Trump Issues Full Pardons to Oregon Ranchers Forced Back Into Prison

Via:  heartland-american  •  4 months ago  •  120 comments

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

jrDiscussion - desc
MBFC really sucks
1  seeder  MBFC really sucks    4 months ago

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

 
 
devangelical
1.1  devangelical  replied to  MBFC really sucks @1    4 months ago
One of the occupiers, Robert LaVoy Finicum, died

They mean he got shot several times. Quick draw LaVoy. Seems like local law enforcement thought different of the domestic terrorist occupiers. (Deleted)

 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 months ago

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.  

 
 
Spikegary
1.1.2  Spikegary  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    4 months ago
The Hammonds distanced themselves from the violent occupiers and didn't endorse the action.  

So much for these two, who are the people the article is about obviously are not 'militia' types.  Just more hyperbole form the left.

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Spikegary @1.1.2    4 months ago

Some only read the headline.

Face Palm

 
 
TruettCollins
1.1.4  TruettCollins  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Ronin2
1.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  TruettCollins @1.1.4    4 months ago

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?

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MBFC really sucks @1    4 months ago

that was a while ago, if I remember correctly..

they set "back fires" to stop the advance of an existing fire.  

 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2    4 months ago
'they set "back fires" to stop the advance of an existing fire.'

You remember incorrectly.  That's a lie.  It was arson.  

 
 
MBFC really sucks
1.2.2  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2    4 months ago

You are correct. 

 
 
tomwcraig
1.2.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.1    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Tessylo
1.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  MBFC really sucks @1.2.2    4 months ago
'You are correct.'

No he is not.  

 
 
Skrekk
1.2.5  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @1.2.3    4 months ago
In other words, it is the epitome of Double Jeopardy.

LOL.......only in the minds of people who don't understand our laws and who skipped high school civics.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @1.2.3    4 months ago
it is the epitome of Double Jeopardy

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.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.1    4 months ago
It was arson.

Then that's what they should have been charged with

 
 
Skrekk
1.2.8  Skrekk  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    4 months ago
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.

 
 
MBFC really sucks
1.2.9  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2    4 months ago

That was the intent.  Correct.  

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Skrekk @1.2.8    4 months ago

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!

 
 
Skrekk
1.2.11  Skrekk  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    4 months ago
Is that why a US District Judge who handled the original case thought the minimum sentence would be cruel & unusual punishment?

Yeah......who knew it was wrong for a judge to break the law?

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Skrekk @1.2.11    4 months ago
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

 
 
MBFC really sucks
1.2.13  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.12    4 months ago

I can’t wait for Trumps transformation of the 9th circus to the 9th circuit court of appeals again.  

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  MBFC really sucks @1.2.13    4 months ago

I'm with ya. McConnell has made it his top priority and they are replacing activist judges at a record pace

 
 
Tessylo
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  MBFC really sucks @1    4 months ago

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.  

 
 
Greg Jones
1.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    4 months ago
They made a trench outside and shit into it.

That's what humans should do in the forest...bury your waste. Bears just leave it on the ground.

 
 
Tessylo
1.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3.1    4 months ago

They didn't bury it.  They just shit ad lib.  Destroyed public land and occupied federal land.

Bunch of inbred domestic terrorists.  

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    4 months ago
They made a trench outside the preserve and shit into it

Is that a crime?   We need to arrest all those in tent cities througout LA

 
 
Texan1211
1.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3.1    4 months ago

I suppose some would be happier if they had taken their cue from the Occupy Wall Street goons!

You know--shit wherever!

 
 
Bob Nelson
2  Bob Nelson    4 months ago

"Open Season" for culling those pesky rangers.

 
 
Ronin2
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago

Wrong people. These two are not associated with that group in any way.  They distanced themselves from that group publicly.

 
 
Ender
3  Ender    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ender @3    4 months ago
shock.gifShows his priorities are not the rule of law.

Oh! I am shocked!

Shocked, I tell you...

 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    4 months ago

Where do you get your emoji's?

 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    4 months ago

I've gradually collected a library. There are about seventy, now.   Giggle

 
 
MBFC really sucks
3.2  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Ender @3    4 months ago

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!  

 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  MBFC really sucks @3.2    4 months ago

Justice was served.

 
 
MBFC really sucks
3.3  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Ender @3    4 months ago

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.

 
 
devangelical
3.3.1  devangelical  replied to  MBFC really sucks @3.3    4 months ago

(Deleted)

 
 
volfan
3.3.2  volfan  replied to  devangelical @3.3.1    4 months ago

typical left wing disgusting response

 
 
devangelical
3.3.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.3.1    4 months ago

(Deleted)

 
 
Kathleen
3.3.4  Kathleen  replied to  volfan @3.3.2    4 months ago

Yep.

