Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
“I made that initial statement to Ray, and the problem since then has been how you’ve taken that an run with it. First, you wrested what I said from its context and dishonestly tried to make it sound like I was claiming occupancy of every office everywhere throughout history is evidence of eligibility.”
Whine, whine, whine, lie, lie, lie.
Hook, are you capable of honestly discussing this issue, or is whine & lie all you can do?
Cutting through the whine, here is the LIE:
“you wrested what I said from its context and dishonestly tried to make it sound like I was claiming occupancy of every office everywhere throughout history is evidence of eligibility.”
Oh please. Are you really this intellectually meager, or is dishonesty a conscious & overwhelming strategy for you?
Here’s the/my post which you are lying about:
[From your original post] “7. Does occupancy of office confer eligibility?
It’s better to say that occupancy is evidence that eligibility requirements have been met and accepted.”
[My reply in total] “Occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.”
From that simple, factual statement you have created a skein of lies. None of what you’re saying about my comment comes even close to being true. Hook, you need to do one of two things. (1) Admit you’re lying through your teeth and apologize, or (2) admit you totally misread my comment and vow to pay closer attention in the future.
I’ll wait while you decide.
As to the rest of what you wrote, here’s the deal. You have either got to start reading my comments well enough to respond to what I actually said, as opposed to your made-up bugaboos [which are totally irrelevant, since I never said them to begin with] or you need to stop lying. Two people cannot have a discussion if one of them is too fundamentally dishonest to respond to actual statements, as opposed to substituting their dishonest smears, or is simply incapable of comprehension. So you need to get your act together. Either decide to start discussing this like a rational, intelligent adult, or go back to your far left moonbat buddies and whine and lie some more.
While we’re at it, you can also apologize for calling me “dishonest”.
To reiterate, here is my statement:
“Occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.”
That is an absolutely true statement. Yet you took that simple, obvious observation, and used it to accuse me of “dishonesty”. You need to apologize. Now.
Here are my additional comments on the same subject:
“Thanks, btw, for revealing either your mind-numbing stupidity or your hopeless, staggering, over the top bias. The idea that occupancy can be evidence of one thing & one thing only is astonishing either in its clueless naivety or its pro-Obama bias. & Obama apologists call birthers stupid and/or biased [well, most call us racist, but it’s the same difference ultimately; they think we’re biased because we’re racist]. Projection, anyone?
It’s as if, in your mind, no one in the history of the world has ever occupied an office through some combination of fraud or dereliction. Every single person who’s ever held office has been totally, completely qualified, and every person who’s ever been responsible for vetting has been completely, scrupulously and energetically honest and diligent.”
My point here is that you said occupancy was evidence that eligibility requirements have been met. You stated it as if that is the only thing occupancy is evidence of. The fact is, as I made clear, that occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.
Iow, it’s fine for you to use occupancy as evidence of what you want it to be evidence of. But the real world is more complicated. People do attain occupancy via fraud & dereliction. So it is evidence of one or the other, but not solely evidence of either one.
Can you grasp that?
Here is an example of how the media [which according to you, is “versus all”] ‘vetted’ Obama:
“This is a rush transcript from “Hannity,” July 20, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Obama’s relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright at one point threatened to derail his presidential campaign. But documents unearthed by The Daily Caller reveal the extent to which the mainstream media went to hide the pair’s relationship.
Now e-mails exchanged on a liberal list serve showed that Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to pick an Obama critic and, quote, “call them racist” in order to deflect attention from the Wright story.
Now following a debate during which George Stephanopoulos questioned Obama about his relationship with Wright, The Guardian’s Michael Tomasky wrote to the group, quote, “Listen, folks, in my opinion we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have.”
Now days later The Nation’s Chris Hayes asked colleagues who worked for outlets, quote, “in the ostensible mainstream media,” to ignore candidate Obama’s relationship with the Reverend Wright.” [Link below]
& attack Stephanopolis they did—viciously. After which no journalist anywhere dared to ask Obama anything more than puffy, love-laden softballs.
Iow, Obama wasn’t vetted At All. If he had been, one of the first things discovered would have been that he didn’t write even a single line of Dreams from my Father. That was low hanging fruit, available to anyone who interviewed his friends in Hyde Park. But he wasn’t vetted at all. Period.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/07/21/did-journalists-plot-to-protect-obama-candidacy-in-2008/
Which is how you "debate." Project much?
