Where are you Warden?! Feeling a little lazy suddenly you big mouth?
I donāt know what youāre going on about, GSC. You realize the last 2 links Warden posted cover that, right? (Yahoo and factCheck,org)
Lol- then he didnāt read the articles because he was saying that the man that OāKeefe interviewed admitted to lying about his testimony to Wapo.
But as you can see, he immediately made a video saying that he didnāt take it back and he didnāt lie.
So take it up with Warden.
This is not a retraction from OāKeefe. Itās not a false story from OāKeefe.
Thatās the entire point. But nice try attempting to save your friend from getting balls to the face on this one.
The man did admit that he only heard snippets of the conversation, made assumptions that couldāve been wrong, and wasnāt sure what they meant though, right?
Are you denying that?
Yes- HE denied that. HE corrected the record.
The WAPO lied. And they never picked the story back up after this video.
No, are you denying what he said in the recording with postal investigators? The WAPO didnāt lie about that. The guyās just saying he felt like he was railroaded.
Yes- he was intimidated in that interview. They played the video. I can grab it if you want.
He didnāt recant. The media stopped perusing after he said they lied.
Here you go
Well, you can say he was intimidated into recanting if you want.
But you know what you always say? Youāre the one always going on about what people say when they can be held legally responsible. What someone says to the public or on social media isnāt important, right? You donāt put stock in words?
But what someone says to an investigator, to a judge - what someone says ON RECORD is what counts. Which is why what he said to the postal inspectors is more relevant than what he said to Project Veritas.
Basically, if this guy didnāt want the weight of OFFICIAL scrutiny on his words, then I wouldnāt place stock in them.
This isnāt true. Thereās this little concept called duress.
He thought this investigator was there to hear his story and pursue justice. Suddenly the guy is making threats against him and his livelihood. Lolā¦. Get out of here with that nonsense 305. If this wasnāt on tape maybe youād have a point but we can listen to that interview in real time. That investigator was there to tell him he better shut up and go away. Itās super clear.
What was the threat?
Lol- heās a whistleblower and USPS placed HIM on unpaid suspension right after this.
He was harassed by āa representative of the postal worker union who began asking me about old allegations against me, which have long been resolved.ā
In case he lost his job, he set up a GoFundMe account, with the help of Project Veritas. GoFundMe froze the account.
āThis is why l already like you,ā says Strasser, ābecause youāre a marine and you know what integrity is . . . You and I both served this country and I know you love this country.ā
Strasser tells Hopkins, āMy goal is to protect you . . . Iām in your corner on this. I want to take care of you.ā
Then he threatens him, in the nicest way, over the GoFundMe account being treated as āill-gottenā gains.
āI am not scaring you, but I am scaring you here . . . it can be argued that money was gained by . . . deceptions . . . you could be held accountable.ā
Over and over, Hopkins is asked to repeat verbatim the words he heard Weisenbach using.
He is taken out onto the post office floor to re-enact the moment, and Strasser makes him think he was too far away to really hear what he heard.
Inch by inch, Strasser wears away at his memory, until Hopkins obligingly agrees he had made a ālogical assumptionā that the ballots were being backdated but had not heard Weisenbach use the word ābackdated.ā
Strasser tells him, āI am trying to twist you a little bit.ā
Toward the end of the interrogation, as Strasser is dictating out loud the amendments to his affidavit, Hopkins realizes the final product is not the full picture, that his apprehension that something fishy was going on has been whitewashed from the document.
Hopkins tries to get the agents to understand the other suspicions he had about late ballots.
āThe picking up of the ballots and turning them directly to the supervisor rather than putting them in the āmailstream,ā thatās kind of important,ā he says.
Agent Charles Klein butts in: āThose were your assumptions. Right?ā
Hopkins keeps trying. āSee thatās the thing about these ballots ā itās the validity of us picking them up.
āItās so weird that weāre picking up ballots [after Election Day] because at this point they are no longer valid . . . Wouldnāt it be best to inform somebody that, hey . . . theyāre no longer valid . . . Or wouldnāt it make sense to send it to Pittsburgh where . . . it would be postmarked. I mean, they wanted it separated rather than being just thrown in the [mailstream] which we were doing right before, a week before . . . that just didnāt make sense to me.ā
Hopkins was right. It didnāt make sense.
But the agents didnāt seem to think any of it was suspicious.
They had what they came for.
The next day, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted that āthe whistleblower completely RECANTED his allegations.ā
The Washington Post blared: āPostal worker recanted allegations of ballot tampering.ā
Hopkins denies that he recanted his story.
