Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect you already know the following anyway (and are just annoyed that your news sources may be lying to you).
In court, you will have a legal representative to protect you from this kind of social engineering.
Had Hopkins had an attorney present during the interrogation, Strasser would not have been able to get away with many of the key revisions in the amended affidavit, such as use of the term 'logical assumption' and the amendments to point 6.
He would also not have convinced Hopkins to sign the affidavit, declaring that he hasn't been coerced, before the actual interview. Or resort to the subtle intimidation or emotional manipulation used to render Hopkins more compliant to suggestion.
"I am trying to twist you a little bit because in that, believe it or not, your mind will kick in. We like to control our mind. And when we do that, we can convince ourselves of a memory. But when you're under a little bit of stress, which is what I'm doing to you purposely, your mind can be a little bit clearer. And we're going to do a different exercise too, to make your mind a little bit clearer."
I suspect you already know the following anyway (and are just annoyed that your news sources may be lying to you).
In court, you will have a legal representative to protect you from this kind of social engineering.
Had Hopkins had an attorney present during the interrogation, Strasser would not have been able to get away with many of the key revisions in the amended affidavit, such as use of the term 'logical assumption' and the amendments to point 6.
He would also not have resorted to the veiled intimidation and manipulation used to render Hopkins more compliant to suggestion.
I listened to the whole tape that Okeefe posted to twitter yesterday.
Hopkins was asked if he had an attorney. He was asked if he wanted to get an attorney. The veiled intimidation was simply a statement of fact he could be charged with perjury for his original affidavit.
Like I said if he wants to stand by the original affidavit then when he gets to a court he will be torn apart by the attorneys and they aren't going to be anywhere as nice as these guys were.
Had Hopkins had an attorney present during the interrogation, ....
strasser directly asks hobkins if he had legal counsel and, if he did, that counsel should be there. hobkins says he doesn't even tho it's available thru veritas.
The employee had the opportunity to not only have his attorney present but he could have requested his union steward (almost all post office employees are members of a union). Postal Inspectors have the same status, legally, as FBI agents. They take statements which in this setting are called affidavits. When I was an Investigator for USDL written statements closed with "I have read the above and it is true." above the employee's signature.
I listened to the whole tape that Okeefe posted to twitter yesterday. Hopkins was asked if he had an attorney. He was asked if he wanted to get an attorney. The veiled intimidation was simply a statement of fact he could be charged with perjury for his original affidavit.
Like I said if he wants to stand by the original affidavit then when he gets to a court he will be torn apart by the attorneys and they aren't going to be anywhere as nice as these guys were.
This isn't really relevant to your argument. We both agree that Hopkins made a mistake in not having a lawyer present.
The question is, would Hopkins fare better or worse in a court setting than he did in the interview?
With a legal representative to protect him from many of the pitfalls he suffered during his interrogation with Strasser, it's reasonable to expect that he will fare better. You've not really given any reasons why this is wrong, aside from arguing 'just so'.
This isn't really relevant to your argument. We both agree that Hopkins made a mistake in not having a lawyer present.
The question is, would Hopkins fare better or worse in a court setting than he did in the interview?
With a legal representative to protect him from many of the pitfalls he suffered during his interrogation with Strasser, it's reasonable to expect that he will fare better. You've not really given any reasons why this is wrong, aside from arguing 'just so'.
He wouldn't be on trial, he would be in court as a witness. While he may have his own attorney they will not be the ones questioning him. Even with an attorney he would be put through much worse than these guy when deposed. They are not going to hand hold and walk him through things, they are going to question him hard.
He wouldn't be on trial, he would be in court as a witness. While he may have his own attorney they will not be the ones questioning him. Even with an attorney he would be put through much worse than these guy when deposed. They are not going to hand hold and walk him through things, they are going to question him hard.
Objection your Honor!
You've forgotten that it's not the aggression of interrogation that's the issue. It's the manipulation of vocabulary/epistemology to make Hopkins say something he doesn't mean. No attorney worth his salt would allow that to happen to his witnesses in a court setting.
At least you have given an argument though. That's an improvement on where you were a few posts ago.
You've forgotten that it's not the aggression of interrogation that's the issue. It's the manipulation of vocabulary/epistemology to make Hopkins say something he doesn't mean. No attorney worth his salt would allow that to happen to his witnesses in a court setting.
At least you have given an argument though. That's an improvement on where you were a few posts ago.
Judges aren't in the room for a deposition. So why would the lawyer object to the judge?
You've forgotten that it's not the aggression of interrogation that's the issue. It's the manipulation of vocabulary/epistemology to make Hopkins say something he doesn't mean. No attorney worth his salt would allow that to happen to his witnesses in a court setting.
At least you have given an argument though. That's an improvement on where you were a few posts ago.
During a deposition, an attorney simply has to ask “Did you hear the supervisor say the word “back date”?”
No defense attorney can prevent Hopkins from answering that question.
If the response is not a simple “yes”, then they move on to the next question:
“Does the affidavit, which you have in front of you, state that you heard your supervisor instructing staff to back date the ballots?”
And so on.
Hopkins got out of signing onto false testimony, and he should thank his lucky stars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
