Video: The obligatory “Glenn Beck interviews Ramos and Compean” post
posted at 7:18 pm on March 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
The softball interview to end all softball interviews, although Beck didn’t have a choice: It sounds like they’re either still under some sort of gag order that prevents them from discussing the case or they’re being tactfully silent while they wait to find out if the Supreme Court will take their appeal. (Almost all of the charges against them were upheld by the Fifth Circuit last summer.) Even so, we are dealing here with two guys convicted in federal court of committing crimes and credibly accused of trying to cover them up. As Andy McCarthy (in)famously said, “Compean and Ramos are bad guys.” Beck treats them as if they were political prisoners, even calling them “the dynamic duo” at one point. Dynamic at what? Generating red meat for blogs and talk radio?
Give him credit, though, for smoothly integrating this story into his running narrative about how alone and powerless Americans feel. The man is always on message.
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 3 Next »
Well I can only speak for myself but that’s was really what started my anger toward Bush and the government in general. Remember all this was happening the same time Bush was going all amnesty on us so it just kind of all fed into the same theme.
Kronos on March 20, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Beck depresses me to no end.
catlady on March 20, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Didn’t they shoot an unarmed man in the back?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Here is the real story…where does Beck get his awesome ties?
Johnson on March 20, 2009 at 7:25 PM
http://community2.myfoxdfw.com/_Johnny-Sutton-is-at-it-again/BLOG/212933/78592.html
Looks like Johnny Sutton might be up to no good again.
Mark1971 on March 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM
“Fancy gourmet restaurant, Burger King.”
Slightly off-topic, who is chubbier, Compean, or M. McCain?
Johnson on March 20, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Poor guy. Some kind of pharmacist, I hear.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Did Beck start Crying?
Kini on March 20, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Not one of Beck’s better shows, he clearly had nothing intelligent to ask them. Not sure why he is so popular.
echosyst on March 20, 2009 at 7:31 PM
No.
R D on March 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I think it was the ass.
Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 7:29 PM
So you’re cool with just shooting unarmed individuals in the back(side)?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Really…….
“The whole thing is continued obvious and blatant suppression of evidence,”
Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Much like a certain web master who’s obsessed with obligatory atheism posts?
Don’t be a hater, Allah.
Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2009 at 7:35 PM
How many things has Beck been wrong on?
shomegirl on March 20, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Didn’t they blow the chance to incarcerate a drug dealer, who later actually sued the US for millions, because they shot him in the back(side)?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Yes, a serial drug runner who apparently fled. The United States then granted the drug runner, an illegal alien, immunity to testify against them.
And their sentencing was bad enough that the guy who prosecuted them called it excessive. Dude, Dianne Feinstein even demanded their release.
amerpundit on March 20, 2009 at 7:36 PM
At random? No, that’s silly.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 7:37 PM
He wasn’t unarmed and he was here ILLEGALLY with 800 lbs of pot in his van. Yes, he deserved to be shot.
R D on March 20, 2009 at 7:37 PM
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re running across our border in either direction, you’re a target.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 7:38 PM
He was later arrested again and convicted on another charge (smuggling more than 100 kilos of marijuana) and sentenced to 9 1/2 years in prison.
amerpundit on March 20, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Yeah, I take his word as gospel truth./
Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM
I will say it again, to you this time, Allah.
You go to the southern border with Mexico and get rocks thrown at you, get shot at, and know that your government does not back you up and YOU do the jobs these Border Patrol Agents do every day and every night and see how long you last….
Bet you wouldn’t last a day.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM
These are two guys who disgraced the Border Patrol — all the other members of which somehow manage to do their jobs without committing crimes and covering up evidence — and your reaction is to toss third-grade insults at me. Great.
Allahpundit on March 20, 2009 at 7:45 PM
why is this story ‘obligatory’?
this episode is one of the failings of the Bush folks/policies.
I’m glad they’re out.
these guys were jobbed.
jimmer on March 20, 2009 at 7:45 PM
So Allah, what is Michelle’s opinion of this case?
R D on March 20, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Allah, no third grade insults, but my husband happens to be one of these fine agents that guard the border. You don’t realize what it is like to do their jobs.
Yes, he and I both agree that what they did was wrong, but being convicted of using your gun in the commission of a crime when it is your job to CARRY A GUN was a bit much.
No offense, but maybe you should do a ride a long and see just how hard the Border Patrol agent’s job really is. If they make a bad decision, they don’t come home.
And Nancy Pelosi et al, don’t help matters.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Hey, AP, I like you just fine, but if I needed to chose between you or the “dynamic duo” to protect me and mine, well…it wouldn’t be you. Sorry.
ladyingray on March 20, 2009 at 7:50 PM
How does any of that change the fact that they shot a guy in the back?
