Feel free to explain why my interpretation of what you said was incorrect. But don't just say you didn't say it, or that I'm making up or twisting your words.
You said:
In fact, there are other ways that Aldrete-Davila could have been allowed in the United States, such as the DHS granting "Humanitarian Parole" or assistance and admission into the U.S. under the "Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA)", to name two. Those are not Visas "solely for the purpose of giving testimony" but something much different and can involve much, much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited. That is what I was interested in and would still like to know what arrangement was actually made with Aldrete.
You mention two types of arrangements, both of which you say "involve much much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited".
It sounds to me like you are saying that there are ways other than a "temporary visa" that he could have been left into the country (you name two), and that those ways would involve giving him a lot more access than Sutton said in his statement, thus your saying "involve much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited.
So, what do you mean when you say that the immunity could involve a lot more than "those instances that Sutton cited" if you are NOT saying that Sutton's list of things isn't the entire truth, and that you believe there is an immunity that is bigger than what Sutton claimed?
In other words, what is your point, if not to claim Sutton was not telling the whole truth when he said the ONLY access given to the mexican was access for the purpose of giving evidence and testimony for the trial?
And if you are NOT claiming Sutton wasn't giving the entire truth, and instead are claiming Sutton DID give the entire truth, what could that possibly have to do with your saying I was giving an OPINION of Sutton, when my statement about "temporary visa for purposes of giving testimony" is the same as Suttons statement of "In order to have the bullet removed, meet with federal investigators and to testify in court in El Paso, he was entitled to come into the United States on a limited basis within a limited geographical area and only for those purposes." -- a list of giving evidence and testimony for the trial.
Now, I suppose as a practical matter, my comments were an "opinion" of what he said, in the sense that anybody who reads somebody else's words will have their own interpretation of them, if they don't quote them. And since I gave no quote, if that's all you are stating you are just stating the obvious, which is that anything that isn't a quote is an interpretation.
Which still gets me back to, what was your point? Just that you thought I was saying I had seen the secret agreements and read the term "temporary visa" and was trying to impart that knowledge as a throwaway line?
Or that you, having a wealth of conjectures about differing ways that Sutton could have allowed an illegal into our country that would give him a lot more access than the access that Sutton CLAIMED, you were upset that I suggested that Sutton was telling the truth?
Or is it reall just that Sutton's statement was not precisely identical to my statement, and you somehow felt that my short version didn't do him justice?
Some poster claimed the drug smuggler was living in someone's neighborhood terrorising their kids. I told him the illegal was NOT allowed to be here, because his access to our country was only temporary, and was only so he could testify in the case.
I defy anybody to explain to me the substantive difference between my short "temporary visa" comment and the comment Sutton gave, given the context of a poster claiming the illegal was still living in this country.
Horse dead.