Audio: Laura Ingraham grills Ramos and Compean prosecutor Johnny Sutton
posted at 8:50 pm on July 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Freepers were buzzing about it this afternoon. Given its unusual length (upwards of an hour), I’m posting it before I’ve had a chance to listen to it myself. You can download the mp3 by clicking here.
Many thanks to Laura’s producer, A.J., for making this available to us.
Update: Here’s the Flash version if you’re up for it.
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The agents should not have covered up and they did, that sucks. I’m sure they just got scared when they saw he did not have a gun. This case for one side is all emotion. The US Pros, has said he thought the sentence was to much, but it is set in the law past by congress. Hopefully Bush may lesson the sentence. But i hate to say it, these guys did commit a crime, hey we all have f-ed up before.
buy the way, I think Laura is trying to run America, she has become so anti Bush and anti anything that is not her thoughts. Her way or the highway, I used to realy like her but she is just mean now, no one on radio gets on my nerves as much as her. Wow. Thankfully she is off in my area and i can turn her off on tv. Laura lighten up a little. Somebody find her a man.
kara26 on July 21, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Laura jumped the shark way before tancredo – I give her credit for fighting hard to be where she is and on a personal level she is a fine human being
But trying to out savage savage and scream lounder than Rush is something that the competition on the airwaves inevitably produces
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 10:30 AM
If you come back to this thread sometime today, can you give me your take on ?’s at 12.58 and 1.36. Thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on July 21, 2007 at 10:50 AM
That’s fun, how you praise her and then insult her, or at least try to, all in one short post. I listened to the entirety of the three segments, and Laura bore no resemblance to Michael Savage nor to Rush, at any time in the interview.
I have listened to Savage on many occasions, and found him to be both an idiot and terrible radio at the same time, and Rush is the best in the business and the only reason anyone else on the right has their own show.
I think Laura has her own unique style (grating) and qualification (legal education) and experience (criminal law practice), and was uniquely qualified to conduct the interview. To suggest that she would subordinate herself to mimic some other personality for this interview is silly.
You’re only point seems to be that you disagree with her. We already knew that.
Jaibones on July 21, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Our southern border has become a lawless no man’s land. Whoever has the most money and guns wins, i.e. the drug cartels. Our BP is outmanned, outgunned, and outspent, they’re fighting a losing battle. Sutton can quibble about the minutiae in this case, and be right about some of the facts, but this case demonstrates the disgraceful betrayal the Bush Adminstration has shown toward our BP agents.
infidel4life on July 21, 2007 at 11:41 AM
It’s hard not to feel ambivalence toward his case.
It seems to me that there are two separate issues at work here.
First is the issue of government power. The power of government to impose its will on an individual is limited by laws that clearly confine the circumstances in which deadly force is acceptable. When the government (BP agent) spins out of control and abuses its power, the government has a responsibility to demonstrate that the incident is an aberration by punishing the offender. This serves the important purpose of assuring it’s citizens that it is not a tyranical and oppressive government.
Suppose that this case was not on the border. Suppose that a person is caught at a location where they shouldn’t be, committing a non-violent crime. For example: a person has broken into the Capitol Building and he’s stealing a work of art. Two Capitol police officers come upon him and he runs for the exit without the artwork. Should the officers pull their guns and blaze away, trying to kill him? If the law says “NO” but we think it should say “YES”, then it’s our duty to change the law, not to excuse the officers for acting outside the law. It is especially important not to excuse government law-breaking because there is none to control it but itself.
Second is the issue of the Rule Of Law. The government, and especially the current Executive, have shown a complete unwillingness to enforce our borders. When the government refuses to enforce immigration laws they create lawlessness, especially on the borders. When the government allows illegal aliens to behave lawlessly, but then wants to selectively enforce the laws against the very people who are trying to protect our Country, it creates a sense of unfairness and distrust among the citizenry.
Since the government refuses to enforce the immigration laws that the people desperately want enforced, people see nothing wrong with:
-officers trying to impose order at the border;
-sending a message that it’s dangerous to break our laws.
The government has brought this on themselves by ignoring the Rule Of Law against the will of the people. The people understand two things very well:
1) The government caused this situation by creating lawlessness on the border;
2) The “victim” in this case would not have been shot if he had not been breaking our laws by illegally entering our country, smuggling drugs, and trying to escape.
Since the current situation was caused by the Excutive’s refusal to enforce border laws, thereby creating an environment of lawlessness in which the agents had to operate, it’s unfair for the Executive to hold only its agents accountable. The Executive should impose order on the border, holding everyone accountable for their actions.