They shot the guy, and then, instead of apprehending him, they let him run off wounded. They then proceeded to cover up the entire event.
I’m sorry guys, but it takes quite a tool to defend these guys.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Um, according to who?
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Brief additions.
There were numerous falsehoods uttered and illegal acts committed by the government during the persecution of Ramos and Compean. Most could not have stood scrutiny had the orders not come from the top.
In at least one of the other Sutton-led witch hunts that put lawmen in prison, the government of Mexico protested to Jorge Boosh, and Boosh, ever their subservient amigo, did their bidding. No matter that the Mexicans were intervening on behalf of drug-running felons who were in the country illegally; they were Mexicans, and thus more important to Boosh than Americans.
Some other Border Patrol personnel admitted Ramos and Compean made errors, but the consensus was that said errors were worthy of, at most, letters of reprimand, not loss of jobs and imprisonment.
Drug runners 1, American law 0.
MrScribbler on March 20, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Glenn Beck is what you get when you complete a broadcasting program taught by Bill O’Reilly, Geraldo Rivera and Art Bell — and, lucky us, Fox snapped him up.
Terrie on March 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Don’t flatter yourself. Beck reads your links and then never thinks about you at all.
Stephen M on March 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
As someone who thinks they were in the wrong, do you think it was right for them to receive a harsher sentence than the drug dealer? They got ten years, the drug dealer with 700 lbs of marijuana got eight.
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I’m sorry guys, but it takes quite a tool to defend
these guysdrug runners.FIFY
DaveHusseinS on March 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
He ran back across the border to Mexico and for all we know, he may have had one of his buddies in the cartel shoot him in the butt. Then, what do you know, he shows up shot and he gets medical care from the US AND THEN SUES THE US GOVERNMENT FOR FIVE MILLION. WHILE HOLDING A BORDER CROSSING CARD GIVEN TO HIM BY THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, HE BROUGHT IN ANOTHER LOAD OF DRUGS. HE WORKED FOR THE CARTEL, not an upstanding citizen, but if you want to give his an award, he’s in jail for the next nine years.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
I’m sorry guys, but it takes quite a tool to defend
these guysdrug runners.FIFY
DaveHusseinS on March 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
“Sutton’s office fought to keep the jury in the Ramos and Compean trial from being informed about a second load of 750 pounds of marijuana Aldrete-Davila smuggled across the border while under immunity to testify against the agents.”
Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Sutton is a tool.
Jed1899 on March 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
They are law enforcement officers who shot a man.
He didn’t shoot anyone.
Yes, they deserved a harsher sentence than he did. How could it rationally be argued otherwise?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Ask Michelle. Clearly, she trusts Allahpundit with her blog baby and shows him at least a modicum of respect. Ahem.
Terrie on March 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I am glad they are out of prison but they are guilty of the crimes they committed. If they hadn’t tried to cover it up they probably would have only gotten their wrists slapped and been put on unpaid leave till things quieted down. The cover up is always what gets you.
goat on March 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
How is that relevant to what they did? Why should a jury hear about something that is completely unrelated to whether they committed the crime or not?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 7:59 PM
goat on March 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM
And, if they hadn’t covered it up, they might have walked over to the guy that they just shot, and apprehended him.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I’m starting to wonder if DaveS is not really Johnny Sutton.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Contributory negligence?
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Not all that up on the specifics of the case.
But..were they positive that they hit him?
Was it possible for them to purse him into Mexican territory or would that have been a violation?
Them covering up an ass shot with the damage being a guy hauling ass into Mexico is far less of a cover up than whats being done in the financial situation we find ourselves in, and the consequences are far more damaging.
But you sound like a law and order kinda guy. Where do you stand on illegal immigration enforcement? Should we go after those criminals trying to cover up their crimes?
Itchee Dryback on March 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Allah? Hey, I thought sock puppets weren’t allowed here.
R D on March 20, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Get YOUR facts straight, he scurried back across the border faster than a jack rabbit, leaving his 700 pounds of lollipops for America’s children.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Allah, what’s your beef with Beck. He’s one of the good guys. No worse than Limbaugh.
The few times I have caught his stuff he’s made a lot of sense.
As for Ramos and Compean, I’m giving them a pass on this.
eaglesdontflock on March 20, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Quite a feat for someone with a bullet in his ass … if it was even there at the time.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM
He’s a conservative.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM
If you actually researched the issue, you’d know Ramos and Compean saw him pull something shiny out of his pocket AS HE WAS RUNNING, and that’s why they shot him in the butt. They didn’t shoot him in the back, they didn’t shoot him in the head. They shot his butt. It wasn’t malicious.
