P&E: The Dennis Montgomery Story Continues to Morph, but to What End?:bob wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:57 pmP&E: “The Intelligence Assessment” Streaming Thursday Night
Does Zullo even listen to himself?PUBLIC TIMELINE BEGINS IN NOVEMBER 2015, NOT MARCH 2017
Recent interviews and articles focusing on former NSA and CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery’s claim to have evidence of widespread, illegal government surveillance of average Americans engineered by Obama-era intelligence officials present the issue as “new” and “exclusive” when, in fact, The Post & Email has reported it for nearly four years.
Mary Fanning and Alan Jones of The American Report describe Montgomery as “a whistleblower singing for America’s protection” who should be “embraced and celebrated.” Dave Janda of “Operation Freedom” and “Insider Insight” has feted the two as having conducted “multi-year investigations as a team” (21:02) and achieved widespread publication.
* * *
In actuality, the Montgomery story, which has achieved a new iteration through Fanning, Jones and others of late, became public in November 2015 when then-Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo testified in a federal civil case, Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al, as to his direct supervision of Montgomery while he was working as an MCSO confidential informant for approximately a year.
* * *
The Post & Email’s coverage of the Melendres hearings, which unexpectedly turned to Montgomery’s work for the MCSO, began in May 2015. Articles at The American Report about Montgomery began appearing on March 17, 2017, three days after Fanning last spoke with this writer and Zullo about “The Hammer.”
Fanning and Jones claim that Montgomery was unaware he was being recorded when he met with Zullo. On May 15, 2019, Montgomery made the same claim to this writer in an email, but Zullo told us on July 9 that “Montgomery was fully aware he was being recorded during his numerous interviews with us.”
Fanning and Jones implied that the recordings are their exclusive property by having “transcribed” them in “November 2015.” Dubbing the recordings “The Whistleblower Tapes,” they did not mention that Zullo was the source of the recordings and that they were first released by The Phoenix New Times in November 2015 as the result of a leak.
Local coverage of Melendres during the November 2015 hearings corroborated that Zullo made “recordings” of Montgomery’s interviews “with his iPhone.”
* * *
Over the last nine months, Montgomery has been seeking “positive” news coverage as expressed to this writer in an email on May 9, 2019. “What is the deal with doing a positive story about me?…How can I be more direct?” he wrote.
Zullo described the recordings to this writer as investigative material rather than a “whistleblower” speaking to law enforcement.
* * *
Zullo was not only a firsthand witness to Montgomery’s testimony to a federal judge in 2015, but also arranged for Montgomery to be represented by Attorney Larry Klayman and for Montgomery’s travel to Washington, DC while Montgomery was recovering from a severe stroke. Zullo and MCSO Det. Brian Mackiewicz escorted Montgomery across the country in a wheelchair and were present while Montgomery spoke with Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Zullo disputes Fanning’s claim that Lamberth extended “whistleblower protection” to Montgomery. “If he had said that, I would’ve remembered it,” Zullo told us on Saturday.
Zullo has said that initial data Montgomery provided to Arpaio’s office contained “verifiable” information which Zullo, a former detective, ultimately “verified.” However, Zullo stressed, that information was overshadowed by a lack of additional actionable data.
* * *
Fanning and Jones’s articles completely omit Montgomery’s history with the MCSO, which necessarily encompasses The Post & Email’s coverage of the subject. In several emails to this writer between last October and June, Montgomery stated that he wished to disassociate himself from Zullo, Klayman, and the MCSO.
In a July 5 broadcast with Jason Goodman, Fanning claimed Montgomery is a former “biochemical engineer,” a credential which does not appear in his Wikipedia biography. Montgomery did not respond to our inquiry as to the accuracy of Fanning’s statement. In 2011, The New York Times reported Montgomery to have been a “biomedical technician.”
