Thread: Johnny Sutton Interviewed by Glenn Beck

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/07192007b.shtml

Johnny Sutton Interview - Full Hour
JULY 19, 2007

GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: And Johnny Sutton is with us now. Johnny Sutton is the Prosecutor that is responsible for Compean and Ramos going to jail for 11 years, 10 and 11 years or 11 and 12 years and he doesn't have really a problem with that. Welcome to the program, Mr. Sutton.

SUTTON: Hey, Glenn. Thanks for having me on

GLENN: You bet. I appreciate your willingness to come on and face the fire because I told somebody just the other day that if it wasn't for this situation, I think I would really like you because you seem like a nice guy, but --

SUTTON: I'm happy to face the questions. You're a tough questioner, but I'm happy to answer any questions and talk to your guests in they want to call in.

GLENN: Okay. Here are a couple of questions, and I'm going to -- I'll start with the easy ones. Did the -- did Sutton -- or I'm sorry. Did Compean and Ramos know that they were facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years because of the -- what is it -- the 90 -- what is it?

SUTTON: 924c. Basically it's the gun charge that whenever somebody commits a crime and they use a firearm to commit a crime of violence, they call it a 924c. It's a section of the code, that's a mandatory minimum punishment that says if you have a begun, if you use it.

GLENN: Right. Did they know that they were facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years?

SUTTON: Well, I can't imagine that they didn't. I mean, they had four very, very aggressive, talented, good lawyers who explained everything, who fought tooth and nail during that two and a half week jury trial and, of course, obviously they were charged with that in the indictment. So they knew what they were charged with. I'm sure their lawyers explained to them if they were convicted that they would be facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison stacked on top of any other sentence that they got convicted of.

GLENN: Right.

SUTTON: Obviously, you know, the prosecutors are not in on discussions between them and their lawyers but I can't imagine that they wouldn't know that.

GLENN: Right.

SUTTON: They rolled the dice and went to trial and lost, that they were facing a whole bunch of time.

GLENN: And if they did know that -- or if they didn't, if they weren't informed, they would have a very strong case for a mistrial because of just incompetent lawyering?

SUTTON: Well, I mean, those are questions for appeals. A lot of lawyers -- a lot of defendants, after they lose, they love their lawyer until they go to trial and lose and then they hate their lawyer and their lawyer's incompetent.

GLENN: Sure.

SUTTON: And they want another bite at the apple. Obviously I can't make an opinion on that. The case is on appeal. So we're still fighting.

GLENN: But not for that reason. They are not level that charge that they didn't know?

SUTTON: You know, I'm not sure about that. I don't think they are, but, you know, the appeal's very long and we've got, you know, appellate lawyers that are working on our brief right now.

GLENN: You added the 924c charge six months after the original charge. Why is that?

SUTTON: The way that things work in the federal system is once someone is arrested, there's a very short window of time for you to bring an indictment. It's basically the speedy trial. Once you arrest somebody, you can't just hold them indefinitely until you charge them with something. So our original prosecutor charged them with three counts of assault and that was it. When the trial team came in and looked at the case, they realized there was a lot more crimes that these guys committed. So they added a number of obstruction of justice charges, they changed the assault charges to more reflect what the facts were and then they put the 924c on. In fact, there was two more reindictments after that. That's very typical to get those charges straight. In this case there was a civil -- two civil rights charges and those need to be reviewed by main justice in Washington D.C. So there is some period of time we are waiting to make sure the brainiacs in the civil rights division had seen those.

GLENN: But the 924c charge was actually, the 924c, that was actually brought into law to send a message to drug dealers, don't ever carry guns. It was written for drug dealers to be able to really hammer them to try to get the violence on the border under control, was it not?

SUTTON: Well, that's one of the misinformation about what's been said some in the public.

GLENN: You were the one who told me that, sir. You told me that in our television interview.

SUTTON: Right. I mean, obviously 924c is to slam people who commit crimes with guns, and what we do -- and when congress was debating this, they decided, well, wait a minute, what about police officers? Should it apply to federal agents and police officers? They debated that and they decided that it should. That if police officers or federal agents stepped out of their role as law enforcement and started committing crimes that they shouldn't be exempted from that.

GLENN: Okay.

SUTTON: Now again police officers, 99.9% of our police officers, they do it right every day, they are in tough spots, they make split second life-and-death decisions and we don't second-guess them very often. In fact, you heard Aguilar, Chief Aguilar say that border patrol agents, 144 agents have shot their guns and used deadly force, killing 13 suspects and wounding 15 and not one of those guys has been prosecuted but because giving these agents the benefit of the doubt they are well trained. But 924c applies to anybody who commits a violent crime with a firearm and that includes a police officer. Again it's rare we charge police officers but occasionally we have to.

GLENN: So the charge is that they fired it at an unarmed man. Was the drug smuggler searched?

SUTTON: No. He got away. They didn't catch him.

GLENN: He got away? Were there any witnesses to seeing him at all? Did anybody else see him?

SUTTON: Well, obviously there was, you know, a number -- there was several witnesses. One, you know, Compean and Ramos as well as Agent Juarez who were at the original, when he jumped out of the ditch, everybody saw that.

GLENN: Yeah, but no --

SUTTON: You know, once the dope, dope smuggler ducks away from Compean and takes off towards Mexico, the main witness was, you know, the smuggler, the two agents who were charged and Agent Juarez. Agent Juarez stayed on this side of the levee. He saw quite a bit of it. But he did not see, he did not see the smuggler. So at that point there was just a smuggler and Compean and Ramos.

GLENN: Okay. So we're taking -- there was no search because he couldn't because he went across the border where two cars were waiting for him.

SUTTON: Right.

GLENN: There was no search. So you don't know if he had a gun, you don't know if he had a cell phone, you don't know anything which leads me to, we have to believe either the drug smuggler, who was a member of the cartel, we have to believe his testimony or our two agents. Is there anything that would impugn the credibility of a cartel member that was smuggling 600 or 700 pounds of dope across our border?

SUTTON: Obviously he's a scumbag drug smuggler that should be rotting in an American prison right now.

GLENN: But we have to take -- we're taking his word. The only one that really knows whether or not he had a gun on him were either -- was him really or we have to take the word of our border agents. And why are we taking the word of the drug smuggler/cartel member?

SUTTON: And again that's why I really treasure opportunities like this that you've given me to sort of explain that, look. I mean, that's why we have jury trials, to sort out questions of fact.

GLENN: I understand that. But you have to make --

SUTTON: The jury decides.

GLENN: You had to make the decision that we take this guy's word that he was an unarmed man.

SUTTON: That's right. What was his --

GLENN: You had to take this man's word.

SUTTON: But Glenn, what you do is you look at all the evidence. I mean, that's what you do in trial. For two and a half weeks a West Texas jury looked at all the evidence, not just the testimony of some --

GLENN: But they didn't. What you have said to me was that because of 924c, nobody, no drug smugglers, they don't carry guns anymore because they know they'll get the maximum 10-year sentence. No, that's what you told me on television. And so when you say that, I can understand that would maybe -- you know, if you are bringing 10 pounds of dope in. But if you are bringing 500, 600, 700 pounds of dope in, you are most likely going to carry a weapon, and if they're not carrying weapons, who are? I mean, why is it you work so hard to exclude the evidence of violence on the border? Is it because you knew the jury would then say, there's so much violence on the border; if that many people are being killed on the border by drug smugglers, why would I believe this guy with 600 pounds of dope wouldn't have a firearm on him?

SUTTON: Right. I mean, I guess the first question is and what the main problem for these guys is if -- let's assume for a second that the smuggler had a gun. Why in the world wouldn't Compean and Ramos say to everybody, hey, the guy just pointed a gun at us and we shot him. I mean, you know, again they would be cleared in five minutes if that was really the facts. They weren't acting like agents who had just gotten a gun pointed at them. Even their own buddies who were conspiring to pick up shell casings and throw them in the river. They asked them to pick them up and throw them in the river and he didn't say to Vasquez, hey, that guy pointed a gun at me. When they asked what happened, he said they drew dirt in my face. There was no mention of a gun until one month later when these two agents are in trouble and they get arrested and they hear, oh, we thought he had a shiny object in his hand and it was a gun. It's not just the testimony of the doper. It's all of the evidence that was at the scene.

GLENN: Right. I understand that. And what you're doing here is you're saying, and it was only for a month later. It wasn't like there was a big investigation in a month. It was because -- no, sir, it is because Rene Sanchez, the agent who turned them in, is a friend of the drug smuggler and I believe they're related. Now, have you investigated, isn't there some sort of law to disclose that? Was there any kind of investigation? What has happened with Rene Sanchez, the guy who, the drug smuggler's mother contacted who works for the U.S. border? Is he at least working in Canada now?

SUTTON: There was an investigation of that, and I want to make sure I'm not revealing anything secret. It was cleared. Hopefully I'm not releasing something secret. I don't think it is. But yes, that was looked at.

GLENN: Is he working on the United States/Mexico border, a guy who has friends in drug cartels, is he still working on the Mexican border or have we moved him up to the Canadian border at least?

SUTTON: What's so sad about this is Rene Sanchez is the border patrol agent who actually did the right thing. When someone --

GLENN: He has friends in a drug cartel. He has friends in a drug cartel. Have we at least moved him away from his friends in the drug cartel?

SUTTON: That's what's so ironic is the guy who does the right thing is vilified.

GLENN: He has friends. I'm not saying that he's a bad guy. He has friends in a drug cartel. Do you think we should maybe move him to the northern border?

SUTTON: Glenn, Glenn, Rene Sanchez grew up on the Mexican side of the river, okay?

GLENN: This is not the question.

SUTTON: I imagine there's people that you knew from high school that are probably in prison now. You knew them. Maybe they were in your next-door neighbors. You know, does that mean you're a criminal because you knew Floyd Jones who ended up going to prison? No, it's not true.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

SUTTON: Rene Sanchez did the right thing.

GLENN: You know what, if I have friends who are bank robbers, if I grew up with friends who are bank robbers, CitiBank should not put me in charge of the security. It doesn't mean that I'm a bad guy. It just means, you know what, there's a risk there; we probably should minimize that risk.

SUTTON: And I don't want to get hung up on this. Unfortunately I feel bad for Rene Sanchez because he actually got a call from his mother-in-law saying there was a shooting and, you know, he did what he was supposed to do. He reported to a supervisor and he's been vilified and it's really been sad. I feel bad for him because he did the right thing.

But back to your question about the gun thing. Look, everybody wants to put in evidence that's kind of good for their side. The defense attorneys want to say, oh, the border's really dangerous down there. It's true, it is dangerous. We want to say, look, never carry guns, and in 155 seizures, 43,000 pounds of marijuana seized, there's been no guns. In fact, you can go back to 2001 and almost 500 seizures, one gun. Now, that doesn't establish that Aldrete didn't have a gun. It just shows that mules in that area don't carry guns and that's why we don't let that kind of evidence in is we say, look, that may be --

GLENN: It's Patly -- you know what?

SUTTON: They need to know what happened in this case and that's why we say the facts, lay it all out for a jury, let the smugglers testify, let the agents testify if they want, put all the people out there and then the jury decides if they did it.

GLENN: You are --

SUTTON: And then the big question is why do you cover up, Glenn.

GLENN: There was no coverup, sir.

SUTTON: Why in the world do you cover up --

GLENN: There was no coverup. You are spinning this. Homeland Security, the memo is clear from Homeland Security. There was no coverup. The people were there. They had to make a verbal report if they are on -- no, sir, well, I agree with you.

SUTTON: They both admitted that they did not tell their supervisor. They both admitted that they didn't tell anybody about the shooting. I mean, that's in the trial record that's on the website. That's what's so funny about all this.

GLENN: Why are they picking up the shells? According to Homeland Security, there were people on the site that were helping them pick up the shells. There's no indication that there was a shooting? What are these, just shells they just sprinkled around?

SUTTON: These are other agents who were conspiring to cover up. It wasn't just these two that covered up the shooting. There were several others that covered up the shooting, too. That's what's so funny is your listeners have heard this narrative of two American heroes going to prison for doing their job.

GLENN: No, sir. You know what, my audience --

SUTTON: The facts, you realize thighs guys committed serious crimes and they helped them cover up.

GLENN: My audience and I were very skeptical and on your side at the beginning. I don't want a dirty cop. I don't want dirty border agents. I don't want somebody with connections to a drug cartel working for our government down at the border. So I mean, I was willing to, and so was the rest of the country, willing to say, wait a minute, if these guys are dirty, let's throw them out, but something isn't right here. Something isn't right.

SUTTON: Tell me what the problem is. I mean, the West Texas juries do not convict police officers on a whim because I've been --

GLENN: You have said, sir, that you wanted to send a message, you wanted to send a message. Let me ask you this. What message --

SUTTON: I never said that. I never said that.

GLENN: You have said it several times.

SUTTON: What I've said is this case is about the rule of law and laws must be enforced and unfortunately sometimes they must be enforced against our friends in law enforcement and that's what sad is law enforcement are American heroes but people who attach their wagon to these two guys paint the rest who say, look, cops don't shoot people and cover it up.

GLENN: I agree with you.

SUTTON: Because they are afraid. We do not do anything to them even if they're wrong. If they said, I thought it was a gun, he really thought it was a wallet. We don't prosecute them because in their position they thought it was a gun. So that was righteous to shoot that person. It's a terrible tragedy but nothing should happen to that cop. In I can they're shooting at an unarmed guy running away who they know is unarmed. They are just ticked and they are going to teach him a lesson and, you know, that is something that we cannot allow in law enforcement.

GLENN: Okay, Johnny Sutton, can you hang with us?

SUTTON: Sure. I'm happy to hang and I'll take questions if y'all want.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Back with questions with Johnny Sutton in a moment. I've got a couple of questions for him. We'll take your phone calls first.

<break transcript>


GLENN: Mr. Sutton, we have a lot of people that would like to talk to you and I've got two minutes before the bottom of the hour. I know you are a busy man. Can we hold you across the bottom of the hour or not?

SUTTON: Sure, sure, as long as you need.

GLENN: Okay. So the phones are open. 888-727-BECK. I asked you, how long ago was it that you were in my studio in New York? Two months ago, three months ago? Time flies so fast.

SUTTON: A month or two, month and a half, two months.

GLENN: I asked you at the time, do you believe the sentence was reasonable and you said you thought it was a pretty powerful sentence.

SUTTON: Yeah, definitely it's a hard sentence

GLENN: It's a hard sentence, and I asked you at the time would you make a recommendation and you said you haven't been asked for a recommendation for the President on whether he should commute the sentence or not.

SUTTON: No.

GLENN: Do you believe -- not pardon, and I believe they would probably want to pardon, but would you recommend to commute the sentence?

SUTTON: Well, and that's a tricky question for me and I want to -- you know, I've been real up front and direct on answering all your questions. The problem is at some point I may be asked, and I'll make that recommendation. I just don't want to make a recommendation publicly now until I am.

GLENN: Why will you --

SUTTON: When I'm asked that, generally that's an internal deliberation, but absolutely I will make that answer if I'm asked and, you know, there's a very elaborate DOJ process that's set up.

GLENN: Well, not really. I mean, Scooter Libby, you know. It kind of went out of the framework on Scooter Libby. So you've already -- you have an answer -- I would imagine that if you felt that it was too strong and you thought that the sentence could be commuted that you would say -- you would volunteer that and make that recommendation? So in other words --

SUTTON: And again I'm not trying to be deceptive but I have to volunteer that to the people who are the decision makers, not to the --

GLENN: Will you volunteer that and not wait for somebody to ask you? Will you volunteer that opinion to the President?

SUTTON: What we have is a very, very clear process in DOJ and we have a pardon attorney. We follow that process. Obviously that power is --

GLENN: All right.

SUTTON: Is unchecked and can be used but, you know, like I said, I intend to follow that procedure.

GLENN: I imagine you are a man that you believe justice is being served then. Otherwise you would make that recommendation now. Hang on just a second.

<break transcript>

GLENN: Johnny Sutton is with us. He is the man responsible for the case against Compean and Ramos, the two border agents that are, I believe, America's first real political prisoners but, you know, Johnny Sutton and a West Texas jury disagree with that as he has pointed out several times, and I have to tell you, Mr. Sutton, that while I disagree with you vehemently on this, while I do not trust biased levels of our government on anything when it comes to the Mexican and even Canadian border, I will tell you that I have respect for your courage to face the American people and I feel bad for you, quite honestly, because I think you're getting a lot of heat on this particular case that you won't get if America trusted our government on doing something on the border, but -- and a lot of people including me feel that you guys are all trying to send a message to our border agents of, don't do anything because we've got friends down south of the border that we're trying to take care of.

Our number is 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. Let's go to Cliff in Toledo. Hi, Cliff. Go ahead, you're on the Glenn Beck program with Johnny Sutton.

CALLER: John, if drug smugglers don't carry guns, then why did our soldiers working Operation Jump Start on January 4th on the Arizona border this year get shot at by illegal drug smugglers on the border there? I have spoken to congressman Tom Tancredo's office numerous times which I've been told there are all kind of caches of weapons which have been confiscated in some of the tunnels on the borders and supposedly the congressman has actually even seen them and they don't carry guns. And then you also got the border town of Laredo that, you know, there's a drug war going on there right now where hundreds have been killed this year alone. Now, if they didn't use guns, what did they use? Sticks and stones?

GLENN: Thank you, Cliff.

SUTTON: That's a very important point to make. I'm glad he asked that question. I am certainly not saying drug dealers don't carry guns. I mean, the cartels are absolutely some of the most dangerous killers and assassins in the world. We deal with these guys day in and day out. The police chief in Nuevo Laredo lasted eight hours before he was assassinated. Everybody knows the cartel is armed to the teeth. You know, we are using every investigative technique in the world and, you know, we a lot of times have warrants and wire taps and, you know, we know what goes on in these cartels and that's what we're trying to do is bring these folks down and that's what we do every day. My point is in the Favens area, the rules, the drivers of these loads who go from the river to the stash house, most of those, 99% of those or more have not carried guns in the last five years. Now, that doesn't mean that there's not some out there that do, and I have no idea how it goes in Arizona. Maybe everyone's armed to the teeth. I mean, look. Drug dealers are dangerous. I am in the business of putting them in prison. My office leads the nation of putting them in prison and we're second in immigration. These are all, most of these are Mexicans. We're slamming them and putting them in prison and the idea that somehow we're in cahoots with Mexico is laughable I mean, because we put them in prison by the bushels.

GLENN: Well, you say you're second. You're second in putting them in prison. For the love of Pete, man, you're in Texas. Who's beating you? Kansas?

SUTTON: My brother, my brothers and sisters from the South who have Brownsville to Laredo beat us out, but --

GLENN: I mean, it's not like you're in competition. You're in Texas. Of course you're number one or two. I mean --

SUTTON: Right. That's my point, Glenn is, look, we're in this business. I actually think it's ironic, a politician discovered the area day it attacked because we don't care about immigration, we're agents of the Mexican government, et cetera, et cetera, and then someone behind us discovered Operation Streamline which we've been doing in the Del Rio sector of our district. Since 2005 we've convicted 20,000 illegal immigrants and that's the first time you come across the border in Del Rio, you get arrested, you get put in jail, you get convicted. None of this, you know, we caught you, we're taking you back, try it again. It's, you go to jail the very first time. And, you know, that's what's ironic is that, you know, we're the only, only place in the world in the United States where that was happening. And, of course, now your listeners probably think, oh, they're all agents of the Mexican government; they don't care about immigration. I mean, we're on the front lines battling out every day, and that's what's been sad and that's why I've come to the defense of my team so strongly is that they've been vilified, they've made it look like they've done something wrong and they didn't do anything other than do their jobs, and a jury trial was set out to --

GLENN: Oh, please stop with the jury trial, please. O. J. Simpson was also found not guilty and, sir, I was on a jury of an attempted murder trial. I sat on a jury, and I sat there and I listened to the evidence and we made our decision. And when I got -- I mean, within minutes after we made the decision, we were told the whole story behind this guy and all twelve of us looked at the judge and said, why the hell didn't you tell us this? And he said, we couldn't tell you this. We said, that completely changes everything. You didn't -- you didn't tell the jury anything at all about this drug dealer. You didn't -- well, let me ask you this question: Did you find it important after the second incident to at least alert the court that maybe there's a problem with this guy's credibility because he's just been nailed a second time delivering drugs into the United States?

SUTTON: No, we need to spend time talking about that because I think your listeners may have heard it. What Glenn is talking about is when this smuggler had his first load, 743 pounds when he got shot, he got away. And once he began to cooperate between the first time and the trial, there's an allegation that he ran another load of marijuana in October of 2005. All of that -- and, you know, Congressman Rohrbach and others have said that I covered it up, that we've lied, that we've hidden that from the jury, that we covered it up. And all of that information was presented to the judge, the defense attorneys were aware of it. Obviously they wanted to put that in evidence and thought that would be good for their side if they could get it in evidence. The judge made a ruling that it was not admissible.

GLENN: Right.

SUTTON: That ruling is going to be reviewed on appeal by the fifth circuit. The case is on appeal right now.

GLENN: Sure.

SUTTON: Glenn, that's what judges do.

GLENN: I understand that and that's why I was saying to you a second ago that the judge -- I understand that and that's -- but you weren't exactly -- you weren't exactly fighting. You didn't -- I mean, again the credibility here, every bit of this comes from the drug smuggler, and we again believe the drug smuggler and that's why I say stop with the jury trial thing because I was on a jury when I heard the judge tell me in the chambers afterwards, and the rest of us. We said, okay, what's the real deal? We've already delivered our verdict. What's the real deal? And that's when he told us. And we said, you don't think that was important? And he said, I couldn't tell you. So don't tell me this is all great and everything and the jury decided. The jury could have very well been wrong because they didn't have all the evidence.

SUTTON: And that's what we do. That's why we have appellate courts to decide to review the trial record and decide if there was an error. All you heard was damning evidence. Usually it's the other way around where the prosecution is trying to get in the fact that, hey, this guy's murdered somebody before and the judge said, no, that's too prejudicial and that's not relevant. The first murder case I tried, it was a guy murdered, stabbed somebody with a knife inside a crackhouse. My defendant had been to prison for 12 years for stabbing somebody, murdering somebody with a knife. I was not allowed to bring that into evidence. Why? Because it's absolutely prejudicial to the defendant.

GLENN: Yeah.

SUTTON: And just because he stabbed somebody else with a knife --

GLENN: Doesn't mean he killed this guy with a knife, right. Just because he was -- just because he was in a cartel and delivering those drugs doesn't mean that -- well, okay. So he's done it again, while we gave him a humanitarian pass on the border so he can come and go.

SUTTON: Yeah, we don't know he's done it again. I'm the one that -- look, there's nobody in America that would love to fight Aldrete more than me.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Are you telling me you still don't know if he's the guy that we nailed in October?

SUTTON: We do not -- well, first of all we didn't nail anybody. He was never arrested. There was no -- they said, oh, he was indicted.

GLENN: Was he there? Was he there?

SUTTON: That's what we're trying to establish.

GLENN: How long does it take you to establish if the guy was there?

SUTTON: Because remember, Glenn, it's like the testimony of a drug dealer that you think is not so credible. Hypothetically if that's all you had was the testimony of a drug dealer, you'd want to corroborate it just like we did in this case and that's the key is if you go into court and say, oh, well, a drug dealer says this --

GLENN: So wait a minute. You're telling me what we talked about when you were on television, that he was stopped, you guys took him to the, whatever you call it, the stash house where the --

SUTTON: No, no, no, he was --

GLENN: None of that happened?

SUTTON: There was no arrest. There was no stop. And again I don't want to say too much because I don't want to mess up the case if we could ever make one.

GLENN: Okay.

SUTTON: You know, there was no arrest. There was no stop.

GLENN: Okay.

SUTTON: Law enforcement has no evidence other than what other people are saying.

GLENN: Well, you know, that's great. Mr. Sutton, it is great because the truth shall set you free, and someday I hope that that truth comes out so it can set us all free. Hang on just a second because we'll go back to the phones next.

<break transcript>

GLENN: We go right back to Johnny Sutton and Olivia. You are on the Glenn Beck program with Johnny Sutton. And which one did we lose? Hang on. Johnny, are you there?

SUTTON: I'm here.

GLENN: Okay, good. We lost Olivia. Let's go to Scott in Richmond. Hello, Scott. Hello, Scott, are you there?

CALLER: Can you hear me?

GLENN: Yes, I can. Go ahead.

CALLER: Maybe I'm too much of a simpleton here but I see somebody coming across the border illegally, not a citizen of this country, allowed to sit under our courts, under the protection of our Constitution and take on two Americans who are trying to protect our borders. Johnny Sutton, does that come across to you as just a little bit strange, or am I missing something?

SUTTON: No, it's terrible. It's a terrible position to be in and I'd much prefer that that scumbag dope dealer sitting in prison like the other scumbag dope dealers that we arrest every day in El Paso, that the problems is the reason he's not is because these two agents didn't do their job. I mean, they shot an unarmed guy and covered it up.

GLENN: Allegedly an unarmed man, we're taking the drug smuggler's word at the unarmed thing.

SUTTON: Glenn, look.

GLENN: Yes, we are, sir.

SUTTON: Listen, Glenn, give me two seconds here. It's not just that. It's all the behavior at the scene. Look, agents were standing on top of the levee. If that drug smuggler had a gun --

GLENN: They didn't see it, sir. Olivia, you're on the Glenn Beck program.

SUTTON: Why didn't they say to their buddy --

GLENN: Olivia, you're on the Glenn Beck program.

CALLER: Thank you. I've been following this case closely because I come from a law enforcement family and it sparked a lot of interest here. Mr. Sutton, I have to be honest with you. If this was such an honest case and your prosecution was so justified, why all of the covering up and the hyperbole and the misstatements on your part? You continue to say that these men shot an unarmed guy as if he were a innocent individual, in the back. Does that add the prejudicial aspect of it because you need to justify why you did this. He was shot in the buttocks as he was fleeing. It was officers who felt they were reasonably in danger. You keep saying that they covered it up and lied. What would be their motivation in these officers wake up every morning to patrol our borders to keep us safe. They are fathers of three. They are military veterans. They spent years in training to defend us. They didn't wake up that morning deciding they wanted to randomly shoot someone. But this drug smuggler woke up that morning and decided he wanted to bring a million dollars worth of drugs across the border and yet, you still decided to bring a sentence against these guys that is worse than murderers and give a pass to a drug dealer, turn a blind eye to the drug smuggler's relationship with a sworn officer of the border patrol. I mean, the guy grew up with him --

GLENN: Olivia, I've got to give him a chance to respond because I've got to go into a hard break here and I've got 30 seconds. Go ahead. Do you want to respond to that?

SUTTON: I don't know where that caller is from, but in Texas you've got a front and a back and the butt is on the back. They said they covered it up.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

SUTTON: They said they didn't report it. That's undisputed that they didn't report it. That's what's so frustrating. I've gone on TV, I've gone in front of the Senate to lay out the facts. We have nothing to hide. The only thing I don't talk about is an ongoing investigation because I'm still, you know, trying to convict this guy of a crime.

GLENN: Okay.

SUTTON: Believe me, there's no one in America that wants to get him in prison worse than me.

GLENN: I've got to go. We will continue our conversation, the bravest man in America, Johnny Sutton. We'll see you tonight on TV.

END TRANSCRIPT

I called this guys office and cussed him out on VM, I wish I could have spoken to him.

grrrrr

Originally Posted by millere

SUTTON: What's so sad about this is Rene Sanchez is the border patrol agent who actually did the right thing. When someone --

GLENN: He has friends in a drug cartel. He has friends in a drug cartel. Have we at least moved him away from his friends in the drug cartel?

SUTTON: That's what's so ironic is the guy who does the right thing is vilified.

The stench of all this is beyond all belief. An agent "does the right thing" but he has "friends" in the Mexican drug cartel?

Unbelievable.

If George Bush knows even a small, insignificant piece of this puzzle, then he is the most treasonous scumbag of a president this country has ever known.

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

Originally Posted by millere

SUTTON: These are other agents who were conspiring to cover up. It wasn't just these two that covered up the shooting. There were several others that covered up the shooting, too. That's what's so funny is your listeners have heard this narrative of two American heroes going to prison for doing their job.

If figures...

make note, this was on the radio show.
he was also on the TV show this evening as well
at approximately 40 to 46 minutes after

There was nothing to cover-up. They didn't think he was shot, and they gave immunity to the other agents and supervisors in order to get these two guys. If there was a cover-up....the ALL were part of it!! All this because of paperwork! It's simple, Sutton acted on orders from Mexico...that's when this whole thing started.

Originally Posted by gofer

There was nothing to cover-up. They didn't think he was shot, and they gave immunity to the other agents and supervisors in order to get these two guys. If there was a cover-up....the ALL were part of it!! All this because of paperwork! It's simple, Sutton acted on orders from Mexico...that's when this whole thing started.

A congressional hearing would instantly display who our "friends" and who our "enemies" are. This has got to be the most instantly corrupt pile of ^&*% to ever hit this country. This is the new Watergate!

Welcome Suttongate!!! Get out you waders, the crap is going pile high and deep on this one!

Giving immunity to Mexican drug cartel members?

I agree IMPEACH BUSH NOW! Then send Sutton to prison what a lieing scum bag the both of them. Bush and his butt buddy the president of mexico sent these 2 Broder Guards to prison with Sutton's help.

Do we know just how close that 'relationship' was between the agent who reported the shooting and the drug smuggler?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Do we know just how close that 'relationship' was between the agent who reported the shooting and the drug smuggler?

the mother of the dope runner is a close friend of the mother in law of the AZ agent.
the agent himself and the doper and a brother of the doper were all childhood friends