Posted on 09/24/2007 6:15:44 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
It is curious, but I lean more toward looking at Skinner.
This whole thing occurred within Skinner’s shop. Chris Sanchez was the OIG-DHS chief investigator of the Aldrete-Davila matter. Skinner and Walker are complaining about Perry being a roadblock to *other* investigations in DHS—but Skinner had (or should have had) full control of the investigative functions he was responsible for.
BTW, I’ve worked with David Walker before. He’s definitely a bulldog.
Charles, I can only conclude that your efforts at calling Compean a liar are some misguided attempt to smear the man and continue to keep this thread OFF TOPIC.
I also notice that of the four posts directed to you, you responded to only one post—twice.
Now... do you have ANY opinion on the subject matter of the appeal? Or are you just going to continue on with your scurrilous “speculation”?
Your conclusions are entirely at odds with the facts and the evidence in my posts.
Other than my obvious belief that it was reasonable to find Compean guilty of the crime he was convicted of, I haveno interest in “smearing” the man, or keeping the threat off topic.
I don’t have to make an “effort” regarding Compean’s truthfulness. Somebody isn’t telling the truth, so everybody is calling SOMEBODY a liar, I suppose. I don’t think of it that way, but at least the person I’m expressing doubts about is a convicted felon, and not a current BP agent or a respected U.S. attorney, or the President of the United States.
I posted about the topic of this thread, and nobody seems to be interested.
I tried to combine my answers to your responses, as I explained, in order to cut down on the posts.
So are you complaining that I’m posting too much, or too little? Because in this comment you did both, attacking me for posting at all, AND for not responding to every one of your posts.
If I think your response does not merit further comment, I won’t respond. If we’ve reached agreement I see no point in responding, if we’ve reached an impasse I see no point in repeating myself.
I do see a point in correcting misstatements of my motives, or of the facts, but I really am trying to lay off when people just voice their opinions or are repeating themselves and I’ve already corrected the error.
So if there is something you responded to me about that you really think I need to answer for, please put them all in a response to this post, and I will be happy to either explain, refute, or concede on anything which interests you.
Otherwise I might not even go back and re-defend my own honor against attacks by misinterpretation, as I think I’ve covered them all.
OK, so the van was at the residence.
Now, is there ANY evidence other than the statement by the Ortiz brothers which link Davila to the van?
BTW, I didn’t mean to try to discredit corsi regarding the Jose Ortiz statement, I meant exactly what I said, that Jose told a story that was at odds with later facts known about Cipriano. I READ the story in a WND article written by Corsi, but my citing of the story through that source was not meant to attack that source.
In fact, in a rare moment for me, I actually took that WND article at face value and used it as if it had objective credibility, so it’s funny someone would say I tried to do otherwise.
It is quote probably that the WND story sourced the information from some other source, or maybe they got the information from another source and didn’t source it. I was only saying that I read it in a WND story, not in any way making a value judgment on the WND regarding the story of Jose and the broken van.
If the van was broken, btw, it would explain why he left it there, but not how he got it there, unless it wasn’t all that broken.
But again the next question: Is there any evidence linking the van to Davila? Because if there is, that would make it very likely the story is true, so much so that I doubt we wouldn’t have read about that fact.
I suppose the link to Davila and the van might be one of those things being suppressed. If so, it means at this time we don’t KNOW about it, and it’s conjecture. But maybe there is real evidence that nobody is talking about, but has been published before.
I’m trying to collect new information. If I get the information wrong, it’s because I haven’t read it yet or don’t remember it. I don’t want my current opinion to be RIGHT, I want to base my next opinion on all the information available.
I’ll be happy to flip-flop on this issue. My opinion has always been based on the evidence I have read and my valuation of the credibility of the source. That’s why I’ve NEVER said there was no 2nd smuggling, only that I didn’t have enough information to credibly CLAIM a 2nd smuggling.
If I were to SPECULATE, I might SPECULATE there was a 2nd smuggling based on what I know, but that would be speculation. And I would never suggest that speculation to be a fact, or attack anybody who didn’t agree with it.
