Replies

Here is my admittedly faulty memory of the reporting on the matter.

Corsi’s first report was that Davila had been arrested, but that Sutton intervened and got him off.

Then he reported the story from Jose that Davila delivered drugs to El Paso but had Van trouble and was referred to Cirpriano to get his van fixed, which is why the drugs were there.

We know both of those were false.

He then claimed to have a new verification of his story, but that verification was simply the DEA report that included the statement of the man who had told Corsi about it. In other words, it was not an independent verification, it was the same story from the same source, repeated verbatum.

Corsi also claimed that Davila was given immunity for the 2nd bust in order to get him to live up to his agreement to testify.

When Cirpriano Ortiz-Hernandez finally pled guilty, Corsi claimed that the guilty plea was in exchange for Cipriano keeping “quiet” about his dealings with Davila, and also claimed that Sutton accepted the plea so that the case wouldn’t go to trial where the “truth” of Davila’s involvement would come out.

Anyway, you also mention the government “hiding” the physical evidence. In fact, there is NO evidence that there IS any “physical evidence”. Hunter has never said there was “physical evidence” mentioned in the reports he claims to have read. The only claims that have made the public record are that investigators had two statements linking Davilas to the drugs (We assume that is Jose and Cirpriano), and another claim from those who READ the report that the report shows investigators “thought” they had enough to indict Davila.

You also claim that the “investigation” is a “false premise”. But the Ortiz just pled guilty in April of this year, almost a year and a half after the october drug seizure at his house. So apparently the investigation was continuing AT LEAST until that time, and it is perfectly reasonable that, while the preparation for THAT case were ongoing, you wouldn’t release all the evidence about the case, especially if you were looking for others.

Now it’s 5 months after the guilty plea, and it is perfectly reasonable that the investigation could be continuing. Maybe an unpublished part of the guilty plea is cooperation in collecting evidence on others who were involved.

But in any case, beyond the reasonableness of it, you provide NO evidence or your claim that the investigation is a “false premise”, or that the government is “hiding the physical evidence”.

If you want to state that as your opinion, go right ahead, but don’t assert it as facts to back up your other claims, because there is no showing of fact.