I could explain why everything you’ve said is wrong, but not without betraying a confidence. Suffice to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about - and you are botching what Zullo has actually said.
It’s difficult to call the prosecution’s key witness an unreliable liar when your own witness has to plead the 5th whenever they are asked whether the prosecution’s claims are true. I’ve already explained that throwing mud is all the regime can do in defense of what they know the CCP has. If they can bring up the past statements of a now supposedly-dead “certifier” they can evade the discomfort of legal accountability. That’s what this regime is and always has been about.
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?