BREAKING: ABC Whistleblower REVEALS Network RIGGED Debate WITH Harris Campaign! | StateOfDaniel

A whistleblower from inside ABC News has  come forward with a six page affidavit   alleging that the network rigged the first  presidential debate against former President   Donald Trump and in favor of Kamala Harris.  In today's video, we're going to go through   all six pages of the affidavit, line by  line, analyze what it means, as well as   the implications for not only the election and  the campaign, but for ABC News as a network. Now, for those of you who don't know me, I  don't really talk about conspiracy theories on   my channel. For example, I had a lot of viewers  asking me to talk about Kamala Harris earrings,   the one that she wore during the debate.  Now, if you believe that her earrings   were Bluetooth speakers and that's something  you want to investigate, more power to you. But personally, I only make videos about  things that I can either A, verify, or B,   that multiple sources, mainstream sources,  are talking about. So, this story actually   broke two days after the debate by Newsweek.  According to Newsweek, MAGA pushes claim of ABC   whistleblower after Harris Trump debate. You'll  notice it says there, published September 12th. So, in this article, Newsweek writes, After what  some pundits and political experts described as   a rocky performance by Donald Trump, some of  his supporters are accusing ABC News of bias,   even suggesting that Harris was given the  questions in advance of the debate. Now,   this middle paragraph is where  things get really good here. The controversy escalated online when  a self proclaimed whistleblower using   the ex account DocNet YouTube,  a self described MAGA supporter,   to say an affidavit alleging the debate was  rigged will be released. I will be releasing   an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower  regarding the debate. I have just signed   a non disclosure agreement with the attorney  of the whistleblower the account posted on X. So I actually personally went to this X account.  They have about 3, 000, or excuse me, 33, 000   tweets. And part of the reason I believe what this  is saying is, you know, out of 33, 000 tweets,   not a single one has a community note. Now, for  those of you who aren't on Twitter, aren't on X, a   community note is sort of a community fact check,  where people can fact check you in real time,   and it'll add this note saying, hey, here's some  additional context, or hey, this tweet isn't true. So after 33, 000 tweets, this person  doesn't have any community notes. To me,   that suggests a pretty strong  track record of accuracy. Now,   the Daily Beast and the rest of the media  is jumping on this whistleblower. Uh,   the Daily Beast published ABC slams Trump's  latest conspiracy theory about debate loss. It wasn't just, um, them. Uh, ABC denies giving  Harris questions in advance as furor over bias   by moderators David Muir and Lindsay Davis  intensifies. And, uh, I want you to take a   look at the specific wording of these denials  by ABC, because once we get to the affidavit,   the specific wording of these denials is  actually really important and really eye opening. ABC, facing mounting accusations of bias in its  moderation of Tuesday's presidential debate,   is forcefully denying giving the questions  in advance to Vice President Harris,   or otherwise colluding with her campaign.  Absolutely not, a spokesperson for ABC News   told the Daily Beast on Friday. Harris was  not given any questions before the debate. The network also denied that the Harris campaigns  were in contact with the moderators. So again,   really pay attention to that quote there. Harris  was not given any questions before the debate. Um,   a few more things before we get to the  affidavit. Uh, The Washington Post,   Trump spends billions baseless claims  about Harris's debate performance. The New York Post, um, calmly Harris  did not receive debate questions and   advance ABC claims. Absolutely not. So these  accusations are at least credible enough and   widespread enough that ABC News felt the need  to release an official statement denying Now,   just days before this affidavit  was made public online, just now,   um, just the news released a really interesting  headline on this from a former Clinton official. A former top Clinton advisor calls on ABC to  launch internal probe into whether debate was   rigged. Veteran Democrat pollster Mark Penn said,  I think a review of all their internal texts and   emails should really be done to find out what  extent they were planning on internal probe. In   effect, you know, fact checking just one candidate  and in effect rigging the outcome of this debate. Penn is not the only one. Now,  what's really notable about that   is that that's not a Republican official,  that's not a Trump campaign spokesperson,   but rather, this is a former  advisor to the Clintons. So,   someone who definitely is on the left. And just  to make this clearer, Mark Penn, a former top   advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton, called on  ABC to launch a formal internal investigation. Um, and then he actually goes on further. I,  I, I, I, actually think they should go do a   full internal investigation, hire an outside law  firm. I don't know how much of this was planned in   advance. I don't know what they told the Harris  campaign. I think the day after suspicion here   is really quite high. And I think a review of all  their internal texts and emails, um, should really   be done by an independent party to find out to  