I have seen vile slander and speculation on blogs about some of the Ron Paul newsletters put out in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s. There have been calls for Ron Paul to “apologize” and “take responsibility” for them.

Of course, he has done all this throughout the years. He has made clear that the buck stops with him at least since the first time I heard about it in 1996 when Karl Rove, at the behest of then Gov. Bush, armed liberal Democrat Lefty Morris with the information for the latter’s run against Dr. Paul.

I have read Dr. Paul’s writings created all the way back to the 1970′s and the subject newsletters–and I say “subject” because the suggestion that there are 3 decades of letters filled with the subject matter considered offensive is a gross distortion of the truth–and it is evident to me that he did not write them. They are antithetical to his gentlemanly style and to the beliefs that he has professed since the beginning.

Well, say some, the fact that he “let” the articles go out in the newsletter shows that he is a bad “manager”. That is absurd. First, he was not managing the day to day running of the newsletter. He was practicing medicine on a full-time basis and writing some of the columns in his spare time–the ones that went out under his by-line. His relationship to the newsletter business was no different than any other person who “owns” a business–but does not work “in” the business.

For instance, there is a successful entrepreneur here in Austin who owns several businesses–but neither “manages” nor “works in” any of them. He hires managers and employees. One of the businesses is a car wash. If one of the employees of the car wash calls a patron a racist name, that does not mean that the owner is a racist. It does not mean that the owner is a “bad manager”. Management was not the owner’s role. However, any good owner knows that the “buck” stops with him, and would ensure that his managers rectify the situation and discipline or terminate the employee. He would also apologize to the customer and assure them that those are not his positions. This is precisely what Dr. Paul did.

There are those who insist that he should have read the newsletters and caught the problem earlier. How do you know that he had the time or inclination to do so in light of his busy practice? I don’t have the time to read each and every letter written by attorneys I employ in my firm–and I do manage them. I may not detect a problem for years–because I have to trust the professionals I hire. Do you truly believe that the “owners” of publications read each and every article in each and every magazine?

Then I read the libertarians who take a utilitarian approach. They say that, in order to exonerate himself and prove a negative–that he did not write the newsletters– he must identify and “out” the writer(s) and throw them to the wolves. In other words, Dr. Paul must bring about the personal and professional ruination of other people to save his own butt.

Dr. Paul is a Christian who exemplifies Christian behavior more than any other political figure I have ever seen. He does not stand on the street corner preaching and praying loudly as did the self-righteous Pharisees against whom Jesus railed. He embodies the teachings of Jesus in his day to day life.

One must ask, who did the writers of the subject materials really hurt? They hurt Dr. Paul! They put ammunition in the hands of his enemies and tarred his reputation. They owe a debt to Dr. Paul and no one else.

Dr. Paul has handled their debt to him as would a Christian in accordance with the Gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus commanded that we forgive others and deal with them in a compassionate manner.

15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three awitnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the achurch: but if he bneglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Note that the passage does not say that if you resolve the situation with your brother (like termination from employment coupled with forgiveness and discretion), but if the trespass is later brought up in politics and you are smeared with it, you are to forget all Christian principles and throw your brother to the wolves to save your political career.

Consider another of the parables of Jesus in Matthew:

23 ¶ Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would atake account of his bservants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be asold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him aan hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very asorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that adebt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had bcompassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had cpity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts aforgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Ron Paul forgave the writer of the newletters who has caused him such trouble. He is an honorable man who refuses to sacrifice another person to his political aspirations. He shoulders the responsibility and takes the heat–rather than pointing a finger to divert wrath from himself. He has more courage and integrity than any other man in public life.

Let the nattering class continue to natter on about this. Ron Paul is building his treasure in heaven instead of on this earth. To the natterers, look further at the words of Jesus in Matthew:

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Yes, Virginia, politicians used to give speeches consisting of more than sound bites–just as Ron Paul does now.

This past Saturday night, I was babysitting for friends. I saw this story on the news about an 10 year old boy who brought a pocket knife to school. The administrators and parents are acting as if he brought a weapon of mass destruction to school!

