one this time at least. 

Projection again.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

LOL nope.

yep   Sorry kid, repeating a lie doesnt' make it true. 

 

Quote

This isn't true of course. And judging by your cope emojis, you know it's not true too.

We both know it's true   and judging from your sad "patented wookie/emoji defense" you know it is  

Quote

Lol putting this in the middle of a screed when you're clearly triggered by being called out for being a bullshitter is *chef's kiss*

LOLOL that's your other little coping mechanism   When ever YOU get mad and pissed off, you pretend others are    it's like somehow it justifies your own anger and fialings

Quote

 

1. you didn't provide that link in the exchange in question where you made the claim

2. saying "other people have posted about this" is a chickenshit dodge

3. Actual proof would be the actual social media posts the guy made, not third party hearsay.

 

1 - i'm pretty sure i did, I certainly referred to it frequently, i think i even started a thread about it. 

2 - Asking for information that's already been posted dozens of times over and over and over again is sealioning. It's basically you admitting you KNOW You're wrong but you want to drag it out or try to argue it on some other technicality like questioning the source rather than address the facts. 

3 - Oh look.  You're questioning the source rather than addressing the facts.  Wow.  It's like i've got a crystal ball.   This is the OWNER OF THE SITE. And an FBI document.   But THAT isn't evidence you see... noooooo 

No matter what you're shown you just claim it isn't evidence. I believe i called that one earlier as well   

 

Quote

Prove it. 

Kay.  It's the same in the us and canada

The affidavit must be written in the first person (from the writer’s point of view, using “I”). An affidavit must include only facts (what you saw, heard, did or said) and events that are relevant to the application. It is your story. Everything in your affidavit must be true to the best of your knowledge. Do not provide your opinion in your affidavit

Guidebook | Preparing an Affidavit - General (gov.bc.ca)

Quote

It's a sworn statement of something this person claims to have witnessed yet you think they can't include details of the thing they witnessed for some reason. FOH dumbass.

Nope.  You can include it later as an exhibit depending but you don't include it in the affidavit. 

The details of the thing are included in your sworn affidavit.  That's all that's in there.  "Black dog told me he was gay".  That goes in the affidavit. Pictures of you being gay would not. That would be for court. 

Now if someone SENT him a tape and he said in his affidavit "i recieved a tape from john and i believed it to be accurate and true", THEN you could include a transcipt. 

You can't even include a picture. You have to attach a description of the picture. 

 

Once again you fail little doggie    You think an affidavit is some sort of case filling or something. It's just a statement. 

BUt i'm sure in a week you'll claim i never provided any of this information   

 

[Black Dog]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yep   Sorry kid, repeating a lie doesnt' make it true. 

We both know it's true   and judging from your sad "patented wookie/emoji defense" you know it is  

LOLOL that's your other little coping mechanism   When ever YOU get mad and pissed off, you pretend others are    it's like somehow it justifies your own anger and fialings

Copemoji fest.

Quote

1 - i'm pretty sure i did, I certainly referred to it frequently, i think i even started a thread about it. 

Which is wild that you couldn't provide a link in the exchange I mentioned. Kinda hard to pretend it's about you not wanting to waste your time when you will spend ten times as much time whining about how unfair it is to be asked for a link than it would take to post a link in the first place.

Quote

2 - Asking for information that's already been posted dozens of times over and over and over again is sealioning. It's basically you admitting you KNOW You're wrong but you want to drag it out or try to argue it on some other technicality like questioning the source rather than address the facts. 

It's not reasonable to assume that someone has seen every single post or thread on the board when literally dozens of new threads pop up every day. 

Quote

3 - Oh look.  You're questioning the source rather than addressing the facts.  Wow.  It's like i've got a crystal ball.   This is the OWNER OF THE SITE. And an FBI document.   But THAT isn't evidence you see... noooooo 

No matter what you're shown you just claim it isn't evidence. I believe i called that one earlier as well   

I never said it wasn't evidence, I said it wasn't proof you id!ot. And it's not. We haven't seen the posts in question, it's literally hearsay.

