The document is claimed to be a sworn statement penned by a staffer at ABC News. It was first published Sunday by an X account with the name 'Black Insurrectionist.' 

The document, said to be a sworn affidavit signed by a notary public the day before the debate, says the network gave Harris questions ahead of time while agreeing to a series of other preconditions to give the vice president an advantage over Trump.

Also prohibited at the debate were inquiries about Harris' stint as California Attorney General, as well as those involving her brother-in-law, Tony West, the document shows. It includes several other stipulations, as well as redactions obscuring the supposed staffer's identity.

A statement from ABC did not address the specific claims, instead saying: 'ABC News followed the debate rules that both campaigns agreed on... No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates.'

The document, which describes containing a seal from the notary public that is not actually visible, says it was written by a New York resident. 

'I have worked for ABC news for over 10 years in various technical and administrative positions,' it reads, before stating that the staffer 'observed significant transformations in the nature of news reporting at the organization' within that span, as well as a 'shift from unbiased reporting to a model influenced by external factors.'

The purported staffer, who says they are not a supporter of Donald Trump, states that the intent of the affidavit is solely to 'address concerns regarding perceived biases within news reporting within my employer's debate.'

The document goes on to cite '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,' where 'candidates would simply make blanket statements without specific policy or explanation as to...'

The end of that sentence is redacted, along with several others.

The next section offers some purported insight into the political landscape of the ABC office, where the writer claimed employees were 'looking for a fair and honest debate' while questioning 'the clear biased [sic] that is well known throughout the company.'