While beating you in a point is child's play, still you afford me another opportunity to do it.
Four times (at least) in stating you were dishonest in your reply, I stated specifically what you asserted that was a gross distortion of what I said. For example:
First, you wrested what I said from its context and dishonestly tried to make it sound like I was claiming occupancy of every office everywhere throughout history is evidence of eligibility.”
It's the bold part that I repeatedly mentioned. You made two consecutive posts in reply to my one, and in the second your wrote:
It’s as if, in your mind, no one in the history of the world has ever occupied an office through some combination of fraud or dereliction. Every single person who’s ever held office has been totally, completely qualified, and every person who’s ever been responsible for vetting has been completely, scrupulously and energetically honest and diligent.
In my post to Ray, was I talking about every office throughout the history of the world? Noooooo. The post to Ray was throughout the 10 questions and answers speaking exclusively to the office of U.S. President. But you dishonestly suggest that I'm saying occupancy of every office everywhere throughout history has been evidence of eligibility.
But you stayed silent the first 3 times I brought this up. Eventually, like with the Harvard Law Review news articles, if I rub your nose in your pile of ostrich poo often enough, you eventually pop your head out and attempt a reply. So here, finally, you try. And you blow it.
Here's what you're claiming I was asserting was your dishonest statement:
Here’s the/my post which you are lying about:
[From your original post] “7. Does occupancy of office confer eligibility?
It’s better to say that occupancy is evidence that eligibility requirements have been met and accepted.”
[My reply in total] “Occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.”
But that wasn't your "reply in total," because your reply to my one post consisted of two parts. And in the second part you made the assertion which I repeatedly called out as dishonest.
From that simple, factual statement you have created a skein of lies.
No, it was from your inaccurate statement in your next post that I took issue. Your thinking is so confused you can't even keep your own posts straight.
I didn't say anything about the comment ("“Occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.”) you're now trying to put front and center here. Nothing. I didn't quote it; I didn't mention it.
So here you are accusing me of lying about a statement of yours I never discussed.
You are hopelessly confused.
(1) Admit you’re lying through your teeth and apologize, or (2) admit you totally misread my comment and vow to pay closer attention in the future.
Gosh, that's what I said about you back in post #307:
But Ray's questions and my answers only pertained to the office of U.S. President. I wasn't including some election for Mayor of Podunkville where the stakes aren't as high and where there's far less scrutiny. So for you to bluster on here about offices somewhere else proves either you have a basic reading comprehension problem or else you dishonestly exaggerate to erect your strawman argument. Take your pick.
My, my, aren't you just the clever one to try to take MY point and pretend it's really YOUR point. The projection technique at work, Exhibit A.
As noted, I read that sentence correctly. But I never commented on it, so it's just silly for you to try to invent some "lie" out of my comment. But, again, you can't really think straight, can you?
I’ll wait while you decide.
I just documented why you're full of it. The decision is already made.
Now in discussions in the past these "here's your choice" demands are usually done by persons getting killed substantively in the discussion, so they create a mock personal issue and then purport to exit the discussion on account the other person didn't comply with the demands. I see this one coming already.
The rest of your rant, ad hominem, and projection doesn't warrant reply, as much of it is just repetitive.
I was continuing the discussion in my last post, making the substantive point that, relatively speaking, occupancy by itself is weak evidence, while the State-issued documents and verification are mightily strong evidence of eligibility. Now, for one who accuses me of not being able to discuss a topic, you blew right past that one in favor of your rant.
Maybe you should try harder this time.
It’s funny to watch you get more & more hysterical. Do you think you can substitute insults for rational dialogue? Evidently you do. This is typical of moonbats.
Here is the bottom line. Occupancy is not evidence of eligibility. It is evidence *either* of eligibility or of fraud & dereliction.
If you had wished to be accurate & honest in your original statement, that’s what you would have said. ‘No, of course occupancy is not evidence of eligibility. All occupancy indicates is that *either* a candidate was properly vetted & is qualified for the seat he holds, OR that he successfully gained occupancy through some combination of fraud & dereliction.’
That is what I said. It is true. & all your wild, hysterical, desperate, silly insults and caterwauling do nothing to change the facts. I have not been dishonest, but you have lied in saying that I was. That is the far left moonbat MO. You are following the liberal game plan to a T.