Parents were interviewed saying things like, “this makes me think my child is not safe at school” and, “How did he ever get his hands on a pocket knife?” Over a pocket knife!

When I was 10, I received a Girl Scout pocket knife for Christmas. It was my proudest possession and I carried it everywhere. Back then, people thought of it as a handy tool. Kids were taught to whittle.

I race sailboats. The kids at the AYC are taught to use knives. If you are out in a blow and a line fouls, you have to use a knife to cut it–so you don’t broach or swamp.

The world is nuts. Personally, I think that public schools share a big part of the blame for that.

Participated in this panel.

Virginia Beach, VA (LifeNews.com) — Regent University, the Christian college in Virginia, has launched a new institute that will study how abortion and euthanasia are targeting the disabled community. The new organization will examine how the practices have created a multitude of human rights abuses ranging from sex-selection abortions to discrimination.

Billing itself as a “multicultural response to medical and cultural trends impacting people with disabilities, the Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics will examine these sensitive topics.

The group celebrated its opening this afternoon with a gala event featuring Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby Schindler; Jerri Ward, a Texas pro-life attorney helping disabled people there; former US Attorney General John Ashcroft; and Jay Sekulow, the lead attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice.

I am hosting a special edition of the show today, beginning at 3 PM ET at Right Talk Radio. Here’s the scoop:

On September 17, the Republican candidates participated in the first Values Voters Debate moderated by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. Paul Weyrich, founder and President of the Free Congress Foundation, Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum, Don Wildmon, founder and Chairman of the American Family Association, Judge Roy Moore, with the Foundation for Moral Law, Rick Scarborough, Vision America, and Mat Staver of Liberty Council and others asked questions of the candidates.

The question is, which candidates, in their answers, remained true to both Biblical and Constitutional law? Find out this coming Thursday, September 27 at 3 PM ET when Miss Ward hosts two knowledgeable guests; the lawyer and the preacher.

"Herb Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard. After graduation, he was initially active in a number of left-wing causes, including opposition to the war in Vietnam and in support of abortion and homosexual rights. As a cooperating attorney with the ACLU, Herb was engaged in a number of constitutional cases, including an effort to remove a cross from a hill in Eugene, Oregon. In 1975 Herb and his wife, Marilyn, were dramatically converted to Christ in a Sunday School class after which he spent a year of study under Dr. Francis Schaeffer.

Mr. Titus has taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly thirty years at five different law schools. Recently, he served as a Deputy Attorney General on the defense team for Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in the law suit brought by the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the State Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama. He also served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University in Virginia. Titus has also worked as a trial attorney and counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Titus and his wife, Marilyn, reside in Chesapeake, Virginia. They have four children and twelve grandchildren."

Rev. Chris Ortiz is the Director of Communications for the Chalcedon Foundation, an Christian educational organization dedicated to applying the authority of God’s Word to every area of life and thought. He is also the editor of the two flagship periodicals for Chalcedon: Faith for All of Life and the Chalcedon Report; and has written dozens of articles and commentary. For over a year now, he has hosted the Faith for All of Life Podcast which features in-depth interviews with relevant Christian leaders applying the faith to the marketplace of ideas. For twenty years, Chris has served in numerous capacities as both an ordained minister and as a Christian businessman. For fifteen years, he has advised countless Christian ministries, organizations, and publishers in how to most effectively reach their audiences with his own philosophy: Communication Without Compromise. He and his wife, Regina, have been married for twenty years and have three children. They reside in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Please tune in by clicking here.

Monthly at 3 PM E.T.

Toll- free line during show:

1-866-884-8255

Each show is replayed for 24 hours!

with free PODcasting

I just got back from Fort Worth where I attended the Texas GOP Straw Poll to campaign for Ron Paul. I arrived Thursday night and went to the beginning of registration on Friday morning. I got in as a guest and spent a lot of time handing out invitations for the party held for Ron Paul that night and Ron Paul stickers to delegates.

