I don’t know about you, but almost nothing can make my Friday evening better than a guest on Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes” smacking around the loony liberal host. Such was the case on December 8 when California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was invited on to discuss an interesting border patrol case. For a little background, Colmes set the segment up (video available here courtesy of our friend at Ms Underestimated):
Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were convicted of shooting an admitted drug smuggler in the buttocks as he ran away from them near the Rio Grande River in February of 2005. They're now both sentenced to up to 12 years in jail, in which they will begin to serve next month. And now, 48 lawmakers are asking President Bush to pardon the agents, because they believe their actions stopped more than $1 million in illegal drugs from being sold in the U.S. Joining us now, the lawmaker leading the campaign for the pardon of California -- for this particular pardon, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Sounds reasonable, right? However, after introducing the Congressman, Colmes chose to add the following thereby immediately turning what should have been an informative interview about this subject into an argument:
First of all, there's some things we didn't mention. For example, these agents didn't know that this person was smuggling drugs at the time they shot him. They shot him in the back. They then apparently failed to report the shooting as required. So they didn't follow the law, and that's part of what figured into this sentencing.
Nice bedside manner, wouldn't you agree? See how that radically changed the encounter? After all, Alan could have first let the Congressman give his position on this issue before offering his own opinion. That's why you have guests on your show, right? However, by doing what he did, Alan intentionally challenged his guest, and Rohrabacher practically jumped through the television screen to have at his opponent:
That's baloney. It’s total, absolute baloney. The fact is what they did was a minor infraction. Their guns went -- you know, they fired their guns. Now, by the way, this man was in the commission of a crime.
Colmes tried to defend himself:
But what's baloney? They didn't know he had drugs; they didn't know he was a smuggler. What's baloney?
Rohrabacher was ready: "It's baloney that you positioned them in that introduction as the bad guys. The bad guy is the one smuggling 500 pounds -- excuse me, 450 pounds of drugs into our country."
Colmes continued to weakly defend his setup:
I gave you a straight introduction, sir. I gave a fair-and- balanced introduction. I didn't position them.
Rohrabacher pounced:
No, no, excuse me. These are the heroes. The bad guy is the one smuggling the drugs in…What we've got here is a miscarriage of justice, where this individual, who is protecting us, they throw the book at him, those two wonderful Border Patrol agents. They throw the book at them for a minor crime, and they let the drug smuggler go.
Colmes then needed reinforcements to support his position:
You can attack me all you want. But let me show you what Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for the Texas Western District, had to say about this. I'll put it up on the screen.
He says -- he's a law enforcement authority -- "Federal agents do not get to shoot unarmed people, as they're running away, in the back, and then lie about it, and cover it up. It is very important for border agents to follow the laws they enforce. And in those rare instances where they do not do that, it's our job to bring them to justice." Do you want to disagree with him?
Rohrabacher didn’t take this lying down: “No, it's that guy's job to go be a P.R. man for the drug lords. That's what it is.”
Colmes foolishly asked: “So it's OK to shoot unarmed people in the back?”
Rohrabacher attacked:
Let me finish my statement. Don't interrupt. Let me finish mine. My statement is: These two guys have put their lives on the line for 10 years. They have a nonsensical policy of this administration saying that you can't shoot your guns unless you are in imminent danger? Well, that means nobody will ever, ever be able to control the border.
Colmes continued with his foolish position: “They were shot in the back, sir.”
Rohrabacher again pounced:
No one will ever stop it. Shot in the back, this man got in a physical altercation with one of our Border Patrol agents. He was involved at that moment in the commission of a crime: smuggling drugs into our country.
The fact that he got shot in the buttocks while trying to escape, I think that sends the message to drug dealers not to try to smuggle drugs in. Prosecuting the Border Patrol says, "We've got an open border. The drug people can come right in because we will prosecute the Border Patrol agents if they're trying to protect us."
In the end, what was the key element of this case that Colmes was totally ignoring due to his typical view that law enforcement agents in this country are always in the wrong? Well, once guest host Rich Lowry was allowed to ask questions, the truth about this matter was miraculously revealed to the viewer:
LOWRY: Congressman, it's Rich Lowry. Thanks so much for joining us. Let's just back up here a second. Just describe to us what happened. You say there was an altercation with this drug smuggler, and it was at night, and obviously it must have been a very confusing situation. Just walk us through it.
