That's more of him trying to lie to his fans through his trademark ambiguous implications.
Nick's saying:
"The cop said on the warrant request that the video he watched was the same as the original, but it was actually a reupload by COG. So that means the cop didn't mention the off chance that COG could have edited the video to make me look worse, even if he didn't edit it. The cop knew this was a possibility and lied that it was the original on the warrant on purpose to fuck with me."
View attachment 6342679
It's an argument designed so, even if it doesn't work (it likely won't, any reasonable person would believe that cog's reupload is essentially a replacement for the original, especially if it matches any testimony made or online discussions of the stream. It also ignores the fact the cop said it was the video "taken off" Nick's channel, which means it has to be a reupload, since that's the only way they could have gotten a video that was taken off before they could watch it on Nick's channel), it'll give his simps a way to ignore the video because he's using words like "edited" and claiming the police lied. Now they'll just assume the bad stuff Nick was doing was somehow edited with AI or crisis actors or something.
View attachment 6342791