Border Justice (Glenn Beck's latest on Compean & Ramos case)

GLENN: We also have Congressman Ted Poe. He was a prosecutor and a federal judge. So we're going to get his view of what happened in court yesterday and what it all means. But let me take the case from the beginning and spend just three minutes with Tara Setmayer here and then we'll bring Ted Poe into the conversation. Tara, give me the update on -- take this from the beginning on who this guy is in about three minutes up to the court case. Then we'll bring Ted Poe in and then you can bring is through what happened in the courtroom because you were there with Johnny Sutton yesterday. And we'll get Ted's kind of viewpoint on what you describe as we go along.

SETMAYER: This is such an important issue and the developments are remarkable. The hearing yesterday had nothing to do with the drug smuggler Davila. Yesterday was the oral arguments in the appeals process for agents Ramos and Compean.

SETMAYER: That's okay. And how we got to this point, it was everyone was concerned about being overly optimistic and because the appeals process, the judges can be very, you know, straight-faced, poker faced. But yesterday I have to say they were so animated and you could visibly see they were upset about three main issues, and these are the issues that members of congress, Mr. Rohrabacher, my boss, Congressman Poe, Hunter, Tancredo, everything everyone was concerned about was brought to fruition coming out of the mouths of judges and those issues were the application of the 924(c) gun charge.

GLENN: Okay, hang on just a second. Hang on, hang on. If we're going to jump right into it, let me go to Ted Poe and get him on because I want the two of you to be able to discuss these things as I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination.

GLENN: State judge. What I'd like to do is get your viewpoint as Tara lays each one of these points out yesterday, or in a minute, and tells us exactly what the judges said, what the testimony was. I want you to try to, if you can, tell us what you think is going through the minds of these judges, especially if it was you sitting on the panel and hearing these things.

SETMAYER: The first point was the immunity agreement. They were rather upset about the fact that the drug smuggler was given an immunity agreement that no one seemed to be able to define and the government lawyer even admitted, used the word "Hybrid immunity" which is the same term that the prosecutors used during the trial. It was a weird hybrid immune. Well, that was problematic for these judges because the type of immunity that the drug smuggler was given determined the line of questioning that they were able to ask him or not ask him and whether he was allowed to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right. And that ultimately led into the second drug load because the judges were concerned that the jury never heard any information at all about the second drug load which took place several months before the trial and while he was under this strange immunity.

GLENN: Right. And it wasn't just a second drug -- there wasn't just a second drug load. There was also a third drug load that we've now found out about.

SETMAYER: Yes. There were multiple smuggling attempts and another load that we know about in September, but that couldn't be discussed because that wasn't discussed during the original trial. But they did ask if Davila had been indicted at this point and the Government had to admit that, yes, he had. And the judges were rather perplexed by the fact that they made such a concerted effort to hide this information and they said that, you know, don't you think that was relevant? And the Government said, well, no, we didn't think it was important. And the judge said, applied common sense for you guys to think that the credibility of this witness was absolutely at the heart of this case. He clearly wasn't a mule. He was a pretty midlevel drug smuggler which means the likelihood of him having a weapon was much greater and you guys knew that, which is why you made sure you kept this from the jury.

GLENN: Congressman Poe, tell me about, if you were a judge, what does it mean, this hybrid immunity and also the prosecution saying, well, no, we didn't think this was important. Tell me as a judge how that would sit with you.

REPRESENTATIVE POE: First of all there's no such thing under the law as hybrid immunity. Either you've got immunity or you don't have immunity and so they are trying to bootstrap a phrase into federal law that does not exist. So that was the first problem with immunity.