That night, I attended the party for Ron Paul where a fund raising auction was held. Dr. Paul spoke and gave an electrifying speech. I was gratified to see several of my pro-life colleagues who had exhibit tables at the Straw Poll attend his speech. Jimmy Lee Vaughn provided the music.

On Saturday, we gathered at the Worthington Hotel for a parade to the Convention Center where the Poll was being held. I was asked to skip the parade to go help Ron Paul supporters stake out seats in room where the candidates were going to speak and to hand out literature to the delegates. One of the members of my meetup group filmed the following video.

You will see two very interesting things in this video. First, you will see a replica of the Liberty Bell mounted on a wagon with the Ten Commandments. This same replica of the Liberty Bell was in Crawford two years ago at the Support the Troops event that I attended. Here, it is in the march for Ron Paul with Ron Paul signs on it–though the owner isn’t endorsing a candidate, I’ve heard.

The second thing you will see is the Granny Warriors Van. They too, were in Crawford to protest Cindy Sheehan–though they made it clear that they didn’t particularly support the Iraq War either. Now, they tour the country campaigning for Ron Paul.

I went to Crawford two years ago to protest Cindy Sheehan. I, too, support Ron Paul and his views on the Iraq War. He believes that an undeclared war is unconstitutional.

Finally, here is better video of the march:

Towards the end, he rings the Liberty Bell.

A headline from Bloomberg:

Bernanke’s `Rookie Mistake’ Forces Fed to Shift Focus

Note this quote from the article:

“We’re getting a nice further look at the new Bernanke Fed,” said Ethan Harris, chief U.S. economist at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in New York. “He definitely wants to use the committee and these more formal directives,” as opposed to Greenspan’s preference for speeches laden with “code words.”

Ilana Mercer was a wonderful guest yesterday. I posted about the show here.

Last weekend, I went to San Antonio for a Ron Paul fund raiser held at the Buckhorn Museum. We met at the headquarters for the local San Antonio Ron Paul Meetup Group where Ron Paul made a speech. Then, we went to the front of the Alamo where he gave a press conference.

We then made an impromptu march down the street leading to the Buckhorn Museum. The street was closed for a festival. Right near the Buckhorn was a band which gave a thumbs-up for Ron Paul.

I went to the fund raiser. There was an auction and I bought an O’Henry 22 rifle. It is gorgeous.

It says:

“In Defense of Freedom”
“Ron Paul”

After the dinner and auction, we all went downstairs to the Buckhorn Saloon, where Dr. Paul gave a wonderful speech. You can see his complete speech, and all that preceded it here.

This is amazing:

Among things testified about by Special Agent Chris Sanchez was that there was a plan to retaliate against Border Patrol agents by Mexicans who knew Aldrete-Davila.  It is no surprise that Aldrete refused to tell Sanchez who was in on the plot.  His buddies also had immunity because Sanchez and his prosecutorial team wanted to imprison the shooters so badly, that they were willing to overlook a bona fide murder plot – a plot to murder federal agents – in exchange for the information they felt Aldrete and his right thigh had (the bullet).

In other words, it appears agents of the United States government conspired to allow a murder conspiracy by Mexican nationals against agents of the United States to remain unsolved to obtain the cooperation of Aldrete.

Chris Sanchez as a Homeland Security agent had the opportunity to do the true right thing in this case.  Instead he let it get away.  First he bluffed, and Aldrete called him on it.  He then put all of his cards on the table, and they weren’t good enough to win.  Yet, he thinks he did.

What other things might he have done to get the information?  Well, he might have taken a used car dealer with him instead of a federal prosecutor when he visited Aldrete in Mexico.  When he asked Aldrete about the clinic, and Aldrete refused to answer, a used car dealer would have had Sanchez out of his seat and walking toward the border with his immunity paper in his hand unsigned.

Sanchez may not have any jurisdiction in Mexico, but it does not mean he cannot ask questions, get others to ask questions, or be a tourist looking at all of the sights.

