It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sheriff Joe expands Obama probe to Hillary supporters

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
Sheriff Joe expands Obama probe to Hillary supporters

PHOENIX – Based on interviews WND conducted with insiders in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has decided to expand the scope of his law enforcement investigation into President Obama’s eligibility to include evidence and affidavits documenting alleged criminal activity by the Obama campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party primary race.

Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano and Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas have given Arpaio’s investigators the names of dozens of Hillary Clinton supporters willing to come forward with evidence and affidavits. Among their claims is that the Clintons were the first to charge Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and that his birth certificate is a forgery.

Moreover, the Hillary supporters identified by Viviano and Thomas have argued that the pattern of questionable and possibly illegal activity suggests that the alleged act of producing forged birth certificate documentation for Obama may have been merely more of the same.

As WND reported, Viviano claims she heard Bill Clinton say that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Click link for remainder of article...

This should be interesting to say the least. Its one thing to just make a claim in an anonymous manner where it cannot be challenged. Its something else entirely when people start going on the record in an open manner, which is what looks like might be coming down the pipeline.

I found it interesting that during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the US Senate sponsored a bill, to which Hillary and Obama were co-sponsors of and supported / voted for it, concerning McCain's citizenship status, reaffirming he was able to hold the Office of President. That bill defined what was meant by natural born citizen -

S.B. 511

this is the last section of the bill -

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

The emphesis is added by me.

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
There was nothing done for President Obama. Even after the challenges popped up about his birth certificate / elligability during the primaries. I found it weird Democrats would extend that courtesy to McCain but not for Obama. The reason for the bill was to settle the rumblings that McCain was not a natural born citizen. Why take that measure for McCain and not Obama?

The only legislation I have found came from the 2 Represenatatives from the State of Hawaii, both democrats. They introduced a resolution / bill that highlighted the positive contribution's of the State of Hawaii. In that resolution there is a sentence that states Obama is born in Hawaii. No Democratic Senators co-sponsored / signed onto the bill.

Sheriff Arpaio held another news conference on March 31st (thread here on ATS discussing it). As of today this occured -
Government plans to sue Arizona sheriff for targeting Latinos

What is weird about the timing is the Sheriff's Office and DOJ were working together on the investigation. The sticking point came when Sheriff Arpaio rejected the government's plan that would have placed an "independent 3rd party individual" to monitor the jail, road patrol etc to ensure things are on the up and up. The problem is those duties are a part of the Sheriff's responsibilities.

Ironic Obama takes the Supreme Court to task about non elected officals making decisions when his DOJ is doing that exact thing for Marricopa County. If we go back to when Obama was elected and move forward up until now, there is a pattern that shows up. Anytime Obama's status comes up its dwonplayed or ignored, However when the issue gains traction we always seem to have something occur that knocks the issue out of the MSM.

Just some examples (and some conspiracy theories) -
June 2008 - Obama releases short form birth certificate using fightthesmear website - Elected in Nov.
October 2008 - Economic meltdown starts, knocking birth certificate claim off the front page.

2009 - CNN reports Hawaii's department of health goes on record stating they do not have the origional copy.
2009 - Manning breaches and distributes classified material - Wikileaks takes center stage.

2010 - January - California, Federal Judge tentatively sets hearing for Obama status / challenge.
2010 - March - S. Korean ship sunk - fingers pouinted at North - tensions heightened.

2010 - May / June / July Numerous high profile people again call for the President to release all information.
2010 - July - Wikileaks dumps 90k documents about Afghanistan onto the web.

2010 - Court cases challenging Obamas status start making their way to the courtroom
2011 - January - Rep. G. Giffords is shot in the head in Arizona.

March 2011 - Donald Trump calls out the President, insiting he release his Birth certificate. Renewed Focus on Obamas status, more court challenges filed, a few states start passing legislation dealing with Immigration policies as well as voter ID laws / new laws requiring proof a person is qualified to hold public office.
April 2011 - Long form Birth Certificate is released. Accusations of forgery start and gain momentum.
May 2011 - Osama Bin Laden killed in Pakistan.

July 2011 - called out for removing references to the court case Minor v. Happersett.
September 2011 - Occupy Wall Street protests break out. Acorn caught funding the movement.

