Leslie McAdoo Gordon

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?

Hopkins agrees to not talk to anyone during the break & Strasser doubles down to exert further control to make sure he doesn't. Strasser says he'll allow the break if Hopkins agrees not to talk to anyone else during the break. He's converted it into Hopkins needs his permission.

Hopkins agrees again (a reinforcing promise) not to talk to anyone during the smoke break & the second agent accompanies him on the break and makes small talk with him while he smokes. Mission accomplished, Strasser. Hopkins didn't talk to anyone else during the break.

Strasser employed another technique to break down what he knew would be Hopkins' resistance to disavowing his affidavit. Hopkins was 5 years in the Marine Corps & 4 more in Army Guard. He's not the kind of guy who is going to easily disavow a sworn statement he's signed.

But he will disavow it if Strasser can convince him that there is something legitimately wrong with the affidavit. And that affidavit is bad for the USPS. It says Hopkins overhead supervisors talking about back dating ballots received after the legal deadline.

But Strasser has concluded that Hopkins is a nice guy who misunderstood what he heard so he wants him to disavow the affidavit, but do it in a way that doesn't completely fuck over Hopkins. (Cause he's a nice guy that way.)

So, he asks Hopkins about his relationship with Project Veritas (disclaimer: I'm an agnostic on Project Veritas). Hopkins explains how PV has his back because they have been helping him navigate the craziness caused by his allegations.

Hopkins is worried (rightfully) about losing his job in retaliation for bringing forward this allegation that he honestly believed was problematic and needed to be investigated. PV has been helping him keep calm. It also showed him how to set up a gofundme in case he gets fired.

Hopkins is a believer in PV because from his point of view they are shielding him from the media & helping him contingency plan for if he gets fired & they have lawyers lined up if he needs one.

His faith in PV is not what Strasser wants to hear because he wants Hopkins to disavow that affidavit or at least amend it and give a written statement that while he had a basis for being concerned, he doesn't actually have any proof of the misconduct he's alleging.

So Strasser, being a very logical guy, attacks PV to undermine it in Hopkins' eyes. He gets Hopkins to agree that the affidavit is written by a lawyer working with PV, not his lawyer. That sounds bad, except there is absolutely nothing wrong with that & lawyers do it every day.