BOMBSHELL: Investigator Reveals Hawaii never verified Obama birth-certificate image
The investigator for Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s team that reviewed the authenticity of the document the White House posted as “proof positive” of Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth says state officials never confirmed the document’s validity.
The “information” about the birth, yes. But not the document itself, said Mike Zullo, and that raises serious questions.
WND reported last week that Arpaio and Zullo held a news conference to reveal evidence they say shows the document was fraudulent.
Their conclusion is that it is not a copy of any original Hawaiian document, and while their investigation did not address whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as the Constitution requires for presidents, or the political implications of such a forgery, they noted it certainly raises many questions going forward.
Their evidence, they say, showed how the digital images on the document released by Obama in a White House news conference were copied from another document.
Zullo said Hawaiian officials engaged in a carefully parsed campaign to affirm the information but never the long-form birth certificate itself.
His comments came in an interview on the Hagmann Report, where he was joined by preacher, pastor, author, radio host and former law enforcement officer Carl Gallups of the PPSIMMONS blog, who was made a special deputy by the sheriff for the purposes of information exchange and accountability.
Zullo explained the investigation found that some of the images on the Obama document apparently were copied from an original birth certificate from the same time period that belongs to a woman named Johanna Ah’nee.
In the interview, Zullo explained state officials at one point, in a fight in Mississippi over Obama’s document and eligibility to be president, stated, “The information contained in this certification of live birth, published at WhiteHouse.gov … and reviewed by me on this date … a copy of which was attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original certification of live birth for Barack Hussein Obama on file with the state of Hawaii Department of Health.”
Zullo explained how the White House said it sent Obama’s personal lawyer to Hawaii to pick up the document to provide to the voting public.
The governor in Hawaii at the time said Obama’s records were handled no differently from others.
But Zullo noted Obama’s personal lawyer made it a private matter, and White House Counsel Bob Bauer at the time said a legal analysis was required to determine whether they could get the long-form document.
“That’s not true,” Zullo insisted. “All you had to do was contact the director of health and say, ‘I’m the president of the United States and I need a copy.”
The state law allowed the director to make a decision whether that would happen.
“They make long forms all the time, they’re just not telling you,” he explained.
But the story still doesn’t add up. He said, in 2009, one official said she’d seen the Obama document in a bound book. But then in 2010, it couldn’t be found by the governor.
Then, Zullo said, they came up with a story about finding it an archive, describing it as half written, half typed.
“What that tells you is there was no birth certificate in the bound volume in 2009, and she changes in two different statements from ‘I saw the original certificate’ to ‘I saw the original records. Plural.'”
“The analysis they had to do was to manipulate Hawaii statutes to get him a birth certificate. I don’t believe that the document his counsel picked up looked anything like what’s displayed at WhiteHouse.gov,” he said.
He said the logical explanation is that Hawaiian officials amended Obama’s birth certificate, which is legal, but then had to hide it since state law requires an “amended” reference. After the original document was buried, the “information” could be verified and a computer file could be released of the later document, which has become known now as the original.
“What Hawaii was doing is answering the question for verification in lieu of certification, saying we are verifying the information contained in the document. We’re not verifying that that’s the document we released.”
“Legally honest,” Zullo said. “Intentionally misleading.”