It seems to me that Aldrete probably isn’t a wonderful upstanding citizen of Mexico either.  Maybe not the worst, but if the Mexican authorities actually wanted to assist, they could have.  It would be nice to corroborate things that Aldrete said were true.  So who picked him up in Mexico after his swim (or wade)?  What clinic did they go to?  Who set up the delivery?  Who owned the van?  Who owned the drugs?  Where were they going and to whom?  Who was involved in the conspiracy to murder US agents?  If they would murder US agents, might they not try to do in Mexican authorities who got too nosy?  The only person who seems to be curious about these issues was Attorney Mary Stillinger who tried to ask some of them in Court.

How much trouble would have been for the US government to get the Mexican authorities to ask (or even demand) some of those answers?  If the Mexican consulate wanted this so-called crime investigated, it seems to me that they have some leverage to ask some questions.  And why wouldn’t you want to do so if you were an agent of Homeland Security?  Why wouldn’t you demand the information if you were the US Attorney?  How about a polygraph for Aldrete?  You may not be able to use it in court, but it is one whale of a screening device.

Sanchez said that they notified the Border Patrol offices of a possible plot to kill agents in retaliation.  They took steps in other words.  He made no mention whether they notified the Mexican authorities to try to head off the retaliation or investigate it.

So as I’ve written before, he had all the incentive and none of the responsibility.  He got a deal and Ramos and Compean got the shaft.  In this case the US Attorney wanted to make an example out of the agents who were trying to do their duty.  Debra Kanof continually refers to Aldrete at the victim.  Aldrete however is a predator, a career criminal, a smuggler who should go get an honest job – away from the border.  Aside from what happened to the agents, the real victim is truth and justice and the American people when the government looks the other way at drug running, a murder conspiracy, assault on federal officers and gives immunity to the real criminal and convicts others on a made up crime.

I have to take a break. I’m busy dealing with this.

Special Agent Chris Sanchez testified that the other agents cooperated after they were given “proffer letters” that to his “understanding” meant they wouldn’t be prosecuted for what they testified about in relation to this case.  What these proffer letters do, however, is terrify and devastate the officers.  Each letter can be tailored to fit each officer and the circumstances about which they are to testify about and to their involvement.

 

Proffer letters are used by prosecutors as weapons.  When a person (especially an officer) is given a proffer letter, he or she knows that he or she has been targeted.  Lack of testimony, lack of candor or veracity will undoubtedly mean prosecution.  I’m not sure about you, but if a federal prosecutor has targeted me, all I am going to be thinking of is going to federal prison.  What with federal sentencing guidelines, the recipient of a proffer letter had better be thinking seriously about hiring a lawyer.

 

The proffer letter is very little protection for the officer who receives one.  It can be tailored so narrowly, that if the officer fails to cooperate to the level of satisfaction of the prosecuting attorney, all bets can be off.  When all bets are off, the officer can find himself on the receiving end of every charge that can be made to fit the elements of a crime.  Any “crime” or perceived wrongdoing that was going to be forgiven will suddenly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  A perceived lie becomes obstructing justice, lying to a federal officer, or suborning perjury.

 

The proffer letter is supposed to be used to gain cooperation of low level criminals when they are investigating bigger fish.  A drug transporter with, say, 743 pounds of marijuana gets a proffer letter in exchange for his testimony against the guys who hired him and their bosses (hopefully).  With the big time that can result from sentencing for a big load of dope, the driver of a van load is likely to help the prosecutor.  After all, he is just trying to get a few dollars perhaps to buy medicine for his sick mother.

 

The tool can be very effective, but when used against officers, it is a devastating weapon.  Officers frequently live in a world that they view as black and white.  They are mostly from blue collar families with strong morals.  To suddenly be thrust into an environment where they are looking at federal charges over what essentially is not a crime, can wound the psyche of an officer far beyond what happens to anyone who is a true criminal.  Even experienced officers can be very naive when under the gun in a criminal proceeding, especially when they know or believe they have done essentially nothing wrong.  The officers very frequently love the agency they work for, but they are suddenly finding out that the agency does not love them.

