Posted on 08/03/2007 4:07:33 AM PDT by Man50D
Actually, you are completely wrong.
I am not arguing at all. I am showing how WND has reported 4 different stories about the drug dealer, and noting the relative implausibility of most of the stories.
The trial transcripts show that Compean and Ramos were terrible witnesses, and that the evidence presented supported the guilty verdicts. But that is an opinion, not a fact.
It is also simply an opinion that the prosecution was unethical, and there is no evidence to support the claim that they are corrupt.
I wish the facts demonstrated that Compean and Ramos were threatened with deadly force, responded appropriately, and reported the incident as required by department regulations. But the facts don’t demonstrate that.
I wish the facts were that we had enough evidence to convict A-D on the first drug bust, but the fact is there simply wasn’t evidence without A-D’s own admission (as neither Compean nor Ramos could identify A-D as the person they shot at that day).
And if it WAS true that A-D delivered drugs to Ortiz, I wish the facts were that there was evidence revealing those facts — but the fact is the ONLY evidence against A-D in the “2nd smuggling event” is the statement of a known drug dealer caught with 5000 pounds of drugs, in a statement he gave trying to blame someone else for drugs being at his house.
You can certainly choose to believe Ortiz, but you must understand that the testimony of a known drug dealer, absent ANY other evidence whatsoever, would NEVER get you even a hearing before a grand jury, much less a trial.
The C-R folks refuse to believe the “word” of a drug runner, and argue that BP agents should be trusted — but then they believe a convicted drug dealer, and think all the other BP agents at the trial were lying.
Your link to “FACTS” was simply a link to a blog. I suppose somewhere in the hundreds of posts on that blog you think someone has put facts. Sorry, but since I don’t know which facts you were expecting me to look for, I couldn’t really go any further. I did a search but they had nothing obvious about the topic of Ortiz.
As to my post, I know the facts in it are wrong, as they are the facts as reported by WND, and my post was pointing out that WND reported 4 different stories for the Ortiz incident, at least three of which were wrong.
However, the facts as I explained them are most certainly correct. If you however think I got some piece of fact wrong, please spell it out, because I don’t want to be repeating falsehood.
You don’t have to “love illegals” to believe that WND has reported “facts” that later were proven to be false.
But I will say this: I do not expect to get to where i think it’s OK to shoot unarmed people while they are running away from a simple aprehension for a suspicion of a crime.
Because at some point, I may be mistakenly confused for a perpetrator, and I want the police to be completely clear that if they shoot me, they will go to jail for a LONG LONG time, otherwise I could end up dead.
That's right, and Sutton and DHS knew he wasn't innocent. They didn't want to haul his butt in at the time because then they would have had to arrest Davila as well. But that's not the only reason.
They knew Cipriano Ortiz was a drug dealer because they busted him in March 2004 with a similar load but they didn't prosecute then either and allowed him to keep the drugs flowing. Sutton himself likely ordered his release.
So after two massive drug busts, Sutton keeps this guy's operation up and running. After the third massive drug bust in March 2007, Sutton has no choice but to haul him in. Now with this plea bargain, Sutton gets to keep his guardianship of this drug running operation hidden from view.
Are prosecutors allowed to lie and misrepresent the facts? No, they are not but that is exactly what Debra Kanof did. She argued in pretrial motions that Aldrete Davila should be portrayed as an innocent hiker that mistakenly crossed the border and was set upon by two murderous rogue Border Patrol Agents that have absolutely no authority to enforce the law. The fact is, if this case had any merit the prosecutor would not have had to lie her ass off. Here are just some of most popular lies AUSA Debra Kanof told during the trial:
It is illegal for Border Patrol Agents to pursue fleeing suspects
Border Patrol Agents don't have title 21 authority.
— but the fact is the ONLY evidence against A-D in the “2nd smuggling event” is the statement of a known drug dealer caught with 5000 pounds of drugs, in a statement he gave trying to blame someone else for drugs being at his house.
Try reading the transcripts. Even the prosecutor Debra Kanof admitted in court before judge Cardone that Aldretre had smuggled another load. In fact much of the pretrail arguments were about whether or not to allow Aldrete's second load to be admissable in court.
Do you think Sutton will be able to stonewall Congress as to Mexico’s involvement in the case...?
Kanoff admitted that there was evidence that he was involved in a load, not that it was true. As they were not discussing the evidence, we have no idea what exactly she was referring to, but WND keeps publishing the “evidence” which seems to be the claims of Ortiz.
As to the other information about Ortiz, I simply don’t have the time to try to fact-check everything WND said about him, nor do I really care. So I’ll say that I simply have NO OPINION on whether Ortiz was actually caught several times or not, and reading it in WND doesn’t provide me ANY evidence I will accept without a 2nd source.
I’m not saying it’s true or it’s false, I’m saying that to me it’s simply idle speculation because I’ve only read about it from WND and WND has proven itself to be a poor source of fact.
Charles certainly has done some yeoman work in trying to keep this case in the realm of the rational.
Trouble is, it ain't rational. While I find Compeán and Ramos somewhat less than ideal as heroes, about as credible as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, I think Johnny Sutton about as believable as that late other Johnny. Cochran that is.
Every fact argued here is in real dispute. Thus, the facts are not really facts. A most smelly affair. Compeán and Ramos? Guilty. A Johnny Sutton jury found them so. Just as a Johnny Cochran jury found OJS Not Guilty.
The difference? OJS was ''not guilty'' when he walked. R&C will still be ''guilty'' when they walk. And walk they will. Both cases a slap in the face of the system.
Crime Without Consequence - (MEXICAN) Drug Runners Unprosecuted
ABC-15 | Jul 31, 2007 | Lisa Fletcher
If you're caught with as little as two pounds of marijuana, you're going to jail for up to seven years. But the rules don't apply if you're part of a drug cartel, muling in hundreds of pounds from Mexico.
The ABC15 Investigators discover that our federal government has actually set "weight limits." If you're illegal and bringing in less than 500 pounds, the feds don't prosecute.
-snip-
Corsi posted the links to all of the government documents showing the three different drug busts. What kind of "2nd source" would improve on that?
I don't know what will happen with that. They might try to head off any hearings by releasing a report of their own that tries to provide a tidy explanation for their actions. If they do release a report it will be about as honest as a Johnny Sutton Fact Sheet.
I’d have to follow all his links and read the documents to see if they were separate source documents, or just three different reports all including the same piece of information, which may itself have been from a dubious source.
As I said, I have no opinion, I don’t care enough to follow all the links and do that research, but I can’t accept WND’s statements on anything as being truthful, because they have been untruthful far too many times.
WND either is, or has allowed itself to be used as, a propagandist tool, rather than a trustworthy source of information.
You keep saying that. You exert more energy typing that over and over than what it would take to educate yourself about the drug dealing career of Cipriano Ortiz.
You continue to insist that you need another source but I'd be curious to know what source could possibly convince you more than the actual court documents posted at WND? -- The New York Times? -- Why would WND fabricate something that can easily be checked by anyone with a PACER account?
There is only one "propagandist tool" on this thread I can see. Got a mirror?
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.