Main Menu

Colmes v. Arpaio

The Fox News Channel has pretty much banned the discussion of birthers on its television network, but that doesn’t apply to Fox News Radio, where the lone liberal, Alan Colmes, has free reign. What happens when Alan Colmes gets to tackle Joe Arpaio, one on one?

, ,

49 Responses to Colmes v. Arpaio

  1. avatar
    wrecking ball November 25, 2014 at 6:52 pm #

    arpaio on colmes:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0op48Y-HGKM

    i love after repeatedly stating that “we have experts…” joe says “what do you need, experts to come down?” when colbes questions him on zullos credentials to offer opinion on fraudulent documents.

    yes joe, you need experts for expert opinion.

  2. avatar
    justlw November 25, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    Colmes: Mike Zullo is your chief investigator, right? Mike Zullo?

    Arpaio: He does it for nothing, that’s right.

    Shurf Joe sure makes it a point to get “does it for nothing” in there pretty quick, doesn’t he?

  3. avatar
    Curious George November 25, 2014 at 8:56 pm #

    Here is the entire 11 + minute interview. Apparently BR has once again concealed information from their readers. Big surprise!

    http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/24/why-is-sheriff-joe-arpaio-suing-president-obama/

  4. avatar
    RanTalbott November 25, 2014 at 10:04 pm #

    justlw: Shurf Joe sure makes it a point to get “does it for nothing” in there pretty quick, doesn’t he?

    And, given the progress he’s made, one could also say “he does it for nought”.

    Has anybody seen the books for Arpaio’s campaigns? I wonder if Zullo’s gotten any payments from it.

  5. avatar
    Kate November 26, 2014 at 12:05 am #

    Arpaio says the taxpayers aren’t going to be responsible for any of his so-called birther investigation yet hasn’t Zullo and Gallups claimed that there is a second part to the investigation, allegedly criminal in nature, that Arpaio turned over to two detectives from the MCSD? Or could it be that there is no other investigation, meaning Gallups and Zullo are lying?!

  6. avatar
    wrecking ball November 26, 2014 at 12:18 am #

    Curious George:
    Here is the entire 11 + minute interview.

    @ 3:33

    Arpaio: ” everybody sues me, i think i have a right to fight back and sue. it’s the only alternative i have.”

    sounds to me like an admission that this is nothing more than a butt-hurt hissy fit.

  7. avatar
    wrecking ball November 26, 2014 at 12:33 am #

    arpaio: “as far as the evidence is concerned [ the LFBC ] is fraudulent.”

    colmes: ‘can you share any of that evidence with us?”

    arpaio: “no…..”

    so much for standing behind all the “evidence” released at the press conferences.

  8. avatar
    wrecking ball November 26, 2014 at 12:49 am #

    justlw: Shurf Joe sure makes it a point to get “does it for nothing” in there pretty quick, doesn’t he?

    “[zullo] did it for a laugh, part of a spree. high spirits.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-bIMxB4zA8

  9. avatar
    RanTalbott November 26, 2014 at 1:05 am #

    Kate: hasn’t Zullo and Gallups claimed that there is a second part to the investigation, allegedly criminal in nature

    There’s been some confusion about that: at first, Zullups tried to claim that it was an offshoot of their snipe hunt, and the MCSO confirmed it, then denied it, saying it was real, but unrelated.

    Later, the Phoenix New Times reported that Arpaio was going after the DOJ for “penetrating” his office (and possibly other things).

    Since then, A & Z have clammed up about what the “second front” is about. The only thing Zullups have said is that they don’t get to dump their ton of manureevidence until after Arpaio has his “conference” (is Gall-oops studiously avoiding saying “press conference” because he knows there won’t be any real “press” there? Or because it reminds people about their previous fiascos? 😉 ).

  10. avatar
    RanTalbott November 26, 2014 at 1:23 am #

    wrecking ball: colmes: ‘can you share any of that evidence with us?”

    arpaio: “no…..”

    Funny: just last week he offered to share it with Santilli.

    I think that, like Zullo, he’s figured out that the only good birfoon evidence is promised future evidence, because it has a tendency to disintegrate immediately upon exposure to scrutiny.

  11. avatar
    bovril November 26, 2014 at 3:50 am #

    A rather telling set of lines from the Shurrif when asked about a time frame was….

    (Arpaio) “The time frame is only when we are comfortable to address any new information”

    (Colmes) “Are you sure you are going to have this information at some point?”

    (Arpaio) “Err….I hope so”

    (Colmes) “So, you’re not sure?”