ROHRABACHER: OK. What happened was these two Border Patrol agents, one of whom, by the way, was up for an award for the best Border Patrol agent of the month, just a month before that, 10-year veteran. They see this truck coming across the border. It's filled with drugs. Yes, they didn't know at that time it was filled with drugs.
LOWRY: But they're looking for that kind of thing, obviously. That's why they're there.
ROHRABACHER: They are looking for a suspicious -- when they finally got the truck off the road, the guy bolted towards the border. One of the agents went around to try to cut him off. Now they have this nonsensical policies of this administration saying that a border guard can't discharge his weapon unless he is in imminent threat of death.
Well, why would anyone then take any commands from a Border Patrol agent? This drug dealer knew that. He walked right up to the Border Patrol agent when he telling him to stop, threw him to the ground, and started running away. At that point, his partner, seeing his partner on the ground, shot -- Mr. Compean, Officer Compean -- shot at this guy, hit him in the buttocks. He went across the river and got away in a van.
LOWRY: But he -- Congressman, he defied the order of the Border Patrol agent. There was a physical altercation. He throws him, assaults him, throws him on the ground, and then he runs away.
ROHRABACHER: And then he runs away.
LOWRY: And update us on the drug smuggler's, this gentleman's -- to use the term loosely -- condition. Is he OK now?
ROHRABACHER: The drug smuggler has been smuggling drugs across the border since he was 14 years old. His family says that he is armed most of the time. The man was given immunity -- our people throwing the book at our own police officers. The Border Patrol agents...
LOWRY: And the drug smuggler is still just walking free?
ROHRABACHER: ... went out to give this guy immunity.
LOWRY: He's walking free, and he's not gravely or seriously injured by this?
ROHRABACHER: Well, he was wounded in the buttocks. He's walking free now. And since then, he's been arrested again for trying to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of drugs.
LOWRY: And the Border Patrol agents are supposed to go to jail for 11 or 12 years because of this?
This interview revealed a huge problem with the media today. Alan’s position right from the start was to take the opposite side of law enforcement, and immediately attack the position of the Republican guest. However, in doing so, the viewer wasn’t given all the information about what had transpired during the event in question. If Lowry hadn’t been there, the audience would have only gotten Alan’s view of this issue. On other networks where there is only one host doing the interviewing, that is regularly the case.
What follows is the full transcript of this segment.
COLMES: Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were convicted of shooting an admitted drug smuggler in the buttocks as he ran away from them near the Rio Grande River in February of 2005. They're now both sentenced to up to 12 years in jail, in which they will begin to serve next month.
And now, 48 lawmakers are asking President Bush to pardon the agents, because they believe their actions stopped more than $1 million in illegal drugs from being sold in the U.S.
Joining us now, the lawmaker leading the campaign for the pardon of California -- for this particular pardon, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Welcome, Congressman. Good to have you with us.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, thank you very much.
COLMES: First of all, there's some things we didn't mention. For example, these agents didn't know that this person was smuggling drugs at the time they shot him. They shot him in the back. They then apparently failed to report the shooting as required. So they didn't follow the law, and that's part of what figured into this sentencing.
ROHRABACHER: That's baloney. It total, absolute baloney. The fact is what they did was a minor infraction. Their guns went -- you know, they fired their guns. Now, by the way, this man was in the commission of a crime.
COLMES: But what's baloney? They didn't know he had drugs; they didn't know he was a smuggler. What's baloney?
ROHRABACHER: It's baloney that you positioned them in that introduction as the bad guys. The bad guy is the one smuggling 500 pounds -- excuse me, 450 pounds of drugs into our country.
COLMES: I gave you a straight introduction, sir. I gave a fair-and- balanced introduction. I didn't position them.
ROHRABACHER: No, no, excuse me. These are the heroes. The bad guy is the one smuggling the drugs in.
COLMES: But let me...
ROHRABACHER: What we've got here is a miscarriage of justice, where this individual, who is protecting us, they throw the book at him, those two wonderful Border Patrol agents. They throw the book at them for a minor crime, and they let the drug smuggler go.
COLMES: You can attack me all you want. But let me show you what Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for the Texas Western District, had to say about this. I'll put it up on the screen.
He says -- he's a law enforcement authority -- "Federal agents do not get to shoot unarmed people, as they're running away, in the back, and then lie about it, and cover it up. It is very important for border agents to follow the laws they enforce. And in those rare instances where they do not do that, it's our job to bring them to justice."
Do you want to disagree with him?
