Audio: Laura Ingraham grills Ramos and Compean prosecutor Johnny Sutton
posted at 8:50 pm on July 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
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
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: 1 2 Next »
I heard this guy on Glenn Beck yesterday.
Much as I wish it weren’t so, he makes a strong case. Admittedly, I haven’t stayed on top of the facts like others in the dextrosphere… but as a more or less uneducated listener I didn’t feel like Beck made a whole lot of headway.
*shrug*
Purple Fury on July 20, 2007 at 8:57 PM
As I said earlier in another thread here, listen for when she asks the money questions of who was a bigger threat to America and about pressure being brought by the Mexican Government. I listened live so I can’t be sure when exactly she asks them.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 8:59 PM
His strong case amounts to trying to claim he doesn’t prosecute BAs easily and West Texas Jury’s don’t convict law enforcement easily, but listen to this interview where there is time to really challenge him on those issues and on what some of the jurors say now.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 9:02 PM
What nobody seems to ask is about the 3 other law enforcement officers (2 Boarder Patrol and 1 county sheriff) that Sutton has railroaded in the last few years.
BadBrad on July 20, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Thanks for posting this AP. I’m looking forward to listening to it.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Laura and her quest inquisitor bring it up. It turn out Johnny Boy Sutton has another BPA doing hard time for using his foot to hold down a suspect – I sh!t you not!
Get your popcorn ready!
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Are you guys for real? This “Captain High Pants” look alike says that these guys, who are in jail for more time than a murder, shot this poor drug dealer in the ass and then tried to cover it up. Why? Shoot the SOB in the ass and let him rot!! Shoot him dead as a spanish mackrel. What the hell are we doing trying to cover the ass of a drug dealer bringing 750 pounds of MJ into the country. This jerk off sits there and says that they didn’t dot all their i’s and cross their t’s and that’s why they are in jail. The fact of the matter is that he should be in jail. Why the White House is covering his ass has me wondering why the hell I’m a Rebublican! You guys call this a strong case? You should think about changing your party affiliation!!!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on July 20, 2007 at 9:12 PM
I have difficulty making up my mind on this issue.
aengus on July 20, 2007 at 9:17 PM
This was a great interview live. Bush is sending a clear message to Border Patrol to stop enforcing the border through minions like his “good friend” Johnny Sutton.
The case should get reopened but I doubt Bush will commute or pardon these guys.
Valiant on July 20, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I heard it live and even Laura with all that time didn’t nail him as much as I would’ve like to see. She did pretty good, though. Better than Beck.
I also heard Roger Hitchcock live on the Rush Limbaugh show and he had even more perspective.
Laura’s interview together with Roger Hitchcock’s knowledge knocks it out of the ballpark!
I cannot believe that dirt bag Sutton is getting away with this crab!!
Roger pointed out that the bullet wound was proven to be from the position of the drug dealer turning around to shoot at the guards, as it was from the side.
I really believe that Roger’s analysis along with Laura’s interview would leave no doubt from any reasonable mind as to the prosecution’s collusion.
For example: the bullet wound truth was withheld from the jury.
Bush’s best and dear friend…. give me a fricking break!!!!
Pisses me off!!!
Mcguyver on July 20, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Listen to Roger Hitchcock’s perspective, buddy.
You will be clear then.
Mcguyver on July 20, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Where is Rush on this?
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I heard this live this morning. I think it is well worth a listen for anyone who hasn’t heard it yet. Laura did an excellent job to call out Johnny Sutton on a number of issues (second drug run, the fact that the Mexican drug dealer was given essentially a green card so he could testify, etc.) Both sides of the argument were very respectful, but it seems clear to me that something is wrong with the government’s conduct in this entire situation. Johnny Sutton is supposedly a “friend” of President Bush, but yet this friend can’t get in touch with Bush when new evidence in the case shows the Mexican “doper” (as Sutton calls him) breaking his immunity agreement by bringing more drugs into our country. Suddenly the phone doesn’t work from West Texas to the White House, and we are told that “the case is being investigated, blah blah blah” and he (Sutton) will report to the proper authorities in the Justice Dept. about the drug runner.
I am not a conspiracy guy or anything like that, but it seems to me that there is some element within our government that is pushing the open borders agenda overtly. We saw it with shamnesty and the lack of willingness of the Bush administration to enforce current border laws. Intimidation of border guards is next? I don’t know, but excessive prosecution of Ramos and Compean doesn’t rally the troops.
reppac122 on July 20, 2007 at 9:33 PM
It’s really, really simple. Who was a bigger threat to the people of the United States of America? That’s who you prosecute.