September 2011 - Sheriff Arpaio assigns cold case posse to investigate allegations of fraud by President Obama.
December 2011 - DOJ pulls ability for Maricopa County S.O. to enforce Federal Immigration Laws.
December 2011 - DOJ accuses Arpaio of racial profiling.

Sources used

Barack Obama
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Obama Care

edit on 4-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:04 AM
January 2012 - Adam Cox arrested in Tennessee for threatening to kill Arpaio, stating his reason was to prevent Arpaio from removing Obama as President.
January 2012 - Obama Care is taken up by the Supreme Court at the end of 2011 with hearings set for 2012.

March 2012 - Arpaio holds press conference and release findings of cold case posse into Obama.
March 2012 - Supreme Court starts on Obama Care - Surprisingly the court wants to resolve the issue before the elections. The first time the court has ever made comments as to time frame and why.
March 2012 - Zimmerman / Martin ordeal occurs - Obama involves himself

March 2012 - Very end of March Arpaio holds second press conference about Obama. Releases new information and updates as well as announcing people coming forward from the previous Hillary Clinton accusations.
April 2012 - DOJ stops talks with Arpaio and files legal action against the Sheriff for racial profiling against Latinos.

I pointed the above out in an effort to facilitate debate on the topic. I have noticed that whenever something about Obamas status gains traction, something else seems to conviently pop up and knocks the Obama story out of the news.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:05 AM
So.. thoughts?

Sources for above info -
I used Wikipedia fior the timeline / date info above - Enter the year into wiki and it will bring up major events for that year.
For some of Obamas info I used the timeline established on his wiki page - barack Obama.

Please don't make this a left verse right / race issue.

I am looking for discussion on the occurences and the possibly coincidental / maybe not coincidental items that seemed to have knocked the stories out of the news.

One final thought - Obama's stance with the Supreme Court and his comments about anything congress passes is legal and constitutional and should not be reviewed by the courts. Did anyone else catch the possibility that Obama's stance on the Supreme Court and Obamacare might be a setup for something else?

If Arpaio's investigation gainss traction and heads to the courts, it is going to end up in the Supreme Court. If Congress were to pass a resolution "resolving" Obamas citizenship status, the insinuation would be the rsult is lawful and constitutional.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If Congress were to pass a resolution "resolving" Obamas citizenship status, the insinuation would be the rsult is lawful and constitutional.

I find your investigation took time and insight. S&F.

However, a resolution regarding Obama's citizenship status would have no effect on any person with legal standing to challenge his citizenship in the Supreme Court per US Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by Nite_wing

If the issue is resolved by the resolution, would that not remove standing? It was enough for McCain's citizenship issue to be resolved so why not Obamas?

Any thoughts on the other info / coincidences?

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM

I have noticed that whenever something about Obamas status gains traction, something else seems to conviently pop up and knocks the Obama story out of the news.
reply to post by Xcathdra

I don't think it's some purposeful attempt to keep Obama's eligiablity status out of the news. It's a dead horse that hardly anyone is that concerned about. Beyond certain factions in the right wing, this issue doesn't have much traction. Why is a media outlet going to give their time to an issue like that? It's not going to make any money.

As for the Sheriff, it's not going to the SCTOUS. This issue has come up several times in the court system. If they were going to take it up they would have done it years ago.

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by antonia

Fair point on the first part.

As far as the last part, about the Supreme Court. The citizens who challenged Obama did so from a constitutional / civil point of law.

In the case of Sheriff Arpaio its on a completely different level. Legal standing is going to come from the possibility of intentional criminal behavior.

Essentially did Obama and his staff engage in a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud the public in order to win an election?

In Arpaio's case its a criminal investigation. If a prosecutor accepts the information they could conceivably file charges. In that case the judge would not be determining legal standing. Instead the view point is do the facts / evidence submitted sustain the charges / allegations in the PC statement.

Even then Obamas proceeding would be be held by congress and the chief justice is the judge. Before it made it that far I would wager Obamas legal teams wuold be working overtime to quash the entire matter using the court in order to head off article of impeachment.

If the judge tosses it then the argument is there is no merit to an impeachment.

Its most likely a long shot... stranger things have happened though.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:53 PM

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:01 PM
Everybody knows Sheriff Joe
can't expand his probe.
That's why he's so grumpy all the time.