Then why do you?
I posted about the topic of this thread, and nobody seems to be interested.
Really? Where? I just searched the whole thread and couldn't find a single comment from you about the thread subject. Got a post # or link?
I tried to combine my answers to your responses, as I explained, in order to cut down on the posts.
BS. You did not respond to the question or the content of my other posts.
I do see a point in correcting misstatements of my motives, or of the facts, but I really am trying to lay off when people just voice their opinions or are repeating themselves and I’ve already corrected the error.
Laughable.
So if there is something you responded to me about that you really think I need to answer for, please put them all in a response to this post, and I will be happy to either explain, refute, or concede on anything which interests you.
No thanks. I posted them above. If you choose to avoid answering, that is your perogative. No need for me to state it twice.
Otherwise I might not even go back and re-defend my own honor against attacks by misinterpretation, as I think I’ve covered them all.
Oh, Puhleeeeeeeeeezee!!!! LOL!!! My sides are splitting! Hahahahahaha!!!
Can you provide a link to this Corsi story that mentions the Jose Ortiz statement? I was looking for it with google search and couldn't find it. Instead, I found a reference on... small world...Free Republic. Even smaller world, the reference was from this very thread. The smallest of worlds, the reference was provided by you, in a link that went to an article penned by someone named Sara something. Googling from there, I found what looked like the original source which appears to be The Daily Bulletin of Ontario, California.
What you may have read from Corsi was the assertions from a DHS memo written by Christopher Sanchez that had Cipriano, not his brother Jose, claiming that the van was dropped off at his house because of engine trouble.
In that the "engine trouble" alibi was almost definitely a lie, It would seem logical that brother Jose was contacted by Cipriano and told to corroborate his story prior to Jose's interview.
The thing about the DEA report and the DHS memo is that they weren't publicly released and that is why you won't find copies of these reports on the internet, just the detailed description of the reports by those who've seen them. Dana Rohrabacher was warned by the "Justice" Department not to disclose this DEA report so as not jeopardize their convenient assertion of an ongoing investigation. The only possible way there could have been an ongoing investigation is if Cipriano was working for the government and he's already copped a guilty plea. He was released on two occasions after being busted with hundreds of pounds of dope at his house and he admitted to trafficking more loads through his stash house after his release and during the interim before the third massive dope bust at his house in March of this year. That is not a house that is being "investigated"...that is a house that is purposely being kept open to traffic drugs.
There are several things that corroborate the legitimacy of the reports, particularly the mention of the six bundles in the van which squares with the publicly released Cipriano Ortiz investigation report which came out several months after the DEA report story was published. We know Davila had to be the smuggler who delivered the van because Judge Cardon confirms Davila's involvement in that incident in the trial transcripts and that incident was all about the van full of dope.
Good info.
That would be Sara Carter of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, who did a lot of the early writing on the Ramos and Compean case. An excellent journalist who has since moved on to the Washington Times.
Makes you wonder. A lot of dissembling by some people who claim they have no interest in the case.
You mean, could there be propaganda in politics?
A bear in the woods...
For a person who is complaining about me posting, you seem very insistant that I respond to every one of your previous posts.
And you even pinged me back into a thread that ended back in August. That’s pretty aggresive for someone who wishes I’d stop posting.
As to your question in THIS post, 388 which you responded to included discussion of the appeal.
Post 308 discussed the appeal and whether they would deal with the 2nd smuggling.
291 discussed my opinion that the 2nd smuggling exclusion was not an error in the trial, something that is part of the appeal.
Many of my posts discuss the 2nd smuggling, which is part of the appeal. Some mention that whether the 2nd smuggling happened or not is not a matter for the appeal, because it’s truthfulness was not dealt with, only whether the allegation could be introduced.
Post 185 was an earlier discussion of the appeal, back on the 26th.
My FIRST post here was to add to Bob’s voice to correct a misstatement that Davila had been ARRESTED. Somebody posted that, Bob said he was wrong, and the poster said BOB was wrong, and since nobody else was helping to correct the obvious false statement I joined in.
