I listened to the whole thing. Hopkins recorded it on his phone. He actually tells them at the end that he's recording them. They tell him they have to get permission for him to have the recording, but soon after the recording ends.
He definitely did not "retract". They asked him to clarify that he didn't hear anyone actually say they are "back dating ballots". Instead, he heard certain words and saw certain actions, by various people, that were not normal practice and led him to infer that they might be back dating ballots.
It's inconclusive, and doesn't change the fact that it needs to be investigated further. I would argue that the investigators might actually be interested in finding the truth, even if it's true that ballots were back dated, but they needed to know exactly how much Hopkins knows, and who else they would have to talk to in order to find out what happened. From the way they are speaking about "back dating," it sounds like they consider it a serious crime.
It's crazy that they aren't accepting his eyewitness testimony as the truth but are just assuming he's lying. They aren't digging for truth, they are digging for dirt. And they do it in a "hey we're all friends here don't worry" kinda way. Bastards.
they're trying to cover for their employer/company, they don't give a single f'ck about this guy's well being or the truth. they're trying to de legitimize and weaken the wording of his claims and they did just that, i doubt any judge is going to believe anything he says from now on as credible.
Of course if he can inspire other colleagues to also go on the record about what they've heard, preferably one's who appear to be much more credible than himself, than that is something that can definitely make an impact.
I listened to the whole thing. Hopkins recorded it on his phone. He actually tells them at the end that he's recording them. They tell him they have to get permission for him to have the recording, but soon after the recording ends.
He definitely did not "retract". They asked him to clarify that he didn't hear anyone actually say they are "back dating ballots". Instead, he heard certain words and saw certain actions, by various people, that were not normal practice and led him to infer that they might be back dating ballots.
It's inconclusive, and doesn't change the fact that it needs to be investigated further. I would argue that the investigators might actually be interested in finding the truth, even if it's true that ballots were back dated, but they needed to know exactly how much Hopkins knows, and who else they would have to talk to in order to find out what happened. From the way they are speaking about "back dating," it sounds like they consider it a serious crime.
It's crazy that they aren't accepting his eyewitness testimony as the truth but are just assuming he's lying. They aren't digging for truth, they are digging for dirt. And they do it in a "hey we're all friends here don't worry" kinda way. Bastards.
they're trying to cover for their employer/company, they don't give a single f'ck about this guy's well being or the truth. they're trying to de legitimize and weaken the wording of his claims and they did just that, i doubt any judge is going to believe anything he says from now on as credible.
Of course if he can inspire other colleagues to also go on the record about what they've heard, preferably one's who appear to be much more credible than himself, than that is something that can definitely make an impact.