Skip to comments.Two reports clash on agents - study also fails to back what House members were told (Ramos/Compean)
Posted on 02/08/2007 10:21:37 AM PST by calcowgirl
click here to read article
Looks like these guys were nifonged.
Further, Border Patrol firearms policy prohibits agents involved in a shooting from filing a written report on the incident, as reported earlier this week.
The policy requires that supervisors or investigators file the report within three hours of the incident.
Not filing the report is the crux of the whole case against the Border Agents!
Sara Carter ping!
Wonder what elected office the D.A. is running for??
|U.S. retracts statements that agents were out `to shoot Mexicans'
|Posted by Kimberly GG to TomGuy
On News/Activism 02/08/2007 11:43:36 AM CST · 40 of 45
"Posts in other threads have indicated a close relationship between Prosecutor Sutton and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."
Don't let them resign, FIRE THEM.
My gawd, read this.
This report really deserves something great for her reporting...
Culberson is great. Heard him for the 1st time last night on Savage.
Rep. Culberson on the Rush Limbaugh show with Roger Hedgcock now..
Chertoff has got to go..
Good for her, well deserved. I still worry for her safety.
I never thought he should have been confirmed and nothing that has transpired since has changed my conviction.
I swear they do a bet job at truth on the tv. The border agents need to be released from jail immediately. For the life of me; I can't understand how these two were arrested; much less put in jail.
Note that the original March 2005 investigative report may have simply been reporting what the agents told the investigator. We'd have to see the detais or depose Sanchez to ask if he did interviews with all of the agents at the scene, or based his investigation on interviews with Compean and Ramos.
That's why I'm not too interested in the investigative report memos -- they are simply a reporting of what people SAID about the case.
We need to see what people testified to under oath to understand why the jurors found them guilty. And to see if there are actual facts now indisputed which were incorrectly presented (or not presented) at the trial.
ah yes, HM and DP, two other cases where hysteria and hype far outstripped rational thought.
In one case we seem to have gotten lucky, as in the end when the facts were actually known, sufficient cause was found to support having HM withdraw her nomination, unfortunately at a high cost to Bush and to conservatives who had jumped the gun and given ammunition to the left to use on other court nominees.
BP was simply a disaster for conservatives. Jumping into bed with Schumer, who's only purpose was to make Bush look bad and get one of the ports for his union-thug democrat contributers. And what single bad thing has happened in this country since DP took over the ports? Where is the continued outcry over the threat to our way of life that was certain to follow if the deal went through?
As for the Dubai Ports deal, there was a legitimate security concern with handing over an American port to a company based in a part of the world brimming with anti-American hostility, even though Dubai is an ally. Would we have permitted a firm based in France or Italy, with their large Communist parties, to have operational control over a major port during the Cold War era? Or a Spanish, Swedish, or Argentinian firm, where the neutral regimes had fascist or pro-German leanings, to do so during World War II? The questions raised in this matter were legitimate.
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.