EyelessMC
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
Touche.
First of all I did listen. Second of all I said that in reference to the idea that he could not later argue for coercion because what he signed already concluded there was no coercion before it began. I was emphasizing that.
Fair enough if that's the case, though remember they weren't FBI they were from the USPS. Thanks for the info.
Permissible to get railed, sure. Again, you're out of your mind if you think that quote even in context can't be a bludgeoning tool in a lawyer's hands in court.
And you think this hypothetical statement is equivalent to "I'm trying to twist you"? Are you joking?
It's dirty is what I said. I never said it was illegal and I said it depended on what "coercion" would be defined as in legal speak.
Sorry I couldn't resist.
But seriously, my main points were that it was agenda-driven and not a typical investigative interrogation (and in that sense it was dirty, as well as what was specifically said especially regarding the "twisting" quote even in context, which you should know better due to your bar license).
Also that he did not recant/retract his statement like the media keeps saying.
Lastly, although I appreciate the clarification regarding "coercion" in a court of law, I still say that you were talking out your ass for suggestion that Hopkins actually did embellish anything even by Veritas's encouragement. To come to that conclusion over this agenda-driven interrogation even in full context is peanut-brained.
lol You sneaky jackass. Don't try to slip that one by me. I am right about multiple things here. You just clarified a few important bits, particularly the coercion angle.
Well yeah, we definitely agree there.
And of course I'd lawyer up and plead the fifth before the Feds. Even if I agreed with your assertions it's the only sane thing to do.