* * *
“This judge [in the Risen case] comes to the same conclusions that I did,” Zullo commented. “It points to what Montgomery was asked for and what he didn’t provide. This is why I have said that Montgomery can’t be a creditable witness.
“Part of Montgomery’s ruse is, ‘I turned it over’ or ‘I gave it to you,’ or ‘I don’t have it any more,’ and that’s always been the game.” Zullo said. “He talks a good game, but when it’s time for the rubber to meet the road, he’s running on slicks because he can’t get any traction at that point. That’s why I keep saying this is the same ‘con’ he’s running. At the critical moment he fails to provide the very key to his credibility. This has happened with us, the FBI and in his own lawsuit. In my opinion, he’s trying to rebuild his image, erase his past interactions with the sheriff’s office because they are not favorable to him.
“Mary Fanning’s timeline is deceptive. I don’t believe they worked on this story for five years. The only way they could have worked on that story would have been to have direct contact with me, and that would have been reported at that time. No one else in that two-year investigation was talking to them. The story broke in 2015 because of the leaked recordings from ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang. I filed a motion trying to suppress the release of Montgomery’s materials to the judge, but it was defeated.[*]
“If this information wasn’t drawn out in the trial, it would never have reached the public. As an investigator, I knew the information had to be preserved. The trove of information on those tapes is because I had the foresight to preserve what he was telling us. The fact that Fanning and Jones ‘transcribed’ them doesn’t give them any special or exclusive knowledge. So to reintroduce this as new information is completely disingenuous. To state that they broke this story some two years after it has been reported on by others is just beyond the pale. Any ‘new’ information was from an interview I just did. They don’t have anything new. So to herald them as ‘investigative reporters’ breaking this story is intellectually dishonest.
“Did they not advise Dr. Janda of a federal judge’s courtroom determinations regarding Montgomery? Do they even know about this? Did they investigate this? Did they investigate him? Where is there any evidence that they did any diligent investigative work on this at all? Why are they omitting all this background information? It appears to me that they are cheerleaders of Montgomery, willingly looking the other way and trying to omit a problematic past. Montgomery has been looking for this type of story writers for years and I guess he found it.
“I gave Montgomery every opportunity to be the man he said he is, and he failed. He failed with us, the FBI, and he failed in his own civil lawsuit.
“I believe Mary Fanning wants to leave the sheriff’s office part of this narrative out for a number of reasons. One is she gets to leave out your reporting of this years earlier. In my opinion, you wrote your James Baker story a month prior to her realizing what she wrote about a month later. I think your story was the road map. Now she’s bringing Montgomery forward as if he’s never been reported on before.
“No one would have known about the Montgomery story if I hadn’t given it to you. I went on Carl’s show; I did Alex Jones, and you. Nobody else. What I told Jones was about Trump surveillance; I didn’t go into much else.
“In the interview with Shipp and Goodman, I stressed that Montgomery never produced the source code, the secret key. He didn’t produce it in his own civil suit or to the FBI. He didn’t produce it to us. Whenever it comes down to this source code, or anything pointing to the origin of his information it comes down to, “It’s classified” or “I don’t have it; I gave it to the FBI.” The judge said it perfectly: ‘This argument is circular.’
“Here was the most interesting fact with Montgomery: Whenever there was something that would benefit him, it seemed he could produce information at will when he was dealing with us. But when it comes down to providing the very thing that would give him undeniable credibility, he can’t do it.
“Logic says that if the FBI can’t find it in the information he claimed he provided to them to investigate and he can’t get it to a federal judge to further his own ligation, where he is the plaintiff and suing for millions of dollars, it’s a safe bet to conclude he never had it to start with. If you say you have it and can’t produce it three times over, it does not make you look good.”
* I don't know if this Zullo being stupid, lying, or both, but the best I can tell from WYE (thank you, again, Tes!), the ACLU propounded a routine discovery request and Arpaio/MCSO sought not to disclose the recording. (Zullo did file a pro se motion to stay production.)