    So it’ll be….”Look….new information…it’s seekret and squeerel so we are setting the whole thing back a bit so we can be confident about it…..don’t worry…ANY DAY NOW!!!!”

  12. avatar
    The Magic M November 26, 2014 at 6:32 am #

    RanTalbott: until after Arpaio has his “conference” (is Gall-oops studiously avoiding saying “press conference” because he knows there won’t be any real “press” there?

    I assume if ever Zullo (with or without Arpaio) were to actually “present the universe-shattering evidence”, it’s going to be another “behind closed doors” event like they did during that sheriffs’ convention.

    They’ll tell birthers “look, we presented it to VIP’s who will move things forward” and birthers will be like “yeah great, any day now” and the skeptics will be told “we can’t make it public yet because that would destroy our VIP’s chances to get something done”.
    And whenever some birther says “when will they release it”, he’ll be met with “he already did, Obot!”.

    Again, win-win for con man Zullo.

  13. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 26, 2014 at 9:59 am #

    Naturally Gerbil report cherry picked what little they could, and spun it to make it seem like Shurfjoke was in control of the interview.

  14. avatar
    Curious George November 26, 2014 at 10:08 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG
    November 26, 2014
    “Naturally Gerbil report cherry picked what little they could, and spun it to make it seem like Shurfjoke was in control of the interview.”

    Gerbil Report. Dishonesty is their game, much to their shame.
    Burma Shave.

  15. avatar
    Sef November 26, 2014 at 12:36 pm #

    I would have liked Combs to have asked Arpaio why he thought the President should show him his Birth Certificate. Sounds like Arpaio thinks he has a right to “show me your papers boy”.

  16. avatar
    Benji Franklin November 26, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    When Obama’s Hawaiian long form BC vital information, confirmed by Hawaii as accurately displayed in a White House generated PDF file likeness, became viewable on the Internet, Birthers were infuriated at having their claim that he was born elsewhere disproven.

    They immediately sought to have the act of creating said likeness declared a crime and pronounced the likeness a “forgery” or “fraudulent document” to cast doubt on its informational contents.

    After widely publicly smearing Obama with baseless, speculation driven accusations that he had no birth confirming documentation from Hawaii, they want to effectively argue that the only legal way he can show each of the nations 300 plus millions of residents, his birth certificate, is by sending or handing each one of them a raised seal certified copy of his BC purchased from the state!

    They are really arguing that there is criminality in showing potential voters officially confirmed vital information by a MEANS that would not be accepted for a COURT ROOM procedure. They want to claim there is inherently monstrous deception involved in making the people aware of the confirmed vital facts even when those facts are FAITHFULLY displayed on a PDF likeness, a coffee mug, or a T-shirt.

    That hateful notion is in fact, legally and factually, insane. There is no fraudulent intent in conveying the official factual truth to the potential voters and no voter relying on the content of those document likenesses, as displayed, would be led to vote any differently than they would have if they were PERSONALLY shown that same information via ANY document format, including even the Hawaii vault originals.

    Accordingly, almost all of the Birther-approached public officials and their lawyers know that there was nothing fraudulent about the production or informational public use of the likenesses posted on the Internet by the White House. That’s why Mike Volin’s “Sheriff’s Kits” are undoubtedly the object of so little attention and so much derision by the Congressional staff members who are tasked to throw them into the garbage.

    Mike Volin’s outreach to elected officials has though,served the purpose of alerting those officials to the potential danger of the persistent obsessive focus of these fact-assassinating lunatics. The Congressional staff members who have handled these nutcases and heard all of the threats about being charged themselves with conspiring, can’t help but have thought of the safety of their own family members while describing the instability of the mental malcontents to their employers.

    Sheriff Joe and his Birther gang really just want their unofficial pronouncement that the “document” is “fraudulent” to trigger a politically biased Congressional fishing expedition, even though that process could never conclude that the document was in any legal sense, a “forgery” produced to illegally defraud anyone.

  17. avatar
    Curious George November 26, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

    Former MCSO Chief Brian Sands has released an updated edition of his tell all book, “Arpaio, DeFacto Lawman,” on Amazon.com. Alan Colmes would be better prepared for Shurf Joe interviews if he read the book.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00PX9T5UO/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1417025316&sr=8-1

  18. avatar
    bgansel9 November 26, 2014 at 7:12 pm #

    Doesn’t he mean Zullo does nothing for it?

