Thread by @McAdooGordon

Hopkins case. During the interview he was advised of his Garrity rights; this is the version of Miranda rights that applies to public employees. It was done as a "voluntary" statement, meaning the govt can use it either for criminal or "administrative" (punishment) purposes. /1

At a certain point on the tape the transcription says "guaranty" rights. That's a transcription error because these folks don't know what Garrity rights are. The agent is telling him it's "Garrity rights," not "guaranty rights." /2

What's not on the tape is any description of what Hopkins was told about whether the interview was voluntary or mandatory (compelled) or what the purpose of the interview was, whether he sought them out to provide a statement or whether they asked for one. /3

Those facts would be important to know to fully evaluate whether he had enough information to make a truly "voluntary" statement or not. /4

I'm continuing to listen, so I'll be back later, but I wanted to start this thread & explain about the warnings/rights as soon as I got to that part since that's an important question people were already focused on. Be back soon. /5

I am 1/2 of the way through this interview and . . . there is a lot wrong with it. I have to keep stopping it to walk a lap around my house because it is seriously problematic. /6

This interview gets worse and worse. I'm on minute 1:22 and when I'm done listening to it, I'm going to point out a number of the serious problems with it. What they have done to this guy is really wrong. It illustrates a number of common problems with federal investigations. /7

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?

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.

The issue with affidavits is whether the facts are true or not. Lawyers routinely take affidavits from people who are not their clients as part of building a case. Just because they lawyer isn't yours doesn't mean the lawyer is taking down what you said accurately or fairly.

That part depends entirely of course on the lawyer. But this suggestion sows a seed of doubt in Hopkins mind. Strasser returns a number of times during this part of the interview to the idea that PV may not have Hopkins best interest at heart - he doesn't necessarily say why tho.

At first it's just a suggestion, but by the end it's full on PV is using him, whereas his good friend Strasser is there to help & protect him. He literally says he's not going to let the USPS challenge Hopkins' integrity because he, Strasser, knows that Hopkins is an honest man.

Strasser really goes completely over the line in this section of the interview tho - he starts giving Hopkins advice. He gives him advice about what to do in his relationship with PV. Strasser is an agent of USPS, he can't advise Hopkins about diddly squat but he does repeatedly.

It's probably fair game that Strasser asks about the affidavit & PV's role in it. It's the basis for Hopkins' claim. But Strasser also presses on the gofundme account which has nothing to do w/Hopkins' ballot backdating allegation actually. Why is the USPS OIG asking about that?

They aren't FBI. And, there's nothing illegal about that gofundme account. But Strasser isn't worried about jurisdiction because he's not actually asking to probe the legality of that account. He's asking as another tactic to undermine Hopkins' faith in PV.

He make a vague assertion (that he never returns to after getting Hopkins to agree he made assumptions) that if Hopkins' claim was based on an assumption rather than hard facts that that might create a legal problem with the gofundme account. Not even remotely true.

This has the desired effect of making Hopkins start to wonder if he has a legal problem with the gofundme account. Which he does not, but now he's worried he might.

Next Strasser gets Hopkins to agree that even though PV helped Hopkins set up the gofundme, all the money will go to Hopkins. Hopkins readily agrees. He thinks that's a good thing. Which it is. If any of the money went to PV, at a minimum people might say they were being mislead.

There's nothing wrong w/PV teaching Hopkins how to set up a gofundme. So Hopkins is feeling good about that. Then Strasser flips it on him. He implies & then outright says he's worried PV wants it to be set up that way so if anything goes wrong Hopkins is holding the bag.

That is a complete distortion of the applicable rules & has zero relevance to Strasser's actual investigation but that's not why he's talking about it. He's using it to cause Hopkins to doubt PV & trust Strasser. It's body blows for later when Strasser attacks the affidavit.

There's a lot more wrong w/this interview & I'm not going to hit everything, but before we get to the facts & affidavit, let me address 2 other issues. 1st as I said most of these techniques are legal. But that doesn't keep them from distorting the truth seeking process. They do.