All he had to do was believe the BPAs that they thought he had a gun and charged the scumbag and let the chips fall where they may.
Why didn’t he? Well, according to Duncan Hunter, because the Mexican Government pushed for the prosecution of the BPAs.
But why would the Mexican Government want BPA tired and through in jail for 12 years for shooting a drug smuggler? I think the answer to that one is obvious.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 9:33 PM
listened live. It was Laura at her best..We now can see this guy is working with the drug cartels..He didn’t allow the judge to tell the jury that the dirtballdrugrunner had run up another truck load of drugs while he was suppose to be up here on immunity.. And when the subject came up JOHNNY says it wasn’t credible because a drug criminal was saying it and how can we trust his word…So how the hell can you then go ahead and trust this guys word, telling us his side of the story, is he any better ???
Legions on July 20, 2007 at 9:40 PM
With all due respect, it’s Roger Hedgecock, former San Diego Mayor, and, as he puts it, a recovering attorney. He’s on San Diego radio daily, and has been leading the charge on illegals and our border for decades. The man is sharp as a tack and pity the sucker that goes up against him unprepared.
PatrickS on July 20, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Okay, forgive my ignorance I didn’t really follow this case until just a few days ago, but what is the point of the 2nd load?
Is she saying that the past and future actions of the man shot (which whether the jury knew he was a smuggler seems contended) would have effected the jury’s view of the credibility of the witness? Otherwise why is what happened after the case such a critical point of her argument?
The point about all the other busts where no guns were found seems strong, but that doesn’t impact whether they thought he had one – it just takes one.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Laura was great today!
She made the prosecutor admit that this was the FIRST AND ONLY such case ever pursued against border patrol agents–having pursued the minium 10 years imprisonment–
She made the prosecutor admit (again) that the penalty was far greater than any wrong doing by the border agents–
She made him promise to re-address the case and strongly consider appealing as a close personal friend of Pres.Bush for said President to pardon the convicted agents–
She pointed out so many facts and wouldn’t back down–
Laura’s program this morning with the prosecutor and journalist was absolutely fantastic.
BRAVA
maverick muse on July 20, 2007 at 10:06 PM
No drug runner left behind! Funny how all of us “racists” are trying to get two hispanic men out of prison.
BDavis on July 20, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Someone mentioned the other convictions of 2 BP agents and a deputy Sheriff by Sutton
The Deputy Sheriff, a rookie, at midnight out of uniform took his fiance to a convience store to buy “A soda” he saw a suburban he claims ran a stop sign and pulled the car over, noticing several people sleeping in the car he brandished his weapon, screamed at the driver who panicked and drove off
Then the good deputy shot up the car 6 times hitting and unarmed sleeping woman in the face.
Go figure
The two BP agents, one was prosecuted by Suttons predecessor and came up on appeal during his first month in office and the 5th upheld the conviction
The second one had this strange wierd story of these three knockout teenage girls that mysteriously arrived at his residence that somehow evolved into being his wife’s nieces. After changing his story many times to both Mexican and US immigration authorities he was tried and easily convicted.
Thats a strange case with most of it sealed so I’m not even going there especially in light of the rape ring uncovered at a BP Station outside Houston where the good looking women were seperated at an immigration station, repeatedly raped all day at a local hotel and sent off with a bus ticket, one BP has been convicted and more are possibly under sealed indictments.
And this Houston US attorney who got the rape convictions is not Sutton and has prosecuted many BP agents.
So endth the Sutton is a convictor part of the conspiracy theory.
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 10:15 PM
That’s his point, actually. Many shootings reviewed by his office, some with death resulting, and all of them declared clean…except for this one.
Pablo on July 20, 2007 at 10:28 PM
That the drug runner was not armed is critical to the conviction. The credibility of the person testifying he was not armed is crucial. Sutton admitted “we normally put this type of person in prison”. I can’t fathom Sutton’s own pretzel logic that there is any reason to believe this guy and give him immunity. Ussually when you grant immunity to a witness it is because the prosecutor has a bigger fish to fry. Even if you 100% believe the agents were rogue out of control agents who commited a crime, doesn’t it make more sense to give them immunity to testify against a professional criminal? Who is it more important to put in jail?
Resolute on July 20, 2007 at 10:40 PM
This will help
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Resolute
Facts get in the way of your hypothesis
They didn’t apprehend the guy nor search for a weapon, oh they did search for their shell casings in case CSI came to the scene
They also had their DEA buddies wipe the load as an abandoned one removing any chance of getting evidence connecting AED to the van
Had they just cuffed the guy instead of trying to beat him first and then have target pratice they would be the law enforcement heroes in stead of the felons that they deserved to be
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Andrew C. McCarthy wrote two in depth articles on this case for NRO. I’ll side with Sutton on this one.
robblefarian on July 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM
The point of the 2nd load is because it was after the drug dealer was given immunity (and a green card) upon his promise that he would abandon drug dealing!!