So back to my question, you think two BP agents shooting someone because they thought he was armed deserve a 10-yr. sentence, but the illegal alien drug smuggler, smuggling in over 700lbs of marijuana only deserves an 8-yr. sentence.
Makes sense to me.
Btw, when the smuggler was let go by Sutton, he made ANOTHER trip across our border w/ drugs in his van, and THAT’S when he was prosecuted.
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Can a criminal be pursued and apprehended in Mexican territory?
Itchee Dryback on March 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Glenn did an excellent job grilling Johnny Sutton. These guys may have screwed up, but Sutton made an example out of them to pander to the Latino voters. All the while the government does little to secure the border, allowing not only drugs and illegals but also violence and terrorists to flow freely. Ramos and Compean have become a symbol for this travesty, like it or not.
Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Itchee Dryback on March 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I’m not sure what you are asking, but it is clearly not related to whether law enforcement should be able to shoot people in the back and cover it up. Stay on topic.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Yeah, getting them to break their gag order and lose their appeal would have gotten him awesome ratings. Can’t imagine why he didn’t do that.
Tanya on March 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
No, like everything with Mexico, if the Mexican Army comes across our border, no big deal. Us, oh hell, you saw the salsa fly when we put troops down there to help the USBP, if an illegal alien comes over, they are called patriots by our dellusional government, Us, we get two years in jail, and of course, if a suspect, like say, the guy that killed his pregnant girlfriend flees to mexico, you have to promise not to execute him before they MAY give him back.
See, Mexico is our friend, my friends.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Itchee Dryback on March 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM
What does that have to do with whether law enforcement should be able to shoot people in the back and cover it up. Stay on topic.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I don’t know anywhere in the world where you can run across a borer checkpoint, let alone run around one, and not expect to take one in the butt. What’s with this country?
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:08 PM
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
What does that have to do with whether law enforcement should be able to shoot people in the back and cover it up. Stay on topic.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Great comeback. If that’s your best argument, please don’t tell people you’re a conservative.
Terrie on March 20, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Lol, the guy who thinks the smuggler was shot in the back is telling someone else to “stay on topic.” That’s ballsy.
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Wasn’t he shot running out of the country?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM
The conditions you’ve described happen in American cities hundreds of miles from our southern border. So what? That often goes with the territory as a law enforcement officer. Our laws and Constitution dictate specifically how we are to treat citizens, residents and even criminals. Once we blur the lines for them, we have to blur the line for another.
A simple solution is to either avoid or quit a job you can’t handle without committing crimes.
If having 800 pounds of pot is enough to get you shot, then smoking a joint should probably result in some jail time. How many of you have ever smoked a joint or been in a room where one was smoked? What about your kids?
So many Republicans are so willing to toss any rule aside when it fits their political liking. I think most people are letting their ire towards all illegals cloud their judgment on this issue.
Ramos and Compean lied about a shooting. That’s a big deal and should be punished as such. The complaints about their job and the laws broken by the drug dealer are separate issues.
I rallied behind these guys in hopes for much more lenient sentencing (and to have Johnny Sutton publicly flogged). But to lionize them as some kind of heroes or a “Dynamic Duo” is absurd. They f*cked up big time.
The Race Card on March 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Try to follow here. They thought they saw a shiny object in the guys hand before they shot. These guys are on the southern border, you know, the one where people are getting decapitated daily….if they make a bad decision, they are carried home in a bag. Better that the scumbag drug dealer is lying on a slab than our Border Patrol Agents.
You ever had to carry a gun to work and wonder if you will see YOUR family again when you go to work?
Monday morning quarterbacking is worth as much as an Obama apology.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM
That IS the topic dipshit.
R D on March 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:09 PM
He was shot in the back(side).
Maybe you’re new here, but if you don’t keep some of these people in line they will reduce any conversation to the most asinine series on non sequitur arguments imaginable. Notice the irrelevance to the comments to which I was responding.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM
So now it is impossible for a police officer to stop a fleeing suspect with non-deadly force? Wow, guess we should correct all those Hollywood movies.
Christian Conservative on March 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Was I talking to you in the first place?
R D on March 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM
You said they could apprehend the guy if they weren’t trying to ‘cover up’ the shooting. THEY ARE RIGHT ON THE BORDER, in Fabens, Texas, it’s a matter of a ditch separating Mexico and the U.S.
That’s my point.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Dave S is arguing from a point of ignorance, which means he only cares about what he THINKS happened, and not what actually happened.
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
What difference does that make? It’s a felony in either direction.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
No, the topic is, “should these two criminals, who are charged with enforcing the law (not breaking it), be punished for shooting a man who posed no physical threat and then covering it up after the fact”?
