If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
TALK-SHOW HOST ANGRILY CUTS OFF, INSULTS COLD CASE POSSE CONFIDANTE
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sep. 25, 2014) — On Tuesday morning, KNUS radio show host Peter Boyles hosted Carl Gallups in a segment lasting approximately 20 minutes in which Boyles hung up on his guest after stating to him in a disgusted tone, “We gotta end this,” and “I don’t know who you are.”
Gallups’ appearance on September 23 was his second in three days, as he had been Boyles’ guest on Friday to discuss the investigations conducted by Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into the long-form birth certificate, Selective Service registration form, and other matters pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama.
Gallups is a radio show host in his own right, co-founder of the PPSimmons News and Ministry Network, public speaker, pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, FL, and bestselling author of two books. He has been close to the Cold Case Posse’s investigation for some time, having accompanied Zullo to CPAC in March of last year and providing updates when authorized by Zullo on PPSimmons or on his weekly show, “Freedom Friday.”
The initial investigation commenced in September 2011 and has been ongoing, while a second investigation, launched at an undisclosed time, has focused on revelations tangential, but not directly related to, the long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011.
On March 1, 2012, Arpaio and Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo stated at the first of two formal press conferences that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.” At the second presser on July 17, 2012, Arpaio and Zullo declared that the forgery of the birth certificate surpassed the criminal standard of probable cause and asked Congress and the major media to launch their own investigations.
On Friday’s show, Boyles greeted Gallups cordially and indicated that Gallups had been a guest on his show previously, although not recently. Boyles noted that an article posted at “BirtherReport” last week asked why he had not invited Gallups on his show to discuss developments in the Maricopa County investigations, his inbox was flooded with messages urging him to do so. The article was an interview conducted between The Post & Email and Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo in which Zullo had asked why Gallups had apparently been “shunned” by Boyles after requesting twice of Boyles’ producer to appear in order to clarify and amplify on the status of both investigations following a significant degree of speculation aired by several guests of Boyles.
In the segment leading up to Gallups’ appearance on Tuesday, Boyles took a call from “Mark” in Pennsylvania in which Boyles stated that Gallups “claims, speaking for Zullo, that they identified John Brennan” as the forger of the birth certificate (1:51). Mark responded, “Oh, my God, that is universe-shattering!” However, after Gallups made his appearance on the show approximately 45 minutes later, Boyles denied having made that statement.
“Gallups says that Zullo believes…that they believe it’s John Brennan,” Boyles said again at 3:51. Mark was critical of Arpaio for not having filed “criminal charges” if the identity of the forger is known.
In an interview with Col. Lawrence Sellin on his Monday show, Boyles asked Sellin to co-host the segment in which Gallups would appear on Tuesday, to which Sellin agreed.
On Tuesday, Boyles introduced Sellin and Gallups at the beginning of a new segment, shortly after 9:00 a.m. EDT. Gallups began the interview by explaining how Zullo was deputized by Sheriff Arpaio, a procedure detailed in a lengthy affidavit Zullo submitted in a case filed with the Alabama Supreme Court early last year.
Referring to The Post & Email’s interview containing Zullo’s questioning of Gallups’ lack of an invitation to Boyles’ show, Boyles said to Gallups, “I never once said that you posted those things” (8:21), with which Gallups was in agreement. Boyles did not reference the original source of the article. “I’m only going to explain the truth and facts…” Gallups said.
“Would you say that the things that I said that were said on the internet about this radio show and me, I never once said that you did it?” Boyles asked Gallups, then did not allow Gallups to finish his response. “Let’s go to Larry; let’s stop,” Boyles interjected.
Sellin replied that he had never contended that John Brennan “is the forger.” Sellin said he heard “from sources that he might be involved,” but did not cite the sources. “Did Mike Zullo tell me he’s not?” Sellin directed to Gallups, who said that after hearing Sellin’s claim that John Brennan might be involved, he called Zullo to ask, “Mike, is there something you’re not telling me about John Brennan?”