In between your silly, ever increasingly hysterical rants, answer this question. If Obama was vetted, why was it not reported that he didn’t write Dreams from my Father? It didn’t take much digging to unearth that fact. His friends in the Hyde Park neighborhood were interviewed, and multiple sources readily confirmed, with specific details, that Bill Ayers is the author. Why was this not reported during the ‘08 campaign?
So we’ve been told on this thread, by an admitted leftist, that if anything concerning Obama rose to the level of Watergate, reporters were swarm all over it. They would do so in search of Woodward & Bernsteinesque fame and fortune.
Conservatives know this is a crock. It isn’t a scandal, to the MSM, unless it involves a Republican. But just for good measure, there’s this:
‘They met at a McDonald’s in Northern Virginia at the beginning of 2013, and the source (she dubs him Number One) warned her about the threat of government spying. During their next hamburger rendezvous, Big Mac told Attkisson, then a CBS News reporter constantly at odds with the Obama administration, that he was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” by his examination of her computer and that this was “worse than anything Nixon ever did.”’
Of course if Bush or similar had done such a thing, it would be the scandal to end all scandals. But since Obama did it, it’s nothing; a zero on the 1-10 scale of newsworthiness.
Does the person who advised us that the press is neutral/objective actually believe that? Or is it just one more in a long line of flippant lies?
With true moonbats, you never know.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3220307/posts
You post comments like this and then turn around a claim I'm the one substituting insults for rational dialogue. You make it rather challenging to take you seriously in the least.
The idea that occupancy can be evidence of one thing & one thing only is astonishing either in its clueless naivety or its pro-Obama bias.
As to the office of U.S. President (which, again, was the only office I was addressing to Ray), in all elections prior to 2008, occupancy has been evidence of eligibility, because there is not a single instance you can point to where it was later shown an ineligible candidate was nominated and won. So therefore I don't think is tenable to claim that "occupancy can be evidence of fraud" when that has never been the case prior.
So, yes, based on that, when we come to 2008, I'm asserting the probability that eligibility was established was very high, based on history.
In any event, I refer you back to my point that it is only evidence in an indirect, after-the-fact way, so I don't give a lot of weight to it. By contrast, the state verifications of Obama's birth carry GREAT weight, in both an evidentiary and legal/Constitutional sense.
It’s as if, in your mind, no one in the history of the world has ever occupied an office through some combination of fraud or dereliction. Every single person who’s ever held office has been totally, completely qualified, and every person who’s ever been responsible for vetting has been completely, scrupulously and energetically honest and diligent.”
But I wasn't talking about every office throughout the world and throughout history, was I? By reposting this you're just making my case that you distort and lie.
My point here is that you said occupancy was evidence that eligibility requirements have been met. You stated it as if that is the only thing occupancy is evidence of.
Yes. Because, as to the office of U.S. President, occupancy has always been a reflection of eligibility. It's an argument assessing probabilities based on history. You're failing to grasp that point.
The fact is, as I made clear, that occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.
And if you had but stated it that way after I responded to Ray, this might have been a whole lot simpler. Instead, you added your distortion and histrionics.
Iow, it’s fine for you to use occupancy as evidence of what you want it to be evidence of. But the real world is more complicated. People do attain occupancy via fraud & dereliction. So it is evidence of one or the other, but not solely evidence of either one.
Probabilities. Given that in the elections for presidents 1 through 43, there has been no serious question the process yielded an ineligible candidate for either major party, let alone an ineligible candidate successfully attaing the office, what is the probability that the next election (President #44) yielded an eligible candidate. The correct answer is "very high."
Can you grasp that?
But to state it as you do implies those are equally probable alternatives. As noted, given that prior to 2008, occupancy and eligibility (of the U.S. Presidency) have coincided in every instance, you can't claim "it can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction." You have no historical basis upon which to make that claim. You can't make a circumstantial argument in that instance; evidence of fraud and dereliction must necessarily come from direct evidence of the alleged deficiencies.
You state that as if that has been established, when it is still controverted. From Wiki:
In 2008 and 2009 some conservative commentators advanced claims that Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father was written or ghost-written by Ayers. In a series of articles in American Thinker and WorldNetDaily, author Jack Cashill claimed that his own analysis of the book showed Ayers' writing style. In late October, US Congressman Chris Cannon and his brother-in-law attempted to hire an Oxford University professor, Peter Millican, to prove Ayers' authorship using computer analysis. Millican refused after they would not assure him in advance that his results would be published regardless of the outcome.[59][60][61][62] Millican later criticized the claim, saying variously that he had "found no evidence for Cashill's ghostwriting hypothesis," that it was "unlikely"[63] and that he felt "totally confident that it is false."[61]
So a Republican congressman -- in an attempt to prove that "Dreams" was written by Ayers -- hires a guy who concludes that thesis is nonsense.
