[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, you could I suppose prosecute the DHS guy for lying to congress, if he did it under oath.

But what does the DHS not having investigation notes it promised to congress have to do with a jury finding two guys guilty?

We can suppose that there is a connection. But if the DHS guy didn't testify in COURT that he had evidence, and if therefore the evidence was not use IN court, what difference does it make? It's a public relations problem.

I note that DHS has not yet said the claims were false, just that they cannot turn over investigation paperwork proving the claims were true.

Which gets us back to the real issue -- when will be see the transcripts of the ACTUAL TRIAL, so we can see what evidence was presented at the trial. Without that, the rest of this is kind of pointless.

BTW, to be accurate, the Department of Homeland Security isn't an arm of the Prosecuter's office. I don't know if he simply relies on their reports and investigations, or if he runs his own investigations, or if he asked them to investigate.

But I don't think we can blame the Prosecuter for claims made by DHS representatives.

And if you think you can get me to defend DHS, nope, not going to do it. I won't flog them like some people, but they are a big agency and can defend themselves.

[RegulatorCountry]

"t's a public relations problem."

That's a rather Clintonian way to describe lying to Congress.

[Arizona Carolyn]

"Supposedly" the initial report was made by the agent in the Tucson sector (you know the one who is friends with the druggie these guys were supposed to have shot?) to the DHS... thus the involvement from day one by DHS in this entire case.

[Sue Bob]

It doesn't necessarily have to be under oath. It's lying during an investigation of a matter within the oversight jurisdiction of the legislative branch. If the investigation in accordance with House Rules, there may be a criminal case here.

[William Terrell]

But what does the DHS not having investigation notes it promised to congress have to do with a jury finding two guys guilty?

If any one of the allegations were used in the indictment or trial of the agents, they need a new trial. I'd think that would have some effect on the guilty verdict.

1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

3. stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";

4. were belligerent to investigators;

5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

I note that DHS has not yet said the claims were false, just that they cannot turn over investigation paperwork proving the claims were true.

I believe the DHS said it didn't exist, so you're right, they "could not" turn it over. Kind of begs the question, how did those allegations get into the stream of evidence that indicted and convicted the two agents?

Kind of hard to argue good intentions, here. Kind of hard to argue for a fair trial, too.

[khnyny]

Obviously, Skinner is the liar. In the course of his illustrious career he has worked for FEMA AND the State Department - 'nuff said.