All of this other nonsense you guys are saying is completely irrelevant, and makes you sound like idiots.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
No offense, but you are the only thing irrelevent here.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM
If I remember correctly he was already across the border when they shot him and that was part of the problem. I am not sure what our pursuit agreements are with Mexico maybe Hornet can fill me in. Like I said it was the cover up that got them, they should have just turned in an incident report that they had fired at a fleeing suspect but that he got away.
goat on March 20, 2009 at 8:14 PM
nickj116, you seem to be suggesting that these guys did NOT shoot a fleeing individual and did NOT cover it up. Interesting.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:14 PM
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Give me your best defense for why these guys shouldn’t be rotting in a cell.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:16 PM
And Dave, I’m not new here. Not sure what that has to do w/ the price of tea in China.
Anyway, don’t say he was “shot in the back” if what you mean to say is that he was shot in the butt. Getting shot in the butt can’t kill you. Getting shot in the back can.
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM
I agree with this sentiment. We take it right up the culo with regards to extradition laws. Hundreds of beheadings a year down there, simpatico. A 20 year wait on death row for a convicted criminal and Mexico pitches a fit.
A simple solutioun would be to financially punish the country with tariffs on all money transfers to Mexico, disallowing Mexican citizens from banking in the US, while completing the fence. Starve them of dollars, then co-opt and monopolize their resources, free the people, Americanize the northernmost states, annex the whole country.
Simple.
The Race Card on March 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I was talking to Allah, Race Card, but I’ll tell you what I meant. In a regular city, as you said, back up is probably only minutes away. On the border, back up might be a half hour away, depending on where you are. It is open country down there. You get bricks, large rocks, big enough to kill a man, thrown at you from the Mexican side of the border and you cannot do ANYTHING because they are on the other side. You get shot at, you get piano wire strung across teh fences so that if you come by on a quad, you get decapitated. How do I know, my husband is a BP agent.
Now, you will get no argument here, the messed up, but this is a series of BS that have been coming down the pike for the Border Patrol. They do their jobs and they are called Nazis and they’re work is backhanded by amnesty groups and our own government. When your own government believes a drug dealer working for the cartel over a law enforcement officer, you know it is a sick, sad world.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Commenter nullification.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM
HOW DO YOU KNOW!? Get a clue Dave!
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM
nickj116, to be “shot in the back” means to be shot by someone to whom you were posing no threat without an opportunity to defend yourself. Don’t be stupid.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Upstater85 on March 20, 2009 at 8:20 PM
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM
LOL, what, did the guy have a long-range flamethrower up is ass?
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:20 PM
DaveS, with respect……….
……. it goes to a pattern by Johnny Sutton and how he selectively prosecutes the law.
By the way, they never tried to cover it up;
Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2009 at 8:21 PM
They carry a gun to work as part of their job, as part of their uniform. The law about using a gun in the commission of a crime was to jail drug dealers if a gun was used. This should have been an administrative deal, but ten years for using a gun that the government issued to you in the commission of a crime was a bit much. They would have been out in six months if that particular charge was thrown out. Common sense goes a long way.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:21 PM
I thought he was shot in the ass. But I digress. If you would care to stand about 30 yards behind me, I would be happy to demonstrate a number of scenarios where your life might be in danger.
Ronnie on March 20, 2009 at 8:21 PM
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Here’s a little advice, maybe your husband could use it one day: If you want your own government to believe you, don’t go out of your way to lie to them in the first place.
Fairly simple.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Oh, riiiiiiight. Because no cops have EVER been shot and killed by a fleeting suspect, or by someone who didn’t seem to “pose a threat” as you say.
Ugh, I’m arguing with an idiot. Gonna go watch college b-ball. Much more productive use of my time.
nickj116 on March 20, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Oh, trust me, they’ve been called nazis too. By La Raza, by those illegal aliens that are hiding in the shadows, except when they are standing in line for welfare and marching for their ‘supposed’ rights.
HornetSting on March 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM
You don’t know her husband. Why would you imply that he would someday need this advice?
Upstater85 on March 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Sorry dude, getting shot in the butt can kill you. Do you believe what you say or do you believe the person who told you this tale? You both need to do some research.
Don’t lie and don’t violate policy. Problem solved.
The Race Card on March 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Yes, those rights that we can’t seem to find in the Constitution…
Upstater85 on March 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Because then they would not have shot a man. Common sense does, indeed, go a long way.
DaveS on March 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM
The bad guy was a drug runner,apparently not his first
rodeo,he was caught again,later on with more mary jane!
Maybe their paperwork wasn’t in proper order!
I thought the border is close to a full blown war!!
Who do you want,protecting the southern entrance,
Code Pinkos!
canopfor on March 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »