Posted on 02/09/2007 2:09:08 AM PST by ovrtaxt
Yeah, it does feel that way. Sort of. The BIG difference, though, is that, unlike during the Clinton-era, we aren't going wake up tomorrow to find follow-up stories wondering whether the Bush Admin offed ANS to get the pressure off of him over this DHS case and these two incarcerated BP Agents.
IIRC, so many people with ties to "Whitewater" died under suspicious circumstances that the whole damned scandal should have been renamed "Bloodriver".
Compean and Ramos have always maintained that they told the supervisor there at the scene that shots have been fired. Apparently, according to the DHS memo, almost everybody else in that office knew of the shots but the supervisors remained oblivious to the fact.
That doesn't wash. The border has become a very dangerous place thanks to people Aldrete-Davila and his cronies. Exchanged gunshots between smugglers and BP agents has become a common occurrence. The two BP agents did not have to fear telling their supervisor that they had fired their guns. They would simply tell him that they had a scuffle with him, he fled for the border, he appeared to be armed with some kind of firearm and at one point attempted to take a shot at one of them during the chase. Hence they opened fire.
And Charles, since you still haven't figured this out : if you have actually fired off fifteen separate .40 caliber rounds (as Sutton tries to claim) out there in the desert there is a damn good chance your supervisor has already heard them! It is silly to try and pretend that nothing has happened. Any veteran law enforcement officer can immediately recognize the sound of gunshots, even at a distance. I have gone target shooting out in the desert area north of grandmother's place in Lancaster, California. You can easily hear gun shots being fired a mile and a half to two miles away (yes even if you are sitting inside a vehicle). Fifteen consecutive .40 caliber rounds..?? No, they told the supervisor that they had (obviously) fired their guns but that the suspect escaped to the other side of the border.
Thanks for the pings. I'll get to this tonight after work...
Apparently, they did report the incident. Their superiors lied about that too!
I saw the real Bush in 1999 when he uttered, "There ought to be limits to freedom." and tried to sic the FEC on a web site owner who'd pariodied Bush's own campaign site.
What's to understand?
Bush is lying to gain support for his amnesty program.
>>This week, President Bush addressed members of the Border Patrol telling them that passing his "guest worker" plan would greatly reduce their work load, because fewer people would have to sneak across the border.<<
Sounds like a great idea to me. And if we let terrorists in, we can cut manhours like you wouldn't believe.
True, but I was responding to this part of your post.
You're welcome!
OMG
Re your post to Charles Wayne, like so many others who post truth to his lies/spin/strawman arguments, he chooses to ignore you.
That's in order to educate the slow learners, and to make the crooks supporting Sutton run to their keyboards and type out new excuses.
That is so sickening, I want to throw up.
Bet the 'perks' are better now, though.
I can't get past your first inaccurate sentence. Sorry.
The drug smuggler is not "copping a plea" in exchange for testimony. That's what you do when you have enough evidence to convict a low-level operative, but want to get him to roll over on the higher-ups.
When you have NOTHING AT ALL to use against a criminal, but you want his testimony to convict another criminal, you have no leverage to ask for ANYTHING.
Why would the guy confess he was smuggling drugs? He's already free and clear. He's in Mexico, the agents can't identify him, there's no prints on file linking him to the van or the drugs. All you have is the agent of a mother of a mother who says their son was shot at the border. Nothing close to being actionable.
This drug dealer was NEVER getting punished for this deal -- the two BP agents assured that when they failed to either arrest him (two police officer with guns failed to contain an unarmed man who at one point tried to surrender), or to look at him well enough to identify him even though BOTH men saw him well enough to "think he had a gun" and to shoot at him, and Compean was within FEET of the guy with the guy facing him with his hands up.
If there's a backstory to all this, it's how the two BP agents failed to sit down with a sketch artist and get a picture of a drug dealer so they might catch him in a subsequent bust and get him on this set of drugs. Instead, (likely to hide their shooting) they said they couldn't identify him.
That's a pretty silly statement, since Ramos STIPULATED (meaning admitted to the court) that the bullet was his.
According to the DHS report, the union representative claimed the supervisors were on the scene and were told. That is not evidence. The supervisors say they were not told, and I'm not even sure Compean and Ramos are quoted as saying they TOLD the supervisor.
I'm pretty sure the story was they didn't tell the supervisors because they were "sure" others had already told the supervisors, or the supervisors already "knew".
Yes, parts of my post were speculation. I think most people, like you, can understand that attributing motives is obviously speculation. There's so much speculation on these threads from the pro-bp side that I am surprised you find it unwelcome, but I appreciate your sudden concern for only seeing facts, located as it were in a thread where we can't even keep straight two separate people whose last names are Sanchez.
His fingerprints were NOT all over the van with the drugs. There were 8 different sets of prints lifted from the van, NONE of which were tied to any person in the files.
There is no report that the prints were ever matched to the smuggler, even after he was granted use immunity and they would have his prints to test against the van.
I've had it with all the different, contradictory, and often incorrect representatations of the facts of this case.
Could someone who actually knows the facts on the bp agent defender's side post what they claim are the facts, so we can argue first whether the facts are even consistant, and then be able to judge whether those facts make sense?
FR is useless if people keep posting incorrect statements without refutation. And once again, the pro-bp agent posters have completely ignored for hours an obviously misstated fact here.
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.