 

What am I saying? You may ask.  Simply this:

 

If you are committing a deliberate criminal act for which you know that any law enforcement officer would arrest you, you have accepted a certain amount of risk.  You may not know the exact penalty, but you know that arson, robbery, burglary, transporting dope, and murder are all big time crimes that carry prison sentences.  If you get caught, it is bad for you, but you knew it could happen.  Getting a proffer letter is a lifeline, and you know that the bosses have also accepted the risk, and it is them or you.

 

This is different if you are at the scene of a dynamic seizure involving your fellow officers, and you are doing what you believe is a normal and not illegal act.  The risks you take as a law enforcement officer involve people who have weapons like knives and guns.  The risks involve hopped up druggies who feel no pain.  The risks involve driving at high speed, stopping people you don’t know in the middle of nowhere at night all by yourself.  The risks involve standing in traffic in rain beside a high speed lane or directing traffic with a flashlight in the middle of an intersection. 

 

Suddenly being told convincingly that you are subject to federal felonies involving obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, suborning perjury and depriving a man of his federal civil rights is no less devastating as a traumatic event than taking 12-pound sledge hammer between the eyes.  A traumatic event is defined as an occurrence of such intensity that it overwhelms a person’s normal ability to cope.  It is often sudden, shocking and involves death, serious injury, and emotions of intense fear, helplessness, or horror.  It may destroy or impair one’s sense that life is predictable.

 

This is not the risk you have been trained about.  You have been trained to see danger signals.  You know how to find cover when a crazed 15-year old girl fires at you when you arrest her boyfriend.  You wear a bullet-resistant vest so that you can go home at night when you miss danger signs.  You have been trained how to shoot and when you can do it.  You have been trained that to hesitate when your life or your partner’s life is in danger could mean that one of you dies.

 

Studies have shown that officers who die often do so because they under-reacted to the situation.  Those studies are Academy material, people!  In other words, officers are trained with these studies as part of the curriculum.  They did not exist 30 years ago when I was first trained.  However, when our training staff learned of the studies, they brought ALL of us in for in-service training, and the material is repeated periodically.  Is it possible that each and every Border Patrol officer has also been trained with similar material?  I would think that the US Government would be more than just a little bit remiss if they did not provide such definitive information to officers they value.

 

These officers found themselves subjected to a weapon they had never been trained to fight.  Every officer finds himself in some manner violating policy at one time or another.  Extreme violations can bring suspension, demotion, and dismissal, but most policy violations are made up of minor stuff.  Killing a rattlesnake, taking too long on a break, failing to file some paperwork, being late for work are all examples of things an officer can get in trouble for.  They don’t go to prison for these violations. 

 

Officers can lie to persuade a person to confess a crime.  Officers can lie to pretend there are more officers coming to help them to control a crowd, a domestic situation or prevent someone from resisting arrest.  Lying to protect yourself (“no I didn’t kill the rattlesnake”…, “my break was only ten minutes”…, “I’m sure I filed that affidavit”…, “I stopped to help a lady with a flat tire”…) is wrong, but most people at one time or another have protected their vanity (or more) with a lie of this type (including officers).  Every officer knows you cannot lie in court and on an affidavit.  They cannot hide exculpatory evidence.  They cannot lie in an official investigation.

 

However, if an officer thought he was in one of those minor things and tells some sort of a lie or omits something to someone who has asked him about it, he has a problem if he underestimates the seriousness of the situation.  If SA Sanchez asked a casual question of an officer and felt he caught the officer in a lie, he then had leverage to bring a felony against the officer.  If he asks questions of this type casually to several officers, he suddenly has a whole room full of potential witnesses who will eventually dance to the tune he plays.  SA Sanchez could lie to the officers even though they cannot lie to him.

 

Officers can have representation when being interviewed formally.  Officers who do not see the seriousness of a situation frequently do not bring representation or they waive it.  Fewer still ever bring lawyers until it is way late and only when they understand the seriousness – usually when it gets to a criminal phase.

