Glenn Beck: Ramos & Compean - The Whole Story




Border Patrol Fundraiser Shirt


 ***All of Glenn's proceeds from the sale of this shirt will be donated to a legal defense fund for Agents Ramos and Compean.***

GLENN: We've added a lot of new stations and, you know, a lot of new people that, you know, are just, they stumbled in, they might have been drunk and the radio stuck on this station and then they're like, I can't turn it off now; I don't know what happened. And so now they're forced to listen. So there's a lot of people in the audience that doesn't -- they're not really even aware of some of the things that we have discovered on the Compean and Ramos case. These are the two border agents that were thrown in jail for what it looked like shooting somebody in the back or in the butt as they were running away, just this poor helpless victim and then trying to cover it up. That's what it looks like. That's what the government would like to have you believe. That is not the case.

We go to Tara Setmayer who has been on this case now for how long, Tara? Two years?

SETMAYER: Almost two years, yeah.

GLENN: And you and your illustrious boss in Washington have been on this case trying to set this right and so far you're beating your head against the wall. Let's start with the story, and if we could tell the story here in a five minute period here as much as you can, tell everybody the history of this case.

SETMAYER: Well, in February 2005 Ramos and Compean were on routine patrol down in Fabens, Texas along the border. A drug smuggler was detected -- well, they didn't know he was smuggling drugs yet. A border breach was detected by Compean, he radioed it in. They gave chase to a van, started to speed back toward the border. The individual, which is Aldrete Davila, he abandoned the van and decided to head for the border on foot. At the time other border patrol agents joined the pursuit and the drug smuggler confronted Compean on the other side of a drainage ditch on his way back to Mexico. At the time Compean tried to arrest him, he tried to apprehend him, they got into a scuffle and shots were fired. In the meantime Ramos is climbing down this drainage ditch to assist his fellow border agent. He hears shots fired. As he emerges, he sees Compean on the ground, he sees a drug smuggler running away. He shoots at him. He thinks he has a gun. He doesn't know what's happening. He shoots at him. He hits him, but he doesn't know he hit him because the guy kept running and escapes back to Mexico, where on the other side of the border there were other people waiting to pick him up and take him away.

As they walk back, they noticed that inside this van is a million dollars worth of marijuana, about 750 pounds. So other agents are on scene including two supervisors. The mistake they made, they did not orally report the shooting.

GLENN: But it's important at this point of the story to know that supervisors were on the scene.

SETMAYER: Yes.

GLENN: Others were there. It is almost a loophole there that they nailed them on and said, well, they didn't report the shooting. The idea was they didn't need to report the shooting. People were on the scene.

SETMAYER: That's right. And border patrol regulations state that they're only supposed to orally report it. That supervisor is supposed to file a written report. So this is a policy violation. It's not criminal. Well, three weeks go by. They catalog the drugs. You know, the guy absconded, he escaped to New Mexico. You know, routine day on the border so one would think. Anyone who knows or is familiar with what's going on in the southern border, it's a war zone there. So the fact that they weren't shot is actually a good thing.

A few weeks go by and we find out that the Department of Homeland Security has opened up an internal affairs investigation because the drug smuggler that they shot grew up with a border patrol agent in Arizona. The incident happened in Texas. Their families talk and they find out that Aldrete Davila has been shot by a border agent. So this agent in Arizona takes it upon himself to research what's going on, look for the shooting report.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. This is an important thing for people to really focus on for just 10 seconds. A border agent who grew up with a drug smuggler in Mexico. Their families still talk. The drug smuggler called -- the drug smuggler's mother called the border agent and said, "My son's just been shot on the border," et cetera, et cetera. So you've got the connections now between the U.S. border agents and a drug smuggler. Now, it's never been -- nobody's ever accused this guy of being a dirty border agent, if I'm not mistaken, Tara, right?



SETMAYER: Oh, that's correct. No one questioned or investigated the nature of this relationship.

GLENN: Correct.

SETMAYER: I mean, he was best friends with the drug smuggler's brother. He accompanied the drug smuggler's sister on her 15th birthday. They have close ties.

So we move forward. No one seems to think anything's wrong with that. They move forward and Homeland Security opens up this investigation. They send Christopher Sanchez, who is the investigator, down to Fabens, Texas and they send him over into Mexico to find the drug smuggler. They offer him immunity, free border crossing cards and free healthcare to come back across the border and testify against Ramos and Compean.

Now, at this point Ramos and Compean are arrested, and I have to tell you that when they interviewed the other agents who were on scene, those other agents' stories changed dramatically from their initial version of events to what they testified to at trial. Basically they were all given proffer letters, which is some sort of an immunity deal after --

GLENN: We won't come after you.

SETMAYER: That's right, we won't come after you if you tell us the "Real" story.

GLENN: Right.

SETMAYER: Which was that Ramos and Compean shot an innocent guy as he was running away. Now, anyone who knows Ramos and Compean or just looks at the basic facts of this case, it's reasonable for them to believe this gentleman was armed. Sara Carter, who is a reporter who broke this story nationally, she interviewed Davila's family and they said that he's been running drugs since he was 14 years old and he was never seen without a gun.

Now, during the trial that image of Mr. Davila was completely changed. He was a poor innocent waif who was just smuggling drugs one time to pay for money for his sick mother's medicine -- to get money for his sick mother's medicine. We all know that that's not true. As a matter of fact, while he was under immunity waiting to testify against the agent, he smuggled another load of drugs four months before the trial. The government knew it and they went before the judge and asked all of that evidence to be sealed so the jury would never hear about it.

GLENN: Which is highly unusual when somebody is convicted -- or when somebody else is arrested again. During a trial usually that person is thrown out.

SETMAYER: Well, the interesting thing about this, Glenn, is that he actually was not arrested. According to the -- this is --

GLENN: I know.

SETMAYER: This is where it gets interesting. According to the DEA report which we were able to obtain, about six months after all hell broke loose, they had already been convicted and Johnny Sutton was denying that the October load ever happened and he was, you know, speaking in lawyer, lawyerly terms to try to deny that that had ever happened because it was all under seal. One day the DEA documents show up at my door and it was proof and it was a full account of what happened in October of 2005 before the trial. And what happened is that Davila was identified as dropping off a load of 800 pounds of drugs at a stash house in Texas. When the DEA and border patrol raided that stash house, they were told by the U.S. attorney's office that no one was to be taken into custody at that time. That came from Johnny Sutton's office. So it's very curious why they didn't pursue arresting anyone at the stash house even though they fully identified -- the occupants of that stash house fully identified Aldrete Davila as being the individual who dropped off that load of drugs. So no, technically he wasn't arrested. Why the hell not.

GLENN: Now, Johnny Sutton at the time said there weren't any of these cards that helped people go across the border and if he knew where he was, he would make sure that he was arrested and all of these things, which have all turned out to be false. Johnny Sutton I believe is a dirty official and I believe the dirt and the grime go all the way to the President of the United States. I think this is a -- my spider senses, everything in me tells me something isn't right. But to try to get anybody to talk is impossible. I've talked to several people who have been instrumental in this case and other cases like it, who have been -- who are instrumental at the highest levels that are now starting to say, "Wait a minute, you know what, I was part of, you know, X, Y and Z and now I see I've been lied to and being used and we're in real trouble because there's something else going on. But they won't go on the air because some of these people are still sitting in those positions and they are trying to figure out what it is. But they are looking.

SETMAYER: Glenn, let me tell you. When we first start -- when members of congress first started to raise the profile of this case a year and a half ago, right before the agents had to report for it to begin their prison terms in January, there were a lot of very strange things going on, including the fact that Department of Homeland Security officials lied to four Texas members of congress.

GLENN: This is where I got involved.

SETMAYER: Yes. This is in September of 2006 when members of congress first started to investigate, they asked for a briefing from Homeland Security to say, okay, what's really going on here. Well, those Homeland Security officials told those members of congress that, one, Ramos and Compean confessed; two, they knew the guy was unarmed; and three, that they said they wanted to shoot some Mexicans that day. Well, that didn't sit too well with those members of congress. So they asked for proof of these allegations. And guess what, that proof never happened. And for four and a half months after that, the official report of investigation that was used to prosecute these gentlemen was not released. It hadn't even been finished yet, which is highly unusual. And it took members of congress complaining and going public about it for the Homeland Security department to finally release the report of investigation which they did under classified -- it was classified first. And then we said, that's not acceptable. So they released a redacted version. And guess what. None of what they claimed was in that report.

GLENN: Didn't the -- didn't the head of Homeland Security or one of the head guys of Homeland Security actually say in testimony in congress that you had been -- congressman, I'm sorry, you have been misled?

SETMAYER: Yes. He said misinformed. It was the inspector general Richard Skinner. He was being questioned by congressman John Culberson and that was his response: Well, I'm sorry, but you were misinformed. Well, you know, where I come from, that's called a lie.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, Tara Setmayer is with Congressman Rohrabacher and she and the congressman has been on this nonstop. Congressman is going to join us tone. In a few minutes I'm going to play some audio. Dan, is this the first time this audio has been heard? Okay. You probably have not heard this audio most likely. It is audio from the jurors saying, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. If I would have known these things about the drug smuggler, things would have been wildly different." And it shows how -- because remember, "The jurors have spoken. Don't you believe in the rule of law?" No, not when the rule of law has been so turned upside down on its head. Justice is justice. You've got to make sure that it is equally applied and there's not something else going on. There is something else going on. We're going to give you that audio which has not been heard and has not been played on this program until today. We will give you this audio here in just a second. And also somebody who has been very, very close to this case with some more insight coming up in just a minute. But also when -- Tara, when we come back, Tara actually had to speak to Compean and Ramos yesterday. It was just Ramos yesterday that you spoke to?

SETMAYER: Yes, just Ramos.

GLENN: And she broke the news to him. Remember, he's in solitary confinement, quote, for his own protection. We will get that story from her coming up in just a second. Don't miss a second of the next few minutes on the Glenn Beck program.

(Goldline)

GLENN: Tara, yesterday -- we've got about two minutes. Tell me what happened yesterday afternoon when you had to deliver the news yesterday afternoon that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had denied the appeal for Compean and Ramos?

SETMAYER: Now, I had my normal status call scheduled already yesterday and we got the decision about 30 minutes before I had to speak to Nacio and so, I being sure that his lawyer was on the phone, because I honestly couldn't bring myself to break the news to him but I was on the call and it was devastating. It was one of the most difficult conversations I've ever had to endure. Nacio was crushed. You know, he was obviously upset and his biggest concern was, Tara, what can you do to get me out of solitary confinement. These gentlemen are enduring conditions worse than prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. He is in a cell 23 hours of 24 hours a day. He is not allowed on weekends. He is not allowed to watch television. He is not allowed to socialize with anyone. He is in the hole.

GLENN: He does, he does listen to the radio, right?

SETMAYER: He does.

GLENN: He does listen to this program?

SETMAYER: He does. He's listening to this program. And Nacio, we're fighting for you. We're going to do what we can to get you out of there and keep your head up because the American people are behind you and members of congress are behind you and we're going to do whatever we can to get you out of there.

GLENN: You know, Nacio, I know you're listening. It is -- I, last week, what is it, two weeks ago I actually spent some time with your wife and it was -- I didn't take it lightly when I looked her in the eye and said, there's a lot of us fighting. There's a lot of us that believe in this cause and we are not going to give up. And it was something that you don't say lightly to somebody who has somebody in prison for something that you believe is an unjust verdict but I tell you it is a sentiment that runs through a large sector of our society that is aware of this case.

SETMAYER: Well, Glenn, I agree with you and it's amazing to me how the President and Johnny Sutton can sleep at night if they looked into the eyes of the wives and the children of these agents, I can't imagine they would feel the same way. I can't believe, was it really worth it for them.

GLENN: Tara, we will talk to you again and thank you so much for your hard work. And we'll also give you an opportunity to speak directly to Nacio Ramos coming up on the program here.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?