In response to the “Misconstrued” letter, I would like to hear from mayoral candidate Joe Arpaio what was “inaccurate and misleading” in my letter recounting his association with known con artist Dennis Montgomery.
Montgomery played on Arpaio’s insecurities. He told Arpaio that Montgomery had 50 CIA hard drives showing a deep government conspiracy to “undermine” Arpaio. Arpaio paid “large sums” of taxpayer money to get the “purloined” CIA files. The files were a “total fraud.”
Montgomery conned Arpaio. This is detailed in a 162-page “Findings of Fact” document by the judge in the civil contempt proceeding against Arpaio.
Arpaio apparently admitted to the findings. He accepted a presidential pardon. Accepting a pardon is a legal admission of guilt. Arpaio knows that.
My letter relied on the judge’s Findings of Fact. The quotes are the words of the judge. Arpaio asks to meet privately to explain why my letter is wrong. He suggests I read his book.
First, is Arpaio campaigning for mayor, sheriff or to sell his book? Will he really perform the many unglamorous and time-consuming duties that come with being mayor?
Second, if Arpaio has something to say about my letter, say it publicly. Tell everyone what I got wrong. Arpaio already told his story in court, in public. The judge found Arpaio not “credible.” Is there now a different story?
There are several unanswered questions. Why did Arpaio conceal his Montgomery connections? Why didn’t Arpaio report Montgomery possessing alleged stolen CIA files? Why did Arpaio accept supposed stolen property from Montgomery?
After the fraud was discovered, Arpaio continued to pay Montgomery. Why didn’t Arpaio have Montgomery prosecuted for theft of taxpayer funds? They had the same attorney. Montgomery remained silent. In court proceedings, those facts might be evidence of Arpaio’s motive and intent.