ROHRABACHER: No, it's that guy's job to go be a P.R. man for the drug lords. That's what it is.
COLMES: So it's OK to shoot unarmed people in the back?
ROHRABACHER: Let me finish my statement. Don't interrupt. Let me finish mine. My statement is: These two guys have put their lives on the line for 10 years. They have a nonsensical policy of this administration saying that you can't shoot your guns unless you are in imminent danger? Well, that means nobody will ever, ever be able to control the border.
COLMES: They were shot in the back, sir.
ROHRABACHER: No one will ever stop it. Shot in the back, this man got in a physical altercation with one of our Border Patrol agents. He was involved at that moment in the commission of a crime: smuggling drugs into our country.
The fact that he got shot in the buttocks while trying to escape, I think that sends the message to drug dealers not to try to smuggle drugs in. Prosecuting the Border Patrol says, "We've got an open border. The drug people can come right in because we will prosecute the Border Patrol agents if they're trying to protect us."
LOWRY: Congressman, it's Rich Lowry. Thanks so much for joining us. Let's just back up here a second. Just describe to us what happened. You say there was an altercation with this drug smuggler, and it was at night, and obviously it must have been a very confusing situation. Just walk us through it.
ROHRABACHER: OK. What happened was these two Border Patrol agents, one of whom, by the way, was up for an award for the best Border Patrol agent of the month, just a month before that, 10-year veteran. They see this truck coming across the border. It's filled with drugs. Yes, they didn't know at that time it was filled with drugs.
LOWRY: But they're looking for that kind of thing, obviously. That's why they're there.
ROHRABACHER: They are looking for a suspicious -- when they finally got the truck off the road, the guy bolted towards the border. One of the agents went around to try to cut him off. Now they have this nonsensical policies of this administration saying that a border guard can't discharge his weapon unless he is in imminent threat of death.
Well, why would anyone then take any commands from a Border Patrol agent? This drug dealer knew that. He walked right up to the Border Patrol agent when he telling him to stop, threw him to the ground, and started running away. At that point, his partner, seeing his partner on the ground, shot -- Mr. Compean, Officer Compean -- shot at this guy, hit him in the buttocks. He went across the river and got away in a van.
LOWRY: But he -- Congressman, he defied the order of the Border Patrol agent. There was a physical altercation. He throws him, assaults him, throws him on the ground, and then he runs away.
ROHRABACHER: And then he runs away.
LOWRY: And update us on the drug smuggler's, this gentleman's -- to use the term loosely -- condition. Is he OK now?
ROHRABACHER: The drug smuggler has been smuggling drugs across the border since he was 14 years old. His family says that he is armed most of the time. The man was given immunity -- our people throwing the book at our own police officers. The Border Patrol agents...
LOWRY: And the drug smuggler is still just walking free?
ROHRABACHER: ... went out to give this guy immunity.
LOWRY: He's walking free, and he's not gravely or seriously injured by this?
ROHRABACHER: Well, he was wounded in the buttocks. He's walking free now. And since then, he's been arrested again for trying to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of drugs.
LOWRY: And the Border Patrol agents are supposed to go to jail for 11 or 12 years because of this?
COLMES: All right, Congressman. We thank you for joining us tonight.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I pray that they are given a
December 9, 2006 - 13:55 ET by MrSnugglesI pray that they are given a pardon, but i can only imagine the outpouring of rage from the left if it happens.
Sounds like we need to get
December 9, 2006 - 14:04 ET by MyKindaSpamSounds like we need to get a "Stand Your Ground" law for the border. If the Castle Doctrine is good enough for a Florida homeowner, I think it should be good enough for our Border Patrol. Those BP were railroaded. They were at fault for not reporting the shooting, but if I recall correctly, the drug runner wasn't shot in "the back." He was shot in the side of his buttocks as he was turning. Big difference.
Spam, sorry, what's the Cast
December 9, 2006 - 14:23 ET by rimskySpam, sorry, what's the Castle Doctrine?
The first question I have i
December 9, 2006 - 14:22 ET by james789The first question I have is how did they know at the time that the guy running away was hit by the shot if he got away? I don't know how many people here travel through Texas and New Mexico on Interstate 10 or south of 10 where you encounter the check stations, but they all have the amounts of drugs that they have seized for the year posted and the numbers are staggering.
