Thread: Tony Snow to meet with congressman,

Originally Posted by jamesw62

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.

Yes, I know that there was an arrest in 2005. What I don't know is what the indictment alleges (it's sealed) or whether immunity has been granted in that case.

the indictment says he was caught and charged with possession of 1000 pounds of pot. that is waht the DEA and FBI agents were going to say at the trial.

Sutton claims no immunity was given on the second catch. but if its a sealed indictment the only ones who will know about it would be those who took part in the detaining and arresting of davila in late 05. (thats my guess)

Originally Posted by jamesw62

the indictment says he was caught and charged with possession of 1000 pounds of pot. that is waht the DEA and FBI agents were going to say at the trial.

Sutton claims no immunity was given on the second catch. but if its a sealed indictment the only ones who will know about it would be those who took part in the detaining and arresting of davila in late 05. (thats my guess)

Maybe I am not expressing myself properly. What the defense ALLEGES is that the DEA and FBI agents were going to say at the trial is that the suspect was charged with possession of 1000 lbs. of pot. There is a sealed warrant, and the testimony was never given. It may well turn out to be true, but you can't go around stating as fact things that are alleged by a defense attorney or other supporters of the defense.

Sutton does in fact claim that no immunity was given in the second case, yet people are here WITHOUT EVIDENCE claiming that immunity was given. Again, you can't turn suspicions into fact. Until there is evidence that clearly contradicts the claim of the prosecutor that there has been no additional immunity conferred, you can't call him a liar or make the claim that the guy was given immunity.

My issue here is with the propensity for the defenders of these agents to go beyond exposition of fact and off into the realm of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. If we stick to the actual FACTS, we'll get to the bottom of this thing. If we go nuts repeating anything that the defense leaks then we may just end up letting some guilty agents off the hook.

Sutton does in fact claim that no immunity was given in the second case, yet people are here WITHOUT EVIDENCE claiming that immunity was given. Again, you can't turn suspicions into fact. Until there is evidence that clearly contradicts the claim of the prosecutor that there has been no additional immunity conferred, you can't call him a liar or make the claim that the guy was given immunity.

Crocket, what I had heard, and I think this came from someone speaking on Lou Dobbs, was that he was CAUGHT a second time, but was not formally arrested, so legally, there would be no "immunity" per se??? Is this possible...that they decided not to charge him and looked the other way on the second offense?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by jamesw62

the indictment says he was caught and charged with possession of 1000 pounds of pot. that is waht the DEA and FBI agents were going to say at the trial.

Sutton claims no immunity was given on the second catch. but if its a sealed indictment the only ones who will know about it would be those who took part in the detaining and arresting of davila in late 05. (thats my guess)

Maybe I am not expressing myself properly. What the defense ALLEGES is that the DEA and FBI agents were going to say at the trial is that the suspect was charged with possession of 1000 lbs. of pot. There is a sealed warrant, and the testimony was never given. It may well turn out to be true, but you can't go around stating as fact things that are alleged by a defense attorney or other supporters of the defense.

Well right now i tend to believe what they are saying against what sutton is saying when his words are based on the testimony of an admitted 20 year drug runner.

Sutton does in fact claim that no immunity was given in the second case, yet people are here WITHOUT EVIDENCE claiming that immunity was given. Again, you can't turn suspicions into fact. Until there is evidence that clearly contradicts the claim of the prosecutor that there has been no additional immunity conferred, you can't call him a liar or make the claim that the guy was given immunity.

Sutton ALSO makes a claim that he knows nothing about the second bust as well. IF he doesnt know, then he is either STUPID or does not take the time to read the reports online and interview on the TV or radio, for which he apparently has gone on a media blitz since the 17th trying to sell the american people on HIS and the drug runners Facts. sorry dont buy him, his facts or the facts and words of a drug runner, never will

My issue here is with the propensity for the defenders of these agents to go beyond exposition of fact and off into the realm of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. If we stick to the actual FACTS, we'll get to the bottom of this thing. If we go nuts repeating anything that the defense leaks then we may just end up letting some guilty agents off the hook.

MY issue is the fact that the prosecutor went out of her way to keep these witnesses off the stand cuz she probably knew it would jeopardize the case and the immunity given

Originally Posted by Kate

Sutton does in fact claim that no immunity was given in the second case, yet people are here WITHOUT EVIDENCE claiming that immunity was given. Again, you can't turn suspicions into fact. Until there is evidence that clearly contradicts the claim of the prosecutor that there has been no additional immunity conferred, you can't call him a liar or make the claim that the guy was given immunity.

Crocket, what I had heard, and I think this came from someone speaking on Lou Dobbs, was that he was CAUGHT a second time, but was not formally arrested, so legally, there would be no "immunity" per se??? Is this possible...that they decided not to charge him and looked the other way on the second offense?

No, to my understanding there is a sealed indictment. That means that charges have been brought, but their nature and other details have been kept secret.