Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McInnish Appeal denied in Alabama {Obama Eligibility Case]
Obama Conspiracy Theories ^ | 21 March 2014 | Dr. Conspiracy

Posted on 03/21/2014 10:25:55 AM PDT by Fractal Trader

Today the Alabama Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, and the decision goes against plaintiffs Hugh Chapman and Virgil Goode, who were trying to force the Alabama Secretary of State to verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2102 Alabama presidential ballot. Larry Klayman was the attorney for the Appellants.

The Court’s Majority issued no written opinion, only affirming the lower court decision dismissing the case.

Majority decision to affirm, no opinion (Stuart, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise) Concurring opinion (Bolin) Concurring opinion (Bryan) Dissenting Opinion (Moore) Dissenting Opinion (Parker) Chief Justice Roy Moore issued the major dissenting opinion, and Justice Bolin issued a concurring opinion specifically addressed to Moore’s dissent. Chief Justice Moore states that under Alabama Law, Secretary of State Chapman has an affirmative duty to verify candidate eligibility. Justice Bolin agrees that candidate eligibility is an important public interest, but that Alabama statutes do not place a duty on the Secretary of State to verify it. Further Justice Bolin points out that Secretary of State Chapman is a nonjudicial officer with no subpoena power or investigative authority. Justice Bolin concludes:

Under our current structure, however, the burden of investigating a presidential candidate’s qualifications is best left – unfortunately or not – to the candidate’s political party….

As I understand his position, Justice Bolin is saying that a state statute requiring verification of eligibility for candidates for president is a desirable thing, given his belief that the federal courts are prohibited from adjudicating eligibility because of the Political Question Doctrine.

Justice Bryan also issued a concurring opinion, briefly stating his belief that legislation could be passed to allow verification of candidate eligibility.

Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion goes to the details of the Alabama statutes involved and at a brief reading has no particular high points. It is an analysis on the merits.

Chief Justice Parker also dissents from the majority opinion, supporting the analysis of Chief Justice Moore, but disagreeing on the Secretary of State’s affirmative duty to investigate candidate eligibility.

A text search of all of the opinions affirms my opinion that the Affidavit of Mike Zullo is irrelevant, being cited not onc


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: drconwebsite; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
This is the most complete article I have found so far. By 7-2, the Alabama Supreme Court has said that they have no problems with how the Secretary of State validate candidate eligibility. Roy Moore, the Chief Justice posted a strong dissent. No mention of Zullo in the footnotes.
1 posted on 03/21/2014 10:25:55 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Seizethecarp; null and void

eligibility ping


2 posted on 03/21/2014 10:26:33 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Color me not surprised. Did anyone seriously expect a different outcome?


3 posted on 03/21/2014 10:28:33 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ((If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
the decision goes against plaintiffs Hugh Chapman and Virgil Goode, who were trying to force the Alabama Secretary of State to verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2102 Alabama presidential ballot.

2102 isn't a presidential election year so there is no ballot to be on. Plus Obama is constitutionally ineligible for a third term. Leave it to Larry Klayman to be defeated by a typo.

4 posted on 03/21/2014 10:37:19 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; BuckeyeTexan
The Court's opinions are here.

Briefly summarized: Obama was never a party to this case. It was a state-court case brought by a third-party candidate, who sued the Alabama Secretary of State (a Republican, BTW) just before the 2012 election, seeking a court order that she not put either Romney or Obama on the ballot without examining their birth certificates. (The SOS was the only defendant.)

The lower court said that the Alabama statutes say that the Secretary of State "shall" put on the presidential ballot the candidates nominated by the "national parties" (i.e., the Democrats and Republicans), so the Secretary of State had no power or duty to investigate those candidates.

Five justices of the Alabama Supreme Court (all 9 justices are republicans, BTW), affirmed the lower court without writing any opinion.

Two justices concurred with the majority. Justice Bolin said that it would be a good idea for the Secretary of State to have the power to vet candidates' eligibility, but the Alabama legislature would have to change the law to give her that power. He also said that the plaintiff in this case sued too late, because the general election ballots had already been printed before the lawsuit was filed.