But it’s a close call.
jaime on July 21, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Spirit of 1776 answering 1:36
The one shot theory was explain by Ramos on the stand and why they left him for dead and why they may have covered it up
they shot him in Mexico.
Remember, this is yards, yards away from the border
After he fired the one shot he felt it was too close to Mexico to continue the action
So in Part Ramos and Compean may have covered it up because can you imagine being tried in Mexico?
Thats my theory why everyone was closed lipped about it
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Spirit Answering your 12:58
Sutton answered this twice with Edd Hendee’s KSEV radio show
Compean when confronting AED, decided to butt him in the face first, while AED was unarmed and his hands were in the air in the act of surrendering
This was causual element to charge them with the 924c as well the Executive Office of the US attorney’s approved the 924c and removed the plea bargin so Sutton had really no choice he had his orders as well.
After they tried to beat him then they tried to kill him by gunfire meets the classic use of violence in a federal case
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Hey BigoldDog
Now we have the case of Nicholas Corbett who is on trial for first degree murder a Border Agent in Arizona who has an August hearing.
This is a cause celeb because as I read the accounts and the police report this may have been an accident for several reasons
1. He was badly winded from a footchase in high heat in a hilly area
2. He switched gun hands to cuff a kneeling male prisoner
3. The male prisoner lurched Corbett lost his balance and his weapon discharged into his back
4. Corbett screamed for assistance tried to revive the injured victim
5. was described by the victims family and the ones he had arrested as visibly emotional and upset
contrast this to Ramos and Compean
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Nothing to contrast when you fire one round and the suspect keeps running. You figure you missed him and that he was now over the border. That is still irrespective of whether he had a gun or not and pointing it at R&C.
Tim Burton on July 21, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Burton
Fired 15 rounds, reloaded
Did not have a gun says Ramos, Compean, Vasquez and several others at the site
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
AT a minimum, with the current tensions, legitimate ones, and the frustrations of average Americans with illegals, the prosecutoir and the President should have realized that PUBLIC RELATIONS would be critical to the case. That is, making the efforts to assure the public that justice was done correctly.
The public has a pretty simple standard to uphold: drug dealers belong in prison or deported. If they show up again, prison, ’cause their own country can’t be trusted to do the job. A number of other countries such as Thailand execute drug dealers/smugglers, so complaining about US treatment is ridiculous.
For an unrepentent drug smuggler to get off, while border agents go to prison is a massive violation of this public expectation of basic law and order. Sniffing that the public is stupid isn’t the correct response, in fact, is a foolish provocation. The public is also exquisitely aware that law enforcement becomes degraded when officers on the front lines do not believe the society has their backs. The legislators and the prosecutors and the courts should be sensitive to this. America has done very very well by maintaining a professional law enforcement culture. One doesn’t have to look far to see the corrosive effects of a bribe-demanding degraded law enforcement structure … any Third World nation has plenty of vivid examples to provide. It’s one of the characteristics that holds back a country’s development. Mexico’s rankings world-wide aren’t anything to be proud of.
naliaka on July 21, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Sutton is an idiot. When you screw up you try to defend yourself. He does a good job of covering himself up but I don’t think that he made it.
I think he should go to work for Earle in Texas. They should fit in real well together.
duff65 on July 21, 2007 at 3:49 PM
OK, OK, OK… Technically, they’re guilty. As was Libby… Now pardon ‘em…! Sheesh…! A wife who kills her abusive husband in his sleep can be found not guilty by a sympathetic jury or pardoned by a reasonable executive… Why NOT just pardon those who’ve been railroaded on technicalities etc…?
Rugged Individual on July 21, 2007 at 3:57 PM
So very well, put, naliaka.
When, the other day, Bush defended the sentence of Ramos and Campeon by calling the prosecutor Sutton his “dear friend,” he blew an enormous hole in that “expectation of law and order.”
Because the prosecutor in this case is the “dear friend” of a President who has done next to nothing to stop the illegal flow across the border, the public (the same people who “don’t want what’s best for America”) should accept this?
Did Harriet Meyers deserve to be an SC Justice — because she, too, was a “friend” of the President?
Did the President commute Libby’s sentence because Fitzgerald is not on his “dear friends” list?
Follow the logic, or rather, follow the President’s blatantly irresponsible comment, and weep for our justice system.
Nichevo on July 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM
1. The issue IS NOT whether or not the smuggler had a gun. The issue is whether or not Compean and Ramos belief that he had a gun WAS REASONABLE.
2. Sutton then charged them with using a firearm in commission of a felony. They were in commission of their jobs (i.e. stopping illegal border crossings,) not a felony.
3. There were multiple other officers including superiors, present at the scene during the “cover-up” who assisted in the “cover-up.” Not one was charged with obstruction or anything else.
4. Ramos and Compean WERE NOT CHARGED NOR FOUND GUILTY of OBSTRUCTION
5. The jury was not instructed (Sutton advocated for such instruction) as to the mandatory sentence for violation of the statute. Jurors are on record as saying that if they knew such sentence, they would not have voted the way they did.
America1st on July 21, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Wow! So this is relevant and the 2nd drug run isn’t. I read your posts and you are some kinda angry.
BTW, did the prosecution ever intimate that either BPAs were “attempting” to beat the drug smuggler to death with their guns? I don’t remember them being put on trial for attempted murder. You need to settle down a little.
Sultry Beauty on July 21, 2007 at 9:21 PM
This bears repeating from another thread:
Amen BigDog.
Hey Eric, how about responding to that?
infidel4life on July 22, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Dayslater,butIhave tosayyou’ve hit the nailont hehead reppac.I’ve heardJohhnny Suttonse veraltimesnow,andheis clearly afast talkingSOB. I’mn otblackandwhiteonthisissue ,butsomethin greallystinks. Ivoted Bushtwi ce,and notha ppynow .
peski on July 22, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Dayslater,but I have to say you’ve hit the nail on the head reppac.I’ve heard Johhnny Sutton several times now,and he is clearly a fast talking SOB. I’mn otb lack and white onthis issue ,but somethig really stinks.
peski on July 22, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Bigolddog
What agenda, lets review the impact shall we….
I have two officers that failed to arrest and interrogate a known and dangerous drug dealer and by their more than incompetant actions set the stage where not only did we have to set him free, we have had to endure this entire charade of border politics swirling around the fact that these two took our tax dollars and used it to almost spark an international incident instead of just saying turn around and cuffing the guy
And they tried to commit murder in the name of the United States
That too.
EricPWJohnson on July 22, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Last thought: you come here to say stupid and controversial things in an apparent effort to build some traffic at some otherwise unknown web site, and maybe that’s how this internet thing works. It’s a little like ministry: if you can get enough followers, you get paid to do what the rest of us do for fun.
We — the anonymous commenter nation — come here to say stupid and controversial things without any other motivation, other than that this is what we do.
Jaibones on July 22, 2007 at 10:49 AM
When Laura starts dismantling somebody, it really makes me feel funny inside. I mean this in a good way, of course.
Metro on July 22, 2007 at 11:30 AM
She got a man. Shows just how much you listen to her.
She’s not tough enough most of the time, for me.
Thank you very much for highlighting her and showing your ignorance.
Mcguyver on July 22, 2007 at 11:44 AM
WHAT?
What the hell is your definition of a felon?
Have you gotten enough publicity yet for your blogsite?
I am waiting for such a time.
Mcguyver on July 22, 2007 at 11:51 AM
That……………..was an ass-whippin’!!! The “insurgents” striking back at the invaders! Johnny Sutton HATES us “insurgents” and believes only the invaders! Hey Johnny, “GET OUT OF THE ROOM”!!!!
Johnny Sutton ain’t much of a man! Laura can do better! he he
And Johnson……..Elvira Arellano is a convicted Illegal Alien FELON!!
DfDeportation on July 22, 2007 at 2:05 PM
McGuyver
A Felon is someone that is convicted of a felony count
In the Matter of Ramos and Compean
They were convicted of 11 Felony counts
Also, its not my Website its actually that of a friend who disagrees with me,
I do not post there anymore
I used to link Patterico cause I find him fair even if it causes him considerable grief he sticks to hias guns and does what he thinks is right
EricPWJohnson on July 22, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Whorehay Booooosh should be as “emotional” towards Ramos and Compean as he is towards Irving “Scooter” Libby!!
DfDeportation on July 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Wow, Eric…are you shootin’ to be the next Daschell Hammett???
Miss_Anthrope on July 22, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Miss Anthrope
That was Ramos and Compeans TESTIMONY on the WITNESS STAND and to investigators
If actually reading something first then opening my blog mouth qualifys me as Mr. Hammett – then guilty as charged….
EricPWJohnson on July 23, 2007 at 12:37 AM
It was proven that Davila was unarmed? When did that happen during the trial? Who said he was unarmed? Must’ve missed that one.
DfDeportation on July 23, 2007 at 2:09 AM
They falsified the reports. Hence they broke the law – they deserve the punishment and a pardon would be an injustice. Relating it to the Scooter Libby commutation is silly. He was convicted of perjury for a nonexistent crime. These clowns were falsifying documents, which is a crime.
Bradky on July 23, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Falsified documents? I thought the claim was there were no documents.
Gianni on July 23, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2