Posted on 02/06/2007 6:18:29 PM PST by calcowgirl
A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.
WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:
2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
3. stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";
4. were belligerent to investigators;
5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
This prompted a startled and angry response from the congressman.
"You lied to me and you lied to all of us," Culberson charged. "Your office tried to paint a picture of Ramos and Compean as dirty cops, and now you come before this committee and tell us you never had the information to back up those claims."
Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month after their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler who was granted immunity to testify against them.
Responding to Skinner's testimony yesterday, Poe said it "explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress."
"DHS didn't turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason – the reports never existed," the Texas congressman said.
"Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?" he asked. "I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn't true?"
Poe said he's determined to get to the bottom of DHS's claim.
"I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we're done," he said.
Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS's actions "represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
"This admission today is yet more proof of how they are willing to distort the facts, as I have charged all along, in order to ensure a conviction," he said.
BTW, it has been reported that somehow the trial transcripts are still not ready and of course appeals can take years. How outrageous to keep the BP agents jailed all this time.
What statement are you referring to?
No, it matters much to the indictment and conviction of these agents, and such sloppy prosecution and appearance of agenda on the part thereof is troubling.
You don't appear troubled, but then perhaps you would like to see the border loosened more that it already is.
Many are in favor of open borders that don't speak of their bias, knowing that its the destruction of our nation in progress, but the revenue they get, directly or indirectly, darkens their hearts and blinds their eyes.
Hardly. I didn't recommend the site. I was illustrating what else is at that Aztlan site from which rednesss is getting his propaganda.
Sorry, it's not rednesss linking there, it's msnimje.
No harm no foul.
That was stated on KFI yesterday by someone reporting on the agents. Someone friendly to Ramos and Compean, but I don't recall who it was. It may have been Sara Carter, may have been Ed Royce.
And the other side has you.
I've been impressed by him. He seems like a stand-up guy.
A bit of trivia: when Johnny Sutton was a D.A., he tried cases while Poe was on the bench. He even found him in contempt of court, lol.
What's the answer, Mojo.... is there some attempt to cleanup some corruption and this is an example case? But who's corrupt? The DHS? The BP agents? Both?
The only place my words appear are in these threads, talking with other freepers.
I'm not on a "side". I'm taking arguments from WND and other proponents, and showing how their words do not match the facts, often not even the facts from their own stories.
If a bunch of Freepers were going wacko attacking these guys using bad logic and repeating false stories, I'd be arguing with them as well.
Thanks. I'll keep my ears open as I haven't seen anything like that written in the court orders.
Thank you. I try and get my information from reputable places. I do visit WND occasionally but view it as a step or two above the National Enquirer as far as credibility.
I don't think I get any money from open borders. I'd guess I'd benefit more from a militarized border.
I'm not treating this as an open-border problem. I don't care if they change the rules about use of force to defend the borders. I do care IF BP agents are violating rules of engagement or targeting people they think they are illegal for improper treatment. That is what they are CHARGED with.
So for me, it's a matter of whether the facts support the charges or not, and that's all I really care about. I don't buy that people are lying to open the borders, but that doesn't mean people couldn't get the facts wrong.
For example, I don't think DHS was "lying". Maybe they were. I think it more likely that the word was passed up the chain of command that certain documents existed, such that by the time they got to the guy at the top he knew they had the information he said they had.
When it was requested, he sent the request down, and started getting odd responses, and people were covering their butts as they do in a beaurocracy, and eventually he came to the conclusion that what he was told before was wrong.
I don't think he walked into a congressman's office and made up lies in the hopes he wouldn't get caught. It COULD have happened, but it's so easy to see the same results from simply looking at the organization and understanding how communication is screwed up.
So at the moment, I still believe all the statements made were true, but there doesn't appear to be any documentation which says so (I also leave open the possibility that the new statement is inaccurate, or that the story was reported not entirely accurately).
No, I deny that it was a crime.
"You deny Compean picked up his shells?"{
No, I deny that it was anything other than standard operating proceedure.
"You deny that Ramos exceeded the speed limit in chasing the van?"
Wow, a shill with a sense of humor!
"You deny that the two agents did not inform the supervisor?"
Yes, the supervisor was present during most of the action, and policy prefers verbal reports over written.
"You deny that the two agents filed reports which were false?"
Absolutely! Why would they file any written report when it is against policy, and why would they make any false statement to their supervisor who was there and participating in the action. Your contentions make no sense.
I'm just poking holes in fallacies. But you are free to believe whatever you like. Sigh...(thinks of P.T. Barnum quotes), yes getting shot in the butt usually bears out testimony that they shot the guy as he was running away.
The transcripts are sealed, so nothing can be totally ascertained, but based on comments by those that were participants, much evidence wsa not presented, and much of what was presented was technically not useable by the jury because it was given by participants whose truthfulness had been brought into question by grants of immunity.
I think you've got him there!
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.