Justice Bryan wrote a short concurrence agreeing that nothing in current Alabama law gives the SOS the power to vet the eligibility of national party candidates, and nothing in current Alabama law gives any state court the power to decide the eligibility of candidates for President.

Chief Justice Moore (well-known as the "10 Commandments judge") dissented. He said: this case is moot because the 2012 election already happened, so no court can now consider Obama's eligibility; only Congress can refuse to count electoral votes once they've been cast and only Congress can remove a sitting President once he's sworn in. Notwithstanding that this case is moot, the SOS should vet the eligibility of all presidential candidates in future elections.

Justice Parker also dissented. He did not go as far as Moore -- he does not think the SOS should vet the eligibility of all candidates-- but said there were questions raised about Obama that the SOS should have looked into.

5 posted on 03/21/2014 10:44:52 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; null and void; butterdezillion; Nero Germanicus

Eligibility ping.


6 posted on 03/21/2014 10:48:26 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; Fractal Trader
2102 isn't a presidential election year so there is no ballot to be on. Plus Obama is constitutionally ineligible for a third term. Leave it to Larry Klayman to be defeated by a typo.

The typo was in the post, not in the case. The case involved the 2012 election. Chief Justice Moore discussed the mootness issue. (He said this case is moot, but the Secretary of State should investigate all future presidential candidates.)

7 posted on 03/21/2014 10:51:12 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; hoosiermama; Fantasywriter; Flotsam_Jetsome

Thanks fractal trader!

Pinging all y’all to this court decision!


8 posted on 03/21/2014 10:52:24 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

For the record, all nine Alabama Supreme Court Justices are Republicans who must stand for election by the voters every six years (staggered terms).


9 posted on 03/21/2014 10:55:00 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
By 7-2, the Alabama Supreme Court has said that they have no problems with how the Secretary of State validate candidate eligibility.

What the decision said was, "Although logically the Secretary of State, being the chief elections official of the state, should be vested with such a duty, under our present constitutional and statutory framework addressing elections, including presidential elections, not only is that not the case, but the Secretary of State would be bereft of written authority for such an action and ill equipped from a practical standpoint to carry out such an important duty."

In other words the court wouldn't have a problem with the SoS verifying candidate eligibility, but the law would have to be changed to give them the authority to do so.

10 posted on 03/21/2014 11:02:54 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

There should have been 50 of these lawsuits running concurrently in 50 states after the Democratic Convention. This was the way to go. Plaintiffs in it for the show, not the dough.

Shame on those that hooked their wagons to Orly Taitz’s con game.


11 posted on 03/21/2014 11:10:59 AM PDT by Usagi_yo (Standardization is an Evolutionary dead end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The typo was in the post, not in the case

and I don't use sarc tags.

12 posted on 03/21/2014 11:26:07 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

If I’m reading the decision right, it’s worth noticing that two of the concurring justices opined in writing that as Alabama state law stands currently (and by implication that of practically every other state in the union), the citizens interest in having only legally qualified candidates on ballots is not adequately supported given that specific mechanisms, powers or resources are not granted for the Secretary of State to investigate and ensure that qualifications are met.

In other words, of the nine justices, perhaps at least four feel that Alabama voters were and continue to be exposed to regrettable risks of what roughly amounts to disenfranchisement, given that unqualified candidates could be and may have been named on official ballots. Two of the four (including the Chief Justice) felt that the Secy. of State already has implicit responsibility to protect the integrity of the ballot, the other two pointed out shortcomings they feel need to be remedied in State law in order to explicitly engage the secy. of state in affirmatively verifying candidate qualifications.

I think the Alabama legislature ought to be moved to action. They should write a law that both assigns affirmative verification (and needed resources) to the Secretary of State, AND they should direct investigative resources and subpoena power toward prior questioned elections to determine whether in the recent past the citizens of that state have already been disenfranchised through the vaunting of an unqualified candidate by his or her political party.

The argument that it’s “too late now” and therefore moot, should no more be applied here than in the case of a murder. If the citizens of Alabama have been defrauded and cheated out of a right to vote by means of a clean ballot then why should that not now be discovered? Should the state not bring suit and seek recourse and censure against a political party who has sponsored the corrupting of a past ballot? Should the matter not at least be settled so far as informing the citizens as to whether or not their vote was subjected to a corrupt ballot and, if so, by whose doing?

