Posted on 11/15/2007 6:16:46 PM PST by Perchant
Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, the drug smuggler who testified for the prosecution during the trials for Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, has been arrested on charges of bringing more than 750 pounds of marijuana into the United States.
Aldrete-Davila was arrested today at the El Paso border crossing on charges involving what has become know as the "second load," in which he smuggled a second 750-pound load of marijuana into the U.S. after he was given immunity by the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, for the first load.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I think they were allowed to impeach him, but not with information that they judge decided was not germaine to whether he was telling the truth in his testimony.
So for example, on the 2nd bust, she argued that even if you assumed it true (which it seems it was), that wouldn’t show that he was lying about smuggling BEFORE the first case. But it would imply he was lying, and prejudice the jury.
That is one of the items on appeal. I think her reasoning is sound, but I’m not a judge.
I’m certain evidence of him smuggling drugs PRIOR to the 1st case would have been admitted, as it would bear directly on the truthfulness of his statement that he hadn’t.
You backed the wrong horse. You backed Johnny Sutton. I’ve seen your nonsense postings for months on this. All you posted was overwrought legalisms
Johnny Sutton is a liar and you were a fool to place stock in him
You suggest I’d be upset if Sutton was arrested and prosecuted. I would not, unless the evidence in that case said he was being falsely prosecuted. I have nothing invested in Sutton. I will be surprised if there is any “there” there, but all I know is there is no evidence to suggest he would be going down, and if he does you will be right more by luck than logic.
Your position is easier. If Sutton prosecutes the guy you claim he is protecting, it’s because you put pressure on him. If Sutton is never found guilty of anything, it’s because there’s a coverup, if he IS found guilty it’s because he was evil. If C/R’s verdict is upheld it’s because the courts are crooked, if overturned it’s because you were right.
Your position is by it’s very nature irrefutable by evidence, as every piece of evidence opposed to it can be dismissed by the conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theories aren’t “right” or “wrong”, they are mostly simply outside the realm of logical thought.
Unless you understand that, you’ll never understand that I never “backed” Sutton.
I can only hope he'll be arrested and prosecuted.
But Sutton will be disgraced and hooted at. He will not be moving up to any higher political office which is half the reason he prosecuted Ramos and Compean
Sutton will likely be in private practice soon. He made lots of good connections and he can take on the government of Mexico as a client. Mexico will take care of their friend Johnny
For months your posts you have tried to explain and rationalize this prosecution. Thus you have backed Johnny Sutton, you backed a rotten US prosecutor and his office
I backed Ramos and Compean and you backed the prosecution
This is a "which side are you on" deal. You were on the side of evil. It was an evil prosecution by a careerist scumbag who may have been acting for Mexico
At the moment, you “backed” two people in prison for multiple felonies.
I backed the process that put them there, and the concept that we don’t attack people without proof.
I’ve said before that I don’t know the truth, because I was not there, and therefore I would not “vouch” for anybody. I’ve argued that the process was rational, that Sutton’s actions were reasonable and therefore not by themselves evidence of evil.
Again, I won’t try do dissuade you on your beliefs about the people involved, I only post here to correct misstatements about MY position.
Johnny Sutton is the process down there.
He calls the shots. You know what "prosecutorial discretion" is. Sutton never had to prosecute Ramos and Compean or he could have prosecuted them on lesser charges. Instead he went out of his way to charge these two LEOs under a law that has only been used on crooks
"charged them under a federal statute with the discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence" Heretofore only criminals had this law thrown at them
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1875688/posts
So he's no longer a safe house who innocently was stuck with AD's load, he's no longer a drop-zone for people storing drugs -- he's a DRUG DEALER, who pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute.
And what is this "plea bargain" that supposedly protects AD? He pled to everything we know, AND MORE. What other crimes does WND claim he committed that he was given "leniency" on in order to shut him up about AD? They don't say. I guess they figure we'll think that "more than 2200 pounds" is different than "5000 pounds".
The ONLY evidence ever presented by WND to suggest AD was even involved in this is the testimony of the now-convicted drug dealer that he saw AD's catheter. Some have argued that since he described a catheter so accurately, he must have seen AD, but note that Ortiz also had a catheter.
And of course, news articles about the trial published at the time Ortiz was questioned mentioned AD's involvement, mentioned he was caught with marijuana, and mentioned his operation and his catheter. And mentioned he was coming into the country to testify.
So while it isn't impossible that AD went to Ortiz that night, there is nothing particularly credible about Ortiz's story.
For example, people have argued here that AD must have had a gun, because drug-smuggling is dangerous, and if someone steals your load you might get killed. People have argued that AD might have been SHOT by the drug dealers for losing the load to the police.
