Lt. Zullo Interview: Universe Shattering Evidence In Obama ID Fraud Investigation (by Arpaio's MCSO)

BirtherReport.com ^ | November 22, 2013 | Carl Gallups and Mike Zullo

[Seizethecarp]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lead investigator Mike Zullo called into Carl Gallups' show and provided this update...(audio)

Zullo @ 6:02: I can't tell you what this is, but the magnitude is so great that Sheriff Arpaio has allotted resources from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. He is fully invested in this and I don't think I've been home more than two days this month.

[4Zoltan]

To me, it says they were married and then separated after two years.

I don’t see anything in the article about the quality of those two years, good or bad.

[4Zoltan]

When you consider that this 1990 article was reprinted in September, 2008 it shouldn’t be such a mystery to you.

Now what was going on in September, 2008 that would make the LA Times reprint a 1990 article about an obscure college student with a funny name?

[Fantasywriter]

Where did I post anything about the quality of the 2 yrs your article claims Obama & Stanley Ann lived together? I posted only that the article contains lie after lie—that one included.

You cited a piece of pure pro-Obama propaganda, & then claimed it has some kind of relevance. Yet as was previously pointed out, we don’t even know if or when it was edited. The original article may read differently on key points—we have no way of knowing.

I’m just amazed you were able to find an article this slobberingly sycophantic. The writer must have typed it w one hand while holding a drool cup w the other. Or maybe, given the magnitude of the pro-Obama slant, a drool bucket.

[Fantasywriter]

Way to miss the point.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"The narrative in the 1990 article has numerous lies and evasions starting with Barry’s parents living together for two years."

Where's the original 1990 article? All I saw at the link was an article a slobberfest posted 04 September 2008 by a Times staff writer entitled "Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review editor, March 19, 1990" with nothing to indicate that it's a re-print of an earlier article by someone else. Just because it reads as if it's a 1990 contemporary piece doesn't mean that it actually is.

[4Zoltan]

See post 214

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Noted. I’d be very interested to see a hard copy of the newspaper this “piece” appeared in. I don’t have access to a “major library” in my area to check to see if they have the LAT issue in question on microfiche, but hopefully another FReeper will physically fact-check it.

[woofie]

when can we expect more info on all this?

[rodguy911]

Thanks a lot, much appreciated.I have been searching for this for a while.

[rodguy911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTxcJTRP5AM

The above is an hour long video with Tom Fife. It explores his allegations about the dinner party and that night in-depth. And of course elaborates on the entire evening.Good stuff.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Update.

Cashill appears to reference the 1990 article in this piece.

[Kenny Bunk]

PING

The tabloids have begun their
"Darn it, this guy is all man"
Obama PR Blitz.

The supermarket tabloid "Globe" is re-running Dr. Jerome Corsi (!) story in WND.

www.wnd.com/2012/07/was-barack-obama-married-in-college/

Complete with that fake picture of Reggie's BF and his "parents" in Central Park!

They did not go with my suggestion of
"Michelle Furious About Barry and Starlet Rendezvous!"

[Kenny Bunk]

I think Zullo has the hammer to shatter the glass, and it will rattle DC.

Perhaps a better analogy. Joe, Zullo and the CCP have the nail and are desperately seeking someone very brave who has the authority to use a big hammer on it.

Damn it! This issue is not on the larger voting public's (i.e., the tattooed fatties in the Wal-Mart parking lot) radar. Just like Reggie Love. Just like the Obamas' Illinois disbarrments. Just like Benghazi .... The Mombasa MF has a PR operation that is simply awesome.

E.G., his nauseating speech today on "Obamacare" will be, of course, be proclaimed as "brilliant." And you know what? For believers, it really was quite so. Awesome dialectics.

[MestaMachine]

Except that the statute of limitations has run on obamafraud and even if they prove it, it’s too late to make a charge stick. He has run out that clock and he lnows it. There is no need for him to pussyfoot around WHAT he is any longer. He’s proud of the destruction he has caused and will cause as much more as he can, in our face, and with malicious glee.

[Fantasywriter]

They already used your suggestion, in 2008 iirc. They put out there that Barry was involved w a female campaign worker. No one cd willingly suspend their disbelief to such an extreme, so they’re disinclined to try it again.

I see where Obama has hit a record low at RCP. He’d be a lot lower but Rasmussen is artificially propping him up w his daily “outliers”. I have always predicted the revelations about Obama’s past, proclivities & other shenanigans wd come to light when his approval hit a record low & stayed there for a while. We are fast nearing that point. It will be fascinating to see what kind of info surfaces over the next several mos.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Statutes of Limitation for any federal crime that Obama might be charged with (forgery, fraud, identity theft, etc.) is five years. That means if Obama committed federal crimes in 2008 in campaign season in order to get elected, the Statute of Limitations runs out on December 31, 2013. Any prosecution would need to begin by that date.
It is up to the defendant to invoke the Statute of Limitations. The clock on the Statute of Limitations begins when the prosecution alleges the criminal act occurred.

“Statutes of Limitation in a Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

And additional legal obstacle is that it is not resolved as to whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted. There is a case to be made that the Constitution prescribes impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors as the only legal recourse and removal from office as the only punishment. However once removed from office, a former president is subject to civil and criminal consequences.

“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”
http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

[LucyT]

Catching up; read to end of page.

Thanks, Kenny Bunk.

[Red Steel]

Mesta, head OBot Obama is not off the hook that easily because ‘identity fraud’ is what constitutes a continuing crime or offense.

[LucyT]

.

I care; never doubted it, and your story adds to the bigger picture, another piece to the puzzle.

.

[justiceseeker93]

Thanks for the link to that LA Times article. About that same time in 1990, there was a big media feeding frenzy with friendly articles and stories about Obama as the editor of the Harvard Law Review seemingly everywhere. There were stories in major newspapers and by wire services. The underlying question remains: From where did Obama get the clout, as a heretofore unknown at that time, to cause MSM outlets from all over the country come to Harvard to interview him and praise him?