Leslie McAdoo Gordon

When Strasser reads it Hopkins really reacts because he sees how clear it states the claim & now he thinks he was making assumptions that may/may not be correct & he thinks he will be in big trouble even tho he believed it was true when he signed it & when he began the interview.

And we know for sure that Hopkins believed the claim was true when he signed the affidavit because 1. even at this point he has not contradicted any of the actual facts that are in paragraph 3, he just doubts his interpretation of them now & also because . . .

2. right after he heard the conversation that concerned him he discussed it with a co-worker & told her what he'd heard & his interpretation of it and they discussed what he should do about it & also because . . .

3. the same day he heard the conversation (Nov. 5), he collected a ballot on his route & he followed the policy that bothered him & put it in the separate spot, but he handwrote "11/05/20" in small writing on the back to document that that was the day he actually received it.

There is just absolutely no way he would have dated that ballot if he had not actually believed the conversation he heard was about back-dating ballots. Even if it did not contain the works "postmark" or "date," that is obviously what he thought the supervisors were discussing.

He might have been completely mistaken about that, but that does not make his affidavit or his allegation false. But he got persuaded because of all the "technique" that was used on him in this interview to believe otherwise.

So, at that point in the interview, he is motivated to disavow an affidavit he has not contradicted & to have Strasser save him from being "fucked." So he's willing to do whatever Strasser (who keeps telling him he is there to protect him) advises.

Strasser has him add the stuff about bringing the claim because he thought it was his duty to (which all 3 of them seem to actually believe) & to add in two places that he made "logical assumptions" to reach the conclusions drawn in the affidavit.

Strasser focuses on the language in the affidavit where Hopkins signed under penalty of perjury. He is relieved to see the language states Hopkins "believed" the facts in the affidavit to be true.

This is the tell that Strasser thinks the same thing I do: Hopkins believed the facts in the affidavit were true when he signed it. If that's so, it will be basically impossible to prosecute him for a false statement.

They do change a few small things. For example Paragraph 3 said the supervisor gave the instructions; actually it was literally his assistant. Hopkins concedes this, but they even add language to say of course the postmaster is the boss. None of the changes are a "recantation."

The part of the tape where they're working thru the affidavit is pretty gross. Strasser is literally telling him what to say & write. He says things like: "I'd rather say xx." At that point, he's completely in control of Hopkins & the agents basically dictate what he should say.

Hopkins is agreeing with them as they go, of course, because he's in full "give them what they want" mode. He does balk a few times, when they want him to say something that he really knows is really not correct, so he negotiates that with them.

After all the technique they used on him, I'm actually impressed he balked at all at the end. He gave them what they'd persuaded him of but not things he knew were incorrect & he kept bringing up that he thinks collecting the non-postmarked ballots after the election is an issue.

Hopkins had kept hidden for almost the entire interview that he was wearing a recording device to record the interview. But he gives that up at the end because they have persuaded him PV was not working for his best interests, but they are! Shows how well the coercion worked.

Because having that recording is the only proof he was going to have that these agents conducted this interview in a completely inappropriate manner & that he never disavowed the actual substantive facts in his affidavit, only agreed that he may be mistaken about the situation.

Unbelievably after he discloses the recording, Strasser tells him the agency may/may not allow him to keep it. I don't think so. They had no basis whatsoever for controlling that. I suppose there's an argument it's an agency record but the better argument is it's personal to him.

Also, at one point toward the end, Strasser says something about doing things in a way so that people won't think Hopkins was being coerced. Completely laughable. Almost the entire interview is psychologically coercive.

Whether that's misdirection by Strasser to try to persuade Hopkins he wasn't coerced or whether Strasser is just so immersed in it culturally that he can't see it, is hard to tell.

I do know there were a lot of instances in this interview where Strasser said things that are the exact opposite of what he was actually doing at the time. You can hear it in his voice sometimes too. He knows he's lying.

The interview continued for another hour after Hopkins told them he was recording them. During that hour they had him write a statement. I have no doubt it was equally as coercive as the affidavit changes were, but without the recording it won't be as clear cut as the affidavit.

Another thing that happens when someone has been coerced in this way is once they are removed from the coercive environment they promptly deny that they "recanted" and they revert back to their original narrative. It shows the change was in response to the techniques & not truth.

For sure, Hopkins needs to get counsel & ASAP.

He's going to be involved in legal proceedings for a while I would think.

Some have asked what I would have done had I been his counsel. Each case is unique, but operates within a legal framework. For sure, I would have demanded to know his status: witness, subject, or target before agreeing to any interview.

Depending on the answer you get the strategy is different. But a good lawyer would have prepped him for an interview and what to watch out for if you agreed to an interview or got forced into a compelled interview. Also, even in a compelled interview some things are off limits.

When I'm in the room with the client during an interview, tho, a lot of these techniques never show up. Funny how that is.

Hahahah. I've been asked for this: The End

P.S. I meant to correct my tweet about OIG not having any criminal jurisdiction. I stated that more categorically than I meant. They do, but it's limited; they aren't like FBI - general crime fighting. In that tweet I correctly said this case is mixed criminal & administrative.

P.S.S. One thing I forgot to mention that I thought was hilarious is when they finally got to the affidavit, Hopkins says: So you want me to fix my affidavit? And the long silence from the agents was deafening. I laughed out loud at that.