Again, Laura was great as others have commented, but Roger
HitchcockHedgecock has an extremely important perspective on it.Exactly.
Sutton would be blackened
FrenchMexican toast with Roger.Mcguyver on July 20, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Well I finished it. That was a good expansion on the case. Sounds like a hard-edge prosecutor trying the case vigorously, perhaps with reference to his bosses view on the border, perhaps not. But that falsification of evidence before the House should be cause to re-examine the case imo. Two wrongs do not a right, nor do they make justice.
I’m gonna go check out Hedgecock’s insight. Thanks again AP, and thanks BigOldDog for links & commentary today & yesterday.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 10:45 PM
So it was unjust, but shouldn’t have effected the truth (or his version of it, I should say) of his testimony at the time of the trial.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Another fine American who takes the word of a drug smuggler over BPA with clean records. Nice work.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
So if you were a juror and heard that the druggie didn’t keep his promise, it wouldn’t give you pause for disbelieving his testimony?
He has an agenda to lie for God’s sake!!!!
Mcguyver on July 20, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Laura was awesome…definitely better than Beck.
It’s amazing how Sutton never quite responds to any of the damning evidence that his case is a complete sham.
i.e. Why did you believe a scumbag drug dealer over decorated BPA’s? Why did they not tell the jury about his other drug activities? What the hell gives a drug smuggler any credibility?
Sutton says he is still investigating whether the second drug run took place, but the other radio host during the interview had more facts than Sutton!
How is it that a radio host can get more facts on this case than the prosecutor?
Sutton is not only covering up evidence, but he is doing the will of this Open Borders administration.
I guess he went to the Nifong School of Law…he just earned extra credit in Spin Class.
dandy on July 20, 2007 at 10:57 PM
It’s even worse than that:
This is well worth a read:
15 questions for Johnny Sutton
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I didn’t claim the agents did nothing wrong. But it is undisputed the ‘victim’ is a career criminal. It is a judgement call of Sutton to give a career criminal immunity in order to testify against law enforcement agents who may have done something wrong. The entire outcome here rests on that. I don’t see what facts you think I got wrong. Sutton just admitted to everything in my analysis. He explained to Laura pretty clearly he feels getting these agents is a bigger priority then getting the career criminal “whom we normally put in prison”. Sutton himself is the one who enabled this guy to continue operating with his immunity deal and then he laments he doesnt have enough evidence to get him.
Resolute on July 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM
It would, I agree. If this was known at the time of the trial (which I assume is the case, yes?) it speaks directly to the credibility of the main (I assume again) witness. Yeah, I can see Sutton disregarding that as an inconvenient after the fact event, but that’s important.
Also sounds like he is not telling the truth in his assertion that the drug runner would be in jail if they had done their job. Did he not say that the mule was in a ditch, but got up to run b/c one of the defendants tripped? If they didn’t fire, he would have got away either way. If that is true, it would effect Sutton’s own credibility. I’ll have to go back and listen to it again later to check.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Out of the shadows of (not wrong)Nifong, (Bobby Joe Billy) Earle(west texas), Frantic Friztz comes The Johnny(Joge’s best friend)Sutton…ta da. Anything look familiar here?
One thing about it they would never have to worry about a job in the future…qualified car salesmen(no offense to any car salesmen here). This guy JS sells hard, maybe a little too hard?
oldernslower on July 20, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I’m with you all as far as the sentence being too harsh, not to mention the BPA’s basically being crucified but none the less, do you not expect that they should follow the rule of law? There should be no tolerance for any law enforcement officer trying to CYA after the fact.
EricPWJohnson has it right. If they had followed procedure they would be heroes right now.
SouthernDem on July 20, 2007 at 11:11 PM
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Another fine American who takes the word of a drug smuggler over BPA with clean records. Nice work.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I second,(TheBigOldDog)..unless Mr.Ericpwjohn. was at the scene, in which case he should have testified..