what extent they were planning on, you know, um,   and this is what they put in the head under the  headline, essentially in the byline, so to speak. So. Now you have not only these accusations,  you have ABC denying them, and then you have   a former Clinton advisor advising ABC  News to prove it didn't rig the debate   by hiring an outside law firm to go through  all their internal communications. So to me,   that raises the question, and really, Suggests  that perhaps this affidavit really is legitimate. So let's dive in So this was filed in the state  of new york And the first thing I want you to   notice is that So this was filed in the state  of new york And the first thing I want you to   notice is this was written on september  9th So this was written and notarized,   by the way, this entire affidavit has  been notarized a day before the debate. A copy of this has been sent to the House. It's  been sent to House Majority Leader Mike Johnson,   as well as a recording, an alleged  recording from inside ABC News. Now,   the person who released the affidavit online says  that this recording will not be released online,   but that recording has been sent to the House. And, uh, the person, uh, this anonymous  whistleblower is willing to testify before   Congress. So, a few interesting points there  which we'll talk about later on. So, redacted,   being duly sworn, do hereby make the following  statement under penalty of perjury. My name is,   redacted, I reside at, redacted, New York. Point number two, I've worked for ABC News  for over 10 years in various technical and   administrative positions. Now, I think  the phrasing there is really telling.   I think, you know, they're not saying  that they worked there for 10 years. I   think the over 10 years, um, could be  15, could be 20. I think They wanted   to avoid any information that would  identify them once this went public. So I think over 10 years was intentional  to hide their identity. Point number three,   since the acquisition of ABC News in 1996,  I've observed significant transformation   in the nature of news reporting at the  organization. These changes suggest a shift   from unbiased reporting to a model  influenced by external factors. Now, here's what's really important.  Point number four, for the record,   I do not endorse Donald Trump in his capacity as  candidate for president of the United States. So   this isn't some MAGA person. This isn't some Trump  supporter trying to bash ABC News. This appears to   be an actual journalist who is concerned about  the integrity of or lack thereof, from ABC News. The intent of this affidavit is to address  concerns regarding perceived biases within   news reporting within My Employer's Debate  that will be hosted on September 10,   2024. So there we have that.  Before we get to page two,   something that a lot of people missed is that  apparently Kamala Harris and Lindsey Davis. It sounds like they may be sorority sisters,  uh, if that's what I'm understanding. So take   a look at this, um, clip from 2020, which  is just now recently going re viral. Davis,   Robin Roberts is right. It's a sorority  thing. I don't understand it all. So you   have to explain it to everybody. You're  a sorority sister of Kamala Harris. Right. Well, you know, uh, pearls are a symbol  of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated,   which she pledged while she was at  Howard University. And the strand   of Pearls is symbolic of the unity and  the sisterhood. Okay, but on this day,   there's actually a Facebook page of women  who say where pearls on January 20th   2021 and hundreds of thousands of women are  apparently wearing pearls in support of her. So, there you go, there's Lindsay Davis, uh,  appearing to suggest that she's sorority sisters   with Kamala Harris. And, of course, Lindsay  Davis was one of the moderators of the debate,   she fact checked Donald Trump and not  Kamala Harris. So that brings us to page   two of the affidavit. Point number one,  observations on debate communication. Since the debate of President Trump and  Vice President Harris had been announced   to be broadcast on ABC, various members  of staff had expressed hope of a debate   where issues that were important to everyday  Americans would be discussed, and there had   been promises made that the candidates would  be held to firm discussions regarding their   proposed policy stances and that the debate  would not deteriorate into an ad campaign,   whereas both candidates would simply make  blanket statements without saying a word. Specific policy or explanations as to redacted.  So I think point number one is totally fair.   That's what we want out of a debate. We want  serious policy discussions as well as, you know,   an introspection and an investigation and analysis   into each other's. So point number  two, political position clarification. Many employees of ABC who were looking for a fair  and honest debate questioned whether the clear   bias that is well known throughout the company.  It is common knowledge that debate moderators,   as well as chief executive officers of my  employer, are well known not to support Donald   Trump. This led to several employees speaking up  in regards to how fair the debate was going to be. We were given assurances that that the debate  would be fair and neither the Harris campaign   nor the Trump campaign would redacted unfair  advantage. Now that's what I had personally   hoped for going into the ABC News debate. I was  pleasantly surprised by CNN. CNN, of course,   has been a regular scapegoat  of Donald Trump and the right. Well, the CNN debate I thought was actually fair.  