Main Menu

Zullo exploded!

Those were the words of Stephen Lemons, describing a sudden turn in the Melendres court proceedings that happened around 2:30 PM local time in Phoenix.

Zullo stopped taking the 5th Amendment and started answering questions.  Zullo said that they were not after Judge Snow, rather than Snow was a victim of the conspiracy they were investigating. Zullo claimed under examination by (I think) Mr. Young that they were looking into 4 federal judges who might have been surveilled by the CIA. After authentication by Zullo some new exhibits were admitted.

Judge Snow interrupted the proceedings to study the law to determine if Zullo can invoke the 5th Amendment again after answering questions. Court resumed at 3 PM.

While the recordings and emails now in evidence thanks to Zullo seem damning against Arpaio, Zullo seemed to help him with his denials.

Commentary

We may never know the whole story, or the true story. Arpaio didn’t leave much of a paper trail (he doesn’t use a computer), so we only have Arpaio’s word and Zullo’s word as to whether either one of them having Judge Snow investigated. The only other person with first-hand knowledge is Dennis Montgomery, and Montgomery is outside the jurisdiction of the Court in Arizona and cannot be subpoenaed.

We have an email from Montgomery saying ““MCSO pursued sensitive information against Judge Snow and we both know it. In fact you produced some of it to the DC judge in August,” but Montgomery was a con man and hardly a reliable witness, and not under oath.

Read more:

,

37 Responses to Zullo exploded!

  1. avatar
    Nancy R Owens November 12, 2015 at 6:11 pm #

    Hopefully, we’ll find this same article on GerbilReport because it looks like this is heating up and won’t be stopping anytime too soon. :0)

  2. avatar
    Pete November 12, 2015 at 6:44 pm #

    https://www.anony.ws/image/Ja5k

  3. avatar
    Dave B. November 12, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

    I put this over on the Zullometer article, but it belongs here:
    http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/valley/2015/11/12/arpaio-posse-leader-erupts-under-oath/75674218/
    Zullo’s latest pearl of wisdom:
    “Your honor, at some point I need to stop answering questions… It’s like I don’t know what I’m doing.”
    No peril of perjury there.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2015 at 7:03 pm #

    The truth will set you free, Mike. The truth will set you free.

    Dave B.: “Your honor, at some point I need to stop answering questions… It’s like I don’t know what I’m doing.”

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    My comment may have been on target as Stephen Lemons tweeted:

    “Zullo unburdened by his decision to not take the 5th in afternoon. In good mood as he left courthouse”

    Check out the photo:

    https://twitter.com/stephenlemons/status/664970609680449538

    Dr. Conspiracy: The truth will set you free, Mike. The truth will set you free.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2015 at 10:49 pm #

    Arpaio may testify Friday.

  7. avatar
    John Reilly November 13, 2015 at 12:25 am #

    So Zullo exploded and revealed the universe shattering information, right? This was the opportunity.

    Any day now was here, right?

  8. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 13, 2015 at 4:21 am #

    According to Gerbil Report “logic”, Zullo was under pressure and would release his stuff any minute now. Now that the pressure seems gone, they will probably go back to “he will release it when the time is right”.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 13, 2015 at 4:30 am #

    he and MCSO detectives wanted to confirm Judge Snow was a victim of stolen information was to be able to eventually get Snow on their side in a mission to expose the CIA for stealing citizens’ information

    He really thought a judge would give up his impartiality because he was a crime victim?

    In German, there is an expression “sich um Kopf und Kragen reden” which roughly translated means “to lose your head and neck by talking too much”. I think there is an English equivalent in “loose talk is noose talk”.
    That’s how I’d describe what he’s doing (or will likely be doing if he should be called again).

  10. avatar
    Gerry Cathcart November 13, 2015 at 6:04 am #

    From AZ Republic:

    After court, Zullo said he’d wanted to talk since before his deposition.

    “The truth of this is the truth of this,” he said. “Sheriff Arpaio didn’t do this. He didn’t instruct us to look into this judge.”
    __________________________

    Doesn’t this sound like, “Sheriff Arpaio’s orders were to investigate the birth certificate and clear the President in this matter”?