Legions on July 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Resolute
Here are the priorities in most prosecutorial offices
Kingpins
Dirty Cops
Dirty Politicians
Everyone else
You are making up facts to fit your hypothesis Laura also knows these as well
What’s going on here is the Dreyfusing of Ramos and Compean
Its not going to happen
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Yet again, it’s even worse than that:
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Legions
They didn’t do their jobs, letting the drug dealer go was the way you want LEO’s to behave then
The facts I have, were seorn to by three BP agents who were there and backed up every aspect of the drug dealers testimony
the only thing they needed from the drug dealer was the bullet, he was presented as a criminal at trial no one on the jury had any doubt he was a scumbucket
So endeth the drug dealer of the BP agents part of the conspiracy theory
Laura also knew this information as well
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Resolute
3 BP agents saw the whole thing corroborated the testimony of AED who was also presented to the jury as a drug dealer
That must have been why they were convicted on 11 out of 11 counts and the 12th was never persued by the government
You should read the transcripts – it takes a while much you can skim through but I think your fears of these agents (Felons) being railroaded are unfounded
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Again, you are choosing to take the word of a drug smuggler over the word of 2 fine BPAs with clean records. A drug smuggler who smuggled again, using a DHS provided border pass, while awaiting the trial. All of which Sutton prevented the jury from learning.
It’s really, really simple. Who is a bigger threat to the public the BPAs or the Drug Smuggler?
Then there’s this:
If that doesn’t stink to high Heaven what does?
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 11:22 PM
They were coerced. They were told to change their original statement that corroborated the BPAs or they too would be prosecuted.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 11:24 PM
That is the point. It was withheld from the jury.
Mcguyver on July 20, 2007 at 11:27 PM
When American justice chooses to believe drug smugglers over clean law enforcement officials and/or allows foreign governments to influence prosecutions putting the rights of illegal alien criminals ahead of the right of US law enforcement officials and the welfare of the American people, we have a major, major problem on our hands that no amount of PR or twisted logic can fix.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Rush was off today.
Rodger did great.
Mcguyver on July 20, 2007 at 11:31 PM
What facts did I make up. Im’ going by what the prosecutor himself said. did you even listen to it???
You are totally incorrect and dont have the basic facts in your grasp if you think anyone other then 3 people were at the scene at the time of the incident(as you just indicated in your last post).
Resolute on July 20, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I’m not an expert on this case by any means, but did they not try to hide evidence? Wasn’t there other testimony aside from the smuggler? Again, sentence too harsh but they deserved to be prosecuted. And, by the way, what is the evidence of coersion?
To answer your question, obviously it’s the drug smuggler. But rogue police and border enforcement who do not follow the rule of law are dangerous to our society as well.
SouthernDem on July 20, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Resolute
Really, you read the transcripts then?
Go away we don’t have time for the totally uniformed
BigDog
really, you have proof? They were coerced into testifying with waterboarding, or was it repeated tasering….
Since you have no proof other than this list of conspiraters who made sure Ramos and Compean stayed in jail
2 Federal Judges
18 member Jury Pool
2 court reports
7 bailiffs
43 reporters from all over Texas who reported the facts correctly during the trial (hint WND did not attend)
Johnny Sutton
debra Kanoff
143 career employees of the Us Attorney for the SW Dist
now the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans
the 5th circuit’s several hundred career employees
the Bush Administration
Did I leave anyone out in your analysis
Let me ask you some questions:
did you follow the Alcan controversy?
Do you find yourself strangly drawn to the baking needs isle in the grocery store?
Do you clip aluminum foil coupons and keep them in your wallet?
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Gotcha. My last question of the night, was the immunity granted get his testimony in the case?
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 11:46 PM
*to get
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Hello listen to the prosecutor himself. What are you saying is not correct
Resolute on July 20, 2007 at 11:48 PM
You left off the Mexican Government from your list!
Sutton never refuted it. It was put to him and he dodged the question. I’ll save you time, just skip to 47:36. Did you listen to the interview or is this just the Prosecutor’s version of the Blue Wall? Did you defend Nifong too? Again, when you put the word of a drug smuggler ahead of law enforcement and the public welfare you have a big problem in your sense of judgment. Perhaps you should resign before you do more damage to our justice system.
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Yes it was.
Mcguyver on July 21, 2007 at 12:05 AM
And so were 2 other BPAs who were told to testify under a grant of immunity or be tried too.
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 12:07 AM
(Felons)?
Wow.
What is your definition of a felon?
Why are you reading transcripts of the case when it had facts withheld from the Jury?
As well as figure in to the mix that elected officials admitted to making up lies about the story?
Seems to me you purposefully are not listening to other facts, such as Rodger Hedgecocks fact finding and the Laura Ingraham interview.
Although I would fight to my death for your right to say whatever you want to, you are intellectually dishonest in only looking at the case transcripts, as it is obviously flawed.
