Up next here, more on the outrage over the imprisonment of former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. One of their most vocal supporters on Capitol Hill, Congressman Ted Poe, is among our guests.

Also, the prosecutor at the center of this case, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, joins me to answer my questions.

And I will ask two of the senators who grilled Sutton today, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who led the inquiry, and Senator John Cornyn.

Stay with us -- all of that a great deal more still ahead here tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Johnny Sutton is the U.S. attorney for Western Texas. He led the prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. And, as we have been reporting here, Sutton faced tough questions today from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton joins me here now in Washington.

Good to have you with us.

SUTTON: Well, thanks for having me, Lou.

DOBBS: That could not have been an easy task for you today.

Let me turn to, first, the comments by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who referred to you in some strong words. He called you "an elitist, arrogant and overreaching prosecutor who put the rights of a drug smuggler before those of two hardworking Border Patrol Agents."

How do you respond?

SUTTON: Well, it's, you know, I -- I -- I don't know what's in his mind. I -- I give him the benefit of the doubt that -- that he truly believes that.

I'm sure he's a good Congressman.

But with due respect to him, he's -- he's very wrong on the facts of this case and he said a lot of things today that were just inaccurate.

And you know, this was a jury trial. I mean this wasn't something that popped out of my head. This, you know, these -- the two lawyers who tried this are veterans -- 35-year veterans of the Department of Justice -- their combined experience. And West Texas juries don't do these kind of things just because some U.S. attorney says we want to convict some Border Patrol agents.

Chief Aguilar said today 144 agents in the last two years have used deadly force. Thirteen times they killed people. Not one of those Border Patrol agents was prosecuted.

DOBBS: What --

SUTTON: These are the only guys that were. So we --

DOBBS: Well --

SUTTON: This is a very rare thing for us to prosecute agents.

DOBBS: So -- let -- let's go to some of the facts of this case.

SUTTON: Sure.

DOBBS: One of those facts -- and you said it again today in Room 226 of the Dirksen Building. You said these agents shot an unarmed man in the back.

SUTTON: Right.

DOBBS: Well, that's one version of the facts. But, also, it was controverted by their own testimony. And, in point of fact, the Army surgeon who withdrew the bullet did not declare that that would have been an inconsistent entry wound from a position that would have been assumed had he been firing a weapon.

So the agents have maintained throughout that they saw something in his hand which they thought was a gun.

SUTTON: Well, and that's another piece of information that the jury heard that the American public hasn't heard. The first we ever hear about a gun is one month after they shoot this guy. And that's after they had been arrested. They didn't tell their buddies (INAUDIBLE) --

DOBBS: How much longer after he had been shot did you arrest the agents?

SUTTON: About a month. It was about a month from the shooting --

DOBBS: So (INAUDIBLE) was contemporary?

SUTTON: -- until when we arrested them. So -- so what they --

DOBBS: So it would have been contemporaneous with that claim of defense?

SUTTON: No, no, no. They -- they covered it up for a month. And it wasn't until we arrested Compean that he ever mentioned anything about a gun. So what I'm saying is that as -- as they're conspiring with other agents -- with another agent, as Compean is conspiring, picking up the shells, he never said a gun. He said the guy threw dirt in my eyes.

So I guess what I'm saying is the jury heard all that information --

DOBBS: Well --

SUTTON: -- that said there was no gun. And there's no reason in the world to cover this up if that guy had a gun. I mean --

DOBBS: When you say cover up, it's interesting. There were a total of how many agents on the scene at various points during that first hour?

SUTTON: A whole bunch eventually got there --

DOBBS: There were a whole bunch, right.

SUTTON: -- (INAUDIBLE).

DOBBS: Including two supervisors or three?

SUTTON: Two supervisors eventually showed up. The cover-up was only the agents who were right at the scene. And some of those agents just knew about the shooting and didn't report it. You know, Agent Vazquez picked up the shell casings and destroyed evidence.

DOBBS: Well, let's talk a little bit about this cover-up. Amongst the things covered up, they are required to report a high speed chase.

Did they do so?

SUTTON: I don't know. I mean --

DOBBS: No, they did not.

SUTTON: I mean they certainly -- they would radio in that they were in pursuit. DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: So, I mean the supervisors were listening on the radio.

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: So they knew there was a -- there was a pursuit going on at the time.

DOBBS: The other aspect of this is that -- and it was brought up today -- the prospect that there was a gun, or at least what could have reasonably been perceived to be a gun, and that is the possession of a cell phone.