Quote

 

Kay.  It's the same in the us and canada

The affidavit must be written in the first person (from the writer’s point of view, using “I”). An affidavit must include only facts (what you saw, heard, did or said) and events that are relevant to the application. It is your story. Everything in your affidavit must be true to the best of your knowledge. Do not provide your opinion in your affidavit

Guidebook | Preparing an Affidavit - General (gov.bc.ca)

 

 

lol this absolutely does not preclude including an account of a conversation that is relevant to the claims being made since that would fall under "what you saw or heard." (eg. "On x date at x time I witnessed so-and-so from ABC telling so-and-so from the Harris campaign 'we will only fact check Trump'")
 

Quote

 

The details of the thing are included in your sworn affidavit.  That's all that's in there

 

This is my entire point you dimwit: the "whistleblower: claims to have detailed information based on conversations they witnessed (and recorded) first hand but no actual details are included.

This Twitter post also doesn't have an attachment of a transcription of the alleged recordings either so that's out the window as well.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Copemoji fest.

Admission you have no counter argument and are crying inside that people laugh at you  

Quote

Which is wild that you couldn't provide a link in the exchange

Sorry but that's just a lie. 

The key thing about sealioning is the UNREASONABLE demand to repetatively repeat posts and cites. 

I could provide the link, the link had been provided many times, the link was commonly available on multiple news sources and could be found in 2 seconds with a google search, it had been posted on the forum and a thread had been done about it, it was now common knowledge. 

So it was provided and available.  You don't get to demand it again and again and again.  You knew it was correct. 

Quote

I mentioned. Kinda hard to pretend it's about you not wanting to waste your time when you will spend ten times as much time whining about how unfair it is to be asked for a link than it would take to post a link in the first place.

nope. Explaining this once so that everyone can see what a liar you are is worth it. 

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I never said it wasn't evidence, I said it wasn't proof you id!ot.

I NEVER SAID IT WASN"T EVIDENCE  I JUST SAID IT WASN"T ... ERRRR.....EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

LOL you're such a loser.    There's no such thing as 'proof', anything we see on line could be faked or false. But an owner of a site provided an FBI document and stated what was in the posts - thats as much 'proof' or evidence as anything else. 

17 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

lol this absolutely does not preclude including an account of a conversation that is relevant to the claims being made since that would fall under "what you saw or heard." (eg. "On x date at x time I witnessed so-and-so from ABC telling so-and-so from the Harris campaign 'we will only fact check Trump'")

An account, sure . But not a transcript of a recording  

Didn't think everyone saw you move those goalposts there?    LOLOL  Swing and a miss kiddo

 

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

This is my entire point you dimwit:

No, it wasn't.  Your point was that an audio recording or transcript should be included. 

That was your point.  That's what you specifically said. 

Gotcha kiddo  

[Black Dog]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Admission you have no counter argument and are crying inside that people laugh at you  

No I'm mocking your boomer emojis, boomer.

Quote

Sorry but that's just a lie. 

It's not. A poster asked for proof of your claim and this was your response.

Quote

Been done many times here already. This is common knowledge. But I'm sure you'll lie about it no matter what happens because that's what your kind does. I could post it all here again with a note from god certifying it and tomorrow you'd still see lion demanding more. The ability to lie to yourself is a basic survival instinct for the left these days apparently. 

Same crybaby, chickenshit dodge you tried here, because you're nothing if not predictable.

Quote

The key thing about sealioning is the UNREASONABLE demand to repetatively repeat posts and cites. 

Yeah and it's not REASONABLE to expect someone would have seen a link in a different thread than the one the conversation is happening in dummy.

Quote

I could provide the link, the link had been provided many times, the link was commonly available on multiple news sources and could be found in 2 seconds with a google search, it had been posted on the forum and a thread had been done about it, it was now common knowledge. 

