[A prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor â€“ indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.â€
Berger vs. United States
Much has been made about Hillary Clinton’s rise to power because of her husband. She had no independent record of her own before her Senate record, so it goes. She wouldn’t even be in our collective conscious if she were not married to Bill Clinton.
As much as I dislike Sen. Clinton, I have to say that, achieving political power through marriage is really no different than cronyism. No one is better at cronyism than President G.W. Bush.
Look at what he recently said about Johnny Sutton when questioned about the prosecution of Ramos and Compean:
“Obviously I am interested in facts. I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He’s a dear friend of mine from Texas. He’s a fair guy. He is an even-handed guy.”
Beside the obvious internal conflicts in that statement, it is ridiculous. We don’t expect the President to treat those for whose actions he is ultimately responsible as “dear friends”, and we resent his condescending words which suggest to me that the president will take the word of his crony over the facts and the concerns of the People he is supposed to serve.
As seems to be Bush’s habit with his cronyism, about which Debbie Schlussel writes here (and many other places on her excellent blog) Bush’s cronies seem to have very little independent record to recommend them. for the jobs to which they are appointed.
Johnny Sutton has always made his living on the taxpayer dime. In other words, he has always worked in a world where influence is gained by sucking up to the powerful–rather than by being tested out in the world where merit is measured by different means. For instance, he was an Assistant D.A. in Harris County for eight years until he was plucked from the obscurity of that job to serve Bush in various capacities after that.
I wonder what other attorneys, who actually lived and practiced in the Western District and who were vying for the job of U.S. Attorney thought of being passed over in favor of this man who was plucked from an obscure B.S.-made up kind of position like “Criminal Justice Policy Director for then-Governor George W. Bush from 1995-2000, advising the Governor on all criminal justice issues, with specific oversight in the areas of criminal law, prison capacity and management, parole operations and legislative initiatives” and then placed in such a coveted position in the stead of some hard working attorney from the area.
I hardly think that his resume entitles him to the kind of arrogance he has recently displayed that Chuck Baldwin at VDARE writes of here. He points to the transcript of Sutton’s recent interview by Lou Dobbs. It is absolutely sickening to think that this man possesses such power because of his ride on the coattails of G.W. Bush. Here is the interview:
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.
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.
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.
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) —