So SNOW claims that the secret documents that only he gets to see prove that Arpaio conspired against him. And the BC investigation somehow ties into that too. And he gets to keep all the proprietary information from Montgomery - which worked for spying purposes when used for Arpaio but DIDN’T work when Montgomery was hired by the regime to spy on Snow, Arpaio, and others...
Riiiight.
If Snow’s decision was made because he intended to get rid of Arpaio politically, would that be a mis-trial, and the orders themselves vacated?
The uncontested fact remains that Snow’s wife publicly stated that her husband was trying to get rid of Arpaio. And he wants us to trust him when he says that Arpaio provided documents which prove that Arpaio committed crimes?
And you unswervingly swallow - hook, line, and sinker.
Like I said, spew your venom elsewhere. You’re a regime hireling and it’s obvious to everybody but yourself.
They confirm what Stephen Lemons, based on other sources, reported in June, 2014. Hardly a "secret."
And the BC investigation somehow ties into that too.
Who has said anything about the BC investigation? Not Judge Snow.
Based on circumstantial evidence and comments made by Mike Zullo, it may well be that Zullo is part of how Montgomery got to Arpaio. But the bit Zullo was saying about a "second investigstion" that flowed from, but was separate from the BC part fits with what we now know about the timetable for the Montgomery matter.
he gets to keep all the proprietary information from Montgomery -
Once Montgomery is paid to produce material for the MCSO, it's a weak argument that claims it remains proprietary to Montgomery. Besides, Deputy Sheridan testified what they got from Montgomery was worthless.
which worked for spying purposes when used for Arpaio
Huh? Nothing Montgomery has done has worked. He BS'ed the CIA. He BS'ed the MCSO. He's a scammer.
but DIDN’T work when Montgomery was hired by the regime to spy on Snow, Arpaio, and others...
The regime hiring Montgomery to spy on Snow and Arpaio?? You've got it backwards again. Arpaio did the hiring. You and facts can't seem to stay close together for long.
If Snow’s decision was made because he intended to get rid of Arpaio politically, would that be a mis-trial, and the orders themselves vacated?
Which decision are you talking about?
The uncontested fact remains that Snow’s wife publicly stated that her husband was trying to get rid of Arpaio.
Uncontested fact??? LOL. You're talking about a bit of triple hearsay. After they looked into this in 2013, Arpaio's own attorney, Tim Casey, wrote that the Karen Grissom comment was dubious and not reliable and shouldn't be used for anything. And Arpaio and the MCSO knew about Grissom's allegation back in 2013. Arpaio can't now two years later use it as a grounds for refusal by Snow.
But for you it's "uncontested" and something upon which you're prepared to make conclusions. As you say, Riiggghhhttt.
Like I said, spew your venom elsewhere.
It's a public forum. You post erroneous crap, you are subject to being publicly corrected. Deal with it.
“The uncontested fact remains that Snow’s wife publicly stated that her husband was trying to get rid of Arpaio.”
Is that the uncontested fact that Arpaio’s lawyer described as “…the Grissom information is, in my judgment, so fundamentally flawed in its substance that it likely cannot be used in a Rule 60 motion, appeal, or otherwise without the lawyer doing so violating the Federal Rules of civil Procedure and the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.”