The federal government gave the drug dealer immunity from prosecution if he would testify. He did testify, and he told some things obviously that turned out not to be true in the case and so I would be, as a judge, concerned about the immunity agreement and here's the reason. Any time the prosecution makes a deal with a criminal to get certain system; in other words, immunity for testimony, you get the testimony you pay for. And in this case they got the testimony they wanted and they got these two individuals convicted. So immunity deals are always suspect and the jury should know all about the immunity situation and that's why the judges were concerned about first the immunity making the deal with the drug smuggler. And, of course, the second issue is the fact that he was held up to the jury, Davila, as sort of a choirboy. You know, he was just bringing a little drugs to get some money for his sick mother in Mexico. That is not true. And the jury should have known about the other drug smuggling incidences and the reason is because the whole prosecution case was based upon the credibility of their star drug dealer witness, and he was no choirboy. He was an habitual offender of bringing drugs in. So that in a way misled the jury as to who this person was that they made a deal with. So the judges were very concerned about both of those two issues, as they should have been, as any trial would be.

GLENN: Okay, Tara, what was the next thing that came out of the trial yesterday?

SETMAYER: The next thing was the 924(c) gun charge but I want to say one more thing, really important point that came out. While they were questioning the Government on the immunity agreement, one of the judges flat out asked about three times, "Did he violate the terms of his immunity agreement, was that a violation or was it an abuse of the immunity agreement," and the government lawyer, who really tripped over his words, he was being battered so much by the questioning, he finally said, quote: He told some lies. So the government attorney admitted that the drug smuggler, Davila, told some lies during the trial.

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Any time a witness testifies and lies on the witness stand, that is highly significant. And if the lawyer putting the witness on the witness stand knows that the witness is lying on the witness stand and doesn't bring it to the attention of the Court, that is about the worst thing a lawyer can do. So --

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Of course. It's called in the vernacular suborn perjury. If that witness lies and the lawyer's aware of it and doesn't do something about it, it's unethical and it is illegal. So that was a tremendous blow, I think, to the prosecution. When this lawyer for the U.S. attorney's office admitted, well, you know, the drug dealer did tell some lies, flippant, like it was not anything that was important. It's very disturbing.

GLENN: Okay. Now, we know that now the prosecution has admitted that he told some lies. We know that they knew in advance of the second drug load, which Johnny Sutton said to me, and I know he said to you guys as well, oh, we don't know that; we have no evidence of that; we're still looking into that. We know now that that was a blatant lie to us in the media and you in congress, but then after that second drug run they raised the charges. While this guy's credibility is going down and they know that he's lying, they raise the charges against Compean and Ramos. That is the second thing that they were upset about, right, yesterday, Tara?

SETMAYER: Yes, they were clearly upset about the application of the 924(c) gun charge which was the minimum sentence enhancement that was added on after the initial charges. It's called a superceding indictment. The reason why is because this has huge complications for any law enforcement officer that carries a weapon, and the questions right away, they asked them, do you think that a police officer is always subject to this statute no matter what the circumstances are. And the Government said, well, yes. And that was concerning for the judges because that means that a law enforcement officer who is lawfully permitted to carry a weapon, lawfully permitted to discharge that weapon and can in a reasonable force situation. So one of the judges asked, well, you could have -- this is exactly what he said: There are a number of charges you could have used. Why this one? And they said -- he asked, why did you stack? He used the term "Stack" charges against them. And that's when he went into his, almost a lecture about how if these guys had reported this, do you think the prosecution would have proceeded? And the Government admitted, probably not. And he said, well, you know, they were concerned about that. So basically they're being charged for not reporting, which isn't a crime. That's a procedural violation that could have been handled within the policies of the border patrol.

SETMAYER: And so the implications of a 924(c) gun charge I think is what prompted the judges to say that this got out of hand and that the Government overreacted, which are quotes.

GLENN: We have Tara Setmayer from Congressman Rohrabacher's office. These are the people who have been behind this from the very beginning. Congressman Ted Poe who was a prosecutor and a state judge, who has been leading the charge in congress as well. So congress, let me go to you as a former judge. What would you be thinking if you were sitting on the bench and you heard all of this stuff start to spill out?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: The application of adding the rep charge. As the U.S. attorney said yesterday, they've never done this in a case before. In other words, no law enforcement officer has ever been prosecuted and they had the gun charge application stacked on them to give more time. He said that to the judges yesterday. So it looks like to the observer, common sense observer that there's a vindictiveness by the U.S. attorney against the border agents; and more technically, this does not apply to peace officers. The law was written to apply to a person who commits a federal crime and he uses a gun and that way the person would get more time in prison because a gun was used. Doesn't apply to police officers because the law not only allows them but requires them to carry a firearm while they're on duty and so now they're being punished for doing what they're supposed to do by law. So I think the judges had a real issue here with why the prosecution seemed to be a little vindictive in putting this application on a peace officer where it's never been applied before.

