Re: Richard Hopkins (Page 1/2)
williegoat NOV 12, 03:37 PM
You have probably heard the story. A USPS employee has asserted that ballots in Pennsylvania were backdated so as to be included in the election count.
Mainstream media outlets have reported that he recanted his testimony. Hopkins says he did not recant his testimony.

The original story from Project Veritas: https://www.projectveritas....-forward-and-agrees/

The misleading story from WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost....466ad1b8e_story.html

The interrogation of Richard Hopkins: https://www.projectveritas....istleblower-richard/

Richard Hopkins own story: https://www.projectveritas....-stands-by-original/ and here: https://twitter.com/JamesOK.../1326337154050641920

You be the judge. Do your own research. Who do you believe? Who do you trust?

I am not a happy boy.

------------------

blackrams NOV 12, 03:40 PM
I don't have the time to read the linked items but, my question is: Can his allegations be proven in any way or, will it be his word against the Democratic Party?
Sorry, will try to read those links later.

Rams
williegoat NOV 12, 04:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

I don't have the time to read the linked items but, my question is: Can his allegations be proven in any way or, will it be his word against the Democratic Party?
Sorry, will try to read those links later.

Rams


I don't know if the allegations can be proven. Beyond that, I am obviously biased. I don't want to think that fraud is possible and widespread, but I don't want to think that that many people can be fooled by the left. Those are the only two viable explanations for our current state of affairs.
MidEngineManiac NOV 12, 04:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

.... I don't want to think that that many people can be fooled by the left......



Desperate people do foolish things. The past 6 months with all the covid business closures and unemployment , the push here for UBI has been unreal. The temporary-fix (2k a month) programs that were put in place has people addicted to the free moooneeyyy. I saw an article (sorry, link long lost) that something like 70-80% want to quit their jobs and/or only work part-time hours. We have senators, politicians, business leaders, Ted talks all pushing for it.


OK, so fine....but now that everybody is only working 20 hours a week, or going to school for basket-painting classes, or quitting "work" and working the hobby economy (we only need so many knitted scarves or scented candles), just who is going to pay for this bright idea ?

In a way I see their point. The factories around here are always hiring at 15-16 bucks an hour. @160 hours a month that's 2560. Less 20% source deductions leaves $2048. Less 75 bucks a week cost of working- 300/mo (gas, lunch, clothes, boots ect). Leaves 1748. So those factory workers are 250/mo better off on a benefit program of some sort. Human nature being what it is, they ARE going to pick the most attractive option.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 11-12-2020).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 12, 05:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

I don't have the time to read the linked items but, my question is: Can his allegations be proven in any way or, will it be his word against the Democratic Party?
Sorry, will try to read those links later.

Rams




I listened to the whole 2-hour interview with the investigators.

It wasn't so much an interrogation as a manipulation. They used all the typical tactics... like... pretending they were unprepared, so as to give them impression they weren't a threat so the person being interrogated would let their guard down. Then mentioning the polygraph to see how they respond, on whether or not the person being interviewed would squirm or be openly happy about having one... to then trying to ascertain if instead the person being interviewed had done anything wrong. When all of that failed, they then scrutinized the language he used in the affidavit and manipulated him to change the language so it was less clear, and got him to question his own statement. At the end, he still affirmed what he originally said, but they watered down his affidavit telling him what he could and could not do. It was disgusting and completely ridiculous.
williegoat NOV 12, 06:09 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I listened to the whole 2-hour interview with the investigators.

It wasn't so much an interrogation as a manipulation. They used all the typical tactics... like... pretending they were unprepared, so as to give them impression they weren't a threat so the person being interrogated would let their guard down. Then mentioning the polygraph to see how they respond, on whether or not the person being interviewed would squirm or be openly happy about having one... to then trying to ascertain if instead the person being interviewed had done anything wrong. When all of that failed, they then scrutinized the language he used in the affidavit and manipulated him to change the language so it was less clear, and got him to question his own statement. At the end, he still affirmed what he originally said, but they watered down his affidavit telling him what he could and could not do. It was disgusting and completely ridiculous.


Thank you. I wish more people would take the time to become informed before making important decisions instead of just listening to soundbites and skimming headlines. The propagandists get away with murder because people would rather play video games or watch Dancing with the Stars.
Synthesis NOV 12, 06:39 PM
Recently, a postal worker from Erie, PA has come forward claiming to have witnessed supervisors within his office discussing backdating ballots received after PA legally allowed votes to be counted. He then shared these allegations with Project Veritas, who then ran stories and videos featuring the post office whistleblower's testimony . Project Veritas also had the whistleblower sign an affidavit detailing all of his claims. This affidavit was then used by congressional Republicans, specifically Lindsey Graham, as a stepping stone for AG Barr to open an investigation into these allegations. Shortly after, the Post Office Inspector General conducted an investigation into these allegations by interviewing the postal whistleblower. After the interview the Post Office IG released a statement stating that the whistleblower recanted their previous allegations. In response to this announcement the whistleblower released another statement through Project Veritas stating that they did not recant and that the full interview with the Post Office IG would be released as proof of this.

