ABC colluded with the Harris campaign... rigged debate... the moderator admitted it.

WATCH:

CNN's Jake Tapper, in a shocking moment of journalism, SLAMS Kamala for dodging multiple debate questions:

"Vice President Harris began the debate by punting the first question on the economy…"

"On the border, another vulnerable issue for Harris, she also dodged…"

"When… pic.twitter.com/EUZm851EqL

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 11, 2024

Straight out of Clown World

Just because the whistleblower says they'll swear under penalty of perjury doesn't mean their claims are bulletproof. The Newsweek Article they’re talking about mostly mentions minor things like time management and microphone muting. None of it proves the debate was 'rigged' for Harris.

Debates always have strict rules, and both candidates dealt with the same conditions.

If the debate was really rigged, don’t you think it would’ve been obvious to everyone watching?

Swearing under oath just means the whistleblower believes what they’re saying - it doesn't make their claims automatically true. Not that you'd know that.

No, swearing under oath makes them legally liable for their statement... which gives the whistleblower legal credibility... Not that you'd know that.

How predictable, right wing choosing what is fact and what is truth only when it suits them. 😂

Let's talk about "Legal Credibility." It’s important to understand that credibility in a court of law has limitations. When someone swears to tell the truth, it doesn’t mean their truth is the same as fact. This applies to everyone, from whistleblowers to those sworn in on January 6th. To explain this better, let’s break it down:

In court, facts are concrete evidence like documents or physical proof that can be verified. Truth, however, is how these facts are interpreted or perceived. The right wing often pushes their version of the "truth," which can be subjective. Isn’t it ironic that Trump hosts a platform called Truth Social? It’s like the ultimate used-car salesman pitch, and MAGA followers subscribed to it. But I digress...

When a witness swears to tell the truth, they’re sharing what they honestly believe, which may not perfectly match the facts. This is why we need to separate facts from truth. Lawyers present both facts and witness testimony to argue what they think the "real" truth is based on the evidence.

For example, if Person A and Person B both hear a loud bang, Person A might think it’s a gunshot (their truth), while Person B thinks it’s a car backfiring (their truth). But the fact is, the bang was caused by a firework. They both interpreted it differently, but the fact remains the same.

In court, the goal is to find the truth that fits the most reliable evidence... Not that you'd know anything about evidence.

How predictable... you don't know what perjury is...

I see you’re confusing legal liability with automatic truth. Sure, swearing under oath makes you legally accountable, but it doesn’t mean what they claim is bulletproof. Just look at the numerous times Trump has been under oath but still faced court rulings against him, despite swearing on the Bible. As with any witness, credibility gets weighed against evidence. If they’ve got nothing to back it up beyond their word, that oath won’t save them. Just like how Trump dodged questions about his own affiliations with Project 2025 in the Harris debate, being evasive doesn’t create truth.

Now you're just spewing more lies... thanks

What lie have I spoken?

I mean, let's get back on task here - the debate...

If Harris had such an unfair advantage due to a supposed rigged debate, how did Trump still fail to convincingly address key issues like his handling of COVID or the economy? Shouldn't that have been easy to do if he had the facts on his side?

And if we’re to believe this whistleblower because they swore under oath, does that mean every testimony given against Trump in his trials should be considered ‘truth’ too? Or does credibility only apply when it fits a certain narrative?

You argue that Harris had the debate rigged, yet Trump didn’t bring that up during the debate. If he really believed it was rigged, why wouldn’t he address it on the biggest stage possible? Isn’t that exactly where he should be calling out corruption? I mean, he tried, an attempt was made, but it was a weak truth. They were flimsy accusations.

Fact-checking bias: This is weak as a claim of bias, as fact-checking decisions are generally made based on the verifiability and potential impact of the statements, not on political favoritism.

General bias in moderation: This claim is also weak because the structure of the debate was designed to be fair, and both candidates had to follow the same rules. Trump's personal feeling of being treated unfairly does not constitute evidence of actual bias in the moderation process.

Show me the facts... because baseless accusations are like trying to win a race with a flat tire—you’re making noise but not going anywhere. Like the 202 race, for example. And the 2022 mid-terms.

First Assassination attempt was by someone from your own party, funnily enough.

Still waiting on news from the second.

Oh, by the way...

"Smart people realize they need to stop debating Dems because Dems have the facts." FTFY.

So much for the "Debate me bro" crowd, looks like they're all talk - but we knew that from the get-go.