There were two vehicles waiting for the drug smuggler, Aldrete- Davila, when he crossed the Rio Grande onto the Mexican side of the border.

I mean that wasn't a coincidence, do you think?

SUTTON: I doubt it. I mean these --

DOBBS: So --

SUTTON: -- I mean I would imagine --

DOBBS: -- well, why would there not be the assumption, since no one found that second cell phone, that that could have possibly been something that would have been there?

SUTTON: Oh, that he had a cell phone and that's what they thought was the gun?

DOBBS: Well, I mean it's a possibility.

SUTTON: Sure, it's a possibility.

DOBBS: I mean (INAUDIBLE) --

SUTTON: And that's why we have jury trials. I mean that, you know, the defense attorneys that -- at the time of trial -- weren't even arguing it was a gun. They were arguing well, maybe it was a cell phone. And -- and that's why, you know, I brought out in my testimony today that we went back -- our agent went back and of the 150 loads that happened the year before this in Favon's (ph) --

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: -- 43,000 pounds of marijuana --

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) one gun.

SUTTON: No. Not one gun in that group.

DOBBS: So over a period of one year (INAUDIBLE) 2000 --

SUTTON: -- going back almost 500 loads to 2001 --

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: -- one gun. Now, that doesn't mean he didn't have a gun. But what it says is smugglers in that area don't carry guns. And it's -- the reason -- and the irony is because of the 924C --

DOBBS: The drug smuggler in this case, was he known to be a member of the cartel and a professional mule?

SUTTON: No. The DEA had no information about him --

DOBBS: No record on him?

SUTTON: He had no record in the United States before this.

DOBBS: So -- there is this perception, as you -- as you readily agree, much to your discomfort and your disagreement, that the effect of your prosecution was to side with a drug dealer against two Border Patrol Agents.

Let's examine part of that.

You gave, on March 16th of 2005, what we first thought was limited use immunity. Then we found out it's a transactional blanket immunity -- to a drug dealer.

SUTTON: Right.

DOBBS: Also within that trial, the record of a subsequent arrest for carrying the October load, as you have referred to it, was kept from the jury. Also kept from the jury was the total violence that David Aguilar, the head of the Border Patrol, referred to and as you just noted yourself, the incidence of violence -- 2,000 incidents of violence against Border Patrol Agents.

Why in the world would that not be part of the record you would want?

And I know you're an aggressive prosecutor. The people that work for you are aggressive prosecutors.

But why would that not be --

SUTTON: Some of the most aggressive in the country.

DOBBS: Why would that not be important for that jury to understand?

SUTTON: Well, it might be important to one side and that's -- that's why we have, you know, it's not mob rule. It's a jury trial. And that's why we've a judge who is trained on what the evidence is.

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: She decides what comes in and what doesn't. There was plenty of evidence that we tried to get in. The judge said no, you can't bring it in. It's too --

DOBBS: Like what?

SUTTON: Well, like the fact that -- that Agent Ramos had been arrested three times for assaulting his -- twice for assaulting his wife and once for assaulting her father. Those cases were all dismissed. The wife came in and dismissed them.

DOBBS: Those were domestic disputes.

SUTTON: Domestic disputes.

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: And that -- the relevance for us was he didn't report those to Border Patrol. Now, look, that's not the biggest deal in the world. Obviously, it's not good. But the point is we thought it was consistent with a cover-up and the judge said, no --

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) --

SUTTON: -- you can't let that in. That's what judges do. They make rulings. They said no, you can't let that in, government. The judge said to them, after reviewing the evidence on the alleged October load, no, that's not admissible.

But Rohrabacher calls that a cover-up, Lou.

I mean Rohrabacher calls me a liar and says that we covered that up --

DOBBS: Well, you all can call each other names, you know --

SUTTON: I've never called him a name.

DOBBS: -- I guess the expression is --

SUTTON: I've called him a good Congressman.

DOBBS: OK. Well, you --

SUTTON: My point is all that information was put before the judge. The defense attorneys argued it out. It's up on appeal with the Fifth Circuit. But the American public thinks, because of what people have said on this show and others --

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) --

SUTTON: -- that there was a cover-up.

DOBBS: Let me, let me --

SUTTON: And all that was presented in a court.

DOBBS: Let me -- OK.

I haven't accused --

SUTTON: you haven't, but they have. They have.

DOBBS: I don't think I have.

SUTTON: You haven't.

DOBBS: I am absolutely -- I consider your prosecution to be absolutely, completely out of any proportion to the alleged crime. I believe that these two agents really got a lousy deal. And I think the drug smuggler got a wonderful deal. And the idea of giving immunity and not learning, as your office did not, your prosecutors did not -- they didn't learn the name of a single member of a drug cartel. They didn't learn the location of a single safe house in that cartel. This guy was given, as you acknowledged, a -- I think as you put it -- in hindsight it wasn't a wise decision -- given full crossing privileges across the border as a drug smuggler. I mean there are remarkable -- remarkably generous tilts here in the favor and the advantage of the drug smuggler to the disadvantage of sworn law enforcement officers.

SUTTON: It's a terrible position for a prosecutor to be in. No prosecutor ever wants to go against --

DOBBS: Why did you put yourself in that position?

SUTTON: Well, I didn't put myself there. Compean and Ramos put me there. That's the horrible thing. I work with -- I've been a prosecutor my entire career --

DOBBS: OK. Let's stop.

Let's stop.

SUTTON: They put us there.

DOBBS: Ramos fired one shot. He fired one shot.

SUTTON: Right.

DOBBS: He was not in view of what was transpiring. He had, in my judgment, I think it's reasonable to say, every possible reason to think that something had happened and an exchange of gunfire. I won't speak to Compean, but to Ramos.

The fact that he is called, you know -- you know, to this moment you're calling him a man who's fired on a man -- an unarmed man, which is in dispute by the facts --

SUTTON: The jury -- we had a jury trial, Lou. We litigated it.

DOBBS: You have three jurors who regret their decision today and have stipulated that.

SUTTON: Yes, but what those jurors -- when you come in and say hey, would you -- these guys are fathers --

DOBBS: Did those --

SUTTON: -- of three, they're going to do a decade in prison --

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: By the way, I mean that's another thing that, to Senator Feinstein's credit, brought out. The 924C prosecution resulting in a minimum sentence for firearm -- the use of that firearm -- the jury did not realize that there's a 10-year minimum on that sentence alone.

SUTTON: Right. Well, that's right, because the jury -- that's not their job. Their job is to decide did they do it or did they not.

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: Has the government proved it beyond a reasonable doubt?

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: And then the question is what's the right punishment?

The judge sets that.

DOBBS: Do you honestly believe --

SUTTON: The punishment was set by Congress in this case.

DOBBS: Do you honestly believe that your office conducted itself as it should have in this case and that there is no doubt in your mind that Ramos and Compean should serve over 10 years in prison?

SUTTON: My -- my -- that's why I'm out publicly defending these guys tooth and nail.

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: They did the right thing. We --

DOBBS: These guys being?

SUTTON: My two -- my prosecutors in El Paso. They did the right thing. These guys were guilty. They proved it before a jury.

DOBBS: Well, you and I are going to have to --

SUTTON: They got the punishment that Congress said --

DOBBS: We've got --

SUTTON: -- they should get.

DOBBS: You and I are going to have to disagree, because I think your prosecutors were overzealous. I think that the Department of Homeland Security, in what they -- the names they called these agents and the slurs against them, were absolutely heinous. And I think they should be explaining themselves to the American people. I hope that we can find some truth and some justice in it for these two men.

SUTTON: I'm hear to answer any questions. I answered them all today. And, I mean, we put our cards on the table.

DOBBS: Yes.

SUTTON: I've posted the transcript.

DOBBS: You did.

SUTTON: The truth is on our side in this thing. The only issue, really, is punishment. That's what sticks in people's craw. It's a lot of time. And I've said that --

DOBBS: Yes.

SUTTON: I've said that often.

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) --

SUTTON: But they rejected all plea bargain deals. They knew when they rolled the dice and went to trial that if they were convicted, it was going to be 10 years --

DOBBS: Does that sound like the --

SUTTON: -- stat.

DOBBS: Does that sound like the actions of guilty men to you?

SUTTON: Absolutely. They were guilty --

DOBBS: How many of your --

SUTTON: -- as sin.

DOBBS: How many of your cases result in a plea bargain?

SUTTON: Ninety-five percent. These guys were banking that that dope -- that dope smuggler wasn't going to show up. And if he didn't, we had no case. So it was --

DOBBS: Well, you've got --

SUTTON: -- when he showed up --

DOBBS: You've got the case resolved, obviously, in your mind, Johnny Sutton.

It is not resolved, certainly, in mine. And I think we've got -- I am pleased that we're going to learn more about what transpired.

We thank you for your time and being here.

SUTTON: Well, thank you so much for this opportunity to come on and talk to your listeners.

I really appreciate it.

DOBBS: U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html