RC Radio interview with Stephen Lemons

I’m so excited!

Since Mike Zullo hasn’t fled the country yet, I’ll have to settle for second best: Reality Check Radio’s special show Wednesday, June 11 at 9 PM. RC’s guest will be award-winning journalist Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times, who broke the story of Joe Arpaio’s relationship with Seattle scammer Dennis Montgomery.

From RC Radio:

Stephen Lemons who writes for the Phoenix New Times at the Valley Fever Blog will be my guest. Stephen will discuss his recent expose into the dealings between Sheriff Joe Arpaio and scammer Dennis Montgomery. Stephen learned that Arpaio is using Montgomery to find dirt on US Attorney General Eric Holder and Federal Judge Murray Snow both of whom have been a thorn in [Arpaio’s] side of late. Could this be the “Universe Shattering” news that Carl Gallups and Mike Zullo have been promising for months?

Listen:

Find Additional Politics Podcasts with RCRadio on BlogTalkRadio

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Joe Arpaio and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to RC Radio interview with Stephen Lemons

  1. The European says:

    Stephen learned that Arpaio is using Lemons to find dirt ……. ???????????

  2. Sherrif Joe CCP says:

    He meant using Montgomery.

  3. The European says:

    Sherrif Joe CCP:
    He meant using Montgomery.

    I know that, just a hint for correction.

    And hi, shruf ..

  4. I fixed the typo. Thanks for fixing it here.

  5. Curious George says:

    This will be a Kodak moment.

  6. I fixed “Arapio’s” too. 😉

    Reality Check: I fixed the typo. Thanks for fixing it here.

    Reality Check:
    I fixed the typo. Thanks for fixing it here.

  7. Yeah, I found that one too. Proofreading was never one of my virtues. 🙁

    Dr. Conspiracy: I fixed “Arapio’s” too. 😉

  8. Notorial Dissent says:

    Shouldn’t you amend that to “Zullo hasn’t fled the country yet, ” that we know of???

    He seems to be remarkably quiet otherwise.

  9. ‘S OK. My article originally had the date as the 10th.

    Reality Check:
    Yeah, I found that one too. Proofreading was never one of my virtues. :(

  10. The big question I have for Lemons is whether he knows if Arpaio is still using his CI or whether it went south after somebody told Arpaio who he was.

  11. Curious George says:

    My question would be about when Joe new the truth about Montgomery. Did Joe know about the real Montgomery before the Lemons exposé? If so, how long ago? This could get very interesting.

  12. The European says:

    Reality Check:
    Yeah, I found that one too. Proofreading was never one of my virtues.

    Well, to be a real pain in the ass:

    There is still a full stop missing between “Montgomery” and “Stephen” …..

  13. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    The timing is interesting it was around the same time that Volin let slip the March date and gallups started pushing it. if this was the universe shattering dung they put all their hopes on it explains the pull back.

  14. The European says:

    No one listened ?

  15. CarlOrcas says:

    The European:
    No one listened ?

    I was wondering the same thing. I know I didn’t but someone must have!!

  16. You mean to RC’s show? I listened and you can listen to the podcast, now available by clicking on the Blog Talk Radio player added to my article.

    As far as facts go, I don’t think there was anything new. Lemons (“call me “Steve”) agreed that the timing and context of the Universe Shattering information fit his story about the Holder/Snow investigation. He also said that he has had additional information come to him that he is trying to verify, but he didn’t drop any hints about what it was. He came across as very professional. He is still working on the story.

    I wasn’t aware of some of the prior Arpaio scandals that Lemons mentioned.

    CarlOrcas: I was wondering the same thing. I know I didn’t but someone must have!!

  17. Bonsall Obot says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    I wasn’t aware of some of the prior Arpaio scandals that Lemons mentioned.

    It’s Arpaio. Who can keep up?

  18. CarlOrcas says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You mean to RC’s show? I listened and you can listen to the podcast, now available by clicking on the Blog Talk Radio player added to my article.

    As far as facts go, I don’t think there was anything new. Lemons (“call me “Steve”) agreed that the timing and context of the Universe Shattering information fit his story about the Holder/Snow investigation. He also said that he has had additional information come to him that he is trying to verify, but he didn’t drop any hints about what it was. He came across as very professional. He is still working on the story.

    I wasn’t aware of some of the prior Arpaio scandals that Lemons mentioned.

    Yes, RC’s show. I was looking for the Reader’s Digest version I guess.

    I’ll listen when I get a few minutes.

    As far as Arpaio scandals there are quite a few of them and they go back years….decades, in fact. The New Times has done a good job of pulling them all together:

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arpaio/

  19. gorefan says:

    I’m confused by this. How does the Snow/Holder investigation develop because of NBC/RC’s proof by Xerox? Both Zullo/Gallups have said on several occasions that it was the Obot Xerox findings that led to the second criminal investigation.

  20. The connection is very tenuous.

    One thing that came out of the CCP was some reference to an NSA document that said one way to remove metadata from an electronic document was to print it out and scan it back in using a Xerox machine or something like that.

    Since Montgomery worked with the CIA for a while, it was suggested that he was the source of this NSA document.

    I don’t think it’s much to go on.

    gorefan: I’m confused by this. How does the Snow/Holder investigation develop because of NBC/RC’s proof by Xerox? Both Zullo/Gallups have said on several occasions that it was the Obot Xerox findings that led to the second criminal investigation.

  21. The Magic M (not logged in) says:

    gorefan: How does the Snow/Holder investigation develop because of NBC/RC’s proof by Xerox?

    I’m not sure it adds up in the sane world, thought I’d be interested to hear a non-loon explanation.
    For birthers, it probably resolves to “John Doe was once vice president of Xerox, once attended a conference that had Jack Smith as a speaker who once worked as a court reporter for judge Snow and also donated money to ABC Inc. which had James Boob on its advisory board whose brother was a childhood friend of Holder’s” or something. Y’know, Eleventy Degrees of Insaneparation. 😉

  22. gorefan says:

    So Arpaio was going to have a press conference in which he lays out the Snow/Holder conspiracy, followed sometime later by Zullo’s press conference on the BC/document fraud and combined they two were going to shatter the universe? There has to be more to it. They can’t be that delusional. Can they?

  23. Jim says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He is still working on the story.

    That was the best part, he’s gotten some more information and is working on confirming it. Can’t wait for the next part of the story, it may end up being Arpaio/Zullo’s universe is shattered! 😀

  24. Rickey says:

    gorefan:
    So Arpaio was going to have a press conference in which he lays out the Snow/Holder conspiracy, followed sometime later by Zullo’s press conference on the BC/document fraud and combined they two were going to shatter the universe?There has to be more to it.They can’t be that delusional.Can they?

    My guess is that they were going to claim that Holder was responsible for the forgery, and the proof is that Holder conspired with Judge Snow to go after Arpaio because of Arpaios “investigation.” Or something like that.

  25. The Magic M says:

    Rickey: My guess is that they were going to claim that Holder was responsible for the forgery

    That still wouldn’t shatter much, it would be just another government conspiracy. If “forging a BC so a usurper could take the presidency” is 1.000, then “and Holder organized it” is less than 0.001. So no, they would’ve had to have much more than that to be “universe shattering” in comparison to the BC.
    Also, didn’t Gallups claim this was something different and way beyond the BC issue? So it can’t have been just that. Who knows what this Montgomery guy claimed to have uncovered that got their panties in a knot?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.