This is all outlined in this NYT article, for those who are curious.
Whistleblower stating that he did not recant his allegations.


Analysis of Whistleblower Interview with Post Office IG Agents
Full Interview of Post Office IG Agents interviewing whistleblower.


Below I will outline the "meat" of the full interview, broken into three sections:

  1. The agents and the whistleblower discuss what he actually witnessed.
  2. The agents and the whistleblower review his signed affidavit and compare it to #1.
  3. The whistleblower reveals to the agents that he has been recording them.



1. What exactly did the whistleblower witness?
Source for this section of the interview. Skip to 1h4m20s.

Highlights:

  1. The whistleblower states that he heard a fragment of a conversation between two of his employees, but he did not know the full context. He states that he inferred that they were discussing back-dating ballots.
  2. The agents ask him if he heard them use the phrase "back-dating" or "remarking". The whistleblower states that he did not hear them state this. He reiterates that he assumed this is what they were discussing.
  3. The agents confirm with the whistleblower that he did not personally witness any back-dating of ballots or voter fraud. The whistleblower confirms.
  4. The whistleblower states that based on these assumptions and his inference of what he thought he heard, he contacted Project Veritas directly.



2. Review of the signed affidavit
Source for this section of the interview. Skip to 1h12m36s

Highlights:

  1. The agents review the section of the signed affidavit surrounding the whistleblower's claim that he witnessed his two supervisors discussing back-dating ballots. Based on the whistleblower's testimony from section 1 the whistleblower recants the claims in the affidavit stating that they do not accurately portray what he witnessed. He agrees that the statement should be amended to clarifying that he did not witness his supervisors discussing back-dating ballots, but that he assumed that is what they were discussing, based on (in his own words) the limited fragment of a conversation he heard.
  2. At this point the whistleblower admits that the affidavit is incorrect and that Project Veritas lawyers created it for him.
  3. The agents walk through the affidavit and correct multiple sections with multiple instances of falsehoods.
  4. The agents do all of this with the full cooperation of the whistleblower. There is no evidence of coercion or intimidation. It is a very straightforward and amicable interview.



3. Whistleblower informs agents that they are being recorded.
Source for this section of the interview. Skip to 1h53m18s

Highlights:

  1. The whistleblower informs the agents they are being recorded.
  2. The agents do not seem to be put off by this and are, in fact, amicable about it.
  3. The interview continues.



Summary
First off, I encourage those who are interested in this to actually watch the sections that I linked to in this post, please, do not take my word for it. That being said, after hearing the whistleblower's words from his own mouth I cannot help but to agree that he did, in fact, fully recant the allegations put forth in the affidavit which the Trump administration (and others) have used to perpetuate this story. Now, it is clear that the whistleblower still believes what he thought he heard and will continue to do so (by his own words in section 1), but his own testimony about what he actually heard paints a totally different picture:

  1. He did not, in fact, hear his supervisors explicitly discussing back-dating ballots.
  2. He did not, in fact, witness any employees engaging in election fraud.
  3. He was not, in fact, coerced into changing his story. The agents were very calm with him and provided him ample opportunities to clarify his statements with them. It was extremely professional.
  4. He did not, in fact, witness anything untoward at all. He simply inferred what he wanted to hear from a fragment of a conversation. From that inference he took these allegations to Project Veritas. Where the Project Veritas team seemed to have twisted his account of the situation and asked him to sign a false affidavit.

[This message has been edited by Synthesis (edited 11-12-2020).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 12, 07:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

Recently, a postal worker from Erie, PA has come forward claiming to have witnessed supervisors within his office...





Funny, I listened to the same thing you did, and I got a totally different take. I saw it as him being coerced to alter the specific language in his affidavit in order to alter the narrative and give it less teeth. You also left out a lot for the purpose of only furthering the narrative that you suggested.

Alternately, I don't recommend you simply listen to the clips that he's laid out. I recommend you listen to the entire video with the investigator who, as a polygrapher and special agent, uses various tactics to drive the discussion and narrative.
Synthesis NOV 12, 07:45 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


You also left out a lot for the purpose of only furthering the narrative that you suggested.



Interesting, considering that Project Veritas is heavily biased far right and has a borderline extremist narrative itself.
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 12, 07:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

Interesting, considering that Project Veritas is heavily biased far right and has a borderline extremist narrative itself.




I would also suggest that you might be heavily biased far left... and that's OK... two sides of the coin here.

Someone with an investigative background perhaps would have a different take on the tactics being used here.