“Nobody ever said that, Carl,” one of the men said, as the three talked over each other. “Please calm down, Carl,” Sellin said, as Boyles told Gallups, “Carl, that’s Larry talking.”
Directing himself to Sellin, Boyles then asked if the birth certificate forgery “could have been created on government computers in government facilities supervised by John Brennan.” Sellin responded, “I think it could have been, and I have information in that regard. I’m not backing away from that; I’m saying I don’t know for sure…”
Neither Zullo nor Gallups has ever said that CIA Director John Brennan created or had any involvement in the creation of the birth certificate image. When Gallups attempted to object, Boyles told Gallups he would have a chance to respond to Sellin’s remarks. Gallups responded, “I doubt that,” to which Boyles snapped, “You can doubt something else in about two seconds.”
Boyles then demanded to know if Arpaio and Zullo know “the exact person who created the birth certificate,” to which Gallups said, “All I’m allowed to say is that I know that they know who has done it.”
Boyles then ridiculed Gallups as “a pastor” and an unlikely person in whom Zullo and Arpaio might confide while conducting a criminal investigation.
At the 13:13 mark, Sellin criticized the Arpaio investigators for the “remarkable claims that have been made” without any “evidence.” “When people question it, they get extremely offended,” Sellin continued.
At 14:18, Gallups was able to state that Zullo had denied ever stating that John Brennan had any involvement.
As the interview became more contentious, Boyles demanded of Gallups to know what “Arpaio and Zullo are going to tell the American people.” Boyles then accused Gallups of “double-speak,” to which Gallups objected, reminding Boyles that on Friday, he had provided an explanation for how he had personally become involved in the investigation through his radio show and his previous ten years in Florida law enforcement. Gallups added that Zullo shared information with him as “a simple matter of protection.” “He wanted another source outside of the circle,” Gallups said. “I didn’t ask for it.”
Sellin then cut in at 17:43, addressing Boyles and claiming that Gallups’s claim of having become a confidante was “preposterous.” “Why is he going through a Florida pastor with a talk show instead of going through…?…Arpaio has a spokesperson who represents the sheriff’s office. This whole arrangement to me seems…”
Gallups responded that there is “a lot” that he has not been told of the investigations. Boyles then challenged Gallups (18:41) to “tell us one thing that we have never heard before that you’ve gotten from Mike Zullo about Barack Obama’s life. Prove that you really have this inside stroke; tell me one thing…that you learned from Mike that none of us know.”
Gallups reminded Boyles that on Friday, he had announced new information on Boyles’ show, which included that the late Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy is not the forger. Boyles responded angrily, “I’m about to pull the plug,” adding irritatingly, “You didn’t tell me anything I haven’t heard before.”
At 19:56, Sellin commented that “this is turning into an endless drumroll,” with which Boyles could be heard agreeing. Gallups attempted to interject, “I’m a 30-year pastor…” to which Boyles snarled, “I don’t care what you are.” He again accused Gallups of “double-speak, double-talk and jive.”
Boyles denied that Gallups had released new information on Friday and said that “no one” had believed that Fuddy had played a part in the forgery. Boyles then turned to Sellin to bolster his claims, stating, “We gotta end this.” A few seconds later (22:00), Boyles arguably shouted at Gallups, then said, “You’re out of your mind. I never listen to your show. I’ve never once heard your show….I don’t know who you are.”
Gallups corrected Boyles by reminding him that he had introduced him on Friday as someone with whom he was acquainted.
At 23:31, Boyles told Gallups, “You have not said anything. Larry, anything else?” to which Sellin responded, “No, I think this is hopeless.” “I do, too,” Boyles said. “That’s because you can’t handle the truth,” Gallups interjected before his microphone was presumably cut off.
Boyles then further denigrated his guest by finishing the segment with, “The guy doesn’t say anything, and he claims he has the inside track to this, and you know what? He doesn’t; no one does.”
