Posted on 02/06/2007 6:18:29 PM PST by calcowgirl
Sutton claims he stipulated, the Union says otherwise... we need the mysterious transcript.
They need a new trial, but it's not going to happen.
Well, well, well. The government lied. I bet Nifong Sutton knew it too. Amazing.
IMHO, its always dangerous to go against what the "powers that be" want. I'm not going to speculate on exactly who those "powers" could be, but we need to consider who has been most adamant in wanting to give illegals the silver spoon welcome; and who is it that has the power to order an aggressive prosecution (as a veiled threat and example to any BP agents who might be tempted to actually guard the border).
I hope I don't get flamed, but I believe this whole prosecution was handled according to "North American Union" standards.
An additional possibility is that whoever had the influence to aggresively push for prosection may have been peeved that their drug connection was being interfered with. (As others before me have said, "follow the money".)
Yes, that transcript is really needed. That's something we can all agree on.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780878/posts
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54133
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54127
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1780617/posts
i'm pretty sure Sutton said in an interview (maybe the WND interview) that the investigative reports weren't used in the trial, and that his statements were based on the actual witness testimony, not what was in any reports.
House of Death -- Story, as recounted by left-wing pro-drug moonbats. Government, rather than meticulously pursuing the drug trade following procedures and respecting the drug dealer's "rights", instead turns a blind eye while a bunch of drug dealers knock each other off, and then protects the BP agents who should have been prosecuted for allowing the deaths.
Yep. Sutton protecting BP agents against charges of allowing the deaths of Drug Dealers. That sounds JUST LIKE this case. I see why you think that's important, because it proves Sutton hates drug dealers and would cover up crimes by the BP agents in order to kill drug dealers and smugglers.
Oh. Wait a minute. Isn't Sutton supposed to LOVE drug smugglers, and HATE BP agents who go after them? I'm confused now. /sarc
When you start making friends with far-left pro-drug anti-american reports just to win your case, you might want to wash up when you are done.
[It's kind of like blaming the CEO of Home Despot (sic) when the new illegal in the warehouse runs over your toe with a forklift. Absolutely disingenuous.]
Maybe so, but the point remains, that GW could have been much more aggressive in cleaning out the mess left behind by Clinton. He wouldn't even condemn them for the keyboards missing the W's.
He went into office with his Pollyanna ideals, when he should have been the terminator.
Anything to make these guys guilty. The repots show that the case against them is wrong. If he said he's just relying on witnesses, from waht Corsi said on teh radio today, Sutton's not telling the truth on that. Besides, his real case rests on a drug dealer whose perjury he is subornign.
The government is not who you elect, but the sum total of all the leftover employees of the politicians you elected, and then kicked out.
There was a deputy sherrif in the area who shot at a vehicle that was advancing towards him, which had drugs, and Nifong Sutton prosecuted him too.
The reports do not show the case is wrong. The reports show that the two were guilty of crimes, and that they denied it.
Reports of course are simply the collection of information about the events. They are not evidence. They can report about evidence.
Without the transcripts, we are a bit in the dark. With the transcripts we still won't be sure of things, but at least will know what people were willing to say under oath.
But since people can lie under oath, and since there is very little "physical evidence" at question, I suppose that nothing will dissuade those who are certain their is a vast conspiracy to sell our country to mexico.
What's really interesting about the debate is the subtle shifts. Let me explain.
Ramos and Compean of course know the truth. They are central to the entire story. They are the ones who shot, they are the ones who did or did not file reports, tell their supervisor, etc. They were at the trial and heard all the testimony. They were in all of the hearings, all of the investigative interviews involving themselves.
There is very little about this case that they should not have known completely by the time the trial ended.
So, if there is nothing to hide, and the two agents are interested in the truth, you would expect that, within days of the end of the trial, you would have had a complete story refuting their guilt. That story would have included how the bullet wasn't Ramos's, how the testimony of the medical examiner supported thier story, how the supervisor WAS briefed, how they never said the guy wasn't armed, etc.
But instead, what we see is "new" stories coming out each day. They are "new" because WND says they are new, and they are based on "new evidence" which are "DHS memos". But the memos are nothing more than the recordation of interviews and testimony given by the two defendants. Which means the defendants already KNEW all of this -- it's not new at all. Which means Corsi could have already known all this, if he just interviewed them. And they should have already told this to their lawyers, and to the congressman backing them, and to the reporters shilling for them.
So why all the "new" stories that tell us "new" things?
Well, last week there was NO INDICATION that these guys had told their supervisors. In fact, go look at the threads, it was all about how they didn't HAVE to tell their supervisors because the supervisors already KNEW about it, or how they weren't supposed to file reports, etc. etc.
This is the words coming from the camp which Ramos and Compean are a part of. Compean would have known at the time that he had talked to the supervisor if it was true, so why push a story that you didn't talk to the supervisor because you didn't have to?
What REALLY seems to be happening is that they release a story, and see how it fares. If people shoot it down because of some part they don't accept, you then put a NEW story out without that part. So apparently the "supervisors already knew" story wasn't working for them, and now we have a "he told the supervisors".
Just like we had the "Ramos didn't hit the guy", but that wasn't helping so then we had the "bullet from Ramos's gun proves guy was turning around", which of course presupposes Ramos DID hit the guy.
This whole thing looks like a classic political ploy of floating trial balloons to see what people will accept and what they won't. When they finally have a half-credible story, we will see it on the front page of the New York Times. Until then, they use WND which nobody reads and nobody believes.
That apparently not only is SOP for the BP, the field agents are expressly ordered not to file written reports. They are required to verbally report to their supervisors, and the supervisors are to file written reports. I believe Sara Carter reported this.
Yes. Haven't read the particulars. Many police forces have a firm rule that you DON'T shoot at cars. Don't take my lack of comment as indication I think Sutton's wrong to prosecute this.
The buck stops at the oval office and at the attorney general's office. There's a terrible odor emanating from both offices. Washington is in bad need of a fumigation.
"I do visit WND occasionally but view it as a step or two above the National Enquirer as far as credibility."
Yes, but even the blind pig can stumble across an acorn. Not to mention that Men In Black revealed to us that the scandal rags are what we should be reading. If you can't trust Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith then who can you trust?
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.