Posted on 01/28/2007 7:11:39 AM PST by Kenny Bunk
.....But Sutton wasn’t on Fox to address the House of Death. In fact, Sutton has refused to comment publicly on that case... strange seeing him make an appearance on national TV to address another case that has caused quite a stir in the conservative blogosphere.
... a prosecution carried out by Sutton’s office that was brought to national attention by Lou Dobbs of CNN.
Sutton’s appearance was an effort to spin the story in his favor. .... found it very fascinating, given that Sutton has refused to talk to Narco News (or any other media for that matter) about the House of Death mass murder.
Surely, though, if Sutton were to finally step into the media limelight to spin out talking points on the House of Death, his defense of actions taken by his office in that case would be grounded on the same philosophic underpinning that he is advancing in the case of the Border Patrol agents.
After all, in both cases, law enforcers have been accused of violating the civil rights of Mexican nationals through acts of violence and then working to cover-up evidence of those violations.
<
But that’s where Sutton’s talking points begin to lose their spin, because unlike the Border Patrol agents' case, Sutton himself is allegedly part of the cover-up in the House of Death case. And, unlike the case of Ramos and Compean, there has been no criminal prosecution pursued by Sutton’s office, or anyone within the Department of Justice, of law enforcers involved in the House of Death case to date.
Yet, for some reason as yet not clear, the conservative blog world, even the mainstream press, have failed to connect these two cases in any meaningful way, to point out the hypocrisy of Sutton’s media talking points.
(Excerpt) Read more at narconews.com ...
CHeck out the site and review its contributors.
Ping
I had to do a double-take this past Friday night when I saw U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in my living room — well, at least his image.Sutton beamed into my life, and into the homes of millions of other Americans, while making an appearance on FoxNews’ Hannity & Colmes show — you know, the talking-head news program where Hannity plays the role of the righteous, insightful conservative and Colmes weighs in as the well-intentioned but misguided, bumbling liberal.
Sutton, who oversees federal prosecutions in West and South Texas from his seat of power in San Antonio, is one of the key figures in the House of Death mass murder case. Juanita Fielden, the assistant U.S. attorney in El Paso who prosecuted the case, is under his supervision.
But Sutton wasn’t on Fox to address the House of Death. In fact, Sutton has refused to comment publicly on that case. So it was strange seeing him make an appearance on national TV to address another case that has caused quite a stir in the conservative blogosphere, and particularly among its fan base who are rabidly xenophobic — at least when it comes to undocumented immigrants crossing the border from Mexico.
Sutton also has issued a flurry of press releases over the past 11 months, including two this week, seeking to advance his talking points on this same case — a prosecution carried out by Sutton’s office that was brought to national attention by Lou Dobbs of CNN.By now, most everyone in the country has heard of this case. It involves two Border Patrol agents stationed near El Paso who in February 2005 shot a drug smuggler in the butt cheek after a bungled apprehension attempt and then allegedly covered-up the evidence of the shooting. The agents (Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean) were prosecuted by Sutton’s office, convicted by a jury of violating the smuggler’s civil rights and of covering up evidence, and recently each sentenced to more than a decade in prison.
A good summary of the case can be read at this link for those of you who want some more detail.
The case has become a cause célèbre among the anti-immigration hawks who claim the Border Patrol agents were the victims of an overzealous prosecutor who is carrying out the White House’s pro-illegal immigration agenda. They point out that the two agents were only doing their jobs in trying to apprehend a Mexican national who was trying to smuggle more than 700 pounds of marijuana into the country.
Sutton’s appearance on FoxNews on Jan. 19 was an effort to spin the story in his favor. He told Hannity and Colmes that the border patrol agents in this case “deliberately lied, deliberately covered-up … and filed false reports” about the shooting of the smuggler, an individual named Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. Sutton also stressed that the agents were convicted by a jury based on the facts, which he alleged have been distorted by the media.
I found Sutton’s comments on national TV very fascinating, given that Sutton has refused to talk to Narco News (or any other media for that matter) about the House of Death mass murder. I find that odd, given his intimate involvement in that case — which also involves acts of violence carried out against Mexican nationals with the involvement of U.S. law enforcers and prosecutors.