  19. avatar
    bgansel9 November 26, 2014 at 7:20 pm #

    wrecking ball: arpaio: “as far as the evidence is concerned [ the LFBC ] is fraudulent.”

    colmes: ‘can you share any of that evidence with us?”

    arpaio: “no…..”

    Does he open himself up to a slander charge there?

  20. avatar
    wrecking ball November 26, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

    bgansel9: Does he open himself up to a slander charge there?

    i believe to have slander you have to prove that there was knowledge that the information was wrong and it was done intentionally and with malice. in the highly unlikely scenario that arpaio was sued for slander the next sound you’d hear would be that of zullo being thrown under the bus ( “i was just going by the word of the “experts” that mike got” ).

  21. avatar
    Steve November 26, 2014 at 9:43 pm #

    Curious George:
    Here is the entire 11 + minute interview.Apparently BR has once again concealed information from their readers.Big surprise!

    http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/24/why-is-sheriff-joe-arpaio-suing-president-obama/

    A little off-topic, but at the beginning Colmes pointed out that Obama has deported more than any other President. Arpaio responds that when someone is arrested at the border and sent back under this President, it’s counted as a deportation, while under previous Presidents it did not.
    How could that possibly make a difference? Either the numbers are correct or they’re not.

  22. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 26, 2014 at 11:40 pm #

    bgansel9: Does he open himself up to a slander charge there?

    Depends on whom he accuses. For practical reasons the President is libel and slander proof. But someone else such as a DOH official such an accusation might be more problematic.

  23. avatar
    The Magic M November 27, 2014 at 4:14 am #

    J.D. Reed: For practical reasons the President is libel and slander proof.

    The office maybe but not the person.

    If you say “the President is lawless for ignoring the Constitution”, that’s slander proof.
    If you say “Barack Obama has proffered forged documents” or “Barack Obama has murdered a child” (as in “actually murdered someone”, not as a way of saying “by sending my son to Iraq, he has murdered him”), things may be different.

  24. avatar
    The Magic M November 27, 2014 at 4:17 am #

    Benji Franklin: Sheriff Joe and his Birther gang really just want their unofficial pronouncement that the “document” is “fraudulent” to trigger a politically biased Congressional fishing expedition, even though that process could never conclude that the document was in any legal sense, a “forgery” produced to illegally defraud anyone.

    It’s all for political purposes, like the dozen #Benghaaaaaazi committees that “are just asking questions”.
    But the GOP has no interest in an anti-Obama theory now that the 2012 elections are over and Obama won’t run again in 2016. If it can’t implicate Hillary, it simply doesn’t interest them. Which is why you don’t see any Republican (except the few true believer nutcases) flirting with birtherism anymore like they did before the 2012 elections.

  25. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm #

    Lincoln said it best:

    J.D. Reed: Depends on whom he accuses. For practical reasons the President is libel and slander proof. But someone else such as a DOH official such an accusation might be more problematic.

    The Magic M: The office maybe but not the person.

    If you say “the President is lawless for ignoring the Constitution”, that’s slander proof.
    If you say “Barack Obama has proffered forged documents” or “Barack Obama has murdered a child” (as in “actually murdered someone”, not as a way of saying “by sending my son to Iraq, he has murdered him”), things may be different.

    kquote cite=”comment-344886″>

    The Magic M: The office maybe but not the person.

    If you say “the President is lawless for ignoring the Constitution”, that’s slander proof.
    If you say “Barack Obama has proffered forged documents” or “Barack Obama has murdered a child” (as in “actually murdered someone”, not as a way of saying “by sending my son to Iraq, he has murdered him”), things may be different.

    Lincln

  26. avatar
    wrecking ball November 27, 2014 at 4:01 pm #

    The Magic M: It’s all for political purposes, …..

    i wish colmes would have pointed to arpaio’s “you won’t believe the money [ birtherism ] will bring in” quote from “the joe show” when arpaio claimed he wasn’t doing it for political reasons.

  27. avatar
    faceman November 29, 2014 at 6:18 am #

    Actually, they don’t call it ‘deportation’ anymore. There are ‘Returns’, which is turning someone back at the border; and there are ‘Removals’, which is taking someone who is already in the country illegally, going through the court process, and sending them back to their home country.

    In fact, ‘Returns’ are lower under Obama than under Bush. But ‘Removals’ are higher.

    Steve: A little off-topic, but at the beginning Colmes pointed out that Obama has deported more than any other President. Arpaio responds that when someone is arrested at the border and sent back under this President, it’s counted as a deportation, while under previous Presidents it did not.How could that possibly make a difference? Either the numbers are correct or they’re not.