  11. avatar
    Reality Check November 13, 2015 at 7:09 am #

    Exactly!

    Gerry Cathcart: Doesn’t this sound like, “Sheriff Arpaio’s orders were to investigate the birth certificate and clear the President in this matter”?

  12. avatar
    ellen November 13, 2015 at 10:15 am #

    It seems that some of the “you gotta have two citizen parents” birthers have followed through and made claims that some of the Republican candidates don’t qualify.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/13/official-notice-of-dispute-filed-with-new-hampshire-attorney-general-on-four-presidential-candidates-eligibility/

  13. avatar
    John Reilly November 13, 2015 at 10:22 am #

    And yet, Mr. Laity, who is concerned about foreign influence, has not complained about Mr. Trump, who is married to someone who was not born here.

    ellen:
    It seems that some of the “you gotta have two citizen parents” birthers have followed through and made claims that some of the Republican candidates don’t qualify.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/13/official-notice-of-dispute-filed-with-new-hampshire-attorney-general-on-four-presidential-candidates-eligibility/

  14. avatar
    Pete November 13, 2015 at 10:40 am #

    What a freakin’ moron.

    But, that’s true of all birthers. So…

  15. avatar
    Lupin November 13, 2015 at 10:52 am #

    ellen:
    It seems that some of the “you gotta have two citizen parents” birthers have followed through and made claims that some of the Republican candidates don’t qualify.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/13/official-notice-of-dispute-filed-with-new-hampshire-attorney-general-on-four-presidential-candidates-eligibility/

    The think that stumps me is that, even using his very own words, where does he get that “parents” (plural) in this specific context has to mean BOTH parents, when normal common syntax & usage would dictate it means EITHER parent?

    e.g.: “Only CHILDREN whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the Club may use the pool.”

    At this point, we’re not even talking about the Law anymore; we’re talking proper English.

    I’m just flabbergasted.

  16. avatar
    ellen November 13, 2015 at 11:11 am #

    Re: Foreign influence.

    Trump’s mother was born in Scotland. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except there is no proof that she was naturalized before Trump was born. Probably she was, but you might ask why birthers have not demanded that he provide the proof that she was.

    It is amusing that the birthers are bringing the lawsuit in New Hampshire and NOT any of the rivals to those candidates. Jeb Bush presumably would have standing to sue against Rubio and Cruz etc., but he has not sued, nor have the others. The obvious explanation is that they are better informed on the subject than birthers are. But that explanation is not likely to fly with the birthers—is it? So, what is the logical explanation in their thinking? Obviously the only explanation that follows is that Trump and Carson and Jeb Bush etc do not sue Rubio and Jindal and Cruz etc because they are traitors.

    Re Two citizen parents. The motive was obvious. Obama has one citizen parent.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2015 at 11:22 am #

    There is a census record indicting that she was naturalized. Of course birthers would consider such an entry unreliable, since naturalization is self-declared, had the record been for Obama.

    ellen: Probably she was, but you might ask why birthers have not demanded that he provide the proof that she was.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2015 at 11:38 am #

    Birthers commonly read texts in similar ways, ignoring the plain meaning and asserting something that makes no sense but has some tenuous connection to what they wish that it said.

    Lupin: At this point, we’re not even talking about the Law anymore; we’re talking proper English.

  19. avatar
    Pete November 13, 2015 at 11:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Lemons’ article is up:

    Might be a QOTD in there, once the current one (which is pretty illustrative) plays out:

    Like when Montgomery wrote to Zullo after a falling out, telling him in one e-mail to, “Go back to spying on Judge Snow and the monitor.”

    Maybe another good candidate in the source referred to here:

    At one point in a recording of the conversation, Zullo asked Montgomery, “How would you destroy someone with this information?”

    A voice later identified as Montgomery indicated that he could accuse someone of being a pedophile, and then “upload pedophile pictures into their” emails.

