Thread: Tony Snow to meet with congressman,

Originally Posted by jamesw62

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

The fact that the victim was a criminal is no more an issue than it would be an issue if you were drunk and hit a pedestrian who happened to be pedophile. There are laws that the officers MUST follow. In fact, people paid to protect us and goven the power to use deadly force should be among the most criminally accountable in our society. I don't like that the scumbag drug runner got off, but we've already covered the fact that there was no way to prosecute him given that the agents had already claimed they could not identify the perp and that he was back in Mexico where extradition would have been all but impossible.

HOWEVER, if I find out for certin that the scumbag was caught trafficking narcotics AFTERWARDS (as has been alleged) and is/was not prosecuted, I'm going to be as royally P.O.ed as anyone.

CrocketsGhost wrote

HOWEVER, if I find out for certin that the scumbag was caught trafficking narcotics AFTERWARDS (as has been alleged) and is/was not prosecuted, I'm going to be as royally P.O.ed as anyone.

If I were you, Crocket, I'd be getting really ready to blow my stack!

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by jamesw62

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

The fact that the victim was a criminal is no more an issue than it would be an issue if you were drunk and hit a pedestrian who happened to be pedophile. There are laws that the officers MUST follow. In fact, people paid to protect us and goven the power to use deadly force should be among the most criminally accountable in our society. I don't like that the scumbag drug runner got off, but we've already covered the fact that there was no way to prosecute him given that the agents had already claimed they could not identify the perp and that he was back in Mexico where extradition would have been all but impossible.

HOWEVER, if I find out for certin that the scumbag was caught trafficking narcotics AFTERWARDS (as has been alleged) and is/was not prosecuted, I'm going to be as royally P.O.ed as anyone.

IF YOU listen to interviewed and read articles based on witnesses and testimony that was not able to take place at this trial in regard to the second drug bust where DEA and FBI agents both had knowledge of the second bust then something is wrong.

as i have said many times, it was 1000 pounds and it occured in the fall of 2005. the indictment was sealed because he was already on immunity for this case

If the indictment was/is sealed, then where are you getting the information other than hearsay?

it was the defense attorneys who brought in the DEA and FBI agents
to testify at the trial, the same trial that debra kanof went out of her way to keep these people off the stand

Originally Posted by jamesw62

it was the defense attorneys who brought in the DEA and FBI agents
to testify at the trial, the same trial that debra kanof went out of her way to keep these people off the stand

Wait, are you telling me that defense attorneys are claiming that their guys didn't get a fair trial? That never happens.

Also, it still doesn't answer how you would have acces to the contents of a sealed indictment.

The initial immunity offer covered Aldrete-Davila's illegal entry into the U.S., the drug smuggling and his unlawful flight from the agents to avoid arrest. Sutton expanded the immunity to include a subsequent drug offense, when Aldrete-Davila tried to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States.

"Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of a habitual Mexican drug smuggler, who was given immunity by federal prosecutors to testify," the congressmen said in their letter to Sensenbrenner.

"The integrity of this witness must be called into question, but a sealed indictment for drug charges forbade Ramos and Compean from doing so during their trial."

Congressmen Ted Poe and Walter Jones

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 1204b.html

I have heard the drug scum received immunity twice on Fox news, I am surprised you have not heard that Crocket, whether it is true or not I guess we will find out when all the crap hits the fan, now the Congressmen finally have a copy of the transcript, of which they had to file a freedom of information act, to get it, I guess in this case an "act of congress" just didn't cut it for homeland security! It took 3 months to get a copy of this, sounds a little fishy to me, I would wonder how much doctoring went into the copy the congressmen finally secured!

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I have heard the drug scum received immunity twice on Fox news, I am surprised you have not heard that Crocket, whether it is true or not I guess we will find out when all the crap hits the fan, now the Congressmen finally have a copy of the transcript, of which they had to file a freedom of information act, to get it, I guess in this case an "act of congress" just didn't cut it for homeland security! It took 3 months to get a copy of this, sounds a little fishy to me, I would wonder how much doctoring went into the copy the congressmen finally secured!

Well there is no question that he got immunity. The question is whether the immunity was extended to a later offense that occurred after his testimony had already been secured.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I have heard the drug scum received immunity twice on Fox news, I am surprised you have not heard that Crocket, whether it is true or not I guess we will find out when all the crap hits the fan, now the Congressmen finally have a copy of the transcript, of which they had to file a freedom of information act, to get it, I guess in this case an "act of congress" just didn't cut it for homeland security! It took 3 months to get a copy of this, sounds a little fishy to me, I would wonder how much doctoring went into the copy the congressmen finally secured!

Well there is no question that he got immunity. The question is whether the immunity was extended to a later offense that occurred after his testimony had already been secured.

CROCKETT the second arrest happened in the fall of 05.
the trial started in February of 2006.