The content of the person's social media posts is not common knowledge since no one has actually seen them, but you still framed your claim as a fact when it's not because you're dishonest.

Quote

So it was provided and available.  You don't get to demand it again and again and again.  You knew it was correct. 

It wasn't even me asking, stupid, it was a different poster you were pulling this shit on.

Quote

nope. Explaining this once so that everyone can see what a liar you are is worth it. 

I NEVER SAID IT WASN"T EVIDENCE  I JUST SAID IT WASN"T ... ERRRR.....EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

Proof and evidence aren't the same thing dumbass. There's evidence you are a pedophile, but the proof is on your hard drive.

Quote

 

LOL you're such a loser.    There's no such thing as 'proof', anything we see on line could be faked or false. But an owner of a site provided an FBI document and stated what was in the posts - thats as much 'proof' or evidence as anything else.

 

But we haven't seen it, we don't know what it is they say, just the word of a biased third party: in other words, it's hearsay that contradicts the FBI's statements.

Quote

An account, sure . But not a transcript of a recording  

No, it wasn't.  Your point was that an audio recording or transcript should be included. 

That was your point.  That's what you specifically said. 

Gotcha kiddo  

You could still include a transcript of what you saw or heard, you dumb ape.

LOL whether it's in the affidavit or attached to it, the point stands, there's no actual detail to corroborate the claims despite there allegedly being literal recordings. As usual you get hung up on autistic pedantry and miss the forest for the trees which is you're a gullible dupe for thinking this shit is real. Now post the crying emoji you dumb b!tch.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No I'm mocking your boomer emojis, boomer.

LOL you're really not    And it's pretty obvious. 

Poor little guy. 

Quote

It's not. A poster asked for proof of your claim and this was your response.

Exactly what I said here. So your statement that I couldn't produce it was a lie. I didn't produce it because I don't go for sea lioning and made that clear.

But you have to lie in order to try and make your point as usual

ANd it's entirely reasonable that person would have seen the other thread.  In fact i believe they commented on it if memory serves. 

Swing and a miss again doggie   (or is that racist?) 

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You could still include a transcript of what you saw or heard, you dumb ape.

Sigh, no you can't.  It wouldn't be included in the affidavit 

So your statement was that the affidavit should have had that in it.  My statement was that it wouldn't have.  I'm right. You're wrong.  LOL  better luck next time kiddo  

 

It's your usual blah blah blah, not one rational argument, not one fact, not one cite, Lots of lying, lots of denial of evidence that has actually been presented clearly

You were wrong across the board, and you still are. This is one of the reasons why nobody takes the left seriously anymore

 

[Black Dog]

oop

Billionaire Bill Ackman Admits Debate Conspiracy He Pushed Is Fake

Billionaire Bill Ackman spent days after the ABC presidential debate promoting false claims that a network “whistleblower” had allegedly uncovered collusion between ABC and Kamala Harris’ campaign. Now, a month and multiple denials later, he sees the claims differently.

“It seems pretty clear that the alleged @abc whistleblower debate story claiming that @KamalaHarris was given questions in advance and other advantages was a fake,” Ackman posted on X alongside a blog post by Megyn Kelly discussing the dubious claims.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

oop

Billionaire Bill Ackman Admits Debate Conspiracy He Pushed Is Fake

Billionaire Bill Ackman spent days after the ABC presidential debate promoting false claims that a network “whistleblower” had allegedly uncovered collusion between ABC and Kamala Harris’ campaign. Now, a month and multiple denials later, he sees the claims differently.

“It seems pretty clear that the alleged @abc whistleblower debate story claiming that @KamalaHarris was given questions in advance and other advantages was a fake,” Ackman posted on X alongside a blog post by Megyn Kelly discussing the dubious claims.

Aside from the fact that it appears to be an unsubstantiated claim from a tabloid magazine, It only addresses the issue of her receiving questions.

It doesn't address the many other complaints or claims made which were equally as bad

 Oops indeed    Swing and a miss there little guy