Posseman lashes at Arpaio's critics, says sheriff didn't order inquiry into judge

After four hours of barely restrained silence on the witness stand, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s cold-case posse leader Mike Zullo at last unleashed his pent-up resentment against the lawman’s critics Thursday afternoon in downtown Phoenix’s federal court.

Zullo’s outburst was a jarring contrast to his testimony Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning, when he almost unwaveringly invoked his right against self-incrimination while under oath in Arpaio’s civil-contempt hearings.

Zullo initially remained silent as plaintiffs’ attorneys in a racial-profiling case against Arpaio peppered him with questions involving CIA conspiracies, President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and an investigation into a federal judge that has become known as "the Seattle Operation."

On Tuesday afternoon Zullo pleaded the Fifth Amendment to more than 35 of the plaintiffs attorneys’ questions in 15 minutes.

Undeterred, plaintiffs attorney Stanley Young pressed on Thursday morning when the hearing resumed in federal court.

Zullo repeated variations of same response more than 100 times Thursday morning: "Sir, I'm taking the Fifth."

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and Covington & Burling used the day to lay the groundwork for what will likely serve as a key argument in the case: That the Sheriff’s Office hired  confidential informant Dennis Montgomery -- a discredited Seattle computer programmer --  at least in part, to help discredit U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, the federal judge who ruled against Arpaio in a landmark racial-profiling case.

The proceedings, which began in April, sprang from that long-running lawsuit, in which Snow ruled that MCSO office had racially profiled the county’s Hispanic drivers. Arpaio and his aides are facing three allegations of violating orders stemming from this case.

Zullo’s silence was expected. He pleaded the Fifth Amendment on nearly every question during his Monday deposition.

Zullo, by way of his Fifth Amendment pleadings, declined to confirm or deny even if it was his voice on an audio tape, making it difficult for attorneys to admit the tapes into evidence.  He also refused to say if he was the author of various emails to Montgomery and would not confirm whether an email address belonged to him.

Zullo's resistance lasted throughout Young’s direct questioning. However he started to open up under questioning by Arpaio's attorneys. Upon the defense cross-examination, Zullo calmly explained that he never wanted to take the Fifth Amendment but was worried by a perceived threat of criminal action by the ACLU.

Zullo told attorney John Masterson he never intended to discredit Snow, but it was only when Young approached for re-direct that Zullo became unhinged.

With a flushed face and, at times, wavering voice, Zullo unleashed a diatribe against Young and ACLU attorneys. The Sheriff’s Office’s only interest in Snow, Zullo said, was because he was one of thousands of victims whose personal banking information had been harvested by the CIA.

“I have nothing against this man,” Zullo said, referring to the judge seated feet away. “He was a victim.”

He blamed the ACLU’s attorneys for distorting the operation into something that appeared retaliatory.

“That’s the nefarious stuff that you don’t understand,” he said. “Nobody was trying to hurt this judge, including the sheriff. Much to everyone’s astonishment, he didn’t do that.”

“You’ve got this so backwards,” he said.

Zullo’s testimony echos that of Arpaio, who in October also claimed his interest in Snow was solely out of concern for his security.

At times, Zullo seemed to second guess the decision to break his silence, but by late afternoon had abandoned the Fifth Amendment altogether.

He settled into a relaxed and at times even jovial conversation with Young, often answering well beyond the attorney's scope of examination.

With that, Zullo's testimony offered perhaps the most in-depth explanation yet of the so-called “Seattle Investigation.”

The posseman provided the defense's version of context to several emails and recorded conversations surrounding Montgomery.

Zullo said Montgomery proffered what seemed to be bombshell revelations -- that the CIA had stolen banking and IRS information from American citizens, including Maricopa County residents.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has always done it his way

One of these residents, Zullo said, was Snow.

Zullo said the entire time the Sheriff's Office was working with Montgomery, the goal was to deliver the information to the FBI.

But, according to Zullo, Montgomery didn't trust the federal agents and wanted to secure immunity for himself before coming forward.

Zullo said his role in the investigation was to keep Montgomery happy and calm until he could produce enough solid information to present to the federal government.

"My job was to befriend this guy, make him think we cared," Zullo said.

In reality, Zullo said, the Sheriff's Office was only interested in the 150,000 alleged bank account hacking victims in Maricopa County.

Zullo said it became clear after a while that none of the information Montgomery produced could be verified. When Montgomery started realizing jig was up, Zullo said, he would produce other documents on Snow and others as a diversionary tactic.

Zullo said he and other sheriff's officials ignored these documents.

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."

Young offered a different interpretation of the day's testimony. He said he did not believe any of Zullo's testimony helped absolve the sheriff from wrongdoing.

"I think that our case and belief as to what was done to Judge Snow hasn't really changed based on today's evidence," he said.

The contempt hearing hinges on three factors -- violations of Snow's orders to submit pretrial evidence, to collect evidence from deputies and the agency's failure to halt immigration enforcement practices.

A purported investigation Snow was not one of the three allegations of contempt, but plaintiffs' attorneys are using the operation to speak to the lawman’s state of mind while his office was admittedly violating the three orders.

Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan have acknowledged their office failed to follow the orders but say the violations were unintentional.

At the conclusion of the hearings, Snow could decide to issue further remedies or recommend the sheriff and his aides for criminal contempt.

Snow said Thursday he may schedule closing arguments for next Friday.