Project Perjury The Washington Post has a story about the Erie, Pennsylvania postal worker who claimed to not have not recanted his fantasy about overhearing a conspiracy to backdate ballots. For some unknown reason Project Veritas thinks the audiotape of the postal worker’s interview with investigators from the Post Office Inspector General’s proves the opposite of what it does. There is no coercion in the interview. The investigators repeatedly advise Hopkins of his right to not speak to them and his right to have a lawyer present. And in no uncertain terms, he recants his affidavit story, even claiming he didn’t read what the Project Veritas lawyers had written for him to sign. [embedded content] Of course, the MAGA cultists commenting on the Youtube
Topics:
Sandwichman considers the following as important: politics
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes Real GDP for Q3 nicely positive, but long leading components mediocre to negative for the second quarter in a row
Joel Eissenberg writes Healthcare and the 2024 presidential election
Angry Bear writes Title 8 Apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 Inadmissible, and Title 42 Expulsions
Bill Haskell writes Trump’s Proposals Could Bankrupt a Vital and Popular Program Within Six Years
Project Perjury
The Washington Post has a story about the Erie, Pennsylvania postal worker who claimed to not have not recanted his fantasy about overhearing a conspiracy to backdate ballots. For some unknown reason Project Veritas thinks the audiotape of the postal worker’s interview with investigators from the Post Office Inspector General’s proves the opposite of what it does. There is no coercion in the interview. The investigators repeatedly advise Hopkins of his right to not speak to them and his right to have a lawyer present. And in no uncertain terms, he recants his affidavit story, even claiming he didn’t read what the Project Veritas lawyers had written for him to sign.
Of course, the MAGA cultists commenting on the Youtube audio are aghast that an investigator would ask courageous whistleblower questions in a way that makes him think twice about what he had sworn to in an affidavit. I would copy and paste the Washington Post article here but I don’t want to violate copywrite. I’m sure it will show up in the comments.