Thread: Tony Snow to meet with congressman,

INVASION USA
White House will review
border-agent case uproar
Tony Snow to meet with congressman,
promises look at trial transcript

Posted: January 29, 2007
9:40 p.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

White House spokesman Tony Snow
Amid growing criticism from congressmen and activists of its handling of the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents, the White House is opening up a line of communication with lawmakers and promises it will review a transcript of the trial.

During a telephone interview today with WND, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., received a call from press secretary Tony Snow, inviting him to meet for a friendly, unofficial discussion about the case.

Meanwhile, Snow explained to WND the White House's current stance in a brief interview Sunday.

"What we're doing is getting the entire trial transcript so everybody can see what happened in trial, and we can try to discern the real facts of the case," Snow told WND after a luncheon address at National Review's Conservative Summit in Washington.

He insisted the development does not represent a shift in how the White House is approaching the case.

"I think what's happened is a lot of people have differing accounts of this, and the best way to resolve them is not by having people scream at each other but by finding out what the fact record is, and that's what we're going to do," said Snow.

Rohrabacher said, however, he has no doubt this is a response to pressure – including campaigns for a pardon and House resolutions to throw out the case – noting that previously the president and his senior staff would not return phone calls from him and other senior congressmen.

"The very fact that they are now willing to look at this case is indication of some progress," Rohrabacher told WND. "However, if they don't do an honest assessment – for political reasons, or for ego reasons or for reasons of friendship with the prosecutor – then it doesn't make any difference if they take a second look, or a first look at the facts."

Rohrabacher characterized his planned meeting with Snow as a "conversation between two old friends."

"It's not a formal negotiation but an opening up of communications," he said.

The California congressman, along with several Republican colleagues, has been sharply critical of the administration's handling of the prosecution of former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences Jan. 17, of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them.

Rohrabacher previously told WND he considered the president's handling of the case "disgraceful."

"This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen," Rohrabacher told WND, referring to the president. "It's shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party. He obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."

Problems with transcript

Snow told Rohrabacher the White House is trying to get a copy of the transcript as soon as possible, but there have been obstacles.

The main problem, according to Rohrabacher, is with the transcript's accuracy, because the court reporter apparently "wasn't up to the challenge the case presented."

The congressman could provide no further details, only that "they're working on" difficulties with the transcript. He contended, however, the administration has enough of the facts to make a decision now.

"The president shouldn't have to go to the transcript to see that, on the face of it, this prosecution makes no sense," Rohrabacher said. "You've got a professional drug dealer who was a mule for the cartels, and the prosecutor has been taking that person's side and his word."

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton defended his prosecution in an interview with WND.

The White House press office was asked today to answer follow-up questions but has not responded.

A staunch defender of Ramos and Compean, TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told WND he has seen snippets of the transcript and contends there are problems with the prosecution's case.

"I'm anxious to see the transcript, because I'm not afraid to see what will be revealed," he said. "Once people find out the truth, they will be even more outraged that the government pursued the case, knowing what they know."

Making the case

The White House this month appealed to some of its more vocal critics on the border-agent issue, including Phyllis Schlafly. The long-time activist and syndicated columnist wrote a column arguing "President Bush pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers, at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend America against drug smugglers."

Schlafly told WND she received a call Jan. 8 from U.S. Attorney Sutton.

"He tried to make his case, and he was completely unpersuasive," she said.

Schlafly called Snow's effort to acquire the transcript and lay out the facts a "stall."

"We've looked at the facts, and the facts are it's an outrage," Schlafly said. "The bottom line is the drug smuggler was given immunity and went Scot free, and two border guards went to prison for 11 and 12 years."

Rohrabacher said that while such positive attempts to establish communication have been made, "on the negative side," the White House is "going through its natural allies, which believe in open borders."

He referred to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal Friday, which he called a "character assassination" of Compean and Ramos.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54001

Snow told Rohrabacher the White House is trying to get a copy of the transcript as soon as possible, but there have been obstacles.

The main problem, according to Rohrabacher, is with the transcript's accuracy, because the court reporter apparently "wasn't up to the challenge the case presented."

The congressman could provide no further details, only that "they're working on" difficulties with the transcript. He contended, however, the administration has enough of the facts to make a decision now.

OMG, I do not believe this. Difficulties with the transcript? What, they can't read it because Sutton blackened out much of it?

Originally Posted by Kate

Snow told Rohrabacher the White House is trying to get a copy of the transcript as soon as possible, but there have been obstacles.

The main problem, according to Rohrabacher, is with the transcript's accuracy, because the court reporter apparently "wasn't up to the challenge the case presented."

The congressman could provide no further details, only that "they're working on" difficulties with the transcript. He contended, however, the administration has enough of the facts to make a decision now.

OMG, I do not believe this. Difficulties with the transcript? What, they can't read it because Sutton blackened out much of it?

Thought the same thing, Kate. How convenient there are some difficulties with the transcript. Yeah, right!

Thank goodness for Dana Rohrbacher! Go Dana!!! What a man!

Make him squirm Dana!

Hand over the transcrips now!!

Kate wrote:

OMG, I do not believe this. Difficulties with the transcript? What, they can't read it because Sutton blackened out much of it?

Sounds right to me Kate! The plot thickens.......

asi said in another post somewhere, a person at Rohrabachers office today told me that the reason there still is no transcript is because the person doing it took shorthand and has been sick with various illnesses.

so who knows what the truth is.
Snow says they want to know the entire case, then they need to interview the officers, sutton, kanof, cordone, sanchez from DHS, the other Sanchez from wilcox BP office and his relation to drug runner since they are childhood friends. they also need to talk to the attorneys for ramos and compean and find out what evidence was NOT allowed in the trial and what witnesses that kanof kept off the stand and why.

Well, if there is no valid transcript the officers will be denied their right to due process because the process of appeal will be impaired. If that's the case, the conviction should be thrown out on technical grounds. That may be what the White House is angling for as a means of getting the agents out of jail while allowing the prosecution to save face.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Well, if there is no valid transcript the officers will be denied their right to due process because the process of appeal will be impaired. If that's the case, the conviction should be thrown out on technical grounds. That may be what the White House is angling for as a means of getting the agents out of jail while allowing the prosecution to save face.

Now that's a very interesting point! Hmmm....

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Well, if there is no valid transcript the officers will be denied their right to due process because the process of appeal will be impaired. If that's the case, the conviction should be thrown out on technical grounds. That may be what the White House is angling for as a means of getting the agents out of jail while allowing the prosecution to save face.

the case should have been dropped when the drug runner ADMITS that he was running the drugs and should also be dismissed when three jurors come forward with signed affadavits in regard to juror tampering and harassment by the foreman and by a second juror who said he wasnt going to be there next week because IT WAS SPRING BREAK AND he already had plans

Well, if there is no valid transcript the officers will be denied their right to due process because the process of appeal will be impaired. If that's the case, the conviction should be thrown out on technical grounds. That may be what the White House is angling for as a means of getting the agents out of jail while allowing the prosecution to save face.

This makes sense. It would give the White House a way to release the agents while saving face and without POing the OBLs. On the other hand, how could they not have transcripts finalized from the trial this many months later?