 
 
arkpdx
3.3.5  arkpdx  replied to  volfan @3.3.2    4 months ago

It is just left wing projection. They think that just because they did that to Obama, everybody must do it to their guy too. 

 
 
Skrekk
3.3.6  Skrekk  replied to  MBFC really sucks @3.3    4 months ago
Trump was right to pardon them.

Apparently Trump like arsonists and scofflaws.

 
 
arkpdx
3.3.7  arkpdx  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.6    4 months ago

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. 

 
 
Texan1211
3.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.7    4 months ago

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.3.9  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.6    4 months ago

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:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

 
 
Skrekk
3.3.10  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.9    4 months ago
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.

 
 
Texan1211
3.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.10    4 months ago

Don't really matter NOW, doe sit?

A pardon wipes out everything except whining!

 
 
Skrekk
3.3.12  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.11    4 months ago
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.

 
 
Old School Marine
3.3.13  Old School Marine  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.6    4 months ago
Apparently Trump like arsonists and scofflaws.

Yeah and Obama likes traitors

 
 
Texan1211
3.3.14  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.12    4 months ago

Whining won't change this.

Every President has granted pardons.

For convicted criminals.

get over it--you are just stroking out because TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
tomwcraig
3.4  tomwcraig  replied to  Ender @3    4 months ago

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).

 
 
Ender
3.4.1  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @3.4    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Skrekk
3.4.2  Skrekk  replied to  Ender @3.4.1    4 months ago
They did not get double jeopardy when they didn't serve the sentence of their plea deal.

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.4.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @3.4.2    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Skrekk
3.4.4  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @3.4.3    4 months ago
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.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.4.5  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @3.4.4    4 months ago

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.4.6  tomwcraig  replied to  tomwcraig @3.4.5    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Skrekk
3.4.7  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @3.4.5    4 months ago
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.

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.4.8  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @3.4.7    4 months ago

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."

 
 
Skrekk
3.4.9  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @3.4.8    4 months ago
I know how the courts work, I have been on jury duty

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.

 
 
Ronin2
4  Ronin2    4 months ago

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"

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/obama-used-more-clemency-power/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama

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.

 
 
Old School Marine
4.1  Old School Marine  replied to  Ronin2 @4    4 months ago
So please spare us all the faux outrage over Trump granting a few pardons

Obama freed a convicted TRAITOR, I mean let's get real about this shit.  But that's okay to the left because the little piece of shit is a Democrat.

 
 
Ronin2
4.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Old School Marine @4.1    4 months ago

Sorry, forgot about Chelsea Manning.

Thank you for the reminder.

 
 
Old School Marine
4.1.2  Old School Marine  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    4 months ago

Sorry, forgot about Chelsea Manning.

Thank you for the reminder.

Yeah funny how they so conveniently forget that one huh?

 
 
devangelical
4.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Old School Marine @4.1    4 months ago

Thank God for Americans that expose war crimes their superiors attempt to conceal.

 
 
arkpdx
4.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    4 months ago

Obama pardoned Bradley Manning. 

 
 
Ronin2
4.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Old School Marine @4.1.2    4 months ago

To be honest so did I. Guess I am getting selective memory as I get older.

 
 
Ronin2
4.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.4    4 months ago

I believe Bradley goes by Chelsea now. Or at least that is what all of the news references I found list.  You are probably correct that Manning was tried/indicted for treason under Bradley; not sure what Obama's pardon listed.

I am not trying to get into the whole gender identity/gender reallocation debate.

 
 
Texan1211
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.6    4 months ago

Well, I hated that Obama commuted his/her sentence.

He didn't pardon him/her but the basic effect was the same--release from prison.

 
 
arkpdx
4.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.6    4 months ago

I don't care what he goes by now. He is still Bradley. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Old School Marine @4.1    4 months ago
Obama freed a

...wrongly convicted whistle blower. Trump just pardoned two arsonists who were convicted of knowingly and directly defying federal law.

 
 
Texan1211
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.9    4 months ago

Wrongly convicted?

Then why didn't Obama give a pardon instead of mere commutation?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.10    4 months ago
Then why didn't Obama give a pardon instead of mere commutation?

That would be because it's just my opinion that Chelsea was wrongly convicted. I disagree with the restrictions placed on soldiers ability to go public with military wrongdoing.

 
 
Mark in Wyoming
4.1.12  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.4    4 months ago

actually he didn't pardon him , he commuted the sentence , the conviction still stands.