Second, people are wondering why he does not have a lawyer or union rep with him, so let me talk about those for a second. You have to invoke your right to have a union rep present. Management does not have to advise you of that right or independently provide the rep.

For lawyers, the kind of investigation makes a difference. In a criminal investigation, you have a right to a lawyer. For most public jobs/fed agencies, in an administrative interview, you don't have a right to have a lawyer. Some agencies allow it by reg or agree as a courtesy.

The USPS OIG does not have jurisdiction to investigate crimes. The US Postal Inspection Service does. This interview was a mixed interview for criminal & administrative purposes. They told Hopkins that, although they did not tell him in the tape what administrative meant.

However, even an OIG investigation interview can lead to criminal charges & statements given to the OIG can be used in a criminal investigation & prosecution of someone if the statement they gave is voluntary, that is, not "compelled. "

You can agree to give a voluntary statement during a criminal investigation, but most of the time you shouldn't. If you refuse to give a voluntary statement, the agency can compel you; that's why it's called a compelled statement, but then it CANNOT be used in a criminal case.

So, depending upon exactly what kind of investigation the Postal Inspection Service is conducting in this case, Hopkins may/may not have had a right to have a lawyer in the interview. For the OIG case, it would depend on the reg & the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

If Hopkins didn't ask too many (or any) questions about his rights to counsel, most agents will be happy to let you sign a waiver to give a completely voluntary statement & then the government can do whatever it wants with your statement.

The fact that the waiver/advise of rights they gave Hopkins discusses potential criminal use of any statement he makes & the fact that the agents called them Garrity rights indicates he almost certainly had a right to have a lawyer there w/him, but he might not have known that.

Having a lawyer there would have eliminated or limited the abusive techniques used by Strasser. But take note that, in most circumstances employees in compelled interviews can't have a lawyer there so they have to grapple with these abusive techniques alone or w/only a union rep.

Because so many investigative scenarios involving employees, including some security interviews, can subject employees to criminal prosecution, I think the Congress should create a right to counsel for them. The current system is rampant w/abuse & not conducive to truth.

Strasser made it clear to Hopkins at the beginning that he doubted Hopkin's version of events. He made him do a "field trip" to see if the distance from where he was standing & the others were speaking would have allowed Hopkins to hear them, for example.

He told Hopkins at 1point he was going to be challenging Hopkins version as true but he let that lie. Also early in the interview he mentioned the possibility of a polygraph but also let it lie there until the end.Both of these were to make Hopkins aware he might not be believed.

Later, after Strasser had himself concluded that Hopkins was not lying but just mistaken he began telling Hopkins repeatedly that he believed him. This was both true & technique. It persuaded Hopkins that Strasser would help him be believed when it came to amending the affidavit.

Almost none of this 2hour interview was actually about the factual information Hopkins knew. A legitimate witness interview would have started w/background questions about the person, leading around to asking for the witness to tell his story. Here that didn't happen that way.

After a quick touch on it & the field trip, Strasser spent a lot of time on all the stuff I've discussed before finally focusing on the specifics of "what happened." That was all to soften Hopkins up & establish control. When asked, Hopkins relayed the facts in his affidavit.

Strasser then set about challenging his narrative. Okay, which he should have. His job was to get to the bottom of the situation & establish what Hopkins was alleging thru the interview.

He starts out okay, asking Hopkins to say the exact words he heard. He's trying to get beyond the general allegation to the specifics of the facts. This is a theme Strasser also developed during the interview. He kept telling Hopkins he wanted to reduce it down to just the facts.

In substance, Hopkins says he was working on the 5th & he overheard a nearby conversation between 2 supervisors talking about ballots from the 4th being dated for the 3rd except 1 that was (accurately) postmarked for the 4th.

He was concerned about that & approached the speakers, 1 of whom turned his head to look at him & then they both walked off. He interpreted what they said to be backdating postmarks on ballots. He told another employee about the conversation before they went out on their routes.

He described how another employee - a female - had been instructing the carriers to be sure to gather up ballots when on their routes & give them to supervisor promptly on their return prior to the election on Nov. 3rd. He thought there was nothing wrong with that practice.