Upon posting the podcast of the hour during which Gallups appeared, Boyles termed the exchange among Sellin, Gallups and himself as a “debate.” The following hour contains an interview with former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly, who has been highly critical of the sheriff’s office and the investigations. Boyles claimed that the interview was “unplanned” and called Reilly “a good man.”
The Post & Email contacted Gallups immediately after his appearance on Boyles’ show. “Would you like to finish what you were going to say to them?” we asked, to which Gallups answered in the affirmative.
In describing how he came to be Boyles’ guest, Gallups told us on Tuesday:
I had been on Peter Boyles’ show the Friday before today. That was the result of my sending an email to Peter Boyles and his producer several weeks ago just simply asking if I could be on the show as somebody who kind-of had the inside scoop of what Zullo is doing and what he knows. I had been listening to some clips of his show wherein he was bringing other people on who were speculating about this whole birth certificate investigation. Well, while they were speculating, I happen to have the facts. I talk to Mike Zullo every day. So I put in a request. I did that without even telling Mike Zullo at first, and then in one of our conversations one day, I told Mike that I had done it. He said, “That’s good; when you go on, let me know,” and I said, “OK.”
For the next almost-two weeks, every time I talked to Mike, he said, “Have you heard from Boyles?” I said, “No, I haven’t heard.” Eventually, his producer did call me; I think it was after you had released your interview with Zullo.
On Friday’s show, he asked me, “Do you have anything new?” In fact, he said something like, “We’ve been talking 45 minutes and you haven’t released anything new.” Well, first of all, we hadn’t been talking 45 minutes; basically, he had. It wasn’t much of a conversation on Friday, either. but when I finally was able to say something, I said on his who that I revealed several new things to them. Number one: I said three times on his show that I had exclusive information for his listeners from Zullo that I had just been given permission to release if he wanted it. Three times in an hour I said that, and he never asked me what it was. Then today, he accused me of not releasing anything new.
The two things that I did release that Zullo had never said publicly; therefore, it was official and it was officially new, but of course, what Boyles wanted his audience to believe, and Sellin as well, that Fuddy was not involved in the forgery. Zullo has known that for a while and has never released that information publicly. People have speculated all over the internet that maybe Fuddy was involved. The other thing that I released was that Mike Zullo knows who did the forgery; he knows who did it. And he has never said that publicly. Those were two huge revelations. But Boyles and Sellin both said, “Oh, we already knew that.” My question to them is, “How did you know that? You might have speculated it; you might have thought it, but you didn’t know that, not officially because Zullo had never released it. I released it on Boyles’s show.
Their problem is, it’s like seventh-graders on a playground, trying to one-up the other one. They ask me what I know, then when I tell them something that they could not have known because it had never been released, they say, “Oh, we knew that.” “No, you didn’t, and if you did, how did you know that? I just found out from Zullo yesterday; how could you have already known that?”
So I gave them brand-new information which I haven’t given to my audience yet, and then I offered three times to give them exclusive information and he never gave me the chance.
Yesterday when they [Sellin and Boyles] were talking on Boyles’ show, they were talking about the two investigations: the criminal one by Arpaio and the one by Mike Zullo. They were going back and forth; Sellin was saying, “I’ve heard there are two investigations.” Well, guess where he heard that from? He had to have heard it from me and my show, because that’s where Zullo released that information. That’s where it was released that there were two investigations. So Sellin tried to act as if he had the inside scoop on it; no, he didn’t; he heard it from my show. Boyles, in the interview with Sellin, admitted that he didn’t know it but “I had already figured it out.” “Well, how did you figure it out, Boyles, if you didn’t know it, and if you did figure it out, it’s because you heard it on my show.” That’s what I said when he finally hung up on me; everything is factual, not speculation. He heard it from my show. Oh, he got mad about that; that’s when he just cut me off. They didn’t want to hear that I had the facts and they had speculation.
THE POST & EMAIL: “Have you ever had someone ask you to be a guest on his show and then say, “OK, we’re done with this, ‘click’?”