Mcguyver on July 21, 2007 at 12:16 AM
BigDog
you are as usual chasing your tail, please – read te transcripts
What you are doing is:
A. Avoiding the fact that these two were convicted
B. Trying to proevent or overturn the prosecution by attacking the “motives” constantly of the prosecutor which means
C. you have nothing but are willing to sacrifice the very foundations of liberty and freedom to win this
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Mcguyver
What facts, you mean like the fact Ramos has done this before hence the broken hand or the multiple sentencing to anger management?
Or the fact that he may have had a dehabilitating mental disorder and lied about it to the Patrol?
Or the fact that Ramos had charges dropped not once, not twice, but three times for beating his wife (once after surgery), his son and his elderly father in law?
Or the fact that Ramos had a rap sheet and concealed it fron the Patrol, when discovered suspended him for conduct unbecoming and this incident happened right after he came off suspension
these are FACTS that were CONCEALED from the jury because they were not germain to what RAMOS did that day.
you mean those facts or the DEA line up from an arrested drug dealer on DEA payroll facing life in prison unless he ident… AED out of a lineup?
After the fact,
On the day Ramos and Compean lost it, they had no idea who AED was or if there were even drugs in the van.
They just decided to have a little fun and went south in a hurry
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM
That’s interesting because if immunity was granted solely to prosecute this case, then the issue of priority does enter in to the picture, which I didn’t real understand why that came up in conversation – that would explain why it did; and even more significantly moves from a disciplinary case to a criminal case. That forces me to ask why.
I admit my curiosity is peaked. I’m going try to find time to skim the transcript next week.
Spirit of 1776 on July 21, 2007 at 12:34 AM
God bless Laura Ingraham.
Mojave Mark on July 21, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Spirit of 1776
The immunity was dominant in the case not only was AED questioned more about his immunity than the bullet in his back but so were the other BP agents
This was a poor tactic by the defense lawyers who I see have not been retained for appeal (unusual in criminal cases) and the BP’s were slammed as were the supervisors even the guys who were at the station house on the stand.
read the transcripts, then when Ramos and Compean took the stands they on their own, confessed to everything would rarely answer a yes or no question directly or even come close.
It was clear they were unprepared and their stories (which they were) were completely and utterly rejected by the jury
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Spirit of 1776
I to this day, have contented if Ramos’ attorney in her opening arguments had not said my client shot that man and instead had talked about how difficult it is in split second decisions to make always the right choices
they would be walking around today, not BP agents, but with their families
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:41 AM
but her bashness and aggresiveness doomed the pair to their fate
that and Compeans written confession that he tried to kill AED.
People keep forgetting that little piece of information they had a sworn and written confession by Compean
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 12:43 AM
The issue is what IS NOT in the transcripts. Like knowingly allowing a drug smuggler to LIE on the stand by claiming it was his first time and he was just an unemployed truck driver that need $2K to get his Mother medical attention while they knew he was involved in another smuggling incident using a DHS border pass they provided to him. Like, not allowing the jury to hear about that incident thereby robbing the defense of a fair chance of cross examination. Like having Administration officials lie to congress about these men (listen to the interview). Like the fact they weren’t even being investigated until the Mexican Government demanded it.
I have nothing right? Ya, Sutton et al, did a great job. We all know prosecutors are called before Congress everyday to explain their actions in a case. They have members of congress and Presidential Candidates questioning their actions every day. They have the President of the Unites States being asked about them every day. They go on PR tours to explain their actions every day. Please. I was born at night, but not last night.
Anybody who lets a big-time drug smuggler walk in order to prosecute law enforcement for shooting him in the ass has a major judgment problem.
Anybody who allows a Drug Smuggler to enter the US with a DHS border pass, unsupervised to continue smuggling has a serious judgment problem.
Anybody who thinks that R&C are as big a threat to the American people as the Drug Smuggler, as Sutton does, has a major judgment problem.
As for attacking motives, I guess you missed the whole Duke Rape case. No motives at play there right? Not like Nifong was just out to win an election or anything.
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Two points that are irrefutable:
1) the agents tried to cover it up
2) they failed to detain the drug runner
The prosecutor is being demonized and the agents are being treated like heroes. Trying to uncover ulterior motives that might represent the prosecutor does not change the two facts above. Had the agents done their job correctly, the scumbag drug runner would be on trial, not the agents.
jediwebdude on July 21, 2007 at 12:46 AM
In the back? Now you show your complete dishonesty. Johnny, is that you?
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 12:47 AM
I will read them. At this junction it seems likely to me that some impropriety occurred at the scene; Sutton charged them with the heaviest charge per procedure; and they were found guilty in trial due to the original impropriety.
