Okay... here's a question.
When you call others here "bigots," exactly what are you accusing them of being biggoted about?
Notice that not once do either of you say you do not believe you are a bigot and that you take umbrage at the accusation, you just come back with these “some of my best friends are black” quips?
I'll tell you what I notice. I notice that you totally ignore the heart of my comment, instead inserting your allegations of "bigot." You clearly missed this part:
My problem with this whole case was the thug-like tactics of the DOJ in their prosecution, of not allowing evidence to be heard, or threatening BP agents to get the testimony the prosecutors needed to hear, of OIG investigators lying to Congress, etc. If that is the kind of America you support, I'll be fighting you until the day I die.In other words, I don't care if the BP agents or the smuggler was White, Black, Hispanic, or from Mars. It has NOTHING to do with bigotry.
In other words, you don’t say it because it will sway the opinions of others, you say it because deep down you’re conflicted about it, it makes you feel better and you don’t have to think about for a while.
Oh, Puhhhhhhhhhhhhhhleeeeeeeeeze!
I am not a bigot. Andrew is not a bigot. Ajnin is not a bigot. We are all just Americans who believe a great injustice happened when it comes to Ramos and Compean.
Your armchair psychiatry is pitiful.
Sorry—forgot to add you to that ping.
You only call them thug like tactics because they were successful against your beloved, shooting in the Mexican illegal alien back, ex-border patrol agents. Anyone else would see this as an aggressive prosecution, something they get paid to do. I'm a taxpayer and I want to see my federal employees doing their jobs and doing them to the best of their abilities.
It isn't the job of prosecutors to judge the legality or suitability of trial evidence, that is for the trial judge. It isn't the job of prosecutors to judge innocence or guilt, that is for the jury. It IS their job to put on the most aggressive prosecution they can and let the chips fall where they may, just as it is for the defense attorneys.
They did that, they did their job, but you attack and defame them because you didn't like the outcome which is childish and immature.
The prosecution had nothing to do with deciding if certain evidence should or should not be allowed into testimony, that is up to the judge. The defense attempted to introduce a statement from another arrested drug courier that OAD had been involved inhis caper. At the time, all it was was a comment from this other drug mule, it wasn't corroborated or substantiated and OAD had not been judged of such in a court of law.
Now what is it that you all keep saying about believing the word of a drug dealer? That you can't trust a word they say? But you're willing to take the word of this other drug dealer and allow it be introduced in a court of law without and substantiation or corroboration as a matter of fact.
The judge ruled that allegation had not been proven, would be prejudicial and in the end had nothing to do with whether the shoot that day was good.
This is something else you all don't get and never will. it doesn't matter whether OAD was a drug mule or drug kingpin. It doesn't matter whether that was his first load or 100th. It doesn't matter whether he needed the money for his sick mother or to buy a brand new shiny car. It would still be illegal for ANY LEO to shoot to kill THAT unarmed fleeing suspect without proper justification.
That OAD had not been arrested, much less convicted of ANY of those things at the time of the shoot is meaningless to you as long as later it turns out to be so.
What kind of effed up logic is that?
Did prosecutors threaten other officers about their testimony” Yes, of course they did. They were threatened with prosecution of their own because they were all clamming up about what they knew, saw or heard that day. They were either trying to protect R&C or themselves. It's called “the blue wall of silence” and a tactic frequently used by prosecutors to get to the truth. That you turn that around and infer they used it to get the otheroffivers to lie and put 2 innocent BP agents into prison is absurd. But it is a line you all continue to advance every day.
It's absurd and pathetic.
Another red herring you throw out there is what OIG investigators told to congress. The salient response to that is that congress did not sit on the jury, the jury was not aware of what went on there and it was not relevant to the prosecution or conviction of Ramos and Compean for their actions that day in Fabens. The congressional hearing was a dog and pony show so insincere politicians could parade around in front of the cameras/microphones, express insincere outrage and a few crocodile tears to play to the border security voters and maybe drum up a few donations.
You know how I know that? What was the result of those hearings? Anything real or substantive? No, all we got were lofty proclamations from media addicted politician-whores who licked their lips at the free PR, fooled you into thinking they were going to do something then went home and forgot about it the next day. That you think it was important shows what a fool you are.