  28. avatar
    Notorial Dissent November 29, 2014 at 9:58 pm #

    I still don’t know why anyone takes Colmes seriously, or do they? He was never anything but a willing straightman for Hannity, and I haven’t seen him do anything else since to change my opinion. I never got the impression he could get past whatever script it was they were using.

  29. avatar
    RacerJim November 30, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

    “When Obama’s Hawaiian long form BC vital information, confirmed by Hawaii as accurately displayed in a White House generated PDF file likeness, became viewable on the Internet, Birthers were infuriated at having their claim that he was born elsewhere disproven.” — Benji Franklin November 26, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    During the April 2011 White House ‘presser’ at which the White House Director of Communications showed an alleged “Certified Copy” of Obama’s Hawaiian long-form BC to the audience, White House Counsel to Obama at the time Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was. Therefore, unless/until Hawaii has declared/declares that Obama’s long-form bc rather than his short-form bc is his legal bc, Hawaii has in fact not disproven anyone’s claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

  30. avatar
    RanTalbott December 1, 2014 at 7:01 am #

    RacerJim: Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was.

    No, he didn’t. The White House publishes transcripts of events like that, so people don’t make dumb mistakes about what was said.

    RacerJim: Therefore, unless/until Hawaii has declared/declares that Obama’s long-form bc rather than his short-form bc is his legal bc, Hawaii has in fact not disproven anyone’s claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

    Wrong.

  31. avatar
    bovril December 1, 2014 at 8:45 am #

    Yo RacistJim in da house……how’s the action now that CollarMe has bit the dust RJ, you naughty little man…?

    Oh and keeping on topic momentarily lets not forget that missive from the HDoH to the SoS of Arizona which confirmed that all the details on the short form were wholly accurate. Bit of a problem there RJ trying to saying the record of his birth has never been proven.

    So RJ, top or bottom….?

  32. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2014 at 11:00 am #

    RacerJim:

    Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was.

    So your claim is that Bob Bauer is the person who decides what is or isn’t a legal Hawaiian birth certificate?

    I suspect Hawaii would disagree with you.

    From the Department of Health website:

    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    From the State of Hawaii’s press release:

    “In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “short form” birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai’i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai’i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.”

    See the part about “[b]oth documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai’i”?

  33. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 1, 2014 at 11:14 am #

    RacerJim is just spinning his wheels again.

  34. avatar
    Jim December 1, 2014 at 11:36 am #

    RacerJim: Hawaii has in fact not disproven anyone’s claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

    RJ, NOBODY has shown a lick of proof of the President being born anywhere but Hawaii. So there is NO VALID CLAIM that the President wasn’t born in Hawaii, only nutjob opinions with nothing to back them up.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm #

    bovril:
    Yo RacistJim in da house……how’s the action now that CollarMe has bit the dust RJ, you naughty little man…?

    Oh and keeping on topic momentarily lets not forget that missive from the HDoH to the SoS of Arizona which confirmed that all the details on the short form were wholly accurate. Bit of a problem there RJ trying to saying the record of his birth has never been proven.

    So RJ, top or bottom….?

    Lets also not forget the verification sent to the court in Mississippi where Onaka directly referenced the hyperlink to the white house PDF stating that the information contained on the PDF matched the original.

  36. avatar
    roadburner December 1, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    RacerJim:
    “When Obama’s Hawaiian long form BC vital information, confirmed by Hawaii as accurately displayed in a White House generated PDF file likeness, became viewable on the Internet, Birthers were infuriated at having their claim that he was born elsewhere disproven.” — Benji Franklin November 26, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    During the April 2011 White House ‘presser’ at which the White House Director of Communications showed an alleged “Certified Copy” of Obama’s Hawaiian long-form BC to the audience, White House Counsel to Obama at the time Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was.Therefore, unless/until Hawaii has declared/declares that Obama’s long-form bc rather than his short-form bc is his legal bc, Hawaii has in fact not disproven anyone’s claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

    hey jim! are you going to back up your claim that your president’s bio for `dreams from my father’ or `the audacity of hope’ stated he was born in kenya?

    i asked you to over on gerbil report before bob banned me again, and you failed to reply (no big surprise there!)

    so, you going to tell us which editions this was, or are you going to scuttle back to the bird-boy fanclub where you never get challenged to back up your rubbish?