GLENN: Okay, congressman, let me ask you two questions. Then I've got to run because we've got David Botsford on who is the appeals attorney for Compean and Ramos. Let me just get your read here. A, this is as significant as I believe it is right now, yes or no; and B, does this look like this could turn into releasing of Compean and Ramos; and C, do you believe that anything else will happen? Will we go after the people in the system that did this to Compean and Ramos?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: It's highly significant and I hope the judges allow Ramos and Compean to have bail while they're pending their decision. The purpose of bail is to secure a person's appearance in court. And they are not going anywhere. They are not running away. So they should be allowed to have bail based on the hearing yesterday. And the most important thing thirdly, yes, we're going to follow up with the Justice Department hopefully to have aggressive investigations on this whole relentless attitude by the U.S. attorney's office on prosecuting the border agents. So we're not through with this issue yet.

GLENN: I'm glad to hear it. Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, thank you for being with us. Tara Setmayer from Congressman Rohrabacher's office, as always it's good to have you on and we'll follow this in the coming days.

Here’s more: Glenn interviews David Botsford (Ramos’ attorney)

David Botsford
DECEMBER 04, 2007

GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: David Botsford is an attorney. He represents, I believe Ramos and I don’t tell Compean, or is it the other way around? David, welcome to the program.

BOTSFORD: Welcome. Thank you for having me. And I represent Ramos in connection with the appeal only, not Mr. Compean. But both are very similar.

GLENN: Yeah, I was going to say if one gets out, the other’s going to get out as well, right?

BOTSFORD: It looks that way. I would suspect so Glenn, based on the appellate arguments. And counsel for Compean and I have coordinated extensively during the course of the appeal. So the arguments are interrelated and essentially applied to both of them with equal force.

GLENN: Okay, David, I’ve only got about four minutes before the bottom of the hour. I wanted to get your read on what happened yesterday. What does all of this mean?

BOTSFORD: Well, it’s hard to say what it means, Glenn, but we’re certainly encouraged. The court, this is a very good panel of judges on the court. They were very responsive to the issues that we raised. They were obviously very, very concerned about them and although the Court will follow the law, you’ve got to be encouraged by virtue of the comments that they made during the course of the oral argument.

GLENN: Any idea how long it’s going to take them to make a decision?

BOTSFORD: Typically would be roughly 60 days. That’s kind of an internal guideline. It could be a little quicker, could be a little slower. They have to address the insufficiency of the evidence arguments that have been raised in the appeal as opposed to just addressing the two arguments and issues that were presented yesterday.

GLENN: Have you asked for them to be let out on bail on this based on what came out yesterday?

BOTSFORD: Well, not based on what came out yesterday, Glenn. We asked for bail back in January of 2007. The statute is very, very restrictive and says you have to be able to show exceptional circumstances when you’ve been convicted of a crime of violence, and this 924(c) conviction, the gun count, is a crime of violence. So a different judge on the court of appeals had denied that motion for bond and quite candidly, you know, the issue of whether there’s, quote, exceptional circumstances is somewhat muddied.

GLENN: Really? Hang on, hang on. Hang on just a second. You’re saying that the federal government admitting yesterday that the star witness lied under oath is not an exceptional circumstance?

BOTSFORD: I would say it should be an exceptional circumstance, Glenn, but there’s no case law that would directly address that. The body of law dealing with exceptional circumstances is very minimal, but we’re in the process of ascertaining whether we should be filing a motion for bond in the next week or so and whether the Court would reconsider its previous denial that there are no exceptional circumstances in the case.

GLENN: If they come back and say, you screwed this whole thing up, do they have to go through another trial, or is this then thrown out? What are you hoping is going to happen?