That was post 17.
BTW, the reason we were discussing that at all was that the first dozen posts in this thread weren’t about the appeals court, but were about how Davila must be smuggling drugs again, how he had been caught and arrested for doing it.
Of course, there’s the FIRST post, which started it all:
“Hopefully the appeals court judges aren’t Sutton’s/drug smuggler’s friends.”
When you start your thread with a baseless attack on respected appeals court judges, suggesting they are friend with drug smugglers, you can’t get too mad when people don’t take the thread as seriously as they should.
Do you need MORE examples of where I discussed the appeal, or of how many other people before me took the thread off the subject of the appeal, or are you sastified that my statement that I discussed the appeal are correct?
I apologize. You are correct, so far as I can tell, and I was wrong. I had put a WND tag on that link, but it was a link to the National Border Patrol Council’s “net” site, not a WND article.
WND has never mentioned Jose so far as I can now tell. And whily I’m sure I got that link from some earlier FR thread, I can’t prove it.
But then, why does everybody “know” that there were “TWO” witnesses? CalCowGirl was saying there were TWO witnesses, which is why I went through the trouble to dig up that link and apologize for saying there was only one. So she must have known about that link.
I also was sure that I originally read the “van trouble” story in WND. I think that is still true, but that they sourced the story to Cipriano, not to his brother. but I can’t find that link now either.
Anyway, thanks for keeping me honest, and sorry for the mis-attribution.
I’m paid by the letter. So if I use big words, I get even MORE money.
I also get paid for each word in response, so the more I get people to respond, the more I make.
Not by the letter though, because respondents don’t usually use big words.
Going back to respond to every post of yours responding to mine. Sorry to the rest of you:
As to “use immunity”, I agree it sounds otherwise from the transcripts, but why did he then take the 5th if he had blanket immunity? Although I found another article that said his immunity only covered things that happened on the day of the shooting, so he wouldn’t be immune for any statement made about another day.
Which lends credence to the idea that it wasn’t a blanket use immunity, but that would be dangerous because then he might get “forced” to testify about another crime which would protect him from prosecution for THAT crime as well.
For example, under a poorly-written use immunity, if the judge had ruled the defense could bring up the 2nd case, and if someone had asked Davila about it, he could have said “Yes, I smuggled drugs in that one other time”, and it would have made it nearly impossible to charge him for that as well.
This entire post is off-topic, but is made because of a complaint that I didn’t respond to everything that was posted to me.
I didn’t respond earlier to the claim that “every time Sutton opens his mouth I catch at least one” (lie).
I am absolutely positive that MANY times that Sutton speaks, he says NOTHING that is a lie. And I am also absolutely positive that even in his QUOTED statements, there are MANY times when he has an entire statement that has no lies in it.
So I believe your statement that you “catch” him lying every time he speaks is a wild hyberbole. I doubt you here every time he speaks, or even search the web for every statement he makes on every subject.
However, if you really think he lies every time he speaks, and if you hate him so much, you should find a place where he testified under oath, find the “lie” you tell us you KNOW is there, and then get him prosecuted for lying under oath.
Good luck with that.
This entire post is off-topic, but I was attacked for not answering every comment made to me.
CalCowGirl at post 158 said "The danger ceases when the suspect is apprehended".
CalCowGirl at post 144 said "And how do you figure that any justification to use their guns, ceased?", and "who had just led them on a 10 mile high speed chase involving most (if not all) of the entire Fabens border patrol office".
untrained skeptic at 106 said "However, this suspect had already shown a complete disregard for the safety of others by leading officers on a high speed chase through a town".
So two of the "others" were in fact you, but since you seemed to suggest you didn't, I figured it must have been someone else. I was wrong, it WAS you.
This post is off-topic, but I was chastised for not responding to every point made to me in replies.
Thank you for understanding.
I wouldn’t have bothered responding to this comment but I was attacked for not responding to everything.
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.