  37. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 1, 2014 at 1:52 pm #

    Yeah Jim. If you’re gonna say something, do back it up with something substantial. It shouldn’t be hard, seeing as you’re so sure of yourself.

  38. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 1, 2014 at 3:17 pm #

    RacerJim: During the April 2011 White House ‘presser’ at which the White House Director of Communications showed an alleged “Certified Copy” of Obama’s Hawaiian long-form BC to the audience, White House Counsel to Obama at the time Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was. Therefore, unless/until Hawaii has declared/declares that Obama’s long-form bc rather than his short-form bc is his legal bc, Hawaii has in fact not disproven anyone’s claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

    Am I reading this correctly? Has RacerJim actually argued that the short-form birth certificate that Obama released in 2008 proves his place of birth?

    I can link to that one too, RacerJim.

    http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_2.jpg

  39. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Am I reading this correctly?Has RacerJim actually argued that the short-form birth certificate that Obama released in 2008 proves his place of birth?

    I can link to that one too, RacerJim.

    http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_2.jpg

    I’m not sure what his argument is. Is he seriously saying that the DOH hasn’t backed up the short form which is the legal BC?

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2014 at 4:08 pm #

    The official signed and sealed verifications from Hawaii that were sent to the Secretaries of State of Arizona and Kansas both specifically state that Obama was born in Hawaii. Those are independent of long or short form, verifying the information that appears on both of them. These rule out an Obama forgery at odds with what the State of Hawaii says.

    Mr Bauer did not say that the long form was not a legal birth certificate, because it is. He does say that the short form is the legal birth certificate, which it is, but that doesn’t make the other not legal–a certified copy is a certified copy–whether computer generated and short, or photocopied and long. And even if Bauer did say it wasn’t, he has no authority to say so, and he is not an authority on Hawaiian law,

    RacerJim: During the April 2011 White House ‘presser’ at which the White House Director of Communications showed an alleged “Certified Copy” of Obama’s Hawaiian long-form BC to the audience, White House Counsel to Obama at the time Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was. Therefore, unless/until Hawaii has declared/declares that Obama’s long-form bc rather than his short-form bc is his legal bc, Hawaii has in fact not disproven anyone’s claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

  41. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 1, 2014 at 5:32 pm #

    And the wheels on RacerJim’s soapbox car just fell off.

  42. avatar
    Keith December 2, 2014 at 4:52 am #

    Hawai’i verified the INFORMATION – all of it – that is on the long form birth certificate. That much is beyond doubt of any kind.

    There is no INFORMATION that is on the SFBC that is not also on the LFBC.

    The INFORMATION FIELDS the SFBC contain exactly the same INFORMATION as the corresponding INFORMATION FIELDS on the LFBC.

    In mathematician terms the SFBC is a PROPER SUBSET of the LFBC.

    Therefore Hawai’i most certainly VERIFIED ALL INFORMATION on the SFBC at the same time that it verified the INFORMATION on the LFBC.

    Besides which the DOH head testified under oath to the Hawai’i legislature that the INFORMATION on the SFBC as made available by the President’s campaign in 2007 was correct.

  43. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2014 at 7:29 pm #

    RacerJim:

    During the April 2011 White House ‘presser’ at which the White House Director of Communications showed an alleged “Certified Copy” of Obama’s Hawaiian long-form BC to the audience, White House Counsel to Obama at the time Bob Bauer specifically pointed out that it was not Obama’s legal BC but, rather, Obama’s short-form BC was.

    You’re wrong. Bauer never said that. Here is what he said:

    MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also — that is to say, the original birth certificate — it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

    The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

    So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-4272011

    As anyone with reading comprehension skills can see, Bauer said that the short form is “legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes” but he never said that the long form is not legally sufficient.

  44. avatar
    Jim December 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm #

    Rickey:
    As anyone with reading comprehension skills can see,

    Another birther misquote bites the dust. You win a gerbil! 😀

    BTW Doc, bout time to get a gerbil emoticon isn’t it. 😆

  45. avatar
    justlw December 2, 2014 at 11:07 pm #

    🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹

    (🐹)

  46. avatar
    jtmunkus December 3, 2014 at 1:37 am #

    Really? Colmes is a liberal?!

  47. avatar
    Steve December 3, 2014 at 2:14 am #

    jtmunkus:
    Really? Colmes is a liberal?!

    In the same way the Washington Generals are a professional basketball team.

  48. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm #

    Steve: In the same way the Washington Generals are a professional basketball team.

    Or in the same way that Zullo is a law enforcement officer.