But in this story, as originally told by WND, AD was taking drugs SOMEWHERE ELSE, and then LEFT them with Ortiz because he had car trouble. What drug smuggler would drop his load off at the WRONG HOUSE and leave it there? According to the pro-RC folks, that would be a death sentence. But AD is still alive, which suggests AD did NOT take someone's load and give it to Ortiz.
I suppose the pro-RC folks will argue that Ortiz was LYING about WHY AD was at his house, but truthful that he WAS at his house. They would now argue AD was SUPPOSED to deliver the drugs to Ortiz.
But these same pro-RC folks believed that AD was arrested for this 2nd load, CAUGHT with it. Then they believed he had been detained, but not arrested. Then they believed he had car trouble and left it at this innocent man's house. So I guess they wouldn't have trouble with the 4th story either. So long as it makes Sutton look like a liar, who care how many times the story changes?
Oh, and in case anybody is confused by it, when WND cites as a "2nd source of evidence" an "investigative report", they are simply noting the investigative report that contains the claim by Ortiz. In other words, investigative reports are simply the documentation of the claims by the sources, NOT additional proof of the claims. It's a common WND tactic to cite every piece of paper containing a claim as if it's some new piece of evidence proving the claim.
6 posted on 08/03/2007 6:44:30 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
My argument was that if there was evidence that Davila was involved in the october load, he would be charged with it, and that the information that was made public was not by itself sufficient for us to claim Davila was involved.
His indictment is new evidence that changes the logic.
Others argued that Davila wasn’t being prosecuted because he had immunity, or because Sutton made a deal with him, or because Sutton wouldn’t go after “his boy”.
All those are now proven false. My argument has not been proven false, an ASSUMPTION of my argument has changed, rendering my argument moot.
I’ve tried very hard to say this again and again — I do NOT know the truth, none of us does, we only know what evidence is presented. I can only argue based on the evidence, not what I wish to be true.
Since I was arguing against people who were saying Davila would never be indicted because Sutton was a crook, my response was based on that assumption, showing that the evidence did not support the conclusion reached by my opponents.
The evidence now shows that my opponents were wrong.
I’ve provided a rational explanation of a reason why Sutton might have chosen to prosecute rather than let them go. I don’t know why Sutton chose to prosecute, but the decision was a rational one based on the evidence that we have available to us publicly. The guilty verdicts certainly are facts which support the theory that the decision to prosecute was reasonable.
LOLOLOLOL
You are a delusional legal eagle who got hooked by Johnny Sutton. You were fool enough to take him at his word. You can argue from a legal standpoint 'till hell freezes over but you can't gull me. Neither did Johnny Sutton. I believed the guys who actually do the hard job of defending our borders- Ramos & Compean
Nothing personal BTW. You are a good Freeper. Your problem is you fall for corrupt rat bastard prosecutors. You are dazzled by them and for all I know the same holds true for you at your job. I'm assuming you are a lawyer.
Tom Tancredo just tacked an amendment onto a bill to forbid funding for incarcerating Compean and Ramos.
When this case broke, it was the last straw with El Gringo de Mejico, El Presidente Bush in my book. I will NEVER vote for or support another Bush.
Do you believe that the verdicts in the OJ Simpson case are facts which support the theory that the decision to prosecute was unreasonable? I don't think you can logically use that argument unless you believe both instances are true.
WRONG BABY!
Forget your idiotic legalisms. They only lead you astray when you deal with jackasses like Johnny Sutton
You have tunnel vision
The reason you should back Ramos and Compean is because they defend our borders. They didn't murder anyone. They shot a scumbag drug dealer in the butt. I'm in the real world of a chaotic anarchistic Mexican border while you're stuck in airy fairy legalisms. And your legal arguments go for naught when you have a corrupt prosecutor named Johnny Sutton
It would be a very interesting thing if two very conservative members of Congress can call for a major investigation of a Bush cronie/appointee and the MSM doesn’t jump all over it. Could make one go “hmmmm”.
It's a disgrace and an outrage these men were put on trial in the first place.
President Bush, do you think pardoning the White House Turkey is humane...while these two men ROT in prison?
sw
I’m a life long Republican and voted for Bush II twice.
NO MORE BUSHES!!!! I would rather burn in Hell than be a party to the election of any more candidates from this incompetent clan.
The damage Bush II has done to the Republican Party, to the conservative movement, to the social structure of America and even to the war on terror by his incompetent is inestimable. He is indeed his father’s son.
He will rank as one of the worst of America’s Presidents.
I plan to write all my Federal law-makers on this subject.
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.