BOTSFORD: Well, I’m hoping that the case will be reversed on all counts, insufficient evidence on all counts and therefore that a retrial would be barred by double jeopardy. Absent that we’re hoping a new trial on all counts and that Mr. Sutton would see the folly of his past ways and just dismiss the case, but I can’t speak for what Mr. Sutton will do.

GLENN: Have you had any idea if anybody wants to go after Mr. Sutton or the federal government on this if they do reverse all charges and — because it sure looks, it looks dirty to me from start to finish.

BOTSFORD: Well, you’ve got to be concerned about the line prosecutors that instigated this and why it was carried forward and, of course, it’s got a life of its own now. And whether congress wants to investigate, I think that’s super. I think there should be an investigation as to why border patrol agents who are — you know, there are responsibilities to protect this country from terrorists and people entering illegally. I mean, I just can’t fathom why this case was prosecuted. I really can’t.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, read the last chapter of my book. David, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Say hi to Ignacio for me, will you? Tell him I’m not giving up on him.

BOTSFORD: I will do that later today.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. And another thing, you should tell him that I meet people from all across the country that have bought our border patrol shirts to protect and serve time. Every single dime goes right to the legal defense of our border agents, and I’ve seen them everywhere, from coast to coast on people who are coming out for the show and the book signings and everything else. If you’d like to buy one, every dime goes to their legal defense and you can find it in the merchandise section or the Glenn Beck web store at GlennBeck.com. More in just a second.

END TRANSCRIPT

And lastly, Glenn interviews Sara Carter:

Sara Carter
DECEMBER 04, 2007

GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: All right. Let me go to Sara Carter from the Washington Times. Sarah has been on this border story forever. There’s been some controversy going on on one of the stories that she reported a couple of weeks ago that we brought to you on basically back to Laredo where some terrorists may or may not have gotten in through drug lord connections into our country but I want to talk to her here a little bit about what she knows about Davila and this particular case with this drug runner that is the star residence that we found out yesterday lied under oath and the Government knew about it, what the story is on his medical condition and how much free medical care did the United States actually give this drug lord. Welcome to the program, Sarah.

CARTER: Thank you for having me on, Glenn. I appreciate it. It’s great.

Border Patrol Fundraiser Shirt
***All of Glenn’s proceeds from the sale of this shirt will be donated to a legal defense fund for Agents Ramos and Compean.***

To quote Col. Nathan Jessep—Jack Nicholson’s character from, A Few Good Men—”Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.” That’s true, and some of the men guarding our walls are U.S. Border Patrol Agents. Thing is…if one of those Border Agents tries to protect our walls with their guns, they might just end up in prison for the next 11 years. That’s what happened to agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. You’ve heard me talk about the injustice done to these brave men, and you know that I’m outraged. I invite you to join me in showing both your anger and commitment to setting them free by wearing one of these t-shirts: “U.S. Border Patrol…To Protect And Serve Time.” It’s the least we can do for two men who have done the most…men with families who are unfairly paying the price for doing their duty, showing their bravery, and trying to keep all Americans safe.

GLENN: You bet. Tell me about what you know about this, what do you call it, the immunity? Yeah, the immunity that he received and the medical attention that he received here.

CARTER: Well, Glenn, I have been working on this story since I originally broke it when I was working at the Los Angeles News Group in L.A. when I did the story, the very first story on Ramos and Compean, it started off a firestorm of questions and answers and investigations that led me all the way to the border, and I’ve been actually following Davila ever since this trial ended and up until recently this last month trying to locate him. During my last month reporting on this story, I did speak with family members of Davila. So I knew. I knew last year that Davila was working for a smuggling ring. His family had told me that they had felt terrible about what had happened to the two border patrol agents and that Davila would never cross the border without carrying a weapon on him, specifically if he was carrying a dope load that was worth nearly a million dollars.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Hang on. Who did you speak to that said this? What were the connections to him?

CARTER: Well, I spoke to family members of Davila, very close family members. And when I spoke to them, I used them as — I didn’t explain who they were in the story for their protection.

GLENN: Yes.