CARL GALLUPS: Never. Especially when you consider that I am a television, radio and media personality and an “expert guest” on this topic. I have always been interviewed cordially as an expert guest. All I mean by “expert” is that Zullo confides in me, and he comes on my show to release this. So I am an expert guest. To treat an expert guest, somebody who has the inside scoop, the way he treated me today, is just unprofessional, no integrity; it was surreal.
THE POST & EMAIL: Do you get the feeling that Boyles might be upset at the interview that Mike Zullo did with me wherein he said, “I wonder why Peter Boyles has interviewed all these other people but Carl Gallups or me?”
CARL GALLUPS: I can only speculate that that’s it; however, he basically said that on his show yesterday with Sellin. If he had asked me that today, and I would have loved to have addressed it, they were intimating that I was involved in some kind of email campaign because he said his email box exploded with, “Why don’t you have Carl Gallups on?” And by the way, that ought to be evidence to him that I’m not an unknown. He could have tried to act like I was an unknown person out there; but if that’s true, why did his email box explode with people demanding to have me on there? Think about that.
Let me tell you how this happened. These are the facts. I had been listening to his show; people were sending me clips. Zullo and others sent me some clips, and I was listening to people speculate, just hour after hour of speculation. I was hearing them talk about Brennan and the CIA, and I asked, “Where are they getting this?” I didn’t even ask Mike Zullo; I asked my booking staff to see if they could book me on Peter Boyles’s show. So they emailed Peter Boyles directly; I got the email address for his producer, Casey, and we emailed him.
At least a week and maybe two weeks went by, and in the process, I was talking to Mike Zullo, and I said, “Oh, by the way, I sent Peter Boyles an email asking to be on his show. He said, “You did?” and I said, “Yes, because of all that speculation, I thought I could straighten it out,” and he said, “That’s good; let me know if you get asked on.” I said, “OK,” and that was it. That’s all we did.
So we were moving along for a couple of weeks, and then finally, he told me that you were going to interview him, and he said he was going to do it, and I said, “OK, cool,” and then he asked me, “Did you ever hear form Peter Boyles?” and I said, “No, I never heard from him.” He was a little upset, and said, “Well, they just don’t want to have you…” and I said, “First of all, I’m a radio host, and these things take time. I don’t think he’s avoiding me. It takes me weeks sometimes to book people. I said, “I’m not too concerned about it yet; if a month goes by and I don’t hear from him, I’ll be concerned.” So he kind-of laughed and said, “OK.”
Well, the next thing I know, you guys have done the interview, and it was sent to me, and I was reading in there where Mike Zullo says, “Everybody else on BirtherReport has appeared in Boyles’ interviews. Those folks have not been involved with this investigation over the past two years and have no idea of what I am doing or what we have uncovered, but Gallups he shuns. This raises some questions. It amounts almost to media censorship.”
I called Mike, and we were talking about it, and he said, “Well, I don’t think they’re going to have you on.” Within a couple of hours, I got a call from the producer, Casey, who said, “We want to have you on the show.” When I came on the show Friday, Casey came on first, and he said, “Pastor Gallups, I want to apologize. I got your email a while back, and I should already have gotten a hold of you by now.” And I said, “Casey, you don’t owe me any apology; you don’t owe me to come on your show. I’m honored that you guys have asked me.” And he said, “I appreciate that attitude.” So I went on Friday.
That’s how it happened. There was no “email campaign” on my part; I didn’t have anything to do with it other than telling Mike Zullo that I was asking to go on Peter Boyles’s show. Those are the facts.
THE POST & EMAIL: Is it possible that the interview, having been published at BirtherReport, acted as a catalyst?
CARL GALLUPS: I think that’s probably exactly what happened. There was no email campaign. It is kind-of odd that I’ve done coast-to-coast interviews; I’m all over the internet and PPSimmons and everywhere talking about this, and Peter Boyles, who admitted on his show that he’s had me on his show before – of course, now he’s trying to pretend that he doesn’t know who I am – is the one who said on Friday, “I know you; I’ve had you on my show before. You’re a great guest. I was on another radio station,” etc.