Surely, though, if Sutton were to finally step into the media limelight to spin out talking points on the House of Death, his defense of actions taken by his office in that case would be grounded on the same philosophic underpinning that he is advancing in the case of the Border Patrol agents.
After all, in both cases, law enforcers have been accused of violating the civil rights of Mexican nationals through acts of violence and then working to cover-up evidence of those violations.
As a result, given Sutton’s apparently devout adherence to the principles of the U.S. legal system, and as a simple matter of integrity, he must hold the law enforcers and prosecutors involved in the House of Death mass murder to the same standards of justice that Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean have been held to in his prosecution of their case.
But that’s where Sutton’s talking points begin to lose their spin, because unlike the Border Patrol agents' case, Sutton himself is allegedly part of the cover-up in the House of Death case. And, unlike the case of Ramos and Compean, there has been no criminal prosecution pursued by Sutton’s office, or anyone within the Department of Justice, of law enforcers involved in the House of Death case to date.
Yet, for some reason as yet not clear, the conservative blog world, even the mainstream press, have failed to connect these two cases in any meaningful way, to point out the hypocrisy of Sutton’s media talking points.
So, it is only appropriate that we take the opportunity to allow Narco News readers to make those connections for themselves.
Among Sutton’s recent press releases is a five-page screed issued this week comparing what Sutton calls the “Myths” surrounding the Border Patrol agents' legal prosecution and what he terms the “Reality.” You can take a look at that press release here.
It seems appropriate that Narco News use a similar approach in comparing Sutton’s “reality” in the case of Ramos and Compean with the reality of the House of Death.
Following are comments taken from Sutton’s press releases over the past 11 months concerning the case of Ramos and Compean set against the allegations and evidence that have surfaced so far in House Death mass murder in Ciudad Juarez. After you are done reading this comparison of diverging realities, ask yourself why Sutton, or someone within DOJ, has not pursued a prosecution in the House of Death case, to at least allow a jury to assess the evidence of guilt or innocence.
Rushed to press with this, as I was in a bit of shock to learn of Sutton's résumé with informants.
I have had some negative feedback as to the bonafides of narconews, but that hasn't lessened my shock (shocked, I tell you) by the carryings on of this Bush appointee and perhaps protegé.
I posted the entire thing because there's so much misinformation floating around (not necessarily from narconews) I thought it'd be best.
You do understand this was a two-and-a-half week trial, right? The transcript won't fit into a FedEx envelope.
I think it likely that the Sutton camp itself is probably the source of much of the disinformation, hoping to fog the scene around the official actions taken, and the sentence meted out to the agents.
It also seems that there are plenty of grounds for appeal, especially in regard to jury instructions. It would seem reasonable to me that the agents violated regulations. These violations most probably should have been handled as administrative matters, with "punishment" to match.
Should the informant be foolish enough to re-enter the US, there are sufficient grounds to detain him. I would be very angry indeed to learn that Sutton had given him a completely free pass, which I don't believe is within his authority.
Lame.
LOL--What's WEAK is the fact that you are unaware that transcripts are requested from the Clerk of the Court, not the prosecution. When you take your car to be fixed, do you take it to Service, or Sales?
I have a mental image of you sitting outside the showroom, fuming. Weak, indeed.
I refer you to my #13 above.
Yeah, it's not like someone elected and important requested these.
Oops, that was the case.
So someone important requested the transcript from the Clerk of the Court, and when it didn't arrive, blamed the U.S. Attorney?
It's been weeks, dude. Usually when a Senator or Congresscritter inquires about a document, the office in question doesn't worry about shipping charges.
In another regard, that would explain why Congress hasn't received a transcript. They ordered it from the wrong office! LOL
From the fact that the transcript is not yet available, you infer that the U.S. Attorney is engaged in shenanigans of some sort. Yet the U.S. Attorney's Office is not responsible for releasing the transcript.That's what is funny. What's even funnier is that you don't understand.
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.