Sovrun Cattle - The Sagebrush Saga of Cliven Bundy

[Pottapaug1938]

The Hammonds just received a Federal pardon:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

How long, I wonder, before the next posse of knuckleheads decides to stage another occupation of some Federal property?

[Resume]

Not surprising. Jesus Christ, maybe the HATJ sycophants are correct and Trump will pardon Beaner and Tooch.

[wvfoos]

The Hammonds just received a Federal pardon:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

How long, I wonder, before the next posse of knuckleheads decides to stage another occupation of some Federal property?

Soon.

I hope.

[AndyK]

Strictly political comment: The pardon was just another effort to solidify his base.

[NYGman]

My fear is that this pardon lends credence to the Crazies. It's as if there is agreament that the government is corrupt, and there is only one man who can save the day. This will embolden the Sovereigns, who will see there "struggle" as getting tacit support from up top. I don't want to make this political, it isn't meant to be. Just pointing out the dangers when any politician sides with a sovereign cause. It is frightening, to be honest. Next I suspect the rest of the folks involved with the Bundy clan will be looking for some of that sweet pardon action. And look at the mess they caused... It really is the coming together of fringe ideas and mainstream politics that is the issue here. Unfortunately, it is not a topic we should discuss. Please remove if this breaches any rules.

[AndyK]

IMO; the pardon, and its implications for other sovereignorami, has brought the political into the controversy.

As was stated above, emboldenment is a serious threat. The Bundy crew were well armed but didn't shoot anyone.

Yet.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I don't want to make this political, it isn't meant to be.

I don't think anyone sensible will read it that way. This is not politics. It is about the rule of law.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Does Mr. Bundy still graze his cattle illegally?

Was the episode a total defeat for the government?

If so, why?

[Gregg]

I'm not gonna comment on this, I'm just too tired.

I'm only posting to say that I'm too tired to moderate any of it for possible political blah blah blah....

Just this one time, as far as we see between the gunslits here at The Well Armed Bunker Complex, we're just too tired.

Keep it civil, and after 24 hours this little amnesty (which is only from me, the rest of management might come slap me in the head at any moment) is over, but for the rest of the day, have at it....

[Pottapaug1938]

I made my comment only because it's relevant to this thread. I'm not commenting on the politics of the matter; but as was said below, this is more a matter of the contempt, for the rule of law, which characterized the Hammonds and the Bundys

[Chaos]

My fear is that this pardon lends credence to the Crazies. It's as if there is agreament that the government is corrupt, and there is only one man who can save the day. This will embolden the Sovereigns, who will see there "struggle" as getting tacit support from up top. I don't want to make this political, it isn't meant to be. Just pointing out the dangers when any politician sides with a sovereign cause. It is frightening, to be honest. Next I suspect the rest of the folks involved with the Bundy clan will be looking for some of that sweet pardon action. And look at the mess they caused... It really is the coming together of fringe ideas and mainstream politics that is the issue here. Unfortunately, it is not a topic we should discuss. Please remove if this breaches any rules.

if I remember what I read on fogbow, accepting a pardon carries the admission of guilt (even though they pled to get other charges dropped). they won't be able to carry a 'railroaded' narrative where it was possible before.

[Gregg]

Yes, accepting a pardon is admitting you need one. I think they eventually pleaded guilty, though.

[TheNewSaint]

My fear is that this pardon lends credence to the Crazies.

Yes, and why shouldn't it? The crazies got what they wanted. And, their "noble landowners unfairly oppressed by the government" narrative won out over "serial arsonists and all-around shitheels."

[TheNewSaint]

Yes, accepting a pardon is admitting you need one. I think they eventually pleaded guilty, though.

As i understand it, they took a plea deal for a short jail term, then the prosecution argued that what they pleaded guilty to had mandatory minimum sentences. Their sentences were extended from a few months to 5 years.

If I have that right, then I think the Hammonds have a legit gripe, as the government effectively reneged on the plea deal. Such deals, once made, should be honored.

If Trump wanted to commute their sentence based on that, I could live with it, though i think there are at least 4.8 million greater injustices out there. But he straight-up pardoned them.

[Resume]

Except the White House called them good family men and upstanding members of the community, among other things.

They are none of those things.

[wserra]

As i understand it, they took a plea deal for a short jail term, then the prosecution argued that what they pleaded guilty to had mandatory minimum sentences.

Not exactly. During deliberations, the jury reached a partial verdict, which included acquitting on some charges, convicting on others and not deciding still others. The judge sent them back to continue deliberating on the undecided charges - which included the conspiracy count, the potentially most serious charge. Before the jury returned again, the parties agreed to accept the verdict as thus far rendered, and the govt would dismiss the undecided charges. That's what happened. The charges of which they were convicted included arson of govt property [18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1)], which carries a five-year minimum. This wasn't anything that was sprung on the Hammonds, it was there all along. The trial court sentenced them to much less, concluding that the five years would be cruel and unusual. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, and the Supreme Court denied cert. 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2048 (Mar. 23, 2015)

Their sentences were extended from a few months to 5 years.

Again, not exactly. The jury convicted them of a charge that carried a five-year minimum, something they knew at the time.

If I have that right, then I think the Hammonds have a legit gripe, as the government effectively reneged on the plea deal.

And that's completely wrong. The govt never consented to accept a sentence under the mandatory minimum. Now, I hate mandatory minimums. They can easily result in injustice, and perhaps did here. But nobody blindsided the Hammonds.

Trump's statement on the pardons included the following: "The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison." That's just as wrong as anything here. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the sentencing court violated the law: "[W]e hold that the district court illegally sentenced the Hammonds to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum. A minimum sentence mandated by statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard." United States v. Hammond, 742 F.3d 880, 884 (9th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court denied cert. So, according to Trump, it's all Obama's fault: an appeal that resulted in complete vindication for the govt was "overzealous".

But what does one expect from the Incredible Lying Shithead? Any mod with a cooler head than I should feel free to redact this. I've even put it in a separate paragraph for ease of redacting. And I'm probably being too nice.

[TheNewSaint]

Thanks for the explanation, wserra.

[grixit]

I agree on encouragement. Trump has thrown gasoline onto a fire that a lot of people have been diligently attempting to exinguish. I am very concerned about the possible results. On the one hand, there may be more private expropriation of public resources. And on the otherhand there may be more self authorized agents, a la pizzagate.

I have a lot more to say, but i will leave it off here.

[grixit]

In one of Interior Secretary Ryan K. Zinke’s last actions before resigning, he ordered the renewal of a 10-year grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., run by the elder Hammond and son Steven Hammond.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/0 ... nches.html

I learned about this through Demo's Twitter feed. I asked how come she couldn't stop by and post it here but got no answer.

I'm afraid, since she finished her book, she's outgrown us.

[Pottapaug1938]

In one of Interior Secretary Ryan K. Zinke’s last actions before resigning, he ordered the renewal of a 10-year grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., run by the elder Hammond and son Steven Hammond.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/0 ... nches.html

I learned about this through Demo's Twitter feed. I asked how come she couldn't stop by and post it here but got no answer.

I'm afraid, since she finished her book, she's outgrown us.

What book? I recall that she was working on one; but like a mirage, it always seems to recede into the distance, whenever I try to approach it.