It’s odd that if he knows me, and he knows that I know Zullo and I talk to him every day, why would he not have me on his show? Why would you have a string of speculators on there but not the one guy who actually knows the facts?
So that’s how it happened. My part in it was absolutely truthful and innocent; I simply asked for an interview because I had heard what had been going on. I could have cleared a lot of that up. Here’s the deal I found out today: they don’t want the speculation cleared up. They’re angry; they’re angry about their speculation. Their speculation is near and dear to them. They’d rather hold on to that than hear the facts right out of my mouth or Zullo’s mouth, and that really surprises me.
THE POST & EMAIL: Real media should always be looking for the facts.
CARL GALLUPS: Right. “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
THE POST & EMAIL: Are there other things you wanted to say to Peter Boyles that you did not get to say?
CARL GALLUPS: Oh, there were a ton of things. First of all, I started the show by telling them, “I have breaking news. John Brennan is not the forger, and not only that…at least as far as we know; it may turn out that he is, but at least at this point in the investigation, Brennan didn’t have anything to do with it. Zullo has said that; I have never said that, yet, I’ve listened to the intimations and the speculations that Zullo and I have said that and that Brennan was the forger. So I just let them know that.
Secondly, the point I was wanting to make with Sellin – and this was really important – of course, Peter Boyles skipped right over it because it really burnt Sellin down – Sellin tried to say on the show yesterday that Zullo doesn’t have law enforcement powers; he doesn’t have any authority; who does he think he is presenting himself? And as I indicated on the show this morning, did you not read the 200-point affidavit filed with the Alabama Supreme Court? Everybody in the world has read that; it’s on the internet, and in that, Zullo spends the first two or three pages identifying his law enforcement powers and authorities. Secondly, I did an exclusive interview with Joe Arpaio for 30 minutes on my radio show. That interview is all over the internet wherein I asked Joe Arpaio that question. As an investigative reporter, I said, “Tell me, tell our audience: does Mike Zullo really have law enforcement powers? Is he really a bona fide law enforcement officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office? Does he have arrest authority? Does he have authority?” and Joe Arpaio said, “Yes, yes, yes, and yes. He works for me, and he is a bona fide law enforcement officer with my authority.” I wanted to make that clear.
As I said, Boyles was trying to act as if he didn’t know me. He said that. He said, “I don’t know you; I don’t have any idea who you are.” Yet on Friday’s show, he started the show by introducing me as somebody he knew, somebody he had interviewed before when he was at the other radio station; he then said, “Tell people who you are, how you’re connected to Zullo and what this is all about;” and so I did. Then he kept calling me “a great guest;” every time he went to break, he said, “Folks, we have a great guest today; Carl Gallups is with us.” I was scheduled for a 15-minute interview; he kept me on for an hour, then he invited me back over the air to come back on Tuesday. So which one is it? Does he know me or not know me? Am I a “great guest” or a liar and a double-talker? That’s really important to me. Peter is very duplicitous in this.
THE POST & EMAIL: I heard him say on Monday to Sellin, “I take him at his word that he’s a pastor; I take him at his word that he’s a radio show host,” but he could look on the internet and find that information.
CARL GALLUPS: That’s what I was going to ask him today: “Do you ever vet your guests?” I vet all of my guests. In fact, when I do interviews with people, when I am a guest on someone else’s show, I vet the host with whom I’m going to be on. I get all over the internet and find out what their background is. So he’s trying to convince his audience that he had me on cold without knowing anything about me, and the only reason he had me on is that he got slammed with emails about me? That’s what he wants his audience to believe, but yet he came on the air Friday and said, “Oh, I know you; you’ve been on my show. You may not even remember it, but I do. You were on another radio station with me. Folks, this is Carl Gallups; he’s a great guest. I’m going to keep him for the whole hour. I’m going to have him back on Tuesday.” Then he got on the show with Sellin yesterday and today and said, “I don’t even know who he is.”
