Thread: Why wasn’t this U.S. attorney fired?

Saturday, July 07, 2007
Why wasn’t this U.S. attorney fired?
http://bordercontrol.blogspot.com/2007/ ... his-u.html



The White House and the Justice Department should have added Johnny Sutton to the list of federal prosecutors to be fired.

Sutton is the U.S. attorney in west Texas. For five years he has been the top federal lawman in one of the nation's busiest regions, a job he secured with deep ties to President Bush and Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.

But in those five years, he’s conducted a campaign against law enforcement officers, especially Border Patrol agents. They include:


Border Patrol Agent Gary M. Brugman, sentenced to two years in prison for shoving an illegal alien to the ground. The use of force was in accordance with his training, he said, and the migrant was not injured.

Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, sentenced to more than decade-long prison terms for shooting a drug smuggler suspect in the buttocks after he abandoned 743 pounds of marijuana on the border.

Border Patrol Agent Noe Aleman, convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States for trying to adopt three teenage girls from Mexico and harboring them in his home. The girls were his wife's nieces and Texas officials had approved the adoption.

Edwards County, Texas, Deputy Sheriff Guillermo "Gilmer" Hernandez, sentenced to a year in prison for shooting at a truck loaded with illegal aliens after the driver tried to run him down.
Ramos and Compean were sentenced in October, just as the White House was preparing to fire eight other federal prosecutors. The parallel events have left many disappointed that Sutton was not terminated too.

'Johnny Sutton has lied to the American people,' Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntingon Beach) proclaimed in a House floor speech in March. 'Sutton prosecuted the good guys and gave immunity to the bad guys.'

Sutton is the U.S. attorney in west Texas. For five years he has been the top federal lawman in one of the nation's busiest regions, a job he secured with deep ties to President Bush and Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.

That's why this U.S. Attorney wasn't fired!

Look up "hack" in the dictionary and you'll find this guy's picture.

He's bush boy's buddy!

He is Bushes SPECIAL BUDDY...

These fools HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY!!!


ZERO

It is not Johnny Sutton we should be angry with. It is the laws that allow him to do what he did. The law protect criminals and not those who enforce the laws. If the agents had been cops in our inner cities, who do this type of shooting all the time and they are given stiff sentences and we would be all in favor of locking them up for a long time. According to the law it is not legal to shoot anyone who is fleeing unless they feel they are being threaten. The law does not allow us to shoot criminals just because the are criminals. Should the laws be changed so that criminals can be shot because they are fleeing?
I am afraid we do not have the whole story and we will never know the whole story.
If any part of your legal document or testimony is not credible it will taint the whole testimony. That is the way the our legal system work.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

It is not Johnny Sutton we should be angry with. It is the laws that allow him to do what he did. The law protect criminals and not those who enforce the laws. If the agents had been cops in our inner cities, who do this type of shooting all the time and they are given stiff sentences and we would be all in favor of locking them up for a long time. According to the law it is not legal to shoot anyone who is fleeing unless they feel they are being threaten. The law does not allow us to shoot criminals just because the are criminals. Should the laws be changed so that criminals can be shot because they are fleeing?
I am afraid we do not have the whole story and we will never know the whole story.
If any part of your legal document or testimony is not credible it will taint the whole testimony. That is the way the our legal system work.

Both agents thought that the cartel employee aimed a gun at them.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by dyehard39

It is not Johnny Sutton we should be angry with. It is the laws that allow him to do what he did. The law protect criminals and not those who enforce the laws. If the agents had been cops in our inner cities, who do this type of shooting all the time and they are given stiff sentences and we would be all in favor of locking them up for a long time. According to the law it is not legal to shoot anyone who is fleeing unless they feel they are being threaten. The law does not allow us to shoot criminals just because the are criminals. Should the laws be changed so that criminals can be shot because they are fleeing?
I am afraid we do not have the whole story and we will never know the whole story.
If any part of your legal document or testimony is not credible it will taint the whole testimony. That is the way the our legal system work.

Both agents thought that the cartel employee aimed a gun at them.

And when was this allegation made and reported? It shoud have been in the first report filed. It should have been the first thing that came out of their mouths.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

And when was this allegation made and reported? It shoud have been in the first report filed. It should have been the first thing that came out of their mouths.

When they were arrested they mentioned it. They covered it up, because they did not call in the persuit to their superiors and get the OK to fire. The worst thing they did was the cover-up. They should not have been put in prison for 10-11 years for attempted murder.

If they wanted to murder the scumbag, they had plenty of opportunity. Why would they decide this at the last second, when they had the worst chances for a successful murder?