 

Officers avoid bringing representation for a variety of reasons.  Often they believe they have done nothing wrong, and that the truth will come out.  They are quick to cooperate and will talk at length and be persuasive or offer tangible evidence (videotape, other witnesses, overlooked documentation).  Others believe the situation is not serious, the violation was minor, and these guys want to get it behind them.  They may have genuine remorse, are willing to take the consequences, and want to get back to work.  These are dedicated people and believe in the system.  Other officers do not want to anger their supervisors or the management team.  They may believe that to bring in representation may make it appear that they are trying to hide something and that management will look more critically at them and at the case, developing evidence that they would never look for otherwise.  (Many seasoned officers do NOT have this problem.)

 

These are not unreasonable beliefs.  Mature supervisors do not become angered when officers bring in their rep (although not all are mature).  I have frequently arranged representation for officers without even asking.  Some managers will become upset, however, if the officer has an actual lawyer “to interfere”.  In any internal investigation where investigators believe that the officer is stonewalling or lying, they will seek additional evidence regardless.  In a case where officers are candid from the beginning, the investigation is likely to be short, sweet, and to the point, getting the investigation behind them, and probably gaining respect from dedicated supervisors for the officer under investigation.

 

To suddenly be confronted with the possibility of doing time in a federal prison when a short time earlier you were just minding your own business is a heavy load for an officer.  Traumatic, as I said earlier.  The officer who is desperately in this situation is going to try to give his tormenter everything he wants.  Almost anything is preferable to being under the gun in this manner.  They are not going to go out on a limb for the officers who are the subjects of this investigation.  Their thinking will be clouded, perhaps biased.  These guys will not be happy that their fellow officers “put them in this situation”.  Nothing matters except that they do not want to go to prison.

 

Now then we have the immunity that was given to Aldrete.  According to the testimony by SA Sanchez, Aldrete would not cooperate in telling him what clinic he went to.  He wouldn’t help Sanchez find out who was threatening to retaliate against the officers.  He still got his immunity.

 

Aldrete told lies and changed his story when SA Sanchez began pressuring him.  His story changed from what it was when Rene Sanchez first started talking to him.  He refused to talk to Chris Sanchez and had to be persuaded to help.  He received treatment in an excellent US hospital courtesy of the US government.  He then told a self-serving story that put the Compean and Ramos in the worst light.

 

Aldrete got an I-94 to allow him to cross the border for meetings and treatment.  The I-94 was not for an unlimited time, but SA Sanchez renewed it several times.  Aldrete delivered a load of drugs to a safe house in El Paso between the time he reported he had been shot and the trial date.  Would you think that perhaps Aldrete was able to legally cross the border to deliver the drugs because he had a perfectly valid I-94 obtained from an officer of the Office of Homeland Security? 

 

He didn’t have a blanket immunity paper to allow him to drive marijuana to a safe house, but when the DEA wanted to file charges against Aldrete, and the same US Attorney refused to draw up charges citing a lack of evidence, would you think that a blanket immunity paper was not needed?  Of course having your star witness in jail for running drugs might also ruin your high-profile case in which you have a lot at stake and have made public statements about, wouldn’t it?

 

When Aldrete refused to name other people involved with him or in the plot against other agents, that should have been a sign to those issuing the immunity that Aldrete was testing them, as he indeed did.  No deal is any good unless you are willing to walk away from it (Salesmanship 101).  When Aldrete found they would not revoke the paper, he was suddenly free to say anything vaguely plausible as long as it supported the case against Compean and Ramos.  He had a “Get Out of Jail Free” card and could impress his bosses even though he lost one load, normally considered the cost of doing business by the professional transport groups (and they are professional groups).

 

A whole bunch fewer experienced agents on the border, two in jail, free health care, immunity for the load he was driving, immunity for assaulting Compean, immunity for fleeing, essentially immunity for obstructing justice, and no one tried to persuade him to rat out his organization gives him status in his community of druggies.  An I-94 to cross the border, no prosecution for the second load the government knows about, and now a $5 million lawsuit.  What a country!!

 

When Aldrete comes over to try to collect on his lawsuit maybe some local officers will catch him with one of his usual loads and prosecute his hide in the Texas courts.  One would hope he can’t get federal immunity in a real court.