Potentially robbing citizens of the right to a ballot with only legally qualified candidates is too great a crime for state governments to blithely look the other way. Alabama has admitted that it, like most states, has for all practical purposes a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy guiding its election practices. That must change!


13 posted on 03/21/2014 11:29:16 AM PDT by ecinkc (Onaka, Fukino, Okubo, Corley, Guthrie, Abercrombie, Nagamine, Romo and Malihi: The Usurper Cabal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Sorry if I missed them, then. :-)
FRegards,
L.L.


14 posted on 03/21/2014 11:30:29 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

Nobody wants to bell the hell cat.


15 posted on 03/21/2014 11:30:30 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc
The argument that it’s “too late now” and therefore moot, should no more be applied here than in the case of a murder. If the citizens of Alabama have been defrauded and cheated out of a right to vote by means of a clean ballot then why should that not now be discovered? Should the state not bring suit and seek recourse and censure against a political party who has sponsored the corrupting of a past ballot? Should the matter not at least be settled so far as informing the citizens as to whether or not their vote was subjected to a corrupt ballot and, if so, by whose doing?

All four of those justices agree that this case is moot because, once a Presidential election has been held, only Congress can investigate the qualifications of the winner. (Chief Justice Moore's dissent has a long discussion of this.) The issue was whether the SOS should investigate future candidates before they are placed on the ballot.

16 posted on 03/21/2014 11:34:44 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; LucyT; null and void; Cold Case Posse Supporter; Flotsam_Jetsome; circumbendibus; ..

Thanks for the ping.

This case was a very, very long shot given the standing issue and mootness issue, IMO. Also HI is constitutionally entitled to full faith and credit for the representations of its (likely corrupt) officials regarding vital records.

If AL or any state expects HI to honor its vital record attestations, then they must respect HI...until and unless someone can make a successful case of criminal forgery and/or collusion in HI state.

Maybe that is what Arpaio will do...soon?


17 posted on 03/21/2014 11:36:00 AM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
>> HI is constitutionally entitled to full faith and credit for the representations of its (likely corrupt) officials regarding vital records.

The only record supplied by Hawaii are verification letters. The verification letters are fraudulent on their face.

This is the fraud:

Has information been concealed? Has a "true copy of the record" been provided?

Onaka and Obama colluded in fraud.

18 posted on 03/21/2014 11:44:00 AM PDT by Ray76 (Profit from the mistakes of others, you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; null and void; Velveeta; Rushmore Rocks; Oorang; Myrddin; MamaDearest; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Thanks to Fractal Trader, and Seizethecarp.

.

19 posted on 03/21/2014 11:46:35 AM PDT by LucyT (If you're NOT paranoid, you don't know what's going on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Sec of State of AL can put Pootie Putin on the state ballot where there isn’t a dang thang that the citizens of Alabama could do about it.


20 posted on 03/21/2014 11:47:14 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Have a Happy day! ☺
21 posted on 03/21/2014 11:47:53 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Please put me on your Eligibility ping.


22 posted on 03/21/2014 11:53:50 AM PDT by NaturalBornC1t1zen (White Guilt + Negrophilia is the manifestation of the liberal death wish killing America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The date for sheriff joe and zullo was 3-19-14. Then it was changed to late March. Then it was changed to a “rolling date issue”. Nothing gonna happen. No reason to withhold anything they already have. They claim to be getting “paperwork” in order.
I wish something would break but it seems very unlikely.


23 posted on 03/21/2014 11:54:57 AM PDT by DrDude (Does anyone have a set of balls anymore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Wow, what a brilliant and concise synopsis! Well done.

It should be noted that the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas DID verify Obama’s birth certificate via the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604


24 posted on 03/21/2014 11:58:27 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Lets hope this is the pathetic end of Birther litigation. Although their incompetent clowning before a judge always made me smile, their failure to learn from hundreds of failures is getting to be sad.


25 posted on 03/21/2014 11:59:28 AM PDT by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Sec of State of AL can put Pootie Putin on the state ballot where there isn’t a dang thang that the citizens of Alabama could do about it.

