Posted on 11/24/2007 5:16:09 AM PST by Salena Zito
Just to add to the above post, it was not ME being petty.
YOU are the one that decided to claim he actually had surgery, referring to my post as incomplete.
Perhaps in the future you'll get off your highhorse and your own facts straight before trying to criticize others for things they don't even post.
Your post:
And just to be complete, the surgery he did have was both to remove a fragment of the bullet, AND to explore and categorize the extent of the injuries so the doctor could determine the correct course of treatment. Your statement was incomplete.
Funny, most of the people you cite above are for a commutation (not pardon) of their sentence, the same as I do.
My guess is that most of those people would not feel comfortable in the same room as many of the Bush/DHS/Justice bashing and conspiracy kooks that run wild on this site. I’m not putting you into that category as I a don’t monitor and log every response, but if the shoe fits wear it.
“Oh, and the jury has already stated that if Davila’s drug arrests had not been supressed, the verdict would have been different. They were not given all the information.”
What drug arrests are those? Anyway, you misrepresent the facts. It’s not all it was one or two and I’m not even sure if when that was cited they used the names of the jurors or if it was another “secret source”. As I’ve pointed out many times IF those comments were made and attributable to any juror, it was after they and their families received death threats from the compassionate R&C supporter crowd. If I had death threats against my family I might say just about anything to call the rabid dogs off.
“The two of you delight in coming onto these threads and disrupting as you’ve been doing it for months.”
Sorry to rain on your Bush bashing parade.
OMG, how funny is this? You have now changed the debate to "commutation vs Pardon"? Well, I guess when nobody buys what you are selling you just change the issue!
I’ve stated repeatedly over the last year that I believed the sentences R&C received were too long and that they have probably served enough time already.
That you don’t know this shows only that you are new to the discussion...it also doesn’t mean R&C are innocent of the verdicts.
So, do you believe R&C are innocent or that the application of the madatory ten was wrong? Also, do you subscribe to the lunatic rantings about the Bush/Sutton/DHS/Justice/Mexico conspiracies? If you do it’s weird looking at your screen name.
BTW - I’d like an answer to the question above “What drug arrests?” If you don’t then it only shows you are as culpable as the rest in disseminating false information about this case.
Have you read the transcipts or are you, like most on these threads, getting all your information from WND, frothing talk show hosts and misinformed apostates on FR?
Why answer any of your questions? You’ll just change the direction of the discussion again and then claim I’m new to the issue. Not worth my time for sure.
Wow, you are really something. Am I to assume that you think Laura Ingraham is a "frothing talk show hosts" since I agree with her positions on this AND I did get some of my info from her interviews with the family members.
WTF you talking about? I was responding to YOUR comment about the VIP supporters of Ramos and Compean. The way you phrased the statement it appeared as if all these people were in your camp and/or the camp of the R&C hysterics on this site. I was pointing out that the position of those people is actually more closely aligned with mine than yours.
But I’ll take that answer as a..
1. No, you don’t have anything to back up your statements and that you were in fact promulgating false information just like almost everyone else on these threads.
2. You are getting all your information from WND and other suspect sources.
3. You didn’t read the transcripts.
4. As far as your positions and beliefs on the tinfoil rantings of the unhinged, your silence indicates approval.
"I did get some of my info from her interviews with the family members."
Uhh, what information would that be? Anyway, I can't think of a less prejudiced view than that of the relatives of the incarcerated agents. I'm not saying they would make any false statements but they certainly have a reason to be jaded.
Yes.
Show me where I was talking at all about pardon versus commuting their sentence? Nowhere. You brought that in when I showed that there are a lot of people that don't agree with what happened to R&C.
As for your other demanding little questions....your assumptions are incorrect. Except that I do take into consideration all the information that's available. You are solely relying on the transcripts, I guess, because you're very negative about anything else.
Have a nice evening. Maybe someone else will come along that you can try to bully :)
I haven’t seen any of these public figures calling for a commutation as opposed to a pardon. what started out as a list of 12 congresscritters in late 2006, now has more than 100 sponsors in the House, alone.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726042/posts
12 congressmen demand pardon for border agents
October 25, 2006
Hunter, Tancredo, Bilbray, Rohrabacher, Ingraham... all on the pardon bandwagon. Hunter introduced HR 563. Rohrabacher introduced HCR 37. Ted Poe and that crowd have been highly critical of the entire prosecutorial team. I think we’re back to that bandwidth thing. ;-)
“Due to significant concerns over the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of agents Ramos and Compean, the House Judiciary Committee has already recognized the need for a thorough review of this case by calling for congressional hearings and an investigation of the Department of Homeland security, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
- September 13, 2006 letter signed by 22 congressmen
“All I say is that Mr. President, if you’re going to consider Mr. Kennedy’s amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens, couldn’t you just add two more border patrol agents onto that list?”
- Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.)
“Over the Christmas break, the president of the United States pardoned 18 felons. Five of those people were drug dealers.... But we cannot even get a response to the letters we have sent asking him to pardon the Border Patrol agents. What greater example of where this president’s priorities are than that?”
- Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)
“The federal government was on the wrong side in this case. This drug dealer was not just bringing in a little bit of marijuana.... What better two people should be pardoned than border agents doing their jobs trying to protect the United States?”
- Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
HR 563: 102 Co-Sponsors, calling for convictions to be vacated and for Compean and Ramos to be released immediately:
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 3/21/2007
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] - 1/18/2007
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 1/18/2007
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 1/18/2007
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 1/30/2007
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 7/18/2007
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/20/2007
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 1/18/2007
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 1/18/2007
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 5/3/2007
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 1/24/2007
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 1/18/2007
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 2/12/2007
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 1/18/2007
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 1/18/2007
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 1/18/2007
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5] - 2/16/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 1/18/2007
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 1/18/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 2/28/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 1/24/2007
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 2/8/2007
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 4/16/2007
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 2/13/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 1/18/2007
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 1/18/2007
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. [MD-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 1/18/2007
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 1/18/2007
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 2/13/2007
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 2/16/2007
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 1/18/2007
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 1/18/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Hobson, David L. [OH-7] - 1/18/2007
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 2/16/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] - 5/7/2007
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 1/18/2007
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 1/18/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 2/8/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 1/18/2007
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 1/18/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 2/5/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 1/18/2007
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 1/18/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] - 1/18/2007
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 1/18/2007
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 3/12/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 1/18/2007
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 1/18/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 1/18/2007
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 4/25/2007
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Peterson, John E. [PA-5] - 1/18/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 1/18/2007
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 7/23/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 2/28/2007
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 1/18/2007
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 1/18/2007
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 1/18/2007
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 1/18/2007
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 1/18/2007
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 1/18/2007
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 1/18/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 6/15/2007
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 5/3/2007
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 1/18/2007
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 1/18/2007
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 1/18/2007
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 1/18/2007
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] - 3/20/2007
Rep Walsh, James T. [NY-25] - 1/18/2007
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 1/18/2007
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 1/18/2007
Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 2/28/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/18/2007
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 1/22/2007
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] - 1/18/2007
Are you insinuating that out of all of FR, Hunter, Tancredo, Billbray, Dana Rohrabacher, Laura Ingraham and even DiFi, you two are the only ones that understand the testimony and trial transcripts enough to oppose us all and support Johnny Sutton?
I was referring to just understanding the transcripts (and disagreeing with the sentencing.) I am not the one that turned this into a commute vs pardon. It was someone else whose reply didn't fit the original response.
I agree—Your post was fine.
I was just fillin’ in the blanks (that all those folks DO support a pardon!)
Unlike you, I fix my mistakes. That makes me MORE, not LESS credible. But it explains why you stubbornly stick to positions that are proven to be without merit, if you think that admitting your mistakes is a sign of a lack of credibility.
I unfortunately have to correct another completely false claim you make in this post:
Charles said: I guess since you are being hypercritical in the surgical room while the patient was under surgical care and anesthesia.... I don't know if anesthesia was necessary for the tests they performed, nor do I really care.
You replied: He was under anesthesia... or maybe not. Yep... that just about covers all your options.
I said he was under anesthesia. That is in the trial testimony, and irrefuted. Your suggestion otherwise is false. I never said "maybe not", or in any way suggested he was not under anesthesia.
What I SAID, as you correctly quoted before incorrectly rephrasing, is that I did not know if anesthesia was necessary to perform the tests. There are some tests for which the patient is put under, and others that do not. Because the bullet was being removed, the patient was under anesthesia, and I was just pointing out that while he was under, that didn't mean he HAD to be under for the tests.
English really isn't a hard language to learn. "I don't know if anesthesia was necessary" is NOT the same as "I don't know if they used anesthesia".
I don't know if it's necessary for you to get so many facts wrong. But I know you did.
Yes, I know what I said, nad it was entirely accurate. He had surgery, and the purpose of the surgery was the two things I mentioned. I’m merely agreeing with your technical point that the tests themselves probably are not “surgical”, or more to the point I don’t care.
The FACT is that the surgery was performed, and the procedure was intended for TWO reasons as specified by the doctor in his testimony.
I don’t know why you want to pretend otherwise, or to argue over this, as I clearly indicated the 2nd purpose was tests, and I clearly clarified that the tests were done during the surgery, and that was all I meant, not that the tests WERE surgery.
And yes, that petty person is you. My post was simply to correct the false impression you left. If you remember, your post was meant to convey that the procedure performed on Davila had nothing to do with his injury, and was ONLY to collect evidence. That was a false impression, as the doctor clearly indicated that the primary purpose included running the tests, a fact you entirely ignored in your post.
In expressing that, I used your term surgery as a general description of the procedure, which I submit is an accurate one as he WAS having surgery, he WAS under anesthesia, and during that surgery the tests were performed.
The salient point being that he needed to have tests to find out how bad his injuries were, and how to correct his injuries, something that the readers would be in the dark about if you had your way.
Sorry, but I not only had interest in the case, I actually read the entire transcript, something that from your posts I don’t think you did, or else you don’t remember it well.
I guess you’ve never been trained in the use of emoticons? The little “:-)” indicates that I am not being serious. Can’t believe I had to explain that to anybody who posts on the internet.....
The funny thing is that you think what your side is doing is “debating”.
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.