Posted on 04/24/2012 6:32:44 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio finds himself under increasing attack as he prepares to release new findings in his investigation of President Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 election ballot.
“I have no intention of resigning,” said Arpaio, who is running for his sixth term as sheriff of Maricopa County. “They forget I have a four-decades long career in federal law enforcement that includes having been a special agent for the FBI and having worked for the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States, as well as in Argentina, Turkey and Mexico.
WND previously reported the intensity of attacks on Arpaio at both a state and national level.
Already, Arpaio has announced that his volunteer law enforcement investigation has found probable cause that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and his Selective Service registration form are forgeries. Arpaio and his team made the announcement at a March 1 press conference.
A second press conference is expected in the next few weeks to announce more findings Arpaio suggests will be explosive.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yes, I read about that guy dying at the L.A. Coroners Office. I think we need to wait before jumping to conclusions about what he was working on (there are 200+ people in the coroners office) and what he died from (the toxicology report will take a week or so to complete). Your use of the word “probably” isn’t supported by the evidence.
One thing that struck me from the report I read was this:
“Law enforcement sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing,...”
That’s what I’m used to reading. It’d be really weird if it said:
“Law enforcement sources said that details of the investigation to date can be bought from Amazon at ten bucks a pop with the proceeds going to directly to the officers working on the case”.
You see, LEO’s don’t get to profit personally and directly from the cases they’re working on. That’s why I doubt you can find a real, serious police investigation into anything were something similar has occurred. It would be unethical, possibly illegal and and would undermine any chance of a viable prosecution.
I’d be surprised if a policeman didn’t know that but I’d be dumbfounded if a real police detective didn’t.
Would you be dumbfounded if the cops held a press conference announcing they had found probable cause for murder and no news source would report the evidence they cited?
You’re totally ignoring the camels and focusing on gnats. Predictable. It’s pointless to converse with you.
And you’re refusing to answer my questions. You’re claiming that Zullo profited from the INFORMATION when you haven’t shown that the book offers anything new except FORMAT. What is in the book that Zullo hasn’t offered for free to anybody who would interview him? If the information is available for free, then what CORSI is profiting from (and it is Corsi who is making the money off of this) is the formatting, which he genuinely did; it took him time to write down what Zullo has verbally said both at the press conference and in interviews. IOW, people are paying for what amounts to transcription of what Zullo has freely offered the public through the press conference and interviews.
If you think otherwise, then tell me what is in the book that Zullo didn’t make available to the public for free.
What do you mean no news source would report the evidence they cited?
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17229009
(These are all sources that have you believe have been threatened into silence)
I am answering your questions, you just don’t like the answers.
It’s irrelevant that he’s giving away for free as well as charging for it. The issue is that real-life LEO’s don’t sell anything from an investigation for personal gain whilst it’s on-going. EVER.
Corsi has already said that he and Zullo and splitting the profits from the book.
You’ve got to be kidding. Have you even looked at those articles? Your own links once again prove my point.
The best was the BBC article, which said that the posse had compared Obama’s BC to an original BC (which is not correct but at least it had the idea that they did some forensic comparison...). One of them said the posse was most concerned about parts of the BC which they believed had been imported from a different source.
The Fox one was an excerpt from the CBS report, with a link directing people to the full CBS report. When you go to the full CBS report pretty much all that is added to the little blurb (including calling Arpaio “publicity-hungry”) is stuff about Arpaio needing to get re-elected, being investigated by the DOJ for bad stuff, and denying that the investigation is politically-motivated.
Not one of those reports mentioned the date stamp for Obama’s draft registration missing the digits every other registration from that office had.
Not one of them mentioned the layers that specifically allow the content on the document to be changed using the same font as in the original.
Not one of them mentioned the immigration records missing for only the week of August 1-7, 1961.
Not one of them mentioned that they tested the hypotheses that the layers came from either scanning or optimization techniques and found that neither explanation holds water.
None of them mentioned what Zullo said in the Q/A period either - that the newspaper birth announcements include names for one-year-olds and foreign-born children.
None of the EVIDENCE was presented. Since ZERO evidence was actually described in these articles, these articles were actually more about Obama linking to a site showing coffee mugs with the (fake, but of course they didn’t say that) BC on them. Or about the “publicity-hungry” Sheriff Joe needing to be re-elected and being investigated by the DOJ (though nobody bothered to mention that the DOJ brought up the accusations AFTER Sheriff Joe agreed to have his posse investigate Obama’s BC).
I rest my case. You just proved my point for me: The media refuses to report the EVIDENCE. What they call “reports” are more like boilerplate drivel to try to say that Arpaio is a crooked guy who needs reelection and is just out to get Obama.
Why don’t you talk to Zullo and find out what percentage his “take” is. I think you’d be surprised. The only reason his name is even included with the thing is so people know Corsi isn’t just making stuff up. Zullo was basically the chaperone, to say that what Corsi put in there is accurate.
And you still won’t tell me what is in the book that wasn’t in public interviews - which is critical to your point that people are paying for Zullo’s information, and not just for Corsi’s transcription and/or format.
You’re trying to shoot the messenger in whatever way you can, but if you even bothered to read your own links you know that Corsi is the only conventional “media” that is getting the actual evidence out there so people can analyze it. (Blogs have the evidence as well, but they’re not conventional “news media”. Which is why they haven’t been threatened, and why they are the only ones actually reporting and analyzing the actual evidence). You want us to disbelieve Zullo’s statements that the media were threatened because he has been retired from police work for a while and because he had to agree to Corsi’s terms in order to get the evidence out in a form that most people could receive it (because nobody else would report the evidence, as documented by yourself...)
It’s pointless to talk to you. Your own content makes my case for me every time, and yet you refuse to see it. That’s willful rejection of the truth, and nothing I say can cure you of that.
I think Zullo should definitely tell the world how much he’s making on the side. It’s extraordinary to think that a LEO would be supplementing his income by selling the partial results of an investigation via Amazon. I’ve already explained that it’s irrelevant whether what he’s selling is already in the public arena, the fact that he’s SELLING it is the issue. LEO’s don’t sell their investigations for personal gain. EVER. Doesn’t it concern you that he could be prejudicing a prosecution for a few bucks?
Not kidding about those links in the slightest. You said they didn’t report it. They did, you just didn’t like the way they did it.
It’s part of a pattern of exaggeration that you use when it comes to this topic. I can give you a couple of examples from this very thread.
You said “and now the coroner’s tech who probably took the photos that alone would tell us whether it was a natural heart attack or an assassination is dead..”.
You don’t have the faintest idea whether he worked on the Breitbart case or not but suddenly he’s ‘probably’ the guy who knew the inside track. How did you reach that conclusion?
You said “...AND a bomb scare for Rush Limbaugh”.
What? Rush was threatened? Errr....no. The reality here is that the guys in his post room scanned a parcel, saw something they didn’t like (wires) so they called the bomb squad. It was a false alarm, an innocent package. It’s very easy to find out the truth so I wonder why you’d peddle a falsehood.
Deliberately exaggerating is a form of lying. You should consider stopping.
So ask Zullo.
And you have yet to show one piece of information that he sold, as opposed to selling a format for information already publicly available.
I said they didn’t report EVIDENCE. And your own links proved that.
A little more on Michael Cormier’s position in the coroner’s office: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2878213/posts?page=25#25 Your own statement about “over 200 employees at the LA Coroner’s Office” (just like Bubba Ho-Tep’s; did you do the same Google search as he did?) suggests that you saw that audit report also, but you didn’t really look at what was in it.
The bomb scare for Rush Limbaugh involved an item he received that first got attention because of wires sticking out, and then when opened turned out to “commemmorate” two famous ASSASSINATIONS - given to him on the same day that Breitbart died by a suspected assassination and the posse gave its report. About as innocent and subtle as a horse’s head in the bed...
Yes, it is pretty easy to find the truth, Natufian. Your own links have shown this time and time again. But either you don’t read your own links, or you glaze over what they really say.
That’s why it’s a waste of time to talk to you. There are none so blind as he who will not see.
I’m willing to talk to anybody who brings up content, but if they keep repeating stuff that’s been shown to be inaccurate or refuse to process what’s been presented to them, that’s the point at which I have to say I can’t help them. We will never agree, and the “Yes, you did.” “No, I didn’t” argument could go on forever but would be a total waste of time. You’ve presented your argument; I’ve presented mine. The lurkers can make up their own minds, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to change yours.
“I’ve been wondering about WND’s claim that he was a police detective, since Zullo isn’t exactly clear on that when asked.”
Zullo was never a police detective. WND’s description is hyperbole. Zullo was a patrolman with the Demarest, NJ PD between 1979 and 1984.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.