Posted on 02/09/2007 2:09:08 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[Even that is odd.]
Unless, of course, this whole operation is a drug importing scheme program run by our government. I was wondering, why would a low-life drug runner, who had been shot trying to cross the border, not just count himself lucky to be alive and then melt into the woodwork? Why would someone like him, think that he had a prayer of a chance to get help from someone in our government? It goes way beyond, just a friend helping a friend. You can't get one of those magic border passes without jumping through a lot of hoops. Why wouldn't Sanchez just say, "Sorry that happened buddy, but I can't do anything. I want to keep my job." Sorry to say it, but this sounds like a mob operation, where the big wigs ended up taken care of their own, and exacting revenge on the unfortunate guys who got in their way.
Yes, but you know how to think for yourself. Many folks don't have the same fortitude and will bend to pressure. Many have always had sheep qualities... heck, just look at FR, lol.
One also wonders why a guy running drugs for the cartel,
who lost the van and the million dollars of pot within it,
is still alive.
"If it walks like a duck...........".
I don't give anyone safe harbor when it comes to corruption or criminal activity. If a president while serving as state attorney general and governor can rape and get away with it, what makes you think a mere US Attorney General and former state supreme court justice is immune from suspicion of taking drug money?
Follow the money!
Good question.
Hubby and I were discussing this last night. We haven't read all the propaganda on this case. However, if there is evidence that someone lied under oath or that the evidence was compromised, then the judge involved should throw out the case. The POTUS is in a lose-lose situation here because if he doesn't pardon the agents, then he looks bad. If he pardons them, then he could also look like he favors vigilante-type behavior. (whether it's true or not)
We decided that the POTUS should just pardon the agents and be done with it. But there are still a lot of holes in our knowledge of this subject.
true... but sad. I blame our schools for creating a sheep mentality, but that is for another thread.
This is where some good investigative reporting is helpful, helps prove or disprove theories, rumors and inuendos.. I don't place anyone in our government above being influenced by trillions of dollars in drug money flowing around this world.
Good question.
Not to mention he was entrusted with an even larger load.
I worked the dope detail off and on for years. That alone is a major clue something is series wrong.
Anybody can be a criminal. Think anybody thought a shuttle astronaut would try to kidnap someone?
But there's a long distance between the abstract knowledge that all men could be evil, and accusing someone of being evil simply because you don't like some piece of politics about them.
If you are going to accuse the Attorney General of criminal activity, you better have a shred of evidence to back it up, or I think you deserve to be criticized for it.
But of course my point was that, for all their high-and-mighty rhetoric about people being innocent intil really proven guilty, and how they just want the truth, I didn't expect anybody on your side to say a word about your comment, because it plays into their smearing of the administration in pursuit of their goal.
I love people asking questions. I get bothered when people asking questions also reach conclusions based on the answers they think they might get.
Like congressman saying they can't get the evidence, and they need to have an inquiry to find the truth, and they BP agents should be pardoned.
Woops. Shouldn't you have the results of the inquiry before you conclude they should be pardoned?
My statement was based on the hypothesis that there is a witness who testified that the two said they were "out to shoot mexicans". The confusion would then be as to WHO said they said it, and whether the statement was in writing or verbal, and whether it was part of a sworn affidavit to the investigator or 2nd-hand information.
I assume that if it was brought up a the trial, someone was a witness and testified to it. No way the judge allows a 3rd-party investigator to simply say he "heard someone say they said it".
If it wasn't brought up at the trial, the evidence or lack thereof for it has no bearing on the trial. If someone made it up outside the trial for purposes of keeping the heat off, that itself is serious, and someone should be disciplined for doing so, but then it's not an issue about the trial itself or their guilt.
Why did they put them into prisons heavy with illegals — unless we don't have any other kind of prisons these days.
I will note that in all my discussions, I don't think I've ever included this assertion among my reasons for leaning toward their guilt. Nor have I leaned on the suggestions of Ramos's personal life. I've always discounted those things for the sake of discussion, because they are obviously in dispute and of a he-said/she-said variety.
There are very light weight inmates there and the BCP guys would have been quite safe. But no, this Administration wants blo.....
There a lot of reasons. It could be that smuggling is so easy and the drugs are so available that losing loads isn't much of a problem. In this case one doper has managed to destroy the lives of two Border Patrol agents and intimidate the entire Dempartment of Homeland Security, something the cartel he worked for couldn't do.
If I had accused then you would be correct in demanding evidence and criticizing me if I didn't produce.
However, please read again my post and show me where I accuse!
(My previous post) "It would be interesting to investigate any "family connections" that exist to Alberto Gonzales!!! If not "family connections" then his finances that could indicate drug money going into his or his family's pockets!!!"
Now, tell me how you jump from "It would be interesting to investigate....." to ACCUSE??? You are responding on emotion as a Bush administration apologist would be expected to do. Therefore before you go accusing people of making statements that they have not made, take a deep breath and calm down before you run off at the mouth.
OK, you are right. Although on a technicality, as it sounds much like the "we have to investigate because it's not the weight of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge".
But I do apologize for suggesting you "accused" him of anything, and appreciate your re-emphasis of your meaning and giving me this opportunity to respond.
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.