Notice the part where he gets multiple entries?
Posted on 02/10/2007 2:05:41 PM PST by TheeOhioInfidel
Absolutely wrong, Chucky.
Compean's first statement from March 18, 2006, the night he was arrested (and the first time he ever was ever questioned about the incident) said:
You mean the links about the Government lying? Glad you liked them.
The people that lied to Congress were from the office of Inspector General - Department of Homeland Security, the lead investigator of this incident since day one! They most certainly were involved!
Telling me the first statement you know he made to investigators does not prove that he never made any contradictory statements.
The investigative report indicates he did make differing statements at different times, although I understand that the pro-pardon folks discount what other agents at the scene say the agents said to them at the time. But discounting the evidence isn't the same as saying there is no evidence.
I will happily concede that I have no first-hand knowledge of ANY of the statements made by the agents. Every statement I have seen are statements reported by other parties to the conversation, either investigators or other agents.
When we see the transcript, that will be the first time I think I'll have seen stuff directly from them and reported as written under controlled conditions. Although I feel relatively confident that investigators are properly reporting what the agents said to them.
I do apologize for my inaccurate statement. They are not saying they "saw weapons", that was an unfortunate shorthand, they are saying that they saw something that they thought could be a weapon.
BTW, your assertion that March 18 was the first time he was questioned about the incident is not accurate, as the record shows several people questioned him about aspects of the incident on the day of the incident, especially about the wound he had received.
I've looked at it and it does show sealed document and sealed proceedings. Some of that has been covered in the press during and after the trial.
That should have read 2005
The people who testified work in the same department of the government as the people who did the investigation. They are not the same people as those who did the investigation. Sanchez did not talk to the congresspeople, for example.
My point which is both clear and germane is that lying to congress about what evidence you have in investigative reports has no bearing on what evidence was presented at trial that convicted the agents.
Then I think you are foolish. This is the same group that lied to congress about them wanting "to shoot mexicans."
BTW, your assertion that March 18 was the first time he was questioned about the incident is not accurate, as the record shows several people questioned him about aspects of the incident ...
So, you're admitting he was questioned by superiors about the gun? Remember, that is the subject here--the gun (since you alleged he has changed his statement about that). Now, if you admit that, then you'll also have to admit that he did indeed tell the supervisor about the gun. Or, do you consider the hearsay he-said she-said casual conversations between co-workers "being questioned" (the phrase I used). I certainly don't. March 18 was the first time, to my knowledge, that he was questioned by any official or superior about the shooting. (Actually, it was after midnight so it was March 19--since these kind government officials decided to arrest him at midnight on a Friday night.)
calcowgirl replied: Then I think you are foolish. This is the same group that lied to congress about them wanting "to shoot mexicans."
Your posting of the "first time" Compean made a statement was in a REPORT written by the INVESTIGATORS. I was saying I was pretty sure that report was accurate. If you think it was a lie, then why did you post it?
I was going to agree with that part, but I'm not so sure. We'd have to know a lot more. The investigator controlled the investigation--all of the evidence, he interviewed witnesses, etc. If that person was not truthful in their duties, it could very well have a bearing on what evidence was presented--or not presented.
I was surprised to know that the defense was not aware that BP Agent Rene Sanchez (male) was the first point of contact of the Drug Smuggler until they heard it from the Drug Smuggler on the witness stand. Kinda curious, if ya ask me.
No... It's not.
It's from an image of his actual statement given when arrested (hand written).
Sorry Charlie... I mean Chucky. ;-)
Correction... yes, the image of Compean's handwritten statement is included in a DHS-OIG report. I don't believe that they fabricated it.... although they did misrepresent it, IMO, multiple times in the report when they attempted to 'summarize' it.
Only in your quisling mind.
Notice the part where he gets multiple entries?
A parole record which expires 4/18/2005. Not a green card.
He probably got another one of these later, since he had to come back for the trial as well, although I haven't seen the image of that one.
(I got a lot of heat when I called this a "temporary visa").
"Bull!! Illegal aliens are above the law. Why isn't the George Bush administration enforcing our immigration laws"
I'm on your side on the immigration issue, I live on the border, and see the crap that comes with this issue every day, but I will never advocate rouge Border Patrol agents tampering with evidence, and trying to cover up their stupidity. The prosecutor in this case is a dispicible human being for allowing immunity for the dope smuggler to testify. This crap will continue untill someone in our Govt grows a pair of brass cajones and puts an end to it. Sadly I just don't see that happening untill someone smuggles in a nuke over the Mexican border and destroys a city.
Doesn't surprise me. My gut reaction is normally to sign with the police, however, they aren't above reproach and aren't above the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.