ABC's Rigged Debate Sham Exposed
A thinly veiled campaign contribution by Disney Co. Partisan media figures and fact-checkers, whether through ignorance or bias, are serving as unwitting mouthpieces for left-wing talking points.
Introduction
Kamala Harris hit several Trump nerves, and he succumbed to many; however, it appeared that she was aware of the questions. If you listen closely, this is validated by a coordinated response and timely piling on by the ABC News moderators to the questions. The transitions from her answers to moderator support appeared too clean not to have been known and prepared by Harris and the ABC team. A careful debate analysis might be needed to verify this, but some of the more astute viewers noticed it immediately.
The ABC moderators worked for a media company owned by Disney. Harris was a fellow sorority sister of one of the moderators and had connections with ABC executives. Dana Walden, a senior Disney executive whose portfolio includes ABC News, is one of Harris' "extraordinary friends," according to the New York Times. Disney has a history of pushing the woke Democrat agenda on viewers. ABC is also home to the Trump-hating talk show "The View."
Consider how challenging it would be for anyone, even experienced debaters, to be truly "prepared" if they followed the rules by not using notes and didn't know the questions in advance. In contrast, does being "prepared" actually mean having prior knowledge of the questions, being allowed to use notes, and receiving coordinated support from the moderators? This scenario raises questions about the fairness and authenticity of the debate process.
Media bias and cheating during debates has a history. In 2016, Donna Brazile, then a CNN contributor and Democratic strategist, shared debate questions with Hillary Clinton's campaign before a CNN-sponsored Democratic primary event. Brazile later admitted in a Time Magazine essay: "As a Democratic operative and DNC Vice Chair, I shared potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign."
Harris might be a lawyer, trained in the art of argumentation, but after listening to her on the Senate floor and in committee, she is not this quick on her feet and sounded like she never has before. It appeared to be a fraudulent debate, however, beautifully set up to exploit Trump's oversized ego. The attacks took full advantage of the debate structure, of which the two-minute limitations worked against Trump and advantaged Harris, who would have been exposed as a hypocrite and incompetent economic illiterate if given enough time to talk.
Trump should not have debated Harris. The bar is so low that any intelligent answer is a victory, even a lie. Trump was set up to fail and came close to it. He should not have any more debates with Harris. He can rightly argue that the incredible bias displayed and attack by the moderators and repeated lies by Kamala that went unchallenged deserves no more attention, not to mention she is an illegitimate candidate and product of the soft coup and not nominated by the people, which completely undermines the election process.
The Debate Format was Changed to Benefit the Incumbent
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump bypassed the typical road taken for presidential debates, with changes that clearly benefited the Democrats. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which had sponsored every presidential debate since 1988, was sidelined, ending a tradition of substantive 15-minute discussions on each topic.
When Trump challenged Biden to debate "anytime, anywhere," Biden's team responded with strict conditions that fundamentally undermined the debate's effectiveness in informing voters. They demanded only two debates, insisted on excluding the CPD, and pushed for rules that limited in-depth discussion to only two minutes.
Crucially, Biden's team sought media-employed moderators who had proven to be biased against Trump and aligned with the Democratic Party. This move raised serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of the proposed debates.
The new format, dictated by Biden's camp, allowed Biden two minutes to answer, followed by Trump's one-minute response, then Biden's one-minute rebuttal. This structure seemed designed to protect Biden from extended scrutiny and potentially mask any cognitive challenges.
Biden's team also eliminated live audiences and town hall meetings, citing past difficulties but effectively cutting out direct citizen participation. Critics argued these changes severely limited substantive discussion and protected Biden from unscripted moments.
The Biden campaign demanded moderators have control over microphones, claiming it was to prevent interruptions. However, this power has been used to silence challenging questions or inconvenient truths, particularly when raised by Trump.
This debate structure seemed designed to protect a vulnerable and cognitively challenged Joe Biden rather than inform voters. It limited meaningful dialogue and citizen involvement, preventing voters from seeing candidates in a genuine, unscripted debate. The result was more of a carefully controlled performance than a true debate, ultimately undermining the democratic process.
The following is my take on an article from THE FEDERALIST published on September 13, and written by Beth Brelje @BethBrelje
Who won the ABC debate-ambush between former President Donald Trump, and the trio of Vice President Kamala Harris, David Muir, and Linsey Davis?
ABC moderator Linsey Davis and Kamala Harris may have been friends, the two were both sorority sisters of Alpha Kappa Alpha as undergraduate students but attended two different universities. There is no apparent evidence that the two meet before the debate.
Linsey has been accused of going easy on Harris in the debate and tried to correct – fact check—Trump’s abortion claim during the debate as he appeared to be referencing former Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s 2019 remarks about aborting babies after birth.
“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” Davis said. Critics quickly pointed out that six states and the District of Columbia currently do not place any limits on the procedure.
While Davis and her fellow moderator, David Muir, aggressively fact-checked Trump's claims, they kept quiet when Harris repeatedly lied about Trump and her own record. Their fact-checks have been proven false.
Harris lied when she said police had died during the Jan. 6, 2021 Capital riot, and that Trump had imperiled access to IVF treatments. She also lied when she claimed Trump would ban abortions across the country if elected, and that he threatened a 'bloodbath' if he lost the election. Muir and Davis did not push back on these lies at all. Instead, they interjected themselves into the debate to help Harris. Their actions weren't fact-checking; it was a clear attack against Trump.
The Trump/Harris debate was, in essence, a rigged in-kind contribution – it was in essence a political infomercial—by ABC News to the Harris campaign. ABC benefited from the network’s record viewership—the most-watched debate on any Network in 16 years, says the company.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines an in-kind contribution as a non-monetary contribution to a campaign. Corporations are barred from making such contributions.
The Debate was a win-win for ABC and the Harris campaign. Was it a quid pro quo? Harris’s friends at ABC got the coveted debate and the record viewership, and it’s more than obvious the moderates gave her the kid’s glove treatment while playing connived hardball with Trump with [false] fact-checking and framed questions to make Trump look bad.
ABC is owned by Disney, which pushes the woke Democrat agenda on viewers. ABC, the home of the Trump-hating talk show “The View,” takes every opportunity to villainize Trump, comparing him to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
The ABC debate seemed to be a carefully planned effort to undermine Trump, one of many tactics used by the Democratic Party-controlled political ecosystem to discredit him. Trump was denied a fair debate where he could clearly express his ideas. Instead, American voters were presented with a practiced performance from Harris, who used rehearsed talking points to waste time and provoke Trump, offering little substantive content.
Moderator's FBI Crime Stats Disinformation
During the debate, Trump accused the Biden-Harris administration of fueling crime, especially by undocumented immigrants. Muir interrupted, claiming FBI data showed a decrease in violent crime under Biden-Harris. However, Muir's 'fact-check' is demonstrably false, either through incompetence or deliberate deception. Crucially, the FBI data omits major Democratic-controlled cities.
My analysis of crime statistics in these cities, comparing Trump's tenure (2017-2020) to Biden's (2021-2024), reveals alarming increases when adjusted for population:
New York City: Homicides up 50.8%
Chicago: Homicides up 26%
Los Angeles: Homicides up 44%
San Francisco: Homicides up 49.3%
This crime surge stems from lenient prosecution policies by progressive district attorneys, following Kamala Harris's model. Nationwide, crime has skyrocketed since Biden took office. Homicides, assaults, property crimes, and drug-related offenses have surged due to the Biden-Harris administration's open Southern Border policy and the Democratic Party's progressive approach to law enforcement.
Moreover, social issues have worsened dramatically. Drug overdose deaths have reached record highs, while homelessness has increased in major cities. At the southern border, human trafficking has exploded, and fentanyl seizures have skyrocketed, indicating a flood of deadly drugs into the country.
These increases in crime and social problems are direct consequences of the current administration's policies and the Democratic Party's progressive governance.
Final Thoughts
The Trump-Harris debate highlighted alarming concerns regarding the role of left-leaning media moderators and the integrity of the debate process. Moderators are meant to serve as impartial facilitators, not fact-checkers. It is the responsibility of the candidates to fact-check each other, allowing viewers to assess the validity of their claims independently. When moderators take on the role of arbiters of truth, they corrupt the debate and undermine its purpose.
One might conclude that these partisan media figures and biased fact-checkers, whether through ignorance or bias, are effectively serving as unwitting mouthpieces for left-wing talking points—in essence, useful idiots of the progressive left.
Furthermore, if one candidate is subjected to fact-checking, both should be held to the same standard. The failure to fact-check Harris while scrutinizing Trump demonstrated a clear bias from the moderators, violating the principles of fair debate. This uneven application of scrutiny not only favored one candidate but also deprived viewers of the opportunity to critically evaluate the candidates' statements and policy positions.
Trump was denied a fair debate where his ideas could be clearly expressed, leaving American voters with performative acting and nothing of substance from a duplicitous Kamala Harris, whose practiced talking points were designed to waste time and provoke Trump.
Ultimately, this carefully rigged approach to debates is designed to manipulate public opinion rather than foster informed decision-making among voters. Trump and the voting public were subjected to what amounts to an in-kind campaign contribution—essentially a political infomercial—by Disney's subsidiary ABC News for the Harris campaign.
Unfortunately, many citizens are walking around with opinions that are not genuinely their own; instead, they are shaped by years of propaganda, much like what we witnessed in the sham of this debate.
The integrity of the democratic process relies on transparent and equitable debates, and the recent format fell far short of that ideal. This blatant manipulation of the debate process not only undermines public trust but also threatens the very foundation of informed democratic decision-making. If taken too far, it could result in one-party rule and an end to our constitutional republic.
