ABC Whistleblower: Harris was given the questions and was promised Trump would be fact-checked; she would not

"So tell us why Trump is such a piece of s**t?"

According to a report by The Geller Report an ABC whistleblower is allegedly planning to release an affidavit attesting that Kamala Harris was given “the same questions that were given during the debate” and was assured that Trump would be “fact-checked” and she would not.

Again, this is alleged and has not been proven to have occurred, but if ABC is anything like CNN, it isn't a crazy conspiracy theory. Who do they think they are--Donna Brazile? Candy Crowley?

Mark Penn, a former advisor for the Clintons, is calling on an independent investigation into ABC News for rigging a debate. Below are a few of the posts that address the allegation.

If this turns out to be true, this is a serious breach of journalistic ethics and a death blow to @ABCNetwork reputation. https://t.co/lRZA9CZTpx

There are actually 5 whistleblowers now. Even former Clinton adviser Mark Penn is calling for ABC to probe if there was some effort at "rigging the outcome of this debate." Additionally, a very short video is circulating of Linsey Davis who is a sorority sister of Kamala Harris,… pic.twitter.com/4WyBG4Vykm

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) September 12, 2024

🚨BREAKING: It is now confirmed that Kamala Harris cheated and rigged the debate.

– Kamala was given the questions before the debate.

– Kamala was told that she would not be fact checked no matter what she said and that Trump would be fact checked. pic.twitter.com/evP3v7XRrz

— Philip Anderson (@VoteHarrisOut) September 12, 2024

The real losers were ABC and its two partisan moderators, Muir and Davis. They sought to warp a debate, disgraced their network, and offered a good reminder why such media “moderators” should never be allowed anywhere near presidential debates. https://t.co/2nHe16lcL0

— Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) September 12, 2024

The ABC “fact-checks” were fake, which has inversely drawn MORE attention to these topics, aka the Streisand Effect, which is a social phenomenon that happens when there's an attempt to censor or hide information but inadvertently brings more attention to it.

Besties

In 2003, Streisand tried to suppress photographs of her Malibu home from being published by suing the photographer. However, the lawsuit had the opposite effect, leading to widespread public interest and the viral spread of the photographs that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

Essentially, the Streisand effect shows how efforts to suppress information can backfire, resulting in the undesired information becoming even more public and widely disseminated.

If it is proved that ABC fed Harris the questions with the pledge to not question her but would instead challenge Trump's claims, heads should roll, indictments should fly and people should be fired.

Tweet

CNN still hasn't learned, still sucks

"I have a full head of hair"

Certainly Not News (CNN) head Jeff Zucker told his psychiatrist that viewers of the fake news network trust them "more than ever." He also swore that he saw Elvis at San Francisco Walmart and that wishing upon a star actually works.

Zucker babbled on to say that he is certain that CNN continues to have the undying trust of its two hundred or so viewers, as it extends into digital brands in order to attract a younger group of naive leftists.

His psychiatrist, who listened patiently to this prattle, ended up prescribing 5mg of Haldol tid, and a series of ECT booster jolts into the brain just for the fun of it.

Later that day Zucker spoke at Cannes Lions and said that, "CNN has been around for 37 years, our trustworthiness today is the same as it was a year ago [which sucked a year ago as well] before people in high offices started questioning it. We know that through our own brand research. Just because somebody says you are not trustworthy [and constantly twist stories and lie in order to attack Trump] that doesn't mean it is so . . . CNN's brand equity is built over 37 years doing hard work in very dangerous places [like Chicago and other Democrat-run cities]  . . . those who rely on CNN trust CNN more than ever."

Of course, that too is a lie. In fact, Zucker makes Alex Jones look like Josef Pulitzer.

The network that brought us the master-debater-moderator, Candy Crowley, and Anderson "if he took a dump on his desk" Cooper, who basically sucked up to Barack Obama and never asked him an actual hardball question, is now trying to convince us their reporting is edgy?

CNN is just another leftist wing of the Democratic Party. Listen to the way Cooper attacks the panelist.

They're as honest as a strung out junkie alone in a drugstore . . . or The New York Times.



Tweet

Romney helps Trump by not voting for him

Mitt Romney has decided to follow the American people's lead that they took when he was running for president: he will not vote for the GOP candidate. 

