Ramos, Compean pardons? 'No,' 'No,' says Bush rep

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 22, 2007

[Man50D]

The White House apparently is so reluctant to discuss the issue of pardons or commutations for convicted U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean that a spokesman doesn't even want to allow questions about the issue to be finished.

The circumstances arose during a White House press gaggle with spokesman Tony Fratto, when Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, tried to raise the issue of the disparity in the treatment of the Border Patrol agents, compared to that given Scooter Libby, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of lying during an investigation into the outing of the identity of a covert U.S. agent.

The agents were convicted and given prison sentences of 11 and 12 years for shooting after a self-confessed drug smuggler fleeing back into Mexico after leaving 750 pounds of marijuana in Texas, while Libby was excused from serving any of his prison sentence through President Bush's intervention.

The White House repeatedly has said there is a pardons request procedure available to the agents, even though Libby apparently did not go through the same process before Bush acted.

"A number of times here, when questions were raised about former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, we were told that there is a process for pardon. And I have a three-part question on this…" Kinsolving began.

"You have to make it quick, because they're calling for me," Fratto said.

"I will. Could you explain to us why the president refuses to commute these men who shot an escaping Mexican drug smuggler…" Kinsolving continued.

"No," interrupted Fratto.

"…as the president commuted the prison sentence of his friend, Scooter Libby," Kinsolving asked.

"No," Fratto responded.

[nicmarlo]

You definitely made the trailor trash image for yourself in cement.

[Bob J]

“All you needed to say, if you “truly” cared about what was on his homepage...”

I wasn’t. I just thought it was “interesting”.

[Bob J]

Of the bunch HT, you are the smartest as you haven't yet put anything disturbing on your about page.

You guys should elect HT Captain of your club.

[Bob J]

“You definitely made the trailor trash image for yourself in cement.”

Might I improve you’re image of me if I put up a couple of grade school jokes about horse weenies and masturbation on my about page?

Maybe some pics as well?

[Cyropaedia]

Again, you're grasping at straws. Pathetically so.

I never said anything "receipts" Bob. Ask anyone who's worked in any sort of Internal Affairs Department. I doubt they could show you one example of a "receipt" of a financial "deposit" made from a criminal enterprise to a given LEO. That's why I specifically said the prosecutor would have to go through their financial background, look for other evidence and even testimony from others (some sort of go between the two parties). Unknown bank accounts, unusual/expensive purchases, large amounts of cash hidden some where in an agent's house, people personally involved with the payoff, etc. That's usually the way any IA department does it.

>>“So I won’t try to dig up the specific criminal codes that deal with it.”

I’m sorry, it sounded like you were putting yourself up as someone who knew what they were talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about. Hell, I've had numerous cops in town tell me that they're not even supposed accept a free breakfast from the owner of a local diner let alone cash bribes from someone connected with organized crime.

If you any doubt regarding the illegality of bribes between criminal enterprises and LEO's I strongly suggest you ask anyone connected with LE at the local, state or federal level about that matter.

Just because there aren't "receipts" in no way shows that bribes aren't taking place. Again, anyone working in IA will tell you this.

[calcowgirl]

not one second to write and submit legislation that corrects and redefines 18 U.S.C. 924(c) ...

Why write legislation if the issue is resolved in the appeal? I believe they are waiting until that point. The court has already suggested that the flaw is not in the law but in the misdirected acts of Johnny Sutton's office in bringing the charges in the first place. You don't have to rebuild a car when you encounter an incompetent driver. We shouldn't have to write new laws to prevent the incompetent (or vindictive) acts of the U.S. Attorney's office.

However, if the issue does not resolve itself in the appeal, I have no doubt that new legislation will be forthcoming. The Senate has already heard testimony on these issues in special hearings to enable them to act quickly.

Thereafter, action should be taken to remove Sutton from office.

[Pelham]

There also dirty prosecutors out there, and Sutton is one.