  20. avatar
    Pete November 13, 2015 at 11:47 am #

    From Lemons’ article:

    But later, it allegedly was used to harvest information from Citigroup, Sprint, Verizon and ATT. Montgomery told Blixseth that he was ordered to tamper with Florida’s election file, uploading new info to it to replace information he took from it.

    This doesn’t even make any d*** sense.

    How gullible are the people around Montgomery? Pretty gullible, it seems to me.

  21. avatar
    bob November 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

    Lemons reporting that court is over for today; next Friday is oral arguments.

  22. avatar
    Dave B. November 13, 2015 at 3:31 pm #

    Then there are the ones like Joe Montgomery, who say it means the exact opposite of what it plainly says.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Birthers commonly read texts in similar ways, ignoring the plain meaning and asserting something that makes no sense but has some tenuous connection to what they wish that it said.

  23. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 13, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

    Lupin: The think that stumps me is that, even using his very own words, where does he get that “parents” (plural) in this specific context has to mean BOTH parents, when normal common syntax & usage would dictate it means EITHER parent?

    e.g.: “Only CHILDREN whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the Club may use the pool.”

    At this point, we’re not even talking about the Law anymore; we’re talking proper English.

    Funny thing, is I’ve brought this up to them, and they go, “Well, that sentence isn’t in a legal document, so it doesn’t really mean that you need two parents. However, the treatsie of Vattel is a legal document, so the ‘parents’ there really means two parents.”

    The reality is that they work backwards from the conclusion, to the argument. Their conclusion is that Obama is ineligible. They heard that he was born to one U.S. Citizen parent. Then they find one thing that they can misread in a certain way to mean that he’s not really eligible, therefore, their misreading of that paragraph must be the truth!

    They’re doing the same thing with the citizenship law. They read “subject to the jurisdiction” to really mean that foreigners aren’t really subject to the jurisdiction based upon a misreading of one statement of Sen. Jacob Howard. When you point out that all nine justices rejected this same argument in Plyler v. Doe, they go, “Well, the Supreme Court is clearly wrong, and should be impeached for misinterpreting the Constitution.” They look for the argument to fit their preconcieved notions, instead of taking a look at the argument, and basing their conclusions on that.

    My personal favorite is all these conservatives who think that Richard Posner, who they’d be loathed to quote on any other issue, actually agrees with them on that illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction. For the record, Judge Posner believes that Congress can redefine the term in the Constitution and make illegal immigrants. He’s ruled on at least one case (Oforji v. Ashcroft, concurring opinion) that children of illegal immigrants are indeed U.S. Citizens: “But because Oforji’s daughters were born in the United States, they are U.S. citizens, and since U.S. citizens cannot be deported they are ineligible for asylum.” (He ruled against Oforji’s request for asylum because the asylum did not apply to Oforji specifically, but only to Oforji’s daughters, who were U.S. Citizens, and therefore not eligible for asylum.)

    Imagine if that argument was carried onto other places in the Constitution. Can Congress redefine the term “arms” in the 2nd Amendment to exclude all firearms? They’d be up in arms if the logic was applied to a thing that they didn’t agree with.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2015 at 7:13 pm #

    Zullo was back on the stand today. The trial is now over.

    Judge Snow said that additional unnamed persons may be in contempt also. Oral arguments on the civil contempt case are set for the 20th.

    Lemons’ latest:

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-trial-judge-warns-others-could-be-on-chopping-block-7822450

  25. avatar
    bgansel9 November 13, 2015 at 7:18 pm #

    Dave B.: “Your honor, at some point I need to stop answering questions… It’s like I don’t know what I’m doing.”

    Get it out, Mikey. Get it all out. You’ll feel cleansed afterwards.

    😛

  26. avatar
    bgansel9 November 13, 2015 at 7:21 pm #

    Pete: A voice later identified as Montgomery indicated that he could accuse someone of being a pedophile, and then “upload pedophile pictures into their” emails.

    Hmmm, I wonder if Montgomery ever met Trump. 😛

  27. avatar
    Curious George November 13, 2015 at 9:36 pm #

    From the Lemon’s article link posted by Doc above:

    But Snow noted that there were “additional parties that could be named in a criminal contempt referral.”