āThey were grilling the hell out of me. I feel like I just got played,ā he told Project Veritas. āI did not recant my statements.ā
Like Richard Jewell, Hopkins is an American hero, caught in something ugly.
āHow it all will play out, only God knows,ā says Wood.
Hell of a way for an investigator to treat a whistleblower.
But we know none of this means shit to you.
GSC, in another thread you just criticized Storm for never admitting heās wrong. Now youāre up to bat. What will you do?
āAs a USPS mail carrier at the time, I was on heightened guard considering many allegations of āwidespread fraudā plaguing the 2020 Presidential Election,ā Hopkins said in the statement. āAs I have now learned, I was wrong. Mr. Weisenbach was not involved in any inappropriate behavior concerning the 2020 Presidential Election.
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas settle suit over bogus voter fraud claims cited by Trump campaign
You were pretty vociferous that Hopkins was bullied by postal inspectors and the official record didnāt matter.
Here we are, years later, and both Hopkins and OāKeefe are admitting they were wrong.
As far as your gold standard goes:
The organizationās board fired OāKeefe in February 2023 for what it said was financial malfeasance with donor money. In September 2023, Project Veritas suspended all operations after laying off most of its employees
Project Veritas - Wikipedia
1 Like
Iām not sure why you would even mention this. I have no problem telling anyone when they are wrong. I also have no problem admitting if I am wrong.
Right or wrong- we judged Hopkins by his own account correct? I have no idea why Hopkinsā story changed. He may be 100% sincere now. He may not. I donāt know. But isnāt it a little insincere to call someone out for believing a personās first person testimony? Iām not really sure what youāre looking for here.
I believed his story then. I believe he is being sincere now. Does that suffice?
This is an incredible non sequitir.
So letās say that OāKeefe was, indeed, committing āfinancial malfeasanceā (Iām not sure what is meant by that since itās extremely vague, but weāll grant it)ā¦
What does that have anything to do with his reporting? Most of OāKeefeās stories have stood up to scrutiny.
Are you implying that OāKeefe paid Hopkins to say untrue things at the time? Is that the financial connection here? If not Iām left confused.
Someone who admitted on the record they didnāt know what they were talking about?
You were always a believer in what people do when legal consequences are on the line. Whatās insincere is you giving this guy a pass.
Sure it does. I believe thatās the entire reason Warden resurrected this thread. To close the book on it.
It proves he isnāt ethical. And Project Veritas closing down shows they ultimately werenāt worth that much.
But youāre right about it being a non sequitir. It has nothing to do with Hopkins. It was just a jab at holding them up as a gold standard, which I donāt think they were anything close to.
thatās a load of horseshit
Notice the avoidance of saying heās wrongā¦again? Like always. Itās 100% with this guy
False. Itās not a non-sequitur. It lends to the LONG HISTORY he has of bullshit stories, lies, criminal activities, etc. Weāve gone through this beforeā¦line by line. Would you like to again?
āWhat, who, me, what?ā- always the response from GSC
Something tells me GSC has never once taken responsibility for anything in his life
Warden- for once in your life attempt to seek understanding instead of winning an argument.
The public was shown first person testimony of a man saying he witnessed election crimes. They actually interviewed him a second time independently and he verified his claims.
Why would anyone call him a liar?
Now, years later, we learn his story changed. I donāt contest it and I donāt know why it changed. I said I assume itās sincere and not coerced.
How does that make me wrong? Sounds more like the facts changed. And Iām not contesting them now am I?
Itās time to get over yourself a little bit. Not every conversation has to be this zero sum game of winners and losers.
Um, this is a Storm move.
WHAT I WAS REPEATING WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID ABOUT THE POPE BEING ARRESTED.
WHAT I WAS JUST SHOWING A GRAPHIC OF SOMEONE ELSE PREDICTING THE RAVENS WOULD WIN. THAT WASNāT ME IT WAS THE GRAPHIC.
GSC, you were wrong. By admitting you believe he is sincere now, you are admitting you were wrong then.
Warden and I both know what Hopkins said. But when it came time to put it on the official record, he backed down on the allegation. Then when it came to a face-saving non-legally- binding interview after the fact, he said he wasnāt a liar. Big surprise.
The point is, it was obvious to see through that. And instead of being so partisan you should have AT LEAST been suspicious.
Instead you were all-in on his innocence. Which is why you were wrong.
He didnāt testify, ever, in anything. He relayed a story to a group whoās known for criminal activities and selectively editing videos
Because he lied. We told you he lied. We were right. You were wrong. Simple enough.
His story changed right after he made the allegation in the first place. You just disregarded it, as always.
100 out of 100, heāll never admit heās wrong. We have years of this. Totally dishonest to his core.