THE POST & EMAIL: One might ask what his regular listeners are thinking right now?
CARL GALLUPS: If they’ve got any sense at all, I would think they would see through the duplicity. The ubiquitous untruths that came from those two guys were just inconceivable to me.
Let me share a couple of other things. This thing about “What is Zullo doing telling a civilian, a pastor…?” They just went off on that yesterday and tried to go off on it today. But as I reminded Peter Boyles: “Look, that was your first question to me on Friday. You asked me to tell your audience how in the world I was connected to Zullo, and I went through a ten-minute explanation of our relationship. And again, as you know, my relationship to Zullo is I started off as just one of many media output sources, but once Zullo was on my show and saw that I was fair-minded and that I was a good journalist, a good media person, he was impressed. So we got on the phone afterwards, and we were talking. He asked about my backgournd; I told him I was a ten-year lawman and 30-year pastor, and he was more impressed. Then he started calling me, and I knew what he was doing; he was vetting me. Before long, he started coming on my show more and more. Then he invited me to go to Washington with him, and we did all of those things.
Then after that, he said, “Listen, Carl, I’m going to start telling you stuff I know for my own protection, number 1. Number 2, because I trust you and your media output; number 3, I know you can keep confidences; as a 30-year pastor that’s your job; as a lawman, you understand the confidentiality.” He said, “I’m going to tell you, not everything, but a lot of what I know so you know where this is going. Plus,” he said, “it will be for my protection.” He said, “If something happens to me, then not only do I have the other investigators, but I’ll have you, a media person who knows where things are and what things are happening.” Why he chose me? Who knows? Did God put it in his heart? I don’t know; I didn’t ask. I didn’t call him up and say, “Hey, make me your confidante.” It just happened through the relationship. It sounds to me as if Boyles and Sellin are insanely jealous of that relationship. I’m just speculating, but it’s almost as if they’re mad because they’re not on the inside and I am, and who am I: a pastor and a civilian? Well, who are they? Boyles is a radio talk show host, and Sellin is a fired colonel.
THE POST & EMAIL: Boyles has not really followed the investigation every step of the way; he’s brought in a lot of speculators, but he hasn’t really reported on the press conferences. He has brought people to talk about peripheral things.
CARL GALLUPS: Exactly, which is why I asked to be on his show, because I was just distraught listening to that. A couple of other things I wanted to say is that all Zullo was doing is building on the work of other people. Well, that’s not true. The work of other people that was involved in the first news conferences is behind Zullo. What he’s dealing with now is all new information that he has harvested, that he has developed, that he has massaged and worked and information that has come to him from other sources, people wanting to be involved with giving information. So it’s all new information. So they’re absolutely wrong that all he’s doing is building on the work of others.
Peter accused me of “crying wolf” on Friday. “All Zullo’s doing is crying wolf, crying wolf…” So I asked him, “When did he cry wolf?” “Well, because of the news conference he promised in March.” I said, “He didn’t cry wolf; he immediately came on the air and explained why he couldn’t do the news conference. That’s not crying wolf. When else has he cried wolf?” Well, he couldn’t answer the question. And then today, when he said I was double-talking and not speaking truthfully, I asked him over and over, “Name one lie that I have told.” And then he over-talked me, and I said, “Name one lie that I have told,” and he couldn’t do it. And I told him, “You can’t do it, can you? You guys can’t handle the truth.” “What truth? You haven’t spoken any truth.” I said, “Then name one lie. Name one untruth,” and he could not do it.
What I’d like to say to Sellin and to Boyles is, “What have you guys done? What have you brought forward? What affidavits have you filed in court? What affidavits do you have from digital document experts? What congressman have you met with? When did you go to Capitol Hill and sit down in congressmen’s offices?” No. What you guys do is get on the radio and speculate, and then trash, trash publicly the one guy other than Zullo himself who does speak publicly to it and has the facts.