That doesn’t answer the question of Homeland Security lying at Congress, which is quite significant and cannot be discarded. We have had enough public mis-behavior from prosecutors recently to deserve review regardless. Looks like 2 wrongs so far.
I will read it. I’m quite curious now. Feinstein and Hunter are not taken lightly in my mind either, and for them to request together the commuting of the sentence suggests they weigh it heavily.
Spirit of 1776 on July 21, 2007 at 12:50 AM
they tried to cover it up with 7 other agents on scene including a supervisor? uh huh. How?
Runner? You mean Smuggler right?
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 12:50 AM
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 12:53 AM
In your view was the immunity granted to charge the agents? I want to know if he used his discretion to take a disciplinary case and turn it into a criminal case.
I got that in mind. I’m not going to forget that, it’s important.
Spirit of 1776 on July 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM
The more I listen the people who have prostituted this case the more I get a vague, numb, headache.
Questions don’t get answered, specifics are purposely left out and CYA syndrome is in full bloom; the President defending the character of the Johnny Sutton is just the frosting on the go away you’re bothering us cake.
Somebody please ask Sutton about his boss’s involvement.
What would these agents sentences be minus the firearms charge, maybe eighteen months?
Prosecuting people for using a firearm who carry them as part of their job responsibilities, that’s BS.
Why was prosecutions discretion not in favor of career law enforcement instead of going for the the maximum, were these dirty cops that had been dirty for a long time? No.
Who really did report the allegations?
Why did this ever get out of administrative (why weren’t they fired) and into Sutton’s office to begin with?
This is basically a drug smugglers word against the word of two law enforcement officers.
They say he had a gun.
Too many opportunities to remedy this case were instead used to blow it out of proportion.
You would think the tendency should have been towards resolving the issue internally and letting it go quietly away.
Speakup on July 21, 2007 at 1:04 AM
I love Laura and I am repulsed by Sutton, Dubya’s good buddy. I guess I’m hopelessly biased. MY bad.
Has AP listened to it yet? Patterico? I hope so.
“What nobody seems to ask is about the 3 other law enforcement officers (2 Border Patrol and 1 County Sheriff) that Sutton has railroaded in the last few years”. Actually, he (Hendy?) did mention them and he goes so far as to say that Sutton has convicted 5 of our guys and none of the bad guys. I’d like to see The Facts on how many illegal aliens his ‘office’ has prosecuted–anyone?
They didn’t go into the chilling effect this has on law enforcement, which is an oxymoron in it’s present state in the border war. And don’t you just love it that it was our tax dollars that paid for this travesty of a trial?
Christine on July 21, 2007 at 1:08 AM
I am really sick of the President’s behavior when he comes to these matters, he is just so unfair about these guys, it’s shameful. He should give them the attention he has given Scooter Libby.
Hell has finally frozen over and pigs are flying out of the hole in the ice, and the drug dealers have won.
Sutton obviously witheld pertinent info from the jury.
AprilOrit on July 21, 2007 at 1:13 AM
I see now you’ve been involved with this case for a while:
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 1:15 AM
BIgolddog
Since 2005, before it was a cause celeb reading the transcripts following it before the bedlam of border politics got into this
People (except for Edd Hendee of KSEV he is of pure heart) in the public arena really could care less about Ramos and Compean, they are doing this in the name of border politics
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 1:25 AM
This guy is a Bush tool. This case is all about weakening the security of the border. Why? Heck, I don’t know. Maybe Bush wants the border weak so cheap labor can come across easier?
This case will not make the borders safer. It will make it more dangerous for border agents because they will hesitate in crucial moments AND more importantly, the illegals, as we speak, are getting schooled in how to manipulate that hesitation to their advantage.
csdeven on July 21, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Neat trick since it took a year to get them released.
Now, you were defending Nifong over At Patterico weren’t you? Come on, fess up, You got Sue mad at you. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
You’ve got some hidden agenda going on. I really don’t care what it is. I think people can decide for themselves how much credibility to afford you.
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 1:35 AM
Why did they not kill him when they shot him? One shot in the booty is particular. If they were going to leave him for dead, why didn’t they kill him? Distance? Border? Arrival of other BPA’s? No longer consider a threat?
Spirit of 1776 on July 21, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Well, if you believe our friend EricPWJohnson they wanted to beat him to death (good luck explaining self defense it that case) and the “marksman” Ramos “made the cold blooded calculated decision to try to kill the man and left him bleeding there in the desert.”