CARTER: They were very concerned about their safety, but they were also very concerned about the two border patrol agents that were convicted. They had specifically told me that Davila had been smuggling narcotics since the age of 14, that he was a middleman in a drug smuggling thing associated with the Juarez cartel, and it made sense. Look, Davila was smuggling narcotics through an area controlled by the cartel, Vicente Carrillo Fuentes. He wouldn’t be smuggling narcotics through that territory without working for them without being killed later and Davila seems to be fine to this day and crisscrossing to this day across the border as we saw. He was in the United States. I reported on that first more than a few weeks ago and I got through sources that I had established relationships with in that area that he had been seen in several hospitals. The last time he was seen, his attorney stated during the bond hearing was that he was in the United States on November 6th. That would be at, I believe he was at one of the hospitals there, maybe Sierra Medical is what I recall for his injuries sustained, the colostomy that he was wearing.

When he was ordered back into the United States across the bridge, Christopher Sanchez who had originally done the investigation was asked by DEA to lure him in.

GLENN: Okay. How is he lured, how is he lured in and why lure him in if he was coming back and forth across the border, known by the United States government for medical care?

CARTER: Well, that’s what’s very interesting about this. These sources in intelligence which I spoke with said, well, I don’t believe he was in the United States because had he been in the United States, obviously the DEA would have arrested him because at that point in time in November the grand jury indictment was in. They were ready to arrest him. So they had no idea he was in the United States in November according to them. So they had to lure him in. But according to his attorney and according to eye witnesses in El Paso, he was in those hospitals. And now we see by the admission of his new attorney that he was in an El Paso hospital on November 6th for treatment.

Now, when he was lured in and the DEA made the arrest, now, you have to realize the DEA had been working on this case for more — since October 2005 when we see in DEA agents that they believed they had enough evidence to arrest him then on the second dope load. They had more than enough evidence but they were stopped from doing that.

GLENN: So how did he get in across this border? I mean, this is such a stupid question.

CARTER: And that is the question. His attorney never revealed that, how he got in across the border. But according to the sources, he must have done it with the permission of the U.S. Government with an I-94 visa. So either he was issued an I-94 visa by the Department of Homeland Security or somebody at the U.S. Justice Department got him an I-94 visa to crisscross the border back and forth to get to the hospital.

GLENN: What’s an I-94? What’s an I-94 and who usually gets it?

CARTER: An I-94 visa, if you are doing it with law enforcement, it was the same visa issued to him, a human attorney visa. The assistant U.S. attorneys who gave him the visa to come in to testify against the agents, it’s a visa that I think it’s a 90-day visa that allows you to crisscross back and forth across the border without escort, without escort into the United States. So you could apply for an I-94 visa even at the El Paso port of entry and it —

GLENN: Wait a minute. If you had an I-94 visa, if the DEA was looking for you, would that stop them from noticing or stop them from argue?

CARTER: Well, it shouldn’t have stopped them from either, but if they didn’t know that he was issued an I-94 visa, they would have no idea that he was coming back and forward inside the United States unless someone had told them or unless —

GLENN: But wait a minute. He wouldn’t use his name? I mean, are we really that antiquated that we don’t type people’s names in or we don’t have his name sitting there at the border?

CARTER: It depends on if the CBP agents at the port were doing their job, if every time he crossed back and forth they put him in the system. And as we know, I’ve written many stories about the El Paso sector where people crisscrossed back and forth and their names are not placed in the system.

GLENN: Sarah —

CARTER: They can be stamped through because of times and because of wait times.

GLENN: I’ve got to run, but give me a 30-second answer here at the most. How far up the chain of command do you think this goes?

CARTER: I think it goes very high up the chain of command, and from what I’ve been seeing, I think that there’s a lot more to the story and I know a lot more of this story is going to come out in the future.

GLENN: Yeah.

CARTER: And I think the U.S. Justice Department knows that, I think the administration knows that, and I believe the American people are starting to see that.

GLENN: Yeah, I think American people are on it a lot more than most people give them credit. From the Washington Times, it’s Sara Carter. We’ll talk to you again soon.

END TRANSCRIPT

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.