Ariz. sheriff's Obama investigator selling book

Provo Herald Extra ^ | March 3, 2012 | Associated Press

[neverdem]

The lead investigator in an Arizona sheriff's investigation into President Obama's birth certificate is selling his report as a book.

Retired detective and volunteer Maricopa County sheriff's posse member Mike Zullo is listed as the co-author of "A Question of Eligibility," an e-book for sale through Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

The book is a copy of the investigation findings presented to the press Thursday...

[WashingtonSource]

Hurray!

[Blue Ink]

“Perhaps you didn’t follow the story close enough to discover that the investigators were retired LEOs and such and most of the work was volunteered - no taxpayer funds went into it.”

Perhaps you didn’t read my post. My assertion is that it doesn’t matter whether the investigator is retired or paid or not — it is a government investigation under the direction of the sheriff and under color of authority, and therefore not to be sold or bartered by public officials. Not ethically, anyway. You offered no logical refutation.

“That should make any reasonable person understand that there’s nothing wrong with them telling the story - else it might never all become available to the public.”

Suppose I produce and write an episode of a TV show. I don’t own the footage. I don’t own the show. But I abscond with the tapes and offer to sell the episode back to the network — my employer. Because I did all the work, after all. Well, that is theft. What this investigator is doing is indefensible. He doesn’t own the product of his investigation. He is defrauding the government and the public.

“Let’s see about the cop-hating issue... I can’t possibly see how someone might infer that you have something against cops by the “chiseling cop” portion.”

Criticism of the cops and calling movie deals what they are — theft of public property, i.e. “chiseling,” does not equal “hate.” There’s not a semantics professor or a juror in the world you can sell that load of goods to.

“You, however seem to have a penchant for unbridled childish remarks.”

Reread your first combative unsubstantiated post. You paid out a childish remark. And now you’re indignant because you got back some change. Waaaaaaaah.