Trump Issues Full Pardons to Oregon Ranchers Forced Back Into Prison
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump pardoned two Oregon ranchers forced back into prison in 2016 to serve out the rest of the mandatory minimum sentence required under an anti-terrorism law.
“The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land,” the White House said in a statement. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges.
Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted of committing arson on federal land in 2012 under an anti-terrorism law from 1996. The U.S. District Court judge who sentenced the ranchers believed the mandatory minimum sentence was too harsh, thus both men served short stints in prison.
The Hammonds served their time, but federal prosecutors appealed the case and got a federal court to overturn the 2012 judgement. The Hammonds were forced back into prison in 2016 to serve the rest of their sentences.
The Hammonds’ re-incarceration sparked an armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon by brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy. An armed standoff between the Bundys and law enforcement lasted over a month.
Protect the Harvest (PTH), an agriculture advocacy group, has been lobbying the Trump administration to commute the Hammonds’ sentences, arguing forcing them back into prison was unjust.
“I’ve had great attorneys tell me this is the most malicious prosecution they’ve ever seen,” PTH national strategic planner Dave Duquette told The Daily Caller News Foundation in June.
“The travesty is what they were tried under. Not whether they started a fire. They admitted to starting the fires,” Duquette said.
Trump has so far issued five pardons, including for conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza and former Bush administration official Scooter Libby. Trump has commuted sentences for two individuals.
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
"Open Season" for culling those pesky rangers.
Wrong people. These two are not associated with that group in any way. They distanced themselves from that group publicly.
Ok, so far we have a sheriff pardoned that broke the law that he is supposed to uphold and now several people that actually took over federal buildings and land. Basically an armed insurrection.
Shows his priorities are not the rule of law.
I hope they realize that this means they are guilty as the idiot sheriff didn't seem to understand that.
Oh! I am shocked!
Shocked, I tell you...
Where do you get your emoji's?
I've gradually collected a library. There are about seventy, now.
And, you proved that you didn't read anything other than the stuff that was the result of the two Hammonds being sent back to jail. The people who were pardoned were the two guys (the Hammonds) who served their sentences for setting a fire that got out of control and whose sentences were appealed by the prosecutors then sent back to jail after they had served their sentences which sparked the Malheur Wildlife Preserve occupation, not the people involved in the occupation. Essentially, the Hammonds were sentenced twice for the same offense (ie. Double Jeopardy).
Yes I got the militia idiots mixed up.
But, They did not get double jeopardy when they didn't serve the sentence of their plea deal.
And actually trump did placate the others as he basically gave them what they wanted.
All of them should be in jail.
Exactly right. And it's definitely NOT double jeopardy when a judicial error is corrected in the very same trial sequence. In fact it's something which happens fairly often - excessive sentences are appealed by the defense, insufficient sentences are appealed by the prosecution......and in this case the original sentence was unlawfully short since it violated the mandatory minimum which Congress had set.
It seems that right wingers simply don't have a clue what "double jeopardy" actually means.
Actually, it is; since they were sent to jail while the sentence was appealed. Frankly, the sentence should have been kept the same as they were essentially given two different sentences for the same offense. Read the 5th Amendment, it is very clear on this.
Obviously you don't understand how our courts work or what the 5th Amendment means.
By the way they were not returned to prison to serve an additional sentence but rather the remainder of the sentence which the statute required. This is extremely simple stuff.....why aren't you getting it? Not even the Hammonds make the completely false claims you're making.
They were given 1 sentence, then they went to prison, then the prosecutors appealed the sentence, then they were released for serving their time, then the court ruled they had more time to serve, then they went back to prison. You don’t seem to understand the entire Constitution if you feel it is okay to give people one sentence, have them serve that time, then tell them “Oops, you need to serve more time, because the original sentence was a mistake.” after they were released. That is double jeopardy as they are essentially serving two SEPARATE sentences for the SAME crime; which the 5th Amendment clearly FORBIDS. The fact you are not getting that means you are not interested in the Freedoms that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Oh, and if you hadn’t noticed; if the prosecutors had delayed the carrying out of the original sentence while they appealed the sentence; then it wouldn’t be Double Jeopardy as they would have eventually only served a single prison sentence.
LOL. Your comment is utterly nonsensical and ignorant both of the law and of the facts of the case.
Note that if there were any 5th Amendment issue at all the appeals court would have caught it. You simply don't understand what double jeopardy is nor do you understand how our courts work.