 
 
Old School Marine
4.1.13  Old School Marine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.9    4 months ago
...wrongly convicted whistle blower. Trump just pardoned two arsonists who were convicted of knowingly and directly defying federal law.

Wrongly convicted according to whom YOU?!?!? 

Fuck that bullshit, Bradley Manning was tried and convicted 19 counts of Theft of government property and ESPIONAGE by a military court martial and was sentenced to 35 years in fucking prison.  The charges included passing classified documents to Wikileaks.  Manny also pleaded guilty to 10 or 12 other charges, so anyone who thinks this piece of shit was wrongfully convicted is a fucking imbecile.

Bradley Manny should have been executed, but that anti-American scumbag Obama lete the little traitor go free.

 
 
devangelical
4.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Old School Marine @4.1.13    4 months ago

What should have happened to the servicemen and contractor war criminals he exposed? Or would that question be considered off topic?

 
 
Old School Marine
4.1.15  Old School Marine  replied to  devangelical @4.1.14    4 months ago
What should have happened to the servicemen and contractor war criminals he exposed? Or would that question be considered off topic?

First, since this isn't my thread I don't get to say what is and is not off topic.  Having said that, I can't answer your question because I'm not fully aware of the content of all the documents and I won't make assumptions. 

What I do know for a fact is Manning pled guilty to like 12, was convicted by general court martial of a shitload more including espionage for handing over classified material and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. 

And should still be there in my opinion.

 
 
luther28
5  luther28    4 months ago

They were criminals, why the cause for celebration.

What, is it only foreign criminals that we fret over?

 
 
Old School Marine
5.1  Old School Marine  replied to  luther28 @5    4 months ago
They were criminals, why the cause for celebration.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning is a fucking TRAITOR, convicted by Court Martial of Espionage against the United States and Obama let that piece of shit walk free before he left office, why aren't you bitching about that?

 
 
bugsy
5.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Old School Marine @5.1    4 months ago
convicted by Court Martial of Espionage against the United States and Obama let that piece of shit walk free before he left office,

Because they applaud this shit...

 
 
luther28
5.1.2  luther28  replied to  Old School Marine @5.1    4 months ago

I agree but Manning was not the topic of conversation.

 
 
Old School Marine
5.1.3  Old School Marine  replied to  luther28 @5.1.2    4 months ago
I agree but Manning was not the topic of conversation.

First, it's not your thread so you don't get to tell anyone what is and/or is not the topic. 

Having said that, Manning is completely relevant to this discussion because people are trashing Trump for pardoning 2 persons who were convicted of arson while Obama let a convicted American traitor go free.

 
 
MBFC really sucks
5.1.4  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Old School Marine @5.1.3    4 months ago

It was terrible what Obana did with both theHammonds and Manning.  He let the wrong one out and locked up two who had already served their time on largely trumped up charges.  

 
 
Skrekk
5.1.5  Skrekk  replied to  MBFC really sucks @5.1.4    4 months ago
He let the wrong one out and locked up two who had already served their time on largely trumped up charges.

How are the charges "trumped up" when the Hammonds freely admitted committing the arson of federal property in order to cover up other federal crimes?

 
 
MBFC really sucks
5.1.6  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Skrekk @5.1.5    4 months ago

And the crimes they were covering up were?  

 
 
Skrekk
5.1.7  Skrekk  replied to  MBFC really sucks @5.1.6    4 months ago
And the crimes they were covering up were?

Poaching on federal land.   Sounds like you literally know nothing about this case.

 
 
MBFC really sucks
5.1.8  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Skrekk @5.1.5    4 months ago

They never admitted to starting a fire to try to cover up other crimes.  They were acquitted of most of the charges against them.  

 
 
Skrekk
5.1.9  Skrekk  replied to  MBFC really sucks @5.1.8    4 months ago
They were acquitted of most of the charges against them.

Completely false.     They were convicted on the 2 counts of arson for the 2001 and 2006 fires which they set during a burning ban but the jury acquitted them just on 2 charges and was still deliberating 4 or 5 more serious charges (like reckless endangerment of firefighters, threats and intimidation of federal agents, conspiracy, and destruction of federal and personal vehicles and other property).     After the partial verdict was returned but before the jury had returned verdicts on the remaining charges the Hammonds accepted a plea deal with a 5 year mandatory minimum on each charge but with the sentences to be run concurrently.

At the sentencing the judge erroneously ignored the plea deal and violated the mandatory minimum, and the prosecution appealed immediately.    By the time the appeals court had reversed the judicial error and another court had resentenced them the Hammonds had already served the absurdly (and illegally) short sentence.

.

They never admitted to starting a fire to try to cover up other crimes.  