The other thing Sellin said on Monday’s show is that it was his understanding that a whistleblower had come to Mike Zullo on this birth certificate issue, and then he started speculating about John Brennan being the one, so he was intimating that Mike Zullo told him that John Brennan was the one who forged the birth certificate. My answer to that is, first of all, no whistleblower has come to Mike Zullo with any information about the birth certificate. That never happened. No whistleblower has ever come to Mike Zullo and said, “I want to talk to you about the birth certificate.” That has never, ever happened. He’s wrong, and then he was intimating that Mike Zullo told him that John Brennan was the one…he’s wrong about that. Zullo has never said it. That shocked me when I heard that. I called Mike Zullo, and I said, “Mike, is there something you’re not telling me? Did John Brennan forge the birth certificate?” and he said, “Who told you that?” and I said, “That’s what Sellin is saying.” He said, “Oh, my gosh. No, I’ve never said that. I’ll tell you right now, Carl, John Brennan did not forge the birth certificate.” And he said, “I’ve never told anybody that John Brennan forged the birth certificate.”
THE POST & EMAIL: About how many other shows have you been on regarding the Zullo/Arpaio investigation?
CARL GALLUPS: I would guess 8-10 other shows a multiplicity of times, most of them syndicated. One of them is syndicated in 300 markets, and he’s had me on his show to talk about this probably ten or 12 times.
For Peter to say he doesn’t know me…that shows how much they don’t know.
THE POST & EMAIL: Don’t we want to get the word out, especially to Americans, because the mainstream media has not been willing to report on this? You’re trying to get the word out and set the record straight, and they’re not letting you do it.
CARL GALLUPS: They’re calling me a liar and a double-talker and cutting me off. They had an ambush planned. If the Obots were listening today, who do you think they were cheering for? What does that tell you?
This is the only interview that’s been like this. Everyone else has been extremely professional, extremely courteous and extremely gracious. Peter Boyles is the absolute exception.
On Tuesday evening, Gallups produced a nine-minute video describing the contentious and dishonest exchange which Sellin and Boyles put forth that morning as well as contradictory and inaccurate statements they made about the investigation on Friday and Monday.
The Post & Email contacted Zullo for comment on Boyles’s Tuesday interview of Gallups, to which Zullo responded, “I want to reserve the right to make comment at a later date. However, I’m appalled at the level of unprofessionalism that was displayed on a broadcast covered by the public airwaves. I fully support Carl Gallups. Maybe the public can now understand why I chose somebody like Carl Gallups who, even while being goaded, did not divulge anything that was held in his confidence. It appears to me that this is born out of frustration and an emotional need to know rather than staying objective. Those emotions, cobbled with the wild speculation that goes on in a broadcast like this that can only be characterized as yellow journalism, cause these kinds of problems. I think that the public now understands why I said almost one year ago that if you don’t hear it from the sheriff, if you don’t hear it from me or Carl Gallups or PPSimmons, I didn’t say it.
“I want to make it perfectly clear that neither Carl Gallups nor I ever, ever, ever implicated CIA Director John Brennan in anything to do with this matter. It is unequivocally false, and I demand Mr. Boyles issue a public, on-air retraction and apology immediately. That broadcast, including the second part in which disgruntled, former eight-week posse member Brian Reilly went on and defamed the sheriff and me, slandering us on public airwaves, has been sent to counsel for review for further action.
“We have been monitoring him for the last eight months, and on that broadcast, Mr. Reilly gave me a gift: we have been waiting for him to come off of an internet broadcast and finally do the slanderous hit-job that he did on public airwaves.
“Brian Reilly is fueled by those who are entertained by his trashing of the investigation and his own self-fulfilling motivations. However, there are aspects of his past – facts – that, when they come to light, in my opinion, people are going to find extremely troubling.
“It’s painfully obvious that Mr. Boyles is extremely ill-informed and does not vet anyone who is on his radio show. And Mr. Boyles’ display of an unbelievable cognizant disconnect, unable to recall a recorded conversation he had only 45 minutes earlier, is utterly shocking.
“I think this should give both his listening audience and the management of that radio station great pause.”