[erton1]

I am very aware of what immunity means. If immunity was agreed to in the 2nd drug incident, why did OAD invoke the 5th amendment during the bill of review proffer? I suggest you read up on the facts of the 2nd incident. It was a state task force bust, not federal, no drugs were found on OAD, and the evidence was based on double hearsay. Plus it is questionable that the evidence is admissible under the federal rules of evidence, rules 608 and 802. I anticipate that this is point the 5th circuit will decide.

[sumthinelse]

>>I suggest you read up on the facts of the 2nd incident.<<

I would like to read more about the 2nd bust. Where did you find the info?

>>It was a state task force bust, not federal, no drugs were found on OAD, and the evidence was based on double hearsay.<<

I don't think the case against Ramos and Compean was particularly strong either, before Mexico told Sutton and DHS to go after them, and he and the DHS put so much effort into it. I think Sutton did not want to go after OAD for either load of drugs.

I believe that Bush will not pardon the agents -- neither Mexico nor the business interests that want to stop border enforcement would like that. And the appeal probably will be unsuccessful -- It is very difficult to overturn a conviction. But there is a difference between the letter and the spirit of the law, and while Sutton may not have violated the letter (but DHS did when it lied to congress about the case), I think he did violate the spirit. And the jury went along with it.

I have spent time in Mexico, learned to speak Spanish, and know there are many wonderful people there. I never believed in popular conspiracy theories until now, but there are just too many red flags here for me to believe that they are coincidences.