[calcowgirl]

A few months back, I went through all of the legislative history on 924(c). You are absolutely correct--that it was never intended to be applied to LEOs in the performance of their duties. (It would apply to an off duty, rogue cop, committing a felony not associated with his law enforcement role). But more egregious, IMO, was Sutton using the law in the absence of any separate underlying crime. There was quite a lot of discussion in the congressional record about the firearm being used in the "furtherance" of a crime. In this case, there was no underlying crime--Sutton charged use of the firearm as the crime itself. In the amicus brief, I think they did a masterful job laying out that argument and it sounds like the appeals court judge saw this clearly (at least, that is my take reading the brief comments that were reported).

Hopefully, we will see their convictions reversed. I remain hopeful that the appeals court will bring some sanity to this case.

[calcowgirl]

Hey everybody it's Gomer.

LOL. Merry Christmas, Gomer. [I'm curious after reading most of the thread--is Deliverance your favorite movie? ;-) ]

The idea that Americans at anytime can if necessary by force reclaim their nation from tyrants is an idea as old as the nation itself and one the founders knew, supported, and understood. It used to be taught in public school even up through the 1970's.

You have some great posts on this thread, cva... it is sad that so many are willing to give up their freedoms in the name of "security" and "order."

[calcowgirl]

I wish there was something we could do, with Christmas coming up, to let R & C know that they haven't been forgotten and that they have the support of many people.

Christmas cards work! :-)

[Cyropaedia]

I think I argued months ago that Sutton basically needed the "attempted murder" charge to "piggyback" the 924(c) provision.

Rep. Poe was talking about this with Lou Dobbs people a while back and he explained that any LEO would be derelict in their duty if they didn't carry their firearm with them while on duty.

Thankfully, Sutton appears to be the exception to the proverbial rule with regards to exploiting 924(c).

Sutton still doesn't want to talk to the Judiciary Committee about what was actually said between his office and the Mexican Government with regards to the BP agents.

Maybe that's because he considers it a matter of "attorney-client privilege". ;>)

[cva66snipe]

.. it is sad that so many are willing to give up their freedoms in the name of "security" and "order."

It's sad indeed. But even the founders weren't the majority of their day. Many persons were very willing to tolerate the abuses and tyranny of the crown in exchange for security and of course their positions of authority in his kingdom all the way down to the local tax collectors and Constable's. When enough persons finally got their fill of the crowns abuses a nation was born.

[calcowgirl]

So, this is what you consider appropriate for women and children (per your #127)?

And you have the gall to refer to others as “trailer trash” ???

Truly pathetic, bobj.

[calcowgirl]

Sutton still doesn't want to talk to the Judiciary Committee about what was actually said between his office and the Mexican Government with regards to the BP agents.

He did a lot of dodging and used the "pending investigation" associated with Davila as an excuse for not answering questions directly. Maybe Davila will cop a quick plea and the record will now be open--eliminating Sutton's ability to hide behind Davila for protection.

Maybe that's because he considers it a matter of "attorney-client privilege". ;>)

LOL! ;-)

[calcowgirl]

When enough persons finally got their fill of the crowns abuses a nation was born.

Let's hope there are enough people still willing to fight for their rights and their freedom to not allow an accelerated death.

[nicmarlo]

He’s totally disgusting, imo.

[rodguy911]

I’ve got a suspicion that we are going to need a change in potus before Ramos and Compeaon are pardoned. Nothing makes sense here.

[billmor]

#78 Revising 18 U.S.C. 924(c) won’t get Ramos and Compean out of jail a day sooner than an Apellate reversal or Presidential Pardon would...Fact is Johnny Sutton deliberately misrepresented that section of the Code to the Judge as ‘proof’ that a crime was committed when that particular section only applies to the Penalty phase once a crime has been committed..The Judge never caught it and apparently did not check the Code herself before handing down her decision..Bush needs to do the right thing and grant them a full Pardon, then let them sue Sutton if they can..or the Apellate Court needs to make a reversal ruling post-haste imho...

[Yaelle]

Wow, Incindiary, a Freeper I actually freeped with many years ago on Wilshire! How are you?

Yes, the Compean Ramos case is about as frustrating and depressing as any travesty of justice around. And it is VERY telling about Bush. I hate to admit to my liberal friends that they may have been right about him in SOME ways. I support him on the WOT and I would re-vote for him again only because what was my alternative?

[billmor]

#125.....why?....maybe a promise of a Federal Judgeship ?