They started with a “Breaking News” announcement, teasing the Compean and Ramos story, with his basic “first two political prisoners” crap.

Then he had some communication “difficulties” with one of his sidekicks who was trying to “confirm” a Thanksgiving WH annoucement of long-awaited pardons.

Then, after about5 minutes of trying to stifle laughter themselves, the “confusion” was cleared up with the explanation that the “pardons” by Pres. Bush in question were of two turkeys brought to the WH for Thanksgiving — and that Compean and Ramos would remain in prison, but with Administration assurances that they wouldn’t be killed or eaten for one day — maybe only brutalized in their cells.

A new low.

This guy’s schtick has really run its course. He’s the Olbermann of the right wing — not even worthy of being considered any further

Davila raised his hands momentarily and then kept advancing in a menacing manner, he did not stop when ordered to, and took off running as soon as he was out of the ditch.

I don’t see how it would incriminate OAD to testify about the details of the load he carried on the day he was shot because he was given immunity for anything he admitted he did that day. He admitted he was smuggling drugs and he should have to answer questions about those details. I think the trial court’s limitations on what defense counsel could ask are a valid issue on appeal.

We have only Davila’s word for it that he was unarmed. If he did, in fact, have a gun, then the shooting would have been called a good shoot and not the crime it has been labeled. By keeping his other misdeads from the jury, you give added value to his testimony.

Also the questions that I did not articulate very well have to do with Sutton, the prosecution team and what they knew about Davila that they learned before the R & C trial. Since they knew before the trial that he was implicated in further drug smuggling, did they learn anything that would have indicated to them that his testimony was likely to be false? If yes, why would they have continued with the trial? Isn’t there an ethical problem with prosecuting someone using testimony that is likely not true?

And the fact that he was Hispanic and running south has no more bearing than if he had been Blue and running north in my mind. I don’t see where ethnicity even came into play with this case.

I suppose there’s emotional satisfaction in watching OAD get his just desserts, but I don’t think it’s going to help Ramos-Compean that much.

In any event, OAD was apparently arraigned this morning in El Paso. Today’s article also reports that Cipriano Ortiz “pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute in August and is scheduled to be sentenced in February.” Thus, it seems the evidence against OAD will include the testimony of an admitted drug smuggler. Ironic, isn’t it?

And, whether he had a gun or not wasn’t the question — the question was whether Compean and Ramos saw something they perceived as a threat.

Their stories were contradictory, and they told many outright fabrications — not to mention failing to even report having discharged their weapons and then trying to hide the fact that they had — so their claim that they thought Davila had a gun was unbelievable.

The question is “what was in their minds” when they pulled their triggers. Their shooting is only justified, and thus not criminal, if they perceived a threat. They said they did, but they said so many other things that weren’t true — and they couldn’t even keep their story straight — that the jury disbelieved them.