Of course not since the plea deal included just the 2 arson counts rather than the two convictions plus the 5 outstanding counts, but at trial the witness testimony proved that they had set the 2001 fire to cover up evidence of their poaching on federal land. 

By the way the Hammonds aren't fans of what the crackpot Bundys did.    And it also looks like Trump has an evil plot behind the pardon rather than merely commuting the sentence.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

https://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/hammonds-entered-plea-knowing-sentences-loomed/

https://thinkprogress.org/the-real-story-behind-trumps-pardon-of-oregon-ranchers-13de1a8f735f/

 
 
Texan1211
5.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @5.1.9    4 months ago

At the sentencing the judge erroneously ignored the plea deal and violated the mandatory minimum, and the prosecution appealed immediately. By the time the appeals court had reversed the judicial error and another court had resentenced them the Hammonds had already served the absurdly (and illegally) short sentence.
.

Judges are under no obligation to accept plea deals. So the judge can not be in error if he rejects a plea deal.

 
 
Skrekk
5.1.11  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.10    4 months ago
So the judge can not be in error if he rejects a plea deal.

The judge erred and was reversed because he ignored the mandatory minimum.   His grandstanding during the sentencing was rather absurd too, particularly given the lengthy history of criminal conduct by the Hammonds and their threats against the lives of federal employees.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
6  Hal A. Lujah    4 months ago

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
6.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Skrekk
6.1.1  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @6.1    4 months ago
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.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
6.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  tomwcraig @6.1    4 months ago

Mandatory minimum sentences have the word 'mandatory' in them for a reason.  Just ask any black or brown prisoner in the US.

 
 
tomwcraig
6.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.1    4 months ago

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
6.1.4  tomwcraig  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.2    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Skrekk
6.1.5  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @6.1.4    4 months ago
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

 
 
Skrekk
6.1.6  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @6.1.3    4 months ago
And, the prosecutors should have not sent them to jail while appealing the case, or did you forget that aspect.

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).

 
 
MBFC really sucks
7  seeder  MBFC really sucks    4 months ago

The sage brush rebellion lives!  

 
 
Skrekk
8  Skrekk    4 months ago

Interesting that the Hammonds flew back home on the private jet of a Pence donor......

http://thehill.com/homenews/396688-oregon-ranchers-pardoned-by-trump-fly-home-on-pence-donors-private-jet

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?

 
 
Texan1211
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @8    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    4 months ago
You do realize that a Pence supporter isn't the same thing as Pence, right?

Ummm........................ No.

It is the same thing.   Giggle

 
 
Texan1211
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.1    4 months ago

O-o-k-k-a-a-a-y-y, then!

And Hillary supporters were REALLY Hillary herself, right?

SMMFH and LMAO!!!!!!!

 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    4 months ago

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.

Giggle

 
 
Ronin2
8.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.1    4 months ago

In which case the Clintons paid for Rich's flight back. Rich was a Clinton donor/supporter.

By your own logic.

 
 
Texan1211
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.3    4 months ago

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!

waving

 
 
Texan1211
8.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.4    4 months ago

I can't see where he used any logic.

 
 
Tessylo
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.1    4 months ago
'It is the same thing.'
applause

Indeed, it is.  

 
 
Texan1211
8.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.6    4 months ago

And what's even worse, it appears to be contagious!

laughing dude

 
 
MBFC really sucks
8.1.9  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.3    4 months ago

Texan is always welcome on my seeds.  

 
 
Texan1211
8.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  MBFC really sucks @8.1.9    4 months ago

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.

 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  MBFC really sucks @8.1.9    4 months ago
Texan is always welcome on my seeds.

Of course. He is always welcome everywhere. That doesn't mean he should always expect Replies...

 
 
tomwcraig
8.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @8    4 months ago

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.

 
 
tomwcraig
9  tomwcraig    4 months ago

For those that are interested, here are ALL of the court documents and transcripts regarding this case:

http://freethehammonds.org/useful-information.php

 
 
tomwcraig
9.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Skrekk @9.1    4 months ago

Nope.  I still call it double jeopardy.  And, that is my opinion.

 
 
MBFC really sucks
9.1.2  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  tomwcraig @9.1.1    4 months ago

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.  

 
 
Skrekk
9.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @9.1.1    4 months ago
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.

 
 
MBFC really sucks
9.1.4  seeder  MBFC really sucks  replied to  Skrekk @9.1.3    4 months ago

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.  

 
 
Skrekk
9.1.5  Skrekk  replied to  MBFC really sucks @9.1.4    4 months ago
And yet the Trump Administration found enough wrong in how their case was handled to pardon them off all offenses.

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.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Jasper2529
Freefaller
Sunshine
pat wilson
Jerry Verlinger


46 visitors