I know how the courts work, I have been on jury duty, participated as the cross-examining lawyer for the defense in a mock trial competition, and had some law courses in college. What have you done? When it comes to the Amendments, courts are about interpreting them based on the lawyers' arguments in regards to the case in front of them. If the lawyers didn't bring up any such arguments, the judge(s)/justice(s) may not see the actual implications. The fact you are ignoring those implications mean that you do not care for anyone to have the right to be free from Double Jeopardy when they are released from prison for serving their time and then sent back to prison because another court said that the original sentence wasn't harsh enough. My interpretation is that if you are released from prison for serving your original sentence, you should not have additional time added on to your sentence based on what another court says. You have been sentenced once already and served that sentence, once that happens it becomes Double Jeopardy due to you having served your full time and any additional sentencing is putting you in jeopardy of life and limb for the second time. The instant you are released from prison for serving the full original sentence, the courts should say to the prosecutors, "Sorry, but they served their time and were released for serving that time. Putting any additional time even though it is required by statute would violate their 5th Amendment Right to avoid Double Jeopardy so we cannot grant you the additional time to their sentence. If you really wanted that additional time, you should have delayed their sentence until we heard the case and could rule on it."
LOL. You're quite obviously clueless about how sentencing works, who controls the disposition of a defendant on trial, how judicial errors are corrected, and what double jeopardy is. You also seem to know virtually nothing about the actual details of the Hammond's case, much less the fact that they knowingly pleaded guilty to a charge which their plea deal stated carried a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison. Your "double jeopardy" meme was a right-wing invention which has no legal meaning or legal relevance to this case, all it shows is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
As per the responses from the left on Obama pardoning hundreds of convicted "non violent" drug dealers he felt had too harsh sentencing; "It is within the power of the President to do so; so it is legal and binding. Insert racist card here"
Of course I love people ignoring that the two pardoned were not a part of the occupiers and distanced themselves from them; and that the judge that sentenced them originally felt the minimum sentencing was far too harsh. It was Obama's DOJ that went after the two and had the original decision overturned so they served the full sentences.
So please spare us all the faux outrage over Trump granting a few pardons. After Obama the left has nothing to complain about when it comes to overturning courts decisions.
They were criminals, why the cause for celebration.
What, is it only foreign criminals that we fret over?
More placating of the deplorable Trump base. Maybe Trump is concerned about how his tariffs will eventually bankrupt them, so he's throwing another bone? They're dumb enough to keep supporting him either way, I'm sure.
This isn't about placating anyone. This is actually about correcting an injustice in violation of the 5th Amendment as the Hammonds were sent to jail TWICE for the same offense, which is prohibited by the 5th Amendment.
That's an incredibly ignorant comment. Perhaps you should learn about this case and learn what the mandatory minimum was? Or simply learn what was in the plea bargain which the 1st judge foolishly ignored.
Mandatory minimum sentences have the word 'mandatory' in them for a reason. Just ask any black or brown prisoner in the US.
And, the prosecutors should have not sent them to jail while appealing the case, or did you forget that aspect. They were essentially given two separate sentences for the same offense, which is the epitome of Double Jeopardy.
Read the 5th Amendment and reread the situation, keeping in mind they were sent to jail while the prosecutors appealed the sentence, which made them get two separate de facto sentences for the same offense or if you want the explanation in English: DOUBLE JEOPARDY, which is forbidden by the 5th Amendment.
It seems that you struggle with the meaning of words. Double jeopardy would be a separate trial for the same offense. What happened to the Hammonds was an appeal by the prosecution to correct a judicial error in sentencing which violated the mandatory minimum.
By the way wasn't it conservatives who thought that "mandatory minimums" were a great idea? deleted
More evidence that you don't understand our legal system at all. Not only do the courts control that aspect (NOT the prosecutors), but in most cases a criminal does go to prison while a sentence is appealed (regardless of which side is appealing).
Interesting that the Hammonds flew back home on the private jet of a Pence donor......
Can you imagine how the right wing would have screamed if the Clinton's had rented a jet to fly Marc Rich back to the US after he was pardoned?
If I remember correctly, the owner of the plane was part of one of the groups that worked to free the Hammonds. So, why wouldn't he let them use his private jet to get back home? I live about 2 hours West of Bend, Or, and that is 2 hours West of Burns. Salem is an hour drive from where I live and the Portland Metro Area is 2 to 3 hours depending on traffic and where in the Portland Area you are going. Frankly, you are trying to make a mountain out of a grain of sand.
For those that are interested, here are ALL of the court documents and transcripts regarding this case:
I see you've dropped the bogus claim about "double jeopardy". Strange that the pardon made no mention of it, eh?
Here are some other relevant links:
Nope. I still call it double jeopardy. And, that is my opinion.
Yeah......an erroneous opinion not shared by any court or even by the Trump regime.
Funny that they couldn't actually cite what the appeals court did wrong, eh?
What's clear is that Trump is pandering to the dumbest of the dumb in order to get more support for privatizing public lands and opening up other public lands to environmental rape.