Charles isn’t citing facts. He’s arguing about what he thinks other people believe. The facts are in the trial transcripts and they unequivocally demonstrate Ramos and Compean were tried by an unethical and corrupt prosecution team.
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.