Dana Bash and Jake Tapper didn't attempt to fact   check. They didn't attempt to make themselves  the story. Maybe they just. actually moderated   the debate and let Joe Biden and Donald  Trump go at it. So a clear difference   between ABC News and CNN. Point number three,  concerns regarding journalistic integrity. It is my belief that contemporary news  organizations Including ABC News no longer   adhere to impartiality. And of course, this is  what we saw, right? Um, prior to the debate,   MRC Media Research Center released their  analysis of dozens and hundreds of news   stories. And they found that 100 percent of  the stories about Kamala Harris were positive. Whereas 93 percent of the stories about Donald  Trump were negative. What are the odds of   that? That suggests some sort of systemic  bias. That suggests some sort of systemic   programming within the network. The influence  of commercial interests and substantial donors   appears to affect news presentation, resulting  in selective reporting and biased narratives. I've personally witnessed news stories being  cut from programming and not reported at all   due to the influence of certain corporations  linked to our parent company, Redacted. Uh,   so, it'll be interesting, you know, if  this person does testify before Congress.   To reveal what that redacted portion is. Um,  observations pertaining to debate fairness. I have noted specific instances related to the  debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris   that raise concerns about procedural fairness.  The specific instances of perceived biases are as   follows. So before we get to page number  three, keep in mind this was notarized,   this was, uh, mailed out the, the day  before the debate on September nine. So it's really interesting what he's about  to point out here because this was written,   notarized, sent out before the debate  even happened. Bullet point number one,   the Harris campaign received particular  accommodations including, but not limited to,   the providing of a podium significantly  smaller than that used by Donald Trump. Um, and so just remember, I made a video on  that calling out The podium differences. I   just want to point that out. I may, I  pointed that out before the debate, uh,   smaller than the one used by Donald Trump and  assurances regarding split screen television   views that would favorably impact Kamala  Harris's appearance relative to Donald Trump. Now I had a lot of people in my  video exposing that saying, well,   that's just common practice, you know, the  forced perspective that they do that. Well,   it is common practice in a lot of situations,  but it's not that common in presidential   debates. And I pulled up. screen grabs of the  primary debates, CBS News Democratic Debate. Now, for forced perspective, you have to  tilt the camera one way or another. When   you're straight on, that gives you  the actual sizing of everything. The   CBS News Democratic Primary Debate. Those  podiums look like the same size. ABC News,   those podiums look like the same size. Uh,  CNN, those podiums look like the same size. Fox News, those podiums look like the same  size. So it actually isn't that common for   presidential debates. Um, especially when  there are many of them on stage. stage. Okay,   so bullet point number two is really interesting.  It was agreed that Donald Trump would be subjected   to fact checking during the debate while Kamala  Harris would not face comparable scrutiny. This was widely known throughout the company  that Donald Trump would be fact checked. In fact,   various people were assigned to  fact check observations it was   perceived candidate Trump would make during the  debate. So, in other words, they predicted what   they thought he was going to say, and then  they had fact checks ready to take him down. The most obvious example of that is the, they're  eating the dogs, they're eating the cats line,   and David Muir had an alleged fact check  ready for that. In fact, Harris campaign   required assurances that Donald Trump would  be fact checked. So, we all know that Harris,   you know, was trying to pull out of  the debate, she didn't want to do this. Um, And it sounds like ABC caved to  her in order to get her to participate   in this. This was done via multiple  communications with the Harris campaign,   whereas the Trump campaign was not included  in negotiations. And that, of course,   is not impartiality. You know, that suggests that  they are favoring one campaign, one campaign. Uh, favorably, and they are completely  excluding the other campaign and tilting   the playing field against them. To my  understanding, any rules, negotiations,   and conversations pertaining to the debate  should have had both the Trump campaign and   Harris campaign involved. The  Harris campaign had numerous,   more phone calls regarding the debate rules  without the Trump campaign aware or on the call. Don't forget. Again, bringing  up this headline from earlier,   former top Clinton advisor calls on ABC to launch  internal probe into whether debate was rigged. So,   you know, these allegations are made.  If we take a look at the text messages,   if we take a look at the call logs, if we  take a look at the emails, this should verify? Or, you know, pour cold water on these  allegations. If ABC News has nothing to hide,   you know, I get ABC News isn't the Washington  Post, but the left likes to run on this,   this slogan of democracy dies in darkness.  