Mitt's refusal to vote for Donald Trump is his gift to the New York billionaire. People know Mitt is weak and is also what Donald would refer to as a "loser," so it makes sense that if Romney is willing to allow a felon with a voice like a radiation alert siren win the presidency, anyone with sense would vote for the other candidate.

It's likely that Mitt is angry with Donald for calling him a "weak candidate" when he ran against Mr. Obama and Candy Crowley.  

He was like a deer in the headlights during the debate when she jumped in to support Obama and Mitt did nothing about it. 

Romney lost twice and would lose again if he ran, and if he's now saying that he will not vote for Trump, then it can only be a good thing for the Donald, and it may get him over the top. 

The irony is that Trump gave a large contribution to Romney's losing campaign--perhaps he's upset over the losing effort too.




Tweet

Hillary tries to block the first Jewish POTUS

If you were able to watch the Democratic "debate" on PBS on Thursday, you may have come to the conclusion that the Hillary fix is obviously in.

First of all, one of the moderators asked a question tied to the Vietnam war. According to Gawker, a live mic caught one of them sighing, "Oh God," as Sanders began his answer. The moderator may as well have done a "Candy Crowley" and helped the candidate of her choice with the debate. (You may recall how Crowley came to Obama's aid when Romney posed a tough question to him.)

Judy Woodruff, one of the moderators, has donated to the Clinton Foundation--that should have been either disqualified her as a moderator, or at the very least, made public at the outset of the debate as full disclosure.

But this was a Democratic debate, so who are we kidding?

Another interesting point that should dispel any doubts that the fix was in to support Clinton is the fact that on the very day of the debate, subpoenas were issued by the State Department to a family foundation bearing Hillary's name as part of the ongoing federal investigation. Nothing, not a word was asked about this to Clinton.

So it's okay to ask GOP candidates tough questions, like those asked of Trump and Cruz regarding bankruptcies of the former, and a loan from Goldman Sachs to the latter, but the media throws cotton balls at Clinton.

It isn't that the public isn't interested in what may turn out to be indictable chicanery by Clinton. Facebook and other social media pegged the meter over the news about the Clinton Foundation, and yet, nothing was asked about it in spite of the fact that subpoenas were issued by the State Department.

Even Bernie Sanders seems to be unwilling to effectively attack Hillary. When Woodruff asked him how he would feel if he blocked the election of the first woman president, his answer was as weak as his "enough about the damn emails." 

He should have said something like: "And why is it okay for Mrs. Clinton to block the election of the first Jew?"

But he didn't . . . and he won't.

The fix is in and journalism is dead.


Tweet

Steve-The-Porn-Aficionado-Israel and Racism

Child pornography aficionado, Steve Israel (D-NY) spoke to CNN's Candy Crowley, the so-called journalist for the failing cable network. Israel (absolutely no relation to the fine Jewish state of Israel) said that the GOP is filled with racists and have ideological similarities to Democrat Bull Connor. He was firm in his anti-GOP stance but admitted that not every single Republican is a racist, but almost all of them are. At this point, Ms. Crowley took a big bite out of a Snickers bar and defended president Obama's lack of clear foreign policies.

So how does Israel know this?

He knows this from being a close supporter of Barack Obama and watching a lot of child porn on his "laptop" computer. Somehow he was able to fashion a connection between this and the rampant racism of the GOP.

Like most, but not all Democrats, Israel loves child porn, especially child porn that features pre-pubescent boys from Third World countries with socialist governments. He was also very sympathetic when Osama bin Laden was brutally murdered by those Navy SEAL bullies.

How do I know this?

The same way that Steve Israel knows about the GOP and our racist tendencies. I made it up because it served my purpose.

Calling someone a racist is a serious charge, Mr. Israel. It shouldn't be made lightly, but that's exactly what you did. You have no facts, no data, and yet you said many in the GOP are racists because it fit the Democratic talking point. That's disgusting--it's on the same level as calling someone Islamophobic.

I fully agree that racism is still alive. We saw it just a few days ago when Frazier Glenn Cross killed 3 people at two Jewish community centers in Kansas. He thought the people he was killing were Jews, like you, Mr. Israel. But Cross was a member of the KKK, a Democratic-lead hate group. Like Bull Connor, another Democrat who you cited when you spoke to Crowley.

Let me be clear. There are at least as many racists on the left as there are on the right. Racism is not about politics--it's about ignorance. And in that category, you excel.

In my latest novel, a New York reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .

Jihad Joe: a Novel  Create Space soft cover book edition

Jihad Joe see it here ebook version

Tweet

The Daily Obama Show

"Things are going great, Jon"

President Obama is still making the TV show circuit and appeared on The Daily Show tonight with Jon Stewart.  Like Obama's budget plan, The Daily Show is also a comedy, but instead of telling jokes he discussed his screw up with the Libya terror attack that killed four Americans, one being the Ambassador, Chris Stevens.  Obama made ongoing claims about his lack of confusion regarding what happened in Libya. By saying he was not confused simply shows that he is either lying, or he is still confused.  He also spoke about the big jobs recovery that's been going on the past few hours, and how Romney has no plan to improve the economy.  He now has a plan to "refocus our efforts against al Qaeda," and never mentioned that this organization is crippled--that talking point has changed.   None of this matters though because The Daily Show and The View are free campaign ads, and yet Mitt Romney is still ahead of him in the polls.

But the worst thing he said was that "[W]hen four Americans get killed it's not optimal and we're gonna fix it."  How terribly self-serving and insensitive. 

Bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is alive and well. They are everywhere and Obama is a failure as President.  You cannot lie to the American public, try to cover up the lie, and then blame others for it.  You can't claim a video caused the Islamic protest when there was no protest, just a calculated, planned attack on our consulate.  Then you tell Kerry Ladka, the guy who asked you the Libya question at the debate, that you needed to wait until all the intelligence was reported before making a statement about it.  You told him in private, after the debate.  You lied, you got caught, and unfortunately, the leftist media will never report it.  Liberals will never hear it.  How sad for our country.

But no matter what you did, liberals like Chris Matthews will never doubt your lies.  I want to know when you knew it wasn't about the video and if it was before Susan Rice went on five TV shows to claim it was the video, why did you allow it?

Let's face it, if you didn't really know, then you aren't competent to run our country--you aren't even competent enough to run a candy store.

And speaking of Candy, how come you knew she had the transcript?

My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet

My Brilliant Thoughts on the Debate

They did it my way

Candy Crowley of CNN (Certainly Not News) was the moderator of the Second Presidential Debate.  She insisted that she be allowed to be part of the follow up questions after the Romney and Obama teams had their own agreement that there would be no follow up questions allowed.  She sucked.

At first I thought Candy was doing a good job, until the point came up as to whether Obama called the Libyan terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  She jumped in to defend him and said that he did, and while that wasn't in her job description, it turned out that the reference Obama made in the Rose Garden was in reference to the 2001 attack on the same day, not the 2012 attack.  Obama lied, Stevens died.

When the black gentleman asked Obama to give him reasons to vote for him again now that he was out of work, Obama  hemmed and hawed and spoke about everything but the reason he should get the man's vote, and our President looked like Joe Biden in calculus class.

I didn't like Romney asking Obama direct questions--when you don't know the answer to the question you're asking, it usually isn't wise asking it in the first place.  Mitt gave him the opportunity to give the answer he wanted to give, not what Mitt wanted to hear.

I also didn't like Obama's boring talking points: fair share, millionaires and billionaires. Fair share is code and I have no idea what it means, when I try to analyze the term.  Who determines what a fair share is?  Obama?  And what makes it fair in the first place?  Where is it written what a fair share is?  I'm weary of the divisiveness over money--it feeds off of jealousy and a sense of entitlement.  

I think it's about time we have more control over these debates.  I'm not a control freak, but I don't like the disparity I constantly see, where the liberals always seem to get more talk time than conservatives, and the moderators seem like members of the Democratic re-election committee.  Why should they get to decide which questions can be posed and what the follow-up questions should be?  In spite of this, Fox News is still more watched than any of the leftist media.

My final thought is just how angry Obama looked, especially when Libya was mentioned.  I tweeted that Obama looked like he was having a bowel movement at that point in the debate and Romney won on that point.



Tweet