Personally, I wish that our Border Patrol would be allowed to shoot on site any person caught smuggling a large quantity of drugs into our country.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
Good Question. I mean how ba
December 9, 2006 - 14:28 ET by rimskyGood Question. I mean how bad could this guy's wound be if he was back on the job shortly thereafter? Whatever, this policy of not shooting unless in imminent danger is going to get some people killed, and obviously it won't be the bad guys dying.
...
December 9, 2006 - 15:05 ET by JnobleAlan Colmes is a liberal that I can respect and tolerate and doesn't get on my last nerve like so many others do.
Huh?
December 9, 2006 - 21:10 ET by Sugar LandYou must have more nerves than any human on earth. Good Lord, Colmes is insufferable.
What's insufferable about C
December 9, 2006 - 21:20 ET by Jack BauerWhat's insufferable about Colmes is that 99.9% of the time, he takes the opposite position to Hannity whether he believes it or not.
It's really Hannity and Opposite because while Hannity seems to only say what he believes, Colmes doesn't. That's a fact.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I am so glad Dana Rohrabach
December 9, 2006 - 15:22 ET by ScottyDogI am so glad Dana Rohrabacher put Alan Colmes in his place. Alan does this all the time, to point of making me want to strangle him. He plays the victim when anyone has the guts to call him out.
He misrepresents the facts and reads his DNC talking points on the air with very few guests that have the balls to challenge his outright lies.
Mark Levin and Ollie North do not allow him to do this when they are on but sadly some guests let Colmes get away with his lying BS.
I was stunned last night when I watched Alan get taken to the mat and was quietly cheering. Kudos to Rohrabacher!
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are heroes. There should be a federal investigation and prosecution of Johnny Sutton for aiding and abetting drug smuggling. This whole case is massive miscarriage of Justice and GWB should give both of them a pardon.
Do a google on Sara Carter who did a great expose on this case and found that there was much more corruption than just violating these two agents constitutional rights. A fellow BP agent turned them in who was related to the drug smuggler
Is this Mexico or the USA
The worst part of this is the
December 9, 2006 - 19:05 ET by BW222The worst part of this is the actions of the Bush administration. We all know Alan Colmes is as goofy as he looks.
Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted (or should I say persecuted) the BP agents not only is a Bush appointee, but also was a member of the Bush staff when he was governor of Texas and the Bush transition team. This became a high profile case and Bush and Alberto Gonzales obviously knew about it long before he went to trial. The reason the BP agents are going to prison is the administration wanted them there.
As a conservative, I can honestly say that when it comes to border security and enforcing immigration policies, Bush is a far bigger failure than Clinton.
Very True
December 9, 2006 - 19:39 ET by mostlymoderateVery True! Bill Clintoon screwed us "royally" with the NAFTA, and now Bush for some "unknown reason" is not interested in border security. You know Los Angeles and San Diego are complete s#iT-holes; have you ever been to one of those cities? There is a direct correlation between the border with Mexico and why Southern California is a cess-pool for drugs and gangs.
I for one have been very disa
December 10, 2006 - 22:09 ET by bigtimerI for one have been very disappointed in the AG....the Justice Dept. had done absolutely nothing when it comes to the NYT's,WaPo and the classified documents that were leaked to the press, and the press knowingly printed even though they were classified....
You may as well whistle in the wind waiting for anything to be done when it comes to justice for the good guys....
Just ask Jefferson..he got put back in office last night, and the leftists say they want to clean up the culture of corruption...what a joke... what hypocrites, nothing new though is it? This country re-elected Clintoon to a second term and it was well known how corrupt and filthy he was and is, even the leftist media couldn't hide that, excuse it, yes, daily, but the people in this country have a real mental midget problem when it comes to right and wrong...especially if that person is the most corrupt in the world, the leftist need to have that person leading them...
Good versus evil...that simple...
Good will win in the long run, but my patience is running on empty.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Colmes was a fool to try to a
December 9, 2006 - 19:23 ET by bigtimerColmes was a fool to try to attempt to side-line Rohrabacher....then again, come to think of it, Colmes is a fool, he can't help himself.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
WOW!
December 9, 2006 - 19:32 ET by mostlymoderateI never heard of this case until I read it on this website. It really sickens me that we are defending this scum-bag low-life drug smuggler. All I can say is WOW!!! The super-left never fails to amaze me. Why do they hate America so much?
Welcome to the site
December 10, 2006 - 12:42 ET by clifcrdsWelcome mostlymoderate. If you want to know what is REALLY going on in this country and the world you need to turn away from the alphabet network news, the Clinton News Network, and the liberal mouthpiece newspapers masquerading as "unbiased" news and spend more time at this site and others like it such as Sweetness & Light, Media Research Center, Townhall, ect.
No Kidding! What sucks about
December 10, 2006 - 21:43 ET by mostlymoderateNo Kidding! What sucks about the media in the United States as well as the United Kingdom is that in a way it "brainwashes" people. Almost like a gradual-desensitization; over time they get "normal" people to accept more and more and more. I mean THINK about it, how can anyone take the side of a violent-repeat-drug-smuggler over our OWN American-border-patrol officer??? Kinda reminds me of how the media will take the side of some dirty, life-hating, terrorist bomber over our own brave American soldiers. Or how we will SHOW American soldiers getting shot and killed but we won't DARE show a picture of Mahammad. This country is really going to suck if the left continues in their direction.
:0)
There's a conservative site
December 11, 2006 - 12:03 ET by JasonCThere's a conservative site called "sweetness and light"? Oh man, how did Matthew Arnold get sucked into all this?!
As for this particular case, I agree with y'all. I like Colmes in general though, I think he, for the most part, plays an excellent sobering counterpart to Hannity. More rational, restrained, reasonable, etc. Colmes is out of line here, though.
I do, however, highly resent this sweeping statement, made more and more around here, that liberals "hate America." It's getting old, ladies and gents. You can trot out Alec Baldwin and Friends all you want, but a couple of coddled movie stars who happen to have beef with Bush do not equal the millions of everyday, hard-working Americans who identify as left-of-center. It's difficult to put this across without sounding like a bumper sticker, but you conservatives do NOT have a monopoly on patriotism.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:1
stop picking side's
December 11, 2006 - 14:16 ET by foolnomorewhat happen's when you maybe the bastard-cousin (libertarian)that's some-one who think's both side's are faulty, you get both pit-bull's,on "your-a$$ faster, then breaking up a fight between to brother's,and never invited over for coffee/beer<
JasonC,You don't sound like a
December 11, 2006 - 20:27 ET by BlondeJasonC,
You don't sound like a bumper sticker, and I don't blame you, either. We tend to lump all liberals here with the Michael Moore / Hollylibs....and I can see how you'd be annoyed by that.
I'm sure many liberals believe they're patriotic, but if they really bothered to think things through, they might (as you have) admit that many of their actions and positions are less than helpful, particularly in wartime.
But you must admit it's getting harder and harder for you to spout the liberal line, yes?
You've had to rethink alot of your dearly held liberal tenets....and you've been gracious enough to admit that.
If you have to like Colmes, so be it.
Personally, I'm going to quit planning my intervention for Balboa, and concentrate on you instead. Take a Finance class...get back to me in 2007. ;-)
politcal foundering
December 11, 2006 - 00:36 ET by foolnomorethis is a total disgrace at how these men were hang out to dry, the lawyers, should be dis-barred, the attorney-general should be impeached,no way,no how, should this type of action, be allowed to happen to the one's who are protecting us!! the mexico government should be held accountable for the failure to cover their border's!
Colmes-- challenges
December 11, 2006 - 12:24 ET by misterbillColmes-- challenges--you can say nice things about Colmes, but I disagree. I saw this segment and I was in rage at Colmes apparent defense of the wrong-doers at the expense of the border patrol. What the hell is wrong with this country when these liberal fools stand up for criminals over those who took an oath to uphold the law. There should be masses of crowds protesting this miscarriage of justice. It's amazing, there were massive crowds of illegals protesting in the streets for their "rights" to break our laws. Where were these crowds of Americans to protect our fellow American lawmen. I weep for America.
And about the cover up? Whe
December 11, 2006 - 20:19 ET by j. frank wilsonAnd about the cover up? When do we read about the officers not only not reporting an officer involved shooting but also the fact that one of them picked up all the shell casings? Sounds like a deliberate act to me.
Oh my Gawd, did Colmes grow a
December 12, 2006 - 01:14 ET by ferrarimanf355Oh my Gawd, did Colmes grow a pair? Finally? I just wish that one of these days, Colmes goes on a tirade on Hannity, flips off the camera, and quits on the air. That would be great quality television.
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
quitting??
December 12, 2006 - 01:21 ET by misterbillYeah, I am for that. But they will just hire another leftist nutcase and go on!