Well, journalism dies in darkness. ABC. Uh,   why don't you shed light and put  all of these concerns to rest. Bullet point number three on page number  three. The Harris campaign was provided   with sample questions why that, while not the  exact questions, covered similar topics that   would appear during the debate. So I don't  know if you remember, but earlier I told you   to take a look at the specific denials from  Uh, ABC, and, uh, Abso The specific wording   was absolutely not a spokesperson, a spokesman  for ABC News told the Daily Beast on Friday. Harris was not given any questions  before the debate. Keep in mind,   this affidavit was written one day before the  debate. Take a look at what they said. The Harris   campaign was provided with sample questions. So  ABC News denial, the wording of their denial,   and then the claims made in the affidavit,  A fine, a fine line is being threaded here. Um, and so that is really, I, I, I  think it's really interesting where   both statements can be true. Bullet point  number four on page four. Furthermore,   the Harris campaign imposed restrictions on the  scope of questioning. So the Harris campaign,   and again, this was written a day before the  debate and this was all proven to be true. No questions regarding the perceived health of  Biden. No inquiries related to her tenure as   attorney general in San Francisco. No questions  concerning her brother in law. Tony West,   who faces allegations of embezzling  billions of dollars in taxpayer funds,   and who may be involved in  her administration if elected. Now, I've never heard of Tony West, and  so, what's interesting, is that this, this   whistleblower included, you know, something that  that's not even being talked about on the right.   So apparently journalists have found out about her  brother in law, Tony West. They've done question,   you know, they've done research and it's  clear that the news networks know about this,   but for whatever reason, allegedly the Harris  campaign didn't want that talked about. So to me, that says that that's what we  should be questioning because that's what   journalism and the free press. It's  supposed to do. There's supposed to   be another check and balance on our  elected officials. So do your job,   media. Please investigate Tony West and I'll  look into him myself. Now, point number five. Internal organization climate. I've observed  a pronounced bias against Donald Trump within   ABC News. Employees expressing favorable  views towards him experience significant   concerns about potential retribution.  Redacted. So that right there is really   interesting. I hope that that um, gets talked  about and clarified and, you know, made public. Point number six, purpose and documentation  of affidavit. This affidavit is executed to   document and provide transparency regarding  the issues of fairness and impartiality in the   debate process, and broader concerns about  journalistic integrity at ABC News. Now,   there are a few more interesting points made  in the final, um, closing pages of this. Uh, so this affidavit was notarized on September  9th. In addition to notarizing this affidavit,   this whistleblower sent a certified letter to  themselves. Um, also postmarked September 9,   which will be, uh, unopened for any future  investigations. But that's not all. Um,   this person also sent a certified  letter to Speaker Mike Johnson. So I think that that will be something that we're  going to want to watch out for. If the House,   if Speaker Mike Johnson starts talking about this  letter and starts talking about these allegations,   then we will know for a fact that at least, um,  the existence of this affidavit is verified,   real, and not just, you know,  fake news of, uh, someone online. Additionally, for further investigation, I've  secretly recorded several conversations that   will prove the Harris campaign insisted upon  not only the fact checking of Donald Trump,   but also insisted on what questions were  not to be asked under any circumstances,   or else the Harris campaign would  decline to participate in the debate. And here's the most important part. I make  these statements under penalty of perjury   and without coercion of any kind. Um, So  there you have it. Those are six pages of   the affidavit. I personally, what I'm going to  be looking forward to is whether there are any   statements from speaker Mike Johnson in the  coming days, whether there are any statements   from the house opening an investigation to  ABC, whether this whistleblower actually comes   forward and is willing to testify in front of  Congress, an accusation has been made made now. And this is apparently, uh, you know, an  affidavit that has been notarized. Uh,   ABC news has already. made statements against  these allegations before the affidavit was   released online. So the question is, is  now that this affidavit has been released,   will ABC News make any more statements? Will they  deny what has been alleged in these documents? As always, this is my analysis and my  commentary, and I would love to know   yours in the comments below. What do you think  about all of this? Do you think this is just   a hoax? Do you think it's fake news? Or do  you think this is the beginning into a huge   expose that could rock not only ABC, C  News, but the entire mainstream media. Let me know your thoughts in the  comments below. If you haven't already,   please be sure to gimme a thumbs up.  I know it's a simple thing to ask,   but it really does help me to reach more  viewers like you in the algorithm. Be sure   to smash that subscribe button and  to check out one of these videos.