I heard the prosecuting attorney and he made some interesting arguments.
The agents are not in jail for doing their job but because:
1) The officers shot then tried to cover it up.
2) Because of their attempted coverup they had no case against the mexican drug smuggler.
If this is true, then it sheds a different light on this case- Does anyone else know more about it?
I’ve heard that argument; but it didn’t appear to be the exact story when I read the transcripts that were posted on WND.
From memory - I don’t think there was a cover-up, I think the proper paper work was not submitted after the incident despite supervisors on scene. If this is true then the supervisor was at fault for not following procedure, at worst the agents should be reprimanded for the same. The whole issue is that the federal gov’t backed the drug dealer to testify against the agents when he was committing a crime.
The whole thing smells.
BTW DH is risking his entire candidacy on R&C. He has read the transcripts and believes that they are innocent of the level of crime which they have been convicted.
Compound that with a prosecutor (Johny Sutton) who believes the word of a drug dealer over that of our own sworn agents, and things really start to get suspicious. So much of this case stinks to high heaven and of course the media is only reporting on the parts that make the agents look guilty. It's a mess, and it seems like there is something really fishy with Sutton, the Bush White House, and Mexico.
then let’s indict everyone in the Border Patrol who has covered up, been derelict in duty, etc. this goes all the way to the top. these two are scapegoats.
Everything.