Not exactly. The current Alabama law says that the Alabama SOS must put on the ballot any Presidential candidate nominated by a "national party." So a more accurate formulation of your point is that the Dems or Repubs can put Putin on the ballot and neither the Alabama SOS nor the citizens of Alabama can do anything about it (except vote against him).

26 posted on 03/21/2014 11:59:30 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornC1t1zen

I don’t keep the ping list. I was just pinging some other folks who, I think, keep the list.


27 posted on 03/21/2014 12:00:24 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

You are bucking one of the strongest motivators in human nature. The search for truth. There is too much unknown, lied about, covered up, and avoided. It is my hope that someday all of the questions will be answered, may not happen, but it’s worse to not try.

Suit yourself.


28 posted on 03/21/2014 12:05:34 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Bennett wanted out and needed a fig leaf. He pronounced Obama eligible based on an email which he hadn’t even read. http://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/Latest-on-bennett-152793135.html

Kobach seized upon the complaints withdrawal to end the hearing. The fact that the complaint was withdrawn under duress - claims of being threatened - was completely ignored. Those claims where later withdrawn... gee imagine that.


29 posted on 03/21/2014 12:12:22 PM PDT by Ray76 (Profit from the mistakes of others, you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Maybe that is what Arpaio will do...soon?

Yeah, any day now.

30 posted on 03/21/2014 12:14:06 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Not exactly. The current Alabama law says that the Alabama SOS must put on the ballot any Presidential candidate nominated by a "national party."

Yeah I know...The Dem Commie or the 'national' Rem and Stimpy party could put a thinly disguised Fidel C. or Stalin on the ballot, and they would vote for them. I also figured you would point out that little detail.

31 posted on 03/21/2014 12:19:00 PM PDT by Red Steel ( Nero Germanicus you're still the Commie Retread Zot Jamese777)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
Lets hope this is the pathetic end of Birther litigation.

So what's your point? If you fail in an attempt to uphold The Constitution when the deck is stacked against you, just tuck tail and run? Pathetic!

32 posted on 03/21/2014 12:22:43 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Who but a TYRANT shoves down another man's throat what he has exempted himself from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I also figured you would point out that little detail.

Accuracy is a bad thing?

33 posted on 03/21/2014 12:23:20 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I didn’t say that. Just keeping the post short. The Stalinist Martian still gets on the state ballot.


34 posted on 03/21/2014 12:26:34 PM PDT by Red Steel ( Nero Germanicus you're still the Commie Retread Zot Jamese777)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Eggs Ackley. But the kneepad obamaroids will cite this as yet another confirmation of little barry bastard boy’s eligibility.


35 posted on 03/21/2014 12:28:23 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
What the decision said was . . .

The "decision" was Per Curiam with no written opinion for the majority. So the decision didn't say anything beyond that the lower court's dismissal of the Complaint is affirmed.

At most one can say is that a minority of the Justices (those writing concurring and dissenting opinions) were in favor of the SoS having some amount of investigatory authority, with the concurring Justices believing that authority first needs to come from the Legislature.

36 posted on 03/21/2014 12:38:27 PM PDT by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

My point is not whether or not a legal action regarding Chapman’s inactivity is moot. My point is that the legislature should heed the words of the opining justices that as matters stand, Alabamians were and now remain exposed to the risk of voting with ballots prone to be marred by unqualified candidates.

Given that exposure, and given that there was a small but not negligible group of voters who fought to obtain a thorough review of a candidate they felt potentially unqualified represented on ballots in the 2012 election, new legislation to protect future ballots should also include a mandate and provisions for an authoritative probe to be conducted into whether or not the state of Alabama was effectively defrauded by the Democrat party when they advanced Obama as their candidate in 2012 and 2008.

But go ahead and enjoy the contention that the matter is moot, I guess, since ripeness technicalities have served as crucial aids in the fight to prevent anyone from finally getting definitive answers on whether or not Obama is legally qualified for the office he currently holds. After all, the ultimate good for some people on this issue is to make sure questions remain forever unanswered.


37 posted on 03/21/2014 12:40:04 PM PDT by ecinkc (Onaka, Fukino, Okubo, Corley, Guthrie, Abercrombie, Nagamine, Romo and Malihi: The Usurper Cabal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

And to think and accept that there is some heavenly sanctifying opinions by such laws and men rules for a societal order is gross sophistry..


38 posted on 03/21/2014 12:58:21 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc
My point is that the legislature should heed the words of the opining justices that as matters stand, Alabamians were and now remain exposed to the risk of voting with ballots prone to be marred by unqualified candidates.

A better-reasoned view is that the legislature of Alabama (or any state) should recognize that, as to a national election for the Presidency, it would invite chaos for eligibility to be made on a state-by-state basis. A candidate can't be ineligible in Alabama yet eligible in the other states. But that sort of inconsistency is what a legislature would be inviting were the suggestion of the minority justices to be followed.

One might rightly conclude the Alabama legislature has already taken this into account when it enacted the statute (§ 17-14-31(a)) that says the Ala. SoS "shall" certify a candidate nominated by a national convention.

The certification mechanism needs to occur at the federal level, where it is already vested (i.e., the duty and power of Congress to certify the Electoral College votes and to debate properly laid challenges lodged to those votes).

39 posted on 03/21/2014 1:07:15 PM PDT by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

I’m reading Zullo will be on the air today with Gallups’ Freedom Friday WEBY.


40 posted on 03/21/2014 1:10:54 PM PDT by Red Steel ( Nero Germanicus you're still the Commie Retread Zot Jamese777)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc
After all, the ultimate good for some people on this issue is to make sure questions remain forever unanswered.

I, for one, would like to see the questions answered-- they should have been answered long ago-- but they will never be answered when incompetent lawyers like Klayman and Taitz are litigating these issues in courts that have no jurisdiction. Congress should have-- and still can-- subpoenaed the official birth records from Hawai'i, which would definitely answer the question one way or the other.

41 posted on 03/21/2014 1:26:37 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jayster; cousteausghost; little jeremiah

Don’t know if you’ve been pinged to this thread yet.


42 posted on 03/21/2014 1:35:24 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

All the more reason that Sherriff Joe, put on his stage makeup, and get the truth in front of the stupid people, using all his forensics and analysis of bogus documents.

Maybe, just maybe, with enough public agitation, even ABCNBCCBS will allow a few seconds of coverage to the biggest scam since the founding of the USA!!!


43 posted on 03/21/2014 2:06:11 PM PDT by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noob1999
Zullo today on WEBY: have legal logistics to do and are still vetting information. The Month of March is still the tentative date.

And for the OBots here - Zullo also said, "It will happen."

44 posted on 03/21/2014 3:43:05 PM PDT by Red Steel ( Nero Germanicus you're still the Commie Retread Zot Jamese777)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Zullo also said, "It will happen."

Very unprofessional thing for anyone in law enforcement to say. If he can make a case, he should bring a complaint before a judge and get an arrest warrant, and not wait. If he is still "vetting information," then he can't say that "it will happen," because his information may not pan out.

Have you ever heard any prosecutor, state or federal, hold a press conference before filing charges?

45 posted on 03/21/2014 3:57:28 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
It is 2 parts. One is shocking details of fraud and lies from Obama about his lying past. The other may be in another briefing about the criminal investigation of OBots. Criminal charges may very well be put forth by the 2nd part.

Zullo and Arpaio have got the goods on Obama and his OBots.

It's going to happen.

46 posted on 03/21/2014 4:03:45 PM PDT by Red Steel ( Nero Germanicus you're still the Commie Retread Zot Jamese777)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Zullo also said, "It will happen."

Of course it will.

47 posted on 03/21/2014 4:44:12 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Be patient grasshopper.

The info that they have is not from 2 to 3 years ago. It’s been ONLY about 5 months when the good stuff has started to come in.


48 posted on 03/21/2014 4:47:11 PM PDT by Red Steel ( Nero Germanicus you're still the Commie Retread Zot Jamese777)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornC1t1zen

Yeah, me too. ;p


49 posted on 03/21/2014 4:52:24 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
It's going to happen.

Whats the over and under on the date?

I wonder what some people are going to do when January, 2017 comes.

50 posted on 03/21/2014 4:55:48 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson