Hannity Show Gives Johnny Sutton Positive Press!

Sean Hannity has been a supporter of freeing Compean and Ramos. 

 However, today he had a guest host on the show and I have just heard this guest hose (I don't know his name) give Johnny Sutton an interview whereby Sutton put forth his garbage about how Compean and Ramos hid their assault on the poor immigrant, etc.

 This guest host went on to thank Sutton for "setting the record straight" because there has been so much misinformation out there about Compean and Ramos!

 I'M OUTRAGED! 

CONTACT THE HANNITY SHOW TO COMPLAIN!

Ohhh......I'm SO STEAMED!

The guest host just took a phone call from a man in New Jersey who said Sutton is a disgrace to the Federal Prosecutors because of what he has done to Compean and Ramos.

The guest-host's reaction?  He cut him off and said that the case on Compean and Ramos is full of "Folklore"!

Oh, this is more than an outrage! 

Can Steve Elliot call and ask to have equal time on the Hannity show?

I heard the first part of that interview and couldn't take his bs anymore and turned it off.   He actually thanked Sutton for setting the record straight???  Geez!

I will contact the show now.  Thanks.

---

 Oh, yes.  He gave Sutton a huge amount of time to explain why he went after them so hard --- it was clear Sutton believes Compean and Ramos are rogue Border Patrol Agents who needed to be reigned in.  He even went so far as to insinuate that THE MAJORITY OF THE BORDER PATROL AGENTS AGREE WITH HIM!  He said that they believe rogue Agents like Compean and Ramos make the "Good Border Patrol Agents" look bad and they want them prosecuted!

CAN YOU SAY NIFONG TO THE TENTH DEGREE?

 Very interesting that the talk-show host said he would take phone calls about the Sutton interview and then took only one -- which he quickly cut short.  Now he has changed subjects and has taken a phone call from Rep. Jim DeMint about the failed Immigration Bill.

I heard him say that his name was something like Scott Hammond.  I Googled his name, but it doesn't come up as anything that I can recognize as worth giving him the microphone.

I sent an e-mail asking Sean to lose this guy as a fill-in host and why.

I have heard and seen Sutton interviewed on the Glenn Beck tv show.  He's like so many prosecutors with a hair up his butt and will not admit he's wrong or change his mind no matter what.  He did say he would support them getting shorter terms if he is ever consulted.  Gee, thanks Johnny!

---

We the People want the rule of law to reign supreme.  We the People demand the rule of law to reign supreme.  We the People are the defenders of the rule of law.  Well, wait a minute.  Not if the rule of law doesn't seem to fit our idea(s) of justice (or, dare I say, fairness?).  The convictions were a matter of results of trials by juries.  Blame the jurors (especially for not understanding their role as judges and what Jury Nullifaction is).  Blame the defense attorneys.  But do not to my face blame the rule of law.  These gentlemen are subjects of the nation's applellate processes.

It is not the rule of law to demand a Congressional pardon -- it's unconstitutional and non-existent.  It is not the rule of law to demand the President do what others may not want done, for whatever reason(s) and that reason or those reasons may be perfectly reasonable.  Petitioning the President is in keeping with the rule of law.  Encouraging the judiciary to review the appeals carefully and come to the "right" conclusion is in keeping with the rule of law.  Protesting against the Attorney General's representative, Johnny Sutton is in keeping with the rule of law.

But please, shouting support and demands for the rule of law make no sense if you refuse to intellectually assent to it to the extend of actually being willing to follow it and be subject to it. 

---

I'd really like to know who this person was.  I personally think Sean is way too soft on a lot of issues.  He's also over-the-top pro-Bush.

You're right, FireMom.  Unbelievable that a caller got cut off!  Free speech, huh?  Only if you say what they want to hear, apparently.

---

ARealConservative:

He said his name was something like Scott Hammond.  I can't find his name mentioned anywhere on Google, so I don't know "who" he is.

ARC, Hannity's show is a private enterprise of sydicated talk radio.  He or his guest host have the right to cut off, hang up on or refuse to take any call they don't want on the show.  It's not a matter of freedom of speech.  Has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of speech.  Remember if your a guest in someone else's house you must abide by their rules or you can be asked to leave.  Surely you've read that here at the forum, right?  And likely you agreed with the assessment, did you not?  Freedom of speech is a Constitutional guarantee and is protection against the government, not against Sean Hannity or his guest host(s).  I always advocate what's good for the goose is good for the gander and since Mr. Hannity's listenership totals in the millions instead of the thousands that's just the way it is.  Don't like his format or his guest hosts, you know you are free to tune away from the radio station's spot on the dial, right?

---

bwwhaley:

What happens when the court system is broken?  What is interesting in your notation above is that you didn't mention that the President has the ability to pardon someone when the system has not worked as it should.

In the case of Scooter Libby, the President said he allowed the court system to exhaust itself before he stepped in and then, BECAUSE HE FELT THAT SCOOTER LIBBY HAD BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED UNFAIRLY, he commuted his sentence.  He also has the right to pardon him, if he so chooses.

With Prosecutor Nifong in North Carolina, we saw how he deliberately withheld information in order to get a Grand Jury to indict innocent men.  Do you think this doesn't happen in other cities?  Luckily for the men of Duke University, public rantings and ravings kept the heat on the subject and there was finally enough scrutiny to bring the truth to light.

We are trying to do nothing less for these Border Patrol Agents.   They are our front-line of defense in this battle for our country and DESERVE a fair and impartial sifting of the facts in this case. 

Many thousands of Americans feel that Compean and Ramos were also TRIED AND CONVICTED UNFAIRLY. 

Please read the follwoing for more information on the case: http://www.nbpc.net/press/mandatory_minimum_testimony_062607.pdf

bwwhaley said:

We the People want the rule of law to reign supreme.  We the People demand the rule of law to reign supreme.  We the People are the defenders of the rule of law.  Well, wait a minute.  Not if the rule of law doesn't seem to fit our idea(s) of justice (or, dare I say, fairness?).  The convictions were a matter of results of trials by juries.  Blame the jurors (especially for not understanding their role as judges and what Jury Nullifaction is).  Blame the defense attorneys.  But do not to my face blame the rule of law.  These gentlemen are subjects of the nation's applellate processes.

It is not the rule of law to demand a Congressional pardon -- it's unconstitutional and non-existent.  It is not the rule of law to demand the President do what others may not want done, for whatever reason(s) and that reason or those reasons may be perfectly reasonable.  Petitioning the President is in keeping with the rule of law.  Encouraging the judiciary to review the appeals carefully and come to the "right" conclusion is in keeping with the rule of law.  Protesting against the Attorney General's representative, Johnny Sutton is in keeping with the rule of law.

But please, shouting support and demands for the rule of law make no sense if you refuse to intellectually assent to it to the extend of actually being willing to follow it and be subject to it. 

 

Well I'll be!  I have to agree with you BW.  We have something in common!  Guys, I agree that the BP's got the proverbial shaft.  There is truely no debate there, despite Sutton's lies.  They should be pardoned.  And I also think the prosecutor should lose his liscense (spelling).

The problem with asking for a Congressional pardon, not the same as a resolution, is that it does not exist.  You might even say Bush's recent action with Libbey was unconstitutional, as I do not think commuting a sentence is within his jurisdiction. I would love to see the judge order Libbey back to court, just like the recent Hollywood fiasco played out. The plain fact is, if we are yelling, and we ARE YELLING, that they have to follow the Constitution, then we do too.  Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

If we do not suceed in helping the BP's personally, and probably even if we do, we need to have someone do some serious research and publication into defining a jury of our peers, as it was meant when it was written, and jury nullification.  I know it has been done before, but the challenge here will be to put it in terms that the liberal public will understand and accept.  A different format, if you will, is in order.  Since the average college graduate has little understanding of the history of the Constitution, it will take some serious work.  A series of articles on the Constitutional rights, and the historical reasoning behind them, would be a good start.

BW, as for the freedom of speech comment further down on the page from the post I am replying to, well, it is freedom of speech for people to respond to the program and let Hannity know what they think.  His position only lasts as long as the program is profitable.  That is the free market.

Of course injustices happen!  And there have been innocent men incarcerated for years upon years until the truth comes out.  Some have died in prison before the truth came out.  Some have been executed and the truth came out later.  What do you say to them, FireMom?  "Oops, sorry about that?"  Do we nationally mourn those who are wrongly executed and want to fire the prosecutors who won the convictions.  Do we hang the judges and jurors who were wrong?  Do we impeach the president was was presiding over the nation's executive office at the time?  You know we don't.  We move on.  And within seconds of knowing that the travesty occurred we go back to doing whatever it is we do.

When you get elected President you will be able to pardon whomever you like for whatever reason melts your butter.  Until then all you can do is press the President to look into his heart and do what's right.  That and pray and/or get actively involved in the appellate process.  Heck, file an Amicus Curiae brief with the Appeals Court if you know how.  But really more than all that you have no other choices.  Unless, of course, you're willing to risk breaking the BP agents and the Deputy Sheriff out of prison at your own risk and at great risk to them.  I'll not stand in your way of attempting to do so but by the same token I wouldn't suggest it. 

---

FireMom, I even went to the Hannity website, but couldn't find it. 

I used to tune in occassionally to Hannity, but got tired of his sidekick Alan Colmes, and also of Hannity's bending over backward to accomodate Bush.

If it was all about terrorism, we'd secure the borders by building the fence.  Hannity has to know that.

Until we build the fence and secure the borders, don't talk to me about terrorism and how we're fighting it.

 

---

ARC:

I am not sure what you were looking for on Hannity's website.  I run a business myself and so I only hear him if I'm in the car.  I don't have cable so I can't watch him on TV. 

And, I totally agree that he's become too pro Bush and also waaay to supportive of Guiliani.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you were looking for on his website.  I went in there (www.Hannity.com) and just sent an email where it said "contact us."  I assume it went through since it's the first time I've sent them anything.

I contacted him also.  He lists the guests on his program, so I thought the name of the guest host to whom you referred might be there.

---

This is sickening.  I will also write to the show.  

---

I'm real new to this forum.  Does anyone know if Steve Elliot ever reads any of these threads?  It was his Grassfire alerts that got us all fired up about Compean and Ramos in the first place.

Since he sent out a message today asking his constituents to send Bush a message to pardon Compean and Ramos, I would think he'd be very interested in the fact that Hannity's stand-in gave Johnny Sutton so much room to posture his position!

I heard part of this discussed on the radio today.  Someone is sitting in for Sean this week, and he had Johnny Sutton on explaining his side of the story which was the border agents shot the fleeing drug smuggler and instead of arresting him allowed him to cross back into Mexico.  Then they picked up all of their shell casings and filed a false report about the encounter.

When I first heard of this, the agents did not think they had hit the guy they were shooting at.  He did not fall down, he did not even slow down.  There was some kind of inquiry by an inlaw that led Sutton to contacting this guy and offering him imunity to come over and testify against the agents.  That is the big rub as far as I am concerned.

There was also a report that the drug smuggler's wound was in the side of his left hip and wound up in the inside of his right thigh.  The bullet was discarded so they could not compare it to the agent's weapons.  If he were running away he would have been shot in the back of his butt.

In addition, from the time charges were filed against the agents and the trial, this same drug runner was caught again bringing dope into the country and got imunity for that also because of his pending testimony.

 

 

 

---

FireMom said:

ARC:

I am not sure what you were looking for on Hannity's website.  I run a business myself and so I only hear him if I'm in the car.  I don't have cable so I can't watch him on TV. 

And, I totally agree that he's become too pro Bush and also waaay to supportive of Guiliani.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you were looking for on his website.  I went in there (www.Hannity.com) and just sent an email where it said "contact us."  I assume it went through since it's the first time I've sent them anything.

 

Rudy Giuliani's New York law firm represents the owners of FOX NEWS , News Corporation, and they are big time CFR people.  Rudy is also a partner in a Houston Law Firm that represents the people planning to build the NASCO SUPERHIGHWAY.

That fella cannot be our next President.

I have heard conflict of interest complaints have been filed because of Rudy getting so much free face time on FOX NEWS, but have not had time to look it up.

---

                             Yes injustices happen and what happened in the cases of the Texas Three was justice twisted, abused, and violated. I promised Monica and Patty that I wouldn't cease or desist fighting until justice is served and I meant it. The Congressional pardon doesn't hold much water but it does serve to bring this perversion to the light of day. Our President jumped through hoops to rescue his (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours) friend Scooter Libby, but gives us the "There are procedures that have to be followed"  line of bovine excrement about the blatant wrong perpetrated here.  Their persecution or prosecution however you want to call it was nothing more than a message sent. Until these brave men and fellow veterans are reunited with their families; I consider it a duty to carry the fight onward.

---