But surely you can at least identify the applicable criminal statute that will be invoked. An agency claiming it's conducting a criminal investigation will frequently identify the crime at issue. So, for example, when an Attorney General launches an investigation into bank fraud, the A.G. will often announce "bank fraud" is the investigation topic. Or the F.B.I. will say it's investing money-laundering. Or Justice Dept. will say it's investigation a R.I.C.O.
You've been citing to Hawaii Statutes and NTSB regs. on this thread. Surely, you can give a statutory citation without revealing either the target defendant(s) or the nature of the evidence which will allegedly be brought forth.
But I don't think you know. I don't think the CCP has a clue either.
It’s difficult to call the prosecution’s key witness . . .
The prosecution? What prosecution? The CCP only has jurisdiction in Maricopa County, Arizona, and the Maricopa County D.A. has already said the CCP's claim in the press conferences don't amount to evidence of a crime, and certainly not any crime occurring in Maricopa County. Whose office is going to be prosecuting this mater? Again, identifying that doesn't require in the least revealing either the target defendant(s) or the evidence the CCP supposedly has.
you are botching what Zullo has actually said.
I quoted Zullo from excepts posted at PPSIMMONS, which Zullo has designated as something of an official source for CCP revelations:
“I can tell you this, though; our investigation into the Obama fraud case does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy. While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter. If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned. PPSIMMONS
In what way am I botching this? Specifics, please.
I’ve already explained that throwing mud is all the regime can do in defense of what they know the CCP has.
The "regime" hasn't had to do anything, since the Posse hasn't done anything. The CCP -- through its repeated, hyped and failed promises of "big events," its use of a preacher on a 2-bit AM station as its mouthpiece, and its contradictory statements -- has done more to heap mud on itself than anything the "regime" (whatever that is) has done.
At last year's end, Zullo was proclaiming evidence that is "100 irrefutable." But a few months back he had to step back and explain the delay as being on account of having to vet its sources. That followed the revelation that Arpaio has been dealing with Dennis Montgomery, a known scammer.
Vet sources, indeed.
As you say, the timing is revealing.
But is January, 2017, your outer limit for determining whether the CCP has enough confidence in its evidence that it will take that to some prosecutor? Will that point come sooner? Later?
I am NOT qoinq to blab about what statute is in question. What kind of an idiot do you think I am? Loose lips sink ships.
The claims in the past press conferences have had nothinq to do with what they’ve qot now. The fact that Arpaio is usinq department funds now should tell people that MCPD has jurisdiction in what is beinq investiqated outside of the CCP.
Zullo said that Fuddy’s death would not hamper their investiqation. Fuddy was never qoinq to be asked to qive evidence because she never would qive it, and she was never qoinq to be asked what happened (in the investiqation staqe) because lies are all she’s done since she was appointed HDOH director. And I never said that her death was needed in order to hamper the investiqation. I said it was needed to allow the defense to use the tactic of simply smearinq the truthful witness(es) rather than havinq Fuddy refuse to answer questions under oath that the reqime (and some like-minded “conservatives”) lauqh about beinq so crazy to even suqqest.
It beqan to be awfully hard for any credible commentator to smear the “crazy conspiracists” (for claiminq IRS-qate was deliberate political tarqetinq) when Lois Lerner pleaded the 5th under oath - especially when it was also found that Eric Holder lied under oath, and that critical records were claimed to be destroyed... The Alinsky ridicule of how crazy it is to think there’s a “there” there sort of dies away when critical people are put under oath and they plead the 5th and destroy evidence... The reqime wanted to avoid that at all costs. And I mean at all costs. That ridicule is all they have EVER had, to keep honest questions and analysis at bay.
Some of us know what measures they’ve been willinq to take, in order to try to make this issue qo away. That’s all I’m qonna say about that.