I guess Ramos was the shittiest marksman on the planet if it took him two magazines (they aren’t clips) and he only hit him once in the ass. Oh, and PS, the medical reports show the wounds consistent with the Drug Smuggler turning back toward the Officers (I guess he just wanted to give Ramos a better target since he was such a bad shot).
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Well, if you believe our friend EricPWJohnson they wanted to beat him to death (good luck explaining self defense it that case) and the “marksman” Ramos “made the cold blooded calculated decision to try to kill the man and left him bleeding there in the desert.”
I guess Ramos was the poorest marksman on the planet if it took him two magazines (they aren’t clips) and he only hit him once in the ass. Oh, and PS, the medical reports show the wounds consistent with the Drug Smuggler turning back toward the Officers (I guess he just wanted to give Ramos a better target since he was such a bad shot).
TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Drug smugglers get immunity and cops go to prison…I don’t care what this idiot says or what Bush is selling this stinks!
sabbott on July 21, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Exactly, and it does stink. What stinks is the priorities of this administration and of this prosecutor. Open borders at any price. Come to think of it Libby was convicted by a jury also and his sentence has been commuted but I’ll wager that Compean and Ramos will serve their entire sentences. This must be huge problem for this administration to put Sutton on the road with his dog and pony show.
Buzzy on July 21, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Bigolddog
Okay so lets go into how a shotgun butt in the face is a sort of playful tag youre it kind of thing
Lets see buy a heavy baseball bat, have a friend 30% bigger than you use the end of it and butt you in the face as hard as he can
If you survive two or three of these blows then well I’m wrong and you’re right
EricPWJohnson on July 21, 2007 at 2:32 AM
I loved the call in show here in Houston with ultra rightie Michael Berry. Last week he let people call in and vent except one caller kind of set the whole thing going out in another direction. The caller with the husky and quite sexy voice of one Maria who claimed to be the ex of the Juarez drug cartel in the 90′s said straight up these guys were probably just pissed about a screwed up deal. She said the drug guys have so many agents on the payroll it’s not even funny. She said these guys make 30-50 per year see 20K in cash and they take it. Said she went with hubby on runs to make payments so she’s seen it first hand. She was pretty convincing. She said if they wanted the guy dead they wouldn’t hav hit him in the butt. It was all speculation but a good call nonetheless. People who know nothing but what’s the hot button topic want to believe but you gotta be careful. And don’t forget it wasn’t so much these guys shot this mule as much as they lied under oath. No can do that in US justice system or the system doesn’t work. They don’t get a pass in my book.
pc on July 21, 2007 at 2:38 AM
It happens: “Win at All Costs” by Bill Moushey
Tim Burton on July 21, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Regardless of how you may feel about the two Border Patrol Agents, I think we all can agree that Johnny Sutton is a sanctimonious little prick.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 21, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Exactly, happens quite often:
Tim Burton on July 21, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Years later he would be appointed the DA of Durham, NC. But, that is another story…
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 21, 2007 at 3:26 AM
A. By your definition, I guess the Scottsboro Boys were all 100% guilty because they were convicted.
So your first point fails, because it is a red herring.
C. There are facts that would help exonerate them, but they were kept out of the trial. Why? Because trials aren’t used to get justice, rather to win. I link multiple times in earlier posts about the article “Win at All Costs“, it documents the multiple times that prosecutors have tried to hide exonerating evidence. It occurs often. I have a friend who was accused of raping (and fisting) a 17 year old girl. It ended up that during one of her examinations that she still had her hymen. The prosecution tried to get the judge to keep it out of the trial, because as the prosecutor said, “Rape Shield Laws protect her sexual history from being on trial.” That prosecutor wasn’t interested in Justice or Truth, only winning.
While I do lack many of the facts of the case, Rodger Hedgecock (an ex-lawyer) has repeatedly made comments about the information denied to jurors and facts that Sutton has ignored and the fact that Sutton lied to a House Committee.
Tim Burton on July 21, 2007 at 3:44 AM
This makes me sick. It sickens me to my very core. I want to vomit.
The president dares to laugh about this in a public forum when he was asked about a subject that he wants just to go away. You can tell. The White House said in February that they would take a look at this. It is now July. If he wanted to pardon these men, it would already be done. He doesn’t want to pardon them, and I don’t think he’s going to.
I wish I could understand why. So many of this stinks out loud, so many inconsistencies, so many problems with this case…..Laura is right, there is more than enough justification for re-opening this case. Johnny Sutton won’t do it.
It sickens me that these men are rotting in prison, their families are being torn apart and are struggling financially, and Johnny Sutton is worried about his REPUTATION!!!!!!!!!!!