He understood that those ballots (prior to the election) were being gathered separately in order to send them to the county officials to be counted in the election. This was apparently instead of going thru the usual (longer) route to be postmarked & sent back to Eerie.

What he didn't understand is why this practice of collecting them continued after Election Day. You sort of have to infer from the jargon they are using but it seems they all three agree they are discussing non-postmarked ballots here.

So Hopkins doesn't understand why the office is continuing to collect non-postmarked ballots in a special way after Election Day. He was off the 4th. When he hears this snippet of conversation on the 5th, he thought they were discussing back-dating ballots received on the 4th.

Strasser gets Hopkins to agree with the non-controversial proposition that Hopkins could have heard the same words he says he heard but they could be talking about something else. Strasser asks if that's possible. No sane person is going to agree with that.

Hopkins agrees it could be possible. Strasser also introduces the idea that Hopkins made a logical "assumption" to reach the conclusion that the supervisors were discussing backdating even though they didn't literally use that word.Hopkins of course agrees because he's not crazy.

They go over the conversation again. And later in the interview when Hopkins is talking about it, he adopts the language that he was making an assumption of what they meant because he's already conceded that point. He's being agreeable. Strasser seizes on that & reinforces it.

This is how error false information often creeps into interviews. People are predisposed to be agreeable. They don't like conflict. They want to be reasonable. Hopkins doesn't think he's disagreeing w/his affidavit about what he heard & what it meant. He knows what he heard.

He's just agreeing that he isn't infallible & that it's possible he misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard. He tells them several times that he came forward precisely so USPS would investigate & figure it out.

But now that he's conceded that he made an assumption about what he heard, Strasser actually presses him to agree that he he doesn't have 1st hand knowledge of his allegation! That is - excuse me - but fucking crazy. He does have 1st hand information. He overheard them talking.

He saw how the ballots were being handled. He may be wrong in his understanding or interpretation of what it means, but he absolutely has 1st information to support his allegation that he thought they were back-dating ballots.

Being wrong about what facts mean has 0 to do w/whether you have 1st hand knowledge of those facts. But, Strassers assertion leads Hopkins to start saying he only has "hearsay" info & backpedalling because now he isn't sure anymore. But not because he doesn't know what he heard.

& the other agent says it isn't "even" hearsay! I'll give him that - it's actually direct evidence of a statement in support of a conspiracy & observation of steps to carry out the conspiracy! That's the evidentiary quality of the info. The issue is: is Hopkins mistaken?

Because if he's mistaken, there is no conspiracy & what he has is 1st hand knowledge of something he just misunderstood. But conveying to him that the quality of his evidence was less than it really is lead Hopkins to further doubt himself.

Having convinced Hopkins that perhaps he didn't hear what he thought he heard, Strasser then attacks the affidavit, which contains Hopkins original statement of the facts as he believed them to be at the time he signed the affidavit.

Take note that at this point in the interview, Hopkins has not repudiated a single one of the facts in the affidavit or that he's previously provided in the interview. He has simply agreed that the situation might not, in fact, be what he was worried that it was.

But he is now very worried -you can hear it in his voice- that he has made a false allegation without meaning to. That is entirely because the interviewers have spend the entire interview giving him reasons to doubt himself. He even says he would feel bad if that's what happened.

Except again, he's not saying that anything he put in the affidavit or that he's told them in the interview did not happen. Or that he lied. Strasser accuses him of exaggerating, but it's obvious that Hopkins doesn't think he did that. He's just now worried he made a mistake.

So Strasser turns to the affidavit & reads paragraph 3, which is here:

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.

Typo:

*isn't taking down what you said accurately or fairly.

Jesus, God, why is the typo always in the worst place? Is it like a rule of the Universe or something?

Typo correction: * No sane person is going to disagree with that.

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.

Because he sounded dubious & I think they weren't sure whether he meant fix as in "correct," or as in "fraudulently alter." The were both sitting there wondering if he was playing them all along. 🤣Boy I laughed at that.

I'm not meaning to underplay the number of changes. Rather I'm talking about whether the new language actually changed things. They change quite a bit of the language, just not in any way that substantively changes his original facts. They just liked their interpretation better.