    Whom these parties might be was left unsaid.

    The federal rules of criminal procedure state that the court must give the accused “notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order,” and that,

    “The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

  28. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2015 at 6:03 am #

    ellen: Obviously the only explanation that follows is that Trump and Carson and Jeb Bush etc do not sue Rubio and Jindal and Cruz etc because they are traitors.

    Well, two outta three: the birthers think Trump is their Columbo-cum-Batman, who’s going to reveal the bad guys, then rip off his civvies and beat the crap out of them between the last commercial break and the closing credits.

  29. avatar
    Curious George November 15, 2015 at 6:58 pm #

    Once again ace reporter Sharon Rondeau has published another one of her peculiar articles that shows how ill informed she is and she once again exhibits the sheer hypocrisy that Birthers assume in their make-believe world of Oz.

    It would take a complete article in itself to counter all of the nonsense Ms. Rondeau submits to her readers. But, her main concern is that after Mike Zullo exploded on the witness stand while under oath, Rondeau complains that there are no interviews with Kommandant Zullo since his final appearance on the stand, Friday the 13th. What Rondeau fails to realize is that she and her Post & Email have also not done an in depth interview with Kommandant Zullo since Friday. Sharon, it’s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it? But, with the Post & Email it is to be expected.

    Sharon, when may we expect Kommandant Zullo’s super duper interview?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/15/arpaio-case-where-have-all-the-reporters-gone/

  30. avatar
    Nancy R Owens November 16, 2015 at 8:09 am #

    I agree with you on this one. ZulloMoore took the fifth. As a former reporter, I wouldn’t waste my time talking to someone who I know will just take the fifth. What’s to interview, Sharon?

    Curious George:
    Once again ace reporter Sharon Rondeau has published another one of her peculiar articles that shows how ill informed she is and she once again exhibits the sheer hypocrisy that Birthers assume in their make-believe world of Oz.

    It would take a complete article in itself to counter all of the nonsense Ms. Rondeau submits to her readers. But, her main concern is that after Mike Zullo exploded on the witness stand while under oath, Rondeau complains that there are no interviews with Kommandant Zullo since his final appearance on the stand, Friday the 13th. What Rondeau fails to realize is that she and her Post & Email have also not done an in depth interview with Kommandant Zullo since Friday.Sharon, it’s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it?But, with the Post & Email it is to be expected.

    Sharon, when may we expect Kommandant Zullo’s super duper interview?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/15/arpaio-case-where-have-all-the-reporters-gone/

  31. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 16, 2015 at 10:57 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I agree with you on this one. ZulloMoore took the fifth. As a former reporter, I wouldn’t waste my time talking to someone who I know will just take the fifth. What’s to interview, Sharon?

    Being a photo editor on a community college newspaper doesn’t make you a reporter.

  32. avatar
    Pete November 16, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    It does seem a bit odd to write an entire article on how there are no articles, instead of simply trying to interview Zullo and get an article.

    But, that’s the Poster for Efail for ya.

  33. avatar
    Nancy R Owens November 16, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

    I was a photojournalist at the “Clewiston News.”

    http://theclewistonnews.com/

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Being a photo editor on a community college newspaper doesn’t make you a reporter.

  34. avatar
    Jim November 16, 2015 at 1:14 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I agree with you on this one. ZulloMoore took the fifth. As a former reporter, I wouldn’t waste my time talking to someone who I know will just take the fifth. What’s to interview, Sharon?

    A good reporter, like a good lawyer, knows how to get information from a reluctant interviewee, just look at how much Lemons and the plaintiffs got from him. I can see why you’re a former reporter now.

  35. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I agree with you on this one. ZulloMoore took the fifth. As a former reporter, I wouldn’t waste my time talking to someone who I know will just take the fifth. What’s to interview, Sharon?

    A good reporter never assumes that a subject will not talk. If you don’t pursue the subject, the only thing you are guaranteed to get is nothing.

    A good reporter knows that people will sometimes open up when you least expect it, which is why good reporters are persistent.