Leslie McAdoo Gordon

Finished. It's hard to convey how really problematic this interview is. There are some positive details, which I'll point those, but mostly this interview is an example of investigating in a way that is not a search for the truth & is illustrative of investigative bias & abuse./8

It is also crystal clear that Hopkin's will was overborne by investigative techniques. I'll show how with several examples. Further, there is some completely inappropriate conduct by the investigating agent. /9

To hit the big issue first: there is no recantation in this interview. To the contrary, even having psychological techniques used on him doesn't keep Hopkins from continuing to tell the agents that he thinks there was a significant problem with how ballots were handled. /10

He never says the original facts in his affidavit were false or did not happen. The very most he says is that it is possible that he may have misunderstood or made assumptions. That is definitely not a recantation. /11

He making allowances for the possibility that he might be mistaken. That is a sign of someone who is telling the truth, NOT someone who is lying. Honest people concede that they could be wrong, [even] if they don't think they are.(deleted the original of this tweet for a typo)/12

Even the agents tell him repeatedly that they believe what he is saying, & although that can be an investigative technique also, it is clear that they mean it here. They did several things that support that. /13

They could have pushed him to say that his original statement was a lie or was motivated by revenge, etc., which they mention, but they don't. It's actually pretty easy to make someone look like a liar even when they aren't & they didn't try to here. /14

Even in the changes to the affidavit that they gave him to make they emphasized that he was acting in good faith & from a sense of duty. They wouldn't have bothered w/that if they thought he was lying. They were trying to make sure he had some cover for making the allegations./15

Agents can be funny that way. If they think the guy is dirty, they want him to confess it & put it in the statement, but they want to "play fair" by their lights & not have a guy confess to stuff THEY don't think he did. And that brings us to one of the big problems here. /16

The interview wasn't conducted as a legit search for facts & truth. It was conducted from the beginning from the conclusion that Hopkins was wrong & the agents' job was to figure out if he was lying or mistaken. They decided he was a good guy who meant well, but was mistaken. /17

Of course, that predetermined conclusion may or may not be true. And there's no problem with pushing a witness to probe the accuracy & strength of the witness' information & recollection. But starting from a conclusion distorts that process. /18

Before I get into some of the specific techniques let me give you a few data points about investigations. Cops & agents are allowed to lie to people -about the facts of the case & the evidence- as a form of investigative technique. They cannot legally lie about just anything./19

Also, they cannot make promises to the person being interrogated. More correctly, they can, but doing so undermines the "voluntary" nature of the interview & can make it useless for legal purposes. Obviously they can't use actual physical force (which did not happen here.) /20

Also, certain kinds of other acts are also not legal - things like depriving people of sleep or water - that de facto amount to physical coercion. But that leaves many kinds of psychological techniques available that are "legal." /21

The problem is you can, in fact, easily coerce people w/techniques that are way less offensive than depriving them of food or water. These techniques are commonly used in federal investigations, especially if no lawyer is present. /22

A major problem w/these techniques is they produce false answers rather than truthful ones because the person is responding to the techniques rather than retrieving correct information.But agents believe they are getting "the truth" (which they think they already know) w/them./23

Many of these techniques were used in this interview. Strasser bullied Hopkins for about the first 30 minutes or so, establishing control, not letting Hopkins talk, cutting him off, not letting him explain, getting him to give assent to things Strasser said. /24

Strasser is a polygrapher. My experience of nearly 30 years w/government polygraphers is they come in 2 kinds: 1. skilled - they can get to the truth (a minority); 2. disastrous - they know the techniques but you're getting no where near the truth. The 2nd kind bully. /25

Strasser bullied Hopkins here, but he did it subtly; by the end Hopkins thought Strasser was his friend, even though he'd talked Hopkins into disavowing an affidavit containing facts that Hopkins never substantively repudiated. /26

Strasser would likely denied he bullyied Hopkins. He would say he was helping him get to the truth. But objectively speaking that is not what happened in this interview. One proof is Hopkins even at the end is telling them he believed the way ballots were handled was wrong. /27

One thing that Stasser does that is inappropriate is he repeatedly tells Hopkins that he is there to "protect" Hopkins. That is a lie. He reassures Hopkins of it many, many times in various formulations during the interview to make Hopkins believe it's true, but it's not. /28

Strasser does a number of other things during the interview to keep control of Hopkins. An example, he makes a show of asking if Hopkins is alright as they go along. He made a big deal at the beginning of the interview about Hopkins' right to leave & to be comfortable. /29

But as the interview progresses & Hopkins gets distressed a few time & Strasser is closing in on his kill shot to get Hopkins to disavow the affidavit, Strasser switches the language he's using. He had started by asking Hopkins open questions, like: Are you Ok? You doing alright?

About 2/3 of the way through it changes. Strasser has established control from the beginning. Now, when Hopkins gets upset (because he's being coerced) Strasser makes a show of concern but says: Tell me you're OK. Sometimes he even repeats it twice. He's not asking; he's telling.

If he asks Hopkins an open question: "Are you okay?" Hopkins might say "no." He might say "I want to stop." So Strasser doesn't ask it that way. He asks for confirmation that Hopkins is OK: "Tell me you're Ok." A statement. Hopkins hesitates a couple times, but ultimately agrees.

Strasser is maintaining control this way. He wants Hopkins to think he cares if Hopkins is OK, when in fact, he really doesn't want Hopkin's distress to communicate to Hopkins that something is wrong (which it is), because Hopkins might call a halt to things if he gets upset.

Another way Strasser controls Hopkins is with the break that they take. At the beginning, he tells Hopkins that he can take a break if he needs to. Hopkins says he's a smoker and will want to take a break at some point.

When the break comes tho Strasser convinces Hopkins it would be better if someone went will him, supposedly because Hopkins might face harassment. How exactly would he realistically face harassment at a USPS facility where he works & where management knows he a whistle-blower?

Even worse, Strasser imposes a condition on Hopkins for permission to take his supposedly completely free break thru controlling his behavior on the break in a way that advantages the interrogation but disadvantages Hopkins.

First he asks Hopkins if he will agree to not speak to anyone about the interview during the break. What happened to Hopkins can talk or not talk as he chooses & could have a lawyer if he wants one, which Strasser advised him of during the first 1/2 hour?