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:44 PM
Sorry, this is more 'birtherism', there is no new evidence being presented. Affidavits without evidence are almost worthless. The rest is more of the same inference thrown after inference in the futile hope something will stick. Birthers really need to start wearing crash helmets cos they love smashing their heads against the wall, over and over and over and over and ....

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:49 AM
From the sidelines, there is the "Prime Directive" of governing the USA at stake here......
This is the whole point of the exercise....
Either the Constitution is supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court is in place to interpret that.....
Or, the president and Congress both, supercede the The Supreme Court......
I dont think this can in ay way be construed as the intention of the constitutional document.
So the people are left with the quandry of whether to follow the origonal intentions of the founding fathers, and oppose in some way , the usurpation of the Constitution,
Or Congress, or the Supreme Court must rule the president a traitor.
And nullify his presidency.
Its boiling down simplistics....

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:06 PM
This is about pure crime and fraud during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary. The lid needs to be blown off of this ASAP before it happens again in the actual 2012 election.

This saga is playing out like a spy novel. Including two suspicious deaths of prominent democrats and Hillary Supporters.

What she witnessed while volunteering for Hillary in the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses eventually turned her into an activist.

“The Obama campaign people were stealing the caucuses – throwing away votes, intimidating people from entering the caucus locations,” she said. “It was very systematic. The Obama supporters got control over the caucus packages and they manipulated the vote.”

She said she was astounded that the media was not interested in covering the alleged abuses.

“Everyone knew the Obama people were stealing the election,” she charged.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee at time, and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi changed the rules in Obama’s favor as the primaries went on, Thomas said.

“The leadership of the Democratic Party were not going to let Hillary win the nomination; it didn’t matter what Democratic voters wanted,” she said.


“There was no way the Democratic National Committee could knock the signatures off this petition,” she said. “The next step was to get a super-delegate to introduce these petitions from the convention floor.”

Thomas turned to Bill Gwatney, the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party and a close personal friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, to pick a super-delegate from the Arkansas delegation to introduce her petition at the convention.

On Aug. 13, 2008, a gunman entered the Arkansas Democratic Party headquarters, walked down the hallway to Gwatney’s office and fired several shots at him, killing him instantly. The assailant, identified as Timothy D. Johnson, was fatally wounded by the police after a long car chase.

Suspicious death

Thomas said she also had approached former U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones from Ohio, “an African-American woman who had been campaigning for Hillary from the beginning to the end, and who never wavered in her support even though she had major threats from the Obama campaign and from the black community that she had better change her support.”

“Unfortunately, Stephanie Tubbs Jones died of a supposed brain aneurysm just before the Democratic National Convention,” Thomas recalled.

On Aug. 20, 2008, Fox News reported that Tubbs Jones, 58, “one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters during the Democratic primaries,” suffered a brain hemorrhage while driving her car in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, and died after being rushed to the hospital.

“We found it quite a coincidence that Bill Gwatney was killed the day after we talked with him,” Thomas said. “And just a few days later that Tubbs Jones died suddenly of an aneurysm, after she had agreed to introduce our petition.”

Apparently, we now have a sitting president that should have never seen the general election in the first place.

Conspiracy, intimidation and utter fraud. The allegations are endless from state to state. 2000 complaints in Texas alone during the 2008 primary. 3 1/2 years later and no formal investigations or charges. What gives? T

"We Will Not be Silenced" Documentary

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by jibeho

4 Democrats from the indiana delegation were recently charges with multiple counts of fraud that resulted in Obamas name being placed on the Indiana ballot. Indian is broken into 9 districts and eachdistrict requires a minimum of 500 valid signatures to get a candidates name on the ballot.

The number of fradulent signatures found would result in obamas name being dropped from the bulk of those 9 districts. Unless people wrote his name in chances are it would have been hillary

In the 2008 Presidential elections, Obama carried Indiana by 1.0%.

In the democratic primaries Hillary won the state of Indiana, however the only 2 names were hers and Obamas. Some people might argue who cares it was the primary. The question I have is if there was fraud during the primary, then what possibly was missed on election day? Would Obamas name have eveb been allowed on the ballot in Indiana if there was fraud for his primary.

top topics


log in