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
96 visitors
President Trump on Tuesday pardoned a pair of Oregon ranchers whose arson conviction became a focus for opponents of federal government land ownership.
Dwight Hammond, 76, and his son Steven Hammond, 49, were convicted in 2012 and sent to prison on arson charges. They had set a series of fires on their ranch that spread to federal land.
The Hammonds' case became the inspiration for the 40-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. The organizers wanted to protest federal land ownership.
The Hammonds distanced themselves from the violent occupiers and didn't endorse the action.
One of the occupiers, Robert LaVoy Finicum, died, and a handful pleaded guilty to charges related to the occupation. But brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the accused leaders of the occupation, were not convicted.
In a statement Tuesday announcing the pardon, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders emphasized uncertainties in the case and the prison terms and fines the Hammonds had already paid.
"The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds' responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges," the White House said. "The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/administration/396273-trump-pardons-oregon-ranchers-at-center-of-40-day-standoff%3famp
They mean he got shot several times. Quick draw LaVoy. Seems like local law enforcement thought different of the domestic terrorist occupiers. (Deleted)
Of course Rump gave these inbred militia men a pardon. They hide behind women and children and put them in the line of fire.
Lavoy Fincum initiated suicide by cop. Too bad, so sad.
They deliberately set that fire. Too bad they couldn't throw the book at the inbreds.
So much for these two, who are the people the article is about obviously are not 'militia' types. Just more hyperbole form the left.
Some only read the headline.
It has nothing to do with their breeding, simply the fact that they are just like trump in that they make their living ripping of the tax payers of the nation.
You mean like every politician right? Like Unions, special interest groups, corporations, and anyone else that can muster enough voter clout or money to get a politician's interest to give them a slice of the tax payer's pie.
Or do you not hold everyone to the same standards?
that was a while ago, if I remember correctly..
they set "back fires" to stop the advance of an existing fire.
You remember incorrectly. That's a lie. It was arson.
You are correct.
Do you even understand what all of this was about? It wasn't about the charges or them being found guilty. It was about them going to prison to serve the sentence they were given, then after they were released from that sentence being sent back because another court found that the sentence wasn't harsh enough. In other words, it is the epitome of Double Jeopardy. The men should have not gone to jail while their sentences were being appealed by the prosecutors.
No he is not.
LOL.......only in the minds of people who don't understand our laws and who skipped high school civics.
Not true. Double Jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. In this case, they were not prosecuted twice, the sentence that a judge gave them in 2012 was disputed because it was less than the mandatory minimum and thus the correct original sentence was enforced in 2016. It would be double jeopardy if they had retried them and sentenced them to additional prison time, but that's not the case.
Then that's what they should have been charged with
They were. Congress had rolled the federal arson statute into the terrorism statute, and the Hammonds freely admitted to committing the arson of federal property in order to cover up other federal crimes.
That was the intent. Correct.
Is that why a US District Judge who handled the original case thought the minimum sentence would be cruel & unusual punishment?
What was unusual is that the US Attorneys office in Oregon appealed the sentence to the infamous Ninth Circuit Court and won!
Yeah......who knew it was wrong for a judge to break the law?
Oh, let's not drag the Ninth Circuit into this again. They made a mistake and the President corrected it
I can’t wait for Trumps transformation of the 9th circus to the 9th circuit court of appeals again.
I'm with ya. McConnell has made it his top priority and they are replacing activist judges at a record pace
What a bunch of inbred losers. They made a trench outside the preserve and shit into it because the power and electricity were cut off. One of the inbred bitches was shacked up with the rest of the inbred men. They probably passed her around amongst themselves.
They destroyed public lands and ancient artifacts.
That's what humans should do in the forest...bury your waste. Bears just leave it on the ground.
They didn't bury it. They just shit ad lib. Destroyed public land and occupied federal land.
Bunch of inbred domestic terrorists.
Is that a crime? We need to arrest all those in tent cities througout LA
I suppose some would be happier if they had taken their cue from the Occupy Wall Street goons!
You know--shit wherever!
"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.
You realize that the two who were rightfully pardoned didn’t occupy or support the occupation of the federal property in Oregon. Great decision Mr. President!
Justice was served.
You knew that these two were not a part of that act. That they actually opposed to that operation done on their behalf. Trump was right to pardon them.
(Deleted)
typical left wing disgusting response
(Deleted)
It is just left wing projection. They think that just because they did that to Obama, everybody must do it to their guy too.
Apparently Trump like arsonists and scofflaws.
Then it is similarly apparent that Bull Clinton likes pedophiles, terrorist and fraudsters since he pardoned several of those.
Obama is partial to those that commit fraud and deal and manufacture illegal drugs.
Tsk, tsk, my friend!
You shouldn't have given that foolish notion the dignity of a reply.
It is so ludicrous on the face of it as to be unthought of amongst sane folk.
No, what Trump likes is the Constitution as the Hammonds served their original sentence, then were sentenced for a second time after they were released for the original offense and therefore had their 5th Amendment Rights violated:
That's complete BS. The original judge ignored the plea bargain which the Hammonds had signed and he also ignored the mandatory minimum for the crime they pleaded guilty to (and they could have been convicted of far worse). That's why the feds had to go back to court to get the sentence corrected because the judge had erred. Moreover the Hammonds knew even before they went to prison that the feds were appealing the erroneous sentence.
If you don't like that 5 year mandatory minimum you're free to lobby Congress to change it. Or tell your right-wing arsonist buddies not to cop a plea but to take whatever conviction they get at a trial on the full set of charges. IIRC, the Hammonds faced up to 25 years.
Don't really matter NOW, doe sit?
A pardon wipes out everything except whining!
That's why a commutation might have been appropriate but not a pardon. With a pardon Trump is saying that the arson of federal property to cover up another federal crime is A-OK.
Whining won't change this.
Every President has granted pardons.
For convicted criminals.
get over it--you are just stroking out because TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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).
The sage brush rebellion lives!
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?
You do realize that a Pence supporter isn't the same thing as Pence, right?
So asking or telling us how upset we would be if the Clintons had rented a plane to fly Rich home is completely irrelevant.
besides--Rich didn't spend all his money buying his pardon. He had plenty left to fly himself.
Ummm........................ No.
It is the same thing.
O-o-k-k-a-a-a-y-y, then!
And Hillary supporters were REALLY Hillary herself, right?
SMMFH and LMAO!!!!!!!
Either you don't see the difference, and you're not worth the time to correct... or you do see it and no amount of time would suffice.
In which case the Clintons paid for Rich's flight back. Rich was a Clinton donor/supporter.
By your own logic.
Hey, I'm not the genius who said a supporter is the same as the person they support!
BTFW, what difference does it make to you personally who or what flew the ranchers home?
What business of YOURS is it?
YOU didn't pay, so no need to get all twisted up over something so freaking inconsequential!
I can't see where he used any logic.
Indeed, it is.
And what's even worse, it appears to be contagious!
Texan is always welcome on my seeds.
Thanks!
Some are just pissed at me because I ask questions they can't answer, or can answer and realize it blows their argument out of the water.
Some don't care for debate.
Of course. He is always welcome everywhere. That doesn't mean he should always expect Replies...
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.
i concur with your correct opinion. Trump fixed a problem created by Obama’s Justice Department appealing a sentence given on the charges convicted on after they were acquitted on most charges.
Yeah......an erroneous opinion not shared by any court or even by the Trump regime.
And yet the Trump Administration found enough wrong in how their case was handled to pardon them off all offenses. That is the real bottom line. Long may the sage brush rebellion live.
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.