I'm not seeing where the supposed failure of the press lies here. This was reported in one newspaper. Though I'm not aware if it was picked up by any other media.
Many autobiographies are done with ghost-writers/collaborators and/or bear the influence of an editor. That Obama utilized one or more persons to aid him in the project is quite possible and not all that earth-shattering. It's not clear where the media story lies here.
‘But to state it as you do implies those are equally probable alternatives. As noted, given that prior to 2008, occupancy and eligibility (of the U.S. Presidency) have coincided in every instance, you can’t claim “it can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.” You have no historical basis upon which to make that claim. You can’t make a circumstantial argument in that instance; evidence of fraud and dereliction must necessarily come from direct evidence of the alleged deficiencies.’
So Obama is just like every other person to occupy the WH. There is nothing at all different about him [& I am NOT talking about skin color] than about every other POTUS. People in the country knew his parents. At the time he was elected, people still recalled his youngest days. People recalled his mother’s pregnancy. They recalled her trip to the hospital, & her homecoming. Close friends, family & neighbors shared recollections of Obama’s parents’ life together, and their delight at welcoming a new/first child into the world. There was probably even a tale or two about proud papa passing out cigars in HI.
Etc. etc.
Speaking of probabilities, what are the odds that a white American woman married to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. would have her child in Africa?
Wiki is your source?
& you talk about taking ME seriously?
Are you an infant?
& btw, Cashill is not the source I have been citing. Not unless he is a lefty liberal Obama-lover. I specifically noted that the source of the FACT that Ayers wrote Dreams from my Father is a liberal fan of Obama.
Learn to read.
I truly believe Obama was eligible. The evidence of his Hawaiian birth comes in multiple forms over a period of time stretching back to 1961, including the affirmation by the State of Hawaii (which by itself legally establishes his eligibility). By contrast, the "counter-case" rests almost exclusively on an agency bio intended only for distribution to a handful of publishers, for which the agency says it make a mistake.
And the "two citizen parent" theory of "natural born citizen" is historically very weak and, as to the native-born, legally dead as of 1898.
There's no money. Picking apart Birther arguments is occasionally just fun sport.
you are full of $^&%
Here is a question for you. What is the address of the house where Obama’s mother lived while she was pregnant? If you answer [you shouldn’t, but who knows; moonbats are unpredictable], then cite your source.
Even Obama’s most friendly biographers admit that neither his parents, nor even just his mother, lived at the address cited in the infamous ‘birth announcements’. Why was his parents’ actual address not used? What WAS his parents’ actual address? How do you know where they lived? What is your source?
The birthplace/house of US presidents prior to Obama is known. Some of these houses have been preserved as historical landmarks. In Reagan’s case, I believe there is an effort to raze his birth house. But at least it is known. Tell me about the movement to preserve Obama’s birth house—i.e.: the house he was brought home to, as a days’ old baby? Do many visitors frequent the address? Are lots of photos taken of it?
Hook, you have No Freaking Idea what the word ‘probability’ means. You should be embarrassed. Of course you’re not & cannot even fathom a reason to be. But you should be. To speak of ‘probabilities’ as you do, & have no clue what you’re talking about, is mortifying, at least for you.
"Law week, two men, Richard and Michael, walked into you office and asked for your help.
You learn that they are a monogamous, gay couple who have been living together for the past ten years. Both men are successful architects, and after devoting the past decade on their respective careers, they have now decided that they want to marry and raise children together."
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/is-obama-stupid-and-lazy/
“Winter came and the city turned monochrome -- black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds”
Barack Obama, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
As to the Congressman Cannon piece and the fact that Peter Millican called the Ayers's thesis "unlikely" and later "confident that it is totally false," Wiki cites directly to the primary sources -- the Salt Lake Tribune and an article published by Millican himself.
Cashill is not the source I have been citing.
Oh? Back in your Post #319, you wrote:
"How about Jack Cashill? He established that Dreams from my Father is a work of fiction."
Now you claim Cashill is not the source you've been citing? LOL. (You somehow manage to take your dopiness to even greater levels.)
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.