Let’s say everything Sutton believes about these men is true, that they committed a violent crime. The violent crime was shooting this man. He’s not dead. Sounds like assault to me.
Do they deserve 11 and 12 years in prison? Did they deserve to be tried under the civilian statute for misconduct with a deadly weapon (the heaviest penalty possible)? 11 and 12 years in prison for shooting someone, when people who rape children are more and more often are getting probation? (Of course I’m not saying that’s right, that makes me just as sick. The juxtaposition is absolutely monstrous.)
It will be no comfort at all if these men stay in prison that Mr. Sutton’s reputation is stained. None at all.
It was great to hear Sutton try to show sympathy for the families, his “tough break” statement.
No adjectives are left for me to describe my anger over this.
Hawkins1701 on July 21, 2007 at 4:50 AM
EricPWJohnson.. Your living in a fantasy world..You need to WAKE-UP. Pretty sure you still remember WW1 WW2.. Those wars we won remember..WHY..we fought FIRE with FIRE..period..When me and my family were driven out of our home, by your illegal freinds..that puts them into a new category..I call IN YOUR BACK YARD TERRORISTS. And we are at WAR with the TERRORISTS right..so your solution is to let more TERRRORISTS into OUR back yards..by taking away our only hope at stopping them at the border..Because once their here its too late..they immediately pop out a few ANCHORS and purchase a home with some of the 50 BILLION DOLLARS the drug cartel is constantly trying to launder up here, and all the local goverments are so HAPPY, that the houses and small businesses are all being bought up..they are just like you… LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD.
Legions on July 21, 2007 at 7:24 AM
I’ve been following this case somewhat. The point everyone seems to be missing, is that the BP’s did not know this guy was a drug smuggler when they shot him. That was discovered after the fact. He was running away. They shot him in the ass. If the DS had a gun, where is it? And if they were just doing their job, why did they cover it up?
As far as the 2nd smuggling offense, I’m not sure under the law if it is admissible to the trial. Say you get a speeding ticket today, and between now and the time you go to court you get another one. The 2nd offense can’t be entered in court against you because it has nothing to do with the first. Only the first can be brought up at the second trial.
The only thing I don’t understand is why the DS isn’t prosecuted under the 2nd offense. The immunity deal should only apply to the first.
This case sucks all around. I believe the penalty is harsh, but just b/c you have BP’s up against a drug smuggler, doesn’t mean the BP’s are blameless. I don’t know about you, but I’ve met a few cocky, asshole, I have a gun and you don’t, cops in my life.
ritemama on July 21, 2007 at 7:30 AM
Doesn’t matter when it occurred. It’s a crime of moral turpitude and it is admissible to impeach a witness if they testifiy at trial.
Blake on July 21, 2007 at 7:57 AM
I don’t know about you, but I’ve met a few cocky, asshole, I have a gun and you don’t, cops in my life.
ritemama on July 21, 2007 at 7:30 AM
I’m sure you have…You need to visit Mexico and see how their law enforcement works..Bring lots of money with you.
Legions on July 21, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Ok, I haven’t time to read all the comments this morning(I’ll do it later). My question, why does an illegal drug smuggler get such a high end lawyer?? Shouldn’t he have gotten some joe schmo who does pro bono work for people who are unable to afford one??? I know he is a drug dealer, so maybe he does have money, but just how does someone like him get such a prestigious lawyer?
I think it’s an incredible slap in the face to Americans, just like getting rid of the King amendment protecting John Doe.
4shoes on July 21, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Welcome to the Mexicanization of the United States.
GOT CASH?
saved on July 21, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Everybody, even Sutton admits the bandito in this case was carrying drugs. If you ask me drugs are a weapon. Drugs kill or are responsible for more deaths than guns.
Drug runners should be shot on site.
TheSitRep on July 21, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Edd Hendee is an awesome guy. If y’all ever come to Houston you have to get a steak at his restaurant, The Taste of Texas.
TheSitRep on July 21, 2007 at 8:43 AM
I watched this guy get grilled by Congress on C-SPAN and he just doesn’t make a strong enough case for the lengths in which he took to go after these 2 border agents. He allowed those who work for him to give this illegal alien drug dealer total immunity and a visa in and out of our country to pretty please come back to the U.S. so we can send 2 of our finest to prison. And he tried to convince Congress that the Supreme Court does not allow for border agents to shoot at such a criminal as he tries to flee? But I was completely disappointed that these Senators didn’t go far enough in their questioning of Sutton. As far as I’m concerned, Sutton was doing Bush’s dirty work to please the corrupt government of Mexico.
lynnv on July 21, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »