Trump pardons Oregon ranchers who sparked 2016 militia men standoff

[Bladewire]

What dog whistle message do you think Trump is sending to the militia men? Trump has privatized tens of millions of acres of public land, do he's not sending a message to cattle farmers by pardoning these two.

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers who sparked 2016 militia men standoff

President Donald Trump has pardoned two Oregon cattle ranchers whose sentence for arson led armed militiamen to seize control of a wildlife refuge in 2016.

Dwight Hammond, 76, and his son Steven Hammond, 49, were convicted in 2012 after a prescribed burn on their land spread to nearby public lands in 2001.

The pair served time in jail, but a judge later ruled that they must serve their full five-year sentence.

The ruling sparked anti-government protests that left one rancher dead.

"The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community and have widespread support from their neighbours, local law enforcement and farmers and ranchers across the West," the White House said in statement on Tuesday announcing their full pardon.

"Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.''

The Hammonds had claimed that the fire was to fend off invasive species, but prosecutors alleged that it was set to cover up evidence of illegal deer poaching and that it posed a grave risk to firefighters.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
A judge had granted them a shortened jail stint, but in 2015 a federal judge ruled that they must complete their full sentences and sent them back to jail.

The case had drawn the attention of limited-government proponents, including the family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who was himself facing charges relating to an armed standoff with law enforcement stemming from a refusal to pay fees for grazing on public lands.

Inside the US refuge seized by militiamen
Armed protest at US government building
Oregon militia stand-off ends
His son, Ammon Bundy, then began a social media campaign backing the Hammonds, and travelled to Burns, Oregon, to organise protests calling for their release.

Mr Bundy and his group, Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, attracted supporters from across a number of states.

On 2 January 2016 the armed militiamen - who were never directly endorsed by the Hammonds - took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and widened the range of demands.

The standoff ended when police arrested several members and fatally shot the group's spokesman, LaVoy Finicum, who they said was reaching for his gun during a traffic stop.

[Bladewire]

For anyone who doesn't remember or know what the armed militia men did when they took over a government building, in a state they didn't live in, here's a Vice YouTube clip about it. Trump is saying he's with these people

[xClips Jim]

Will lead back here when the public gets a full understanding...

[Rochard]

Fucking insane.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Fucking insane.

What message do you think he's trying to send?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

What message do you think he's trying to send?

Perhaps, that it's ok to storm govt building with guns in hands and threaten to shoot anyone in the process. Anyone want to go storm the WH? We can get pardons..

[xClips Jim]

Obama used his powers to grant clemency to Oscar Lopez Rivera.

What signal was he sending?



"Oscar López Rivera (born January 6, 1943) is a Puerto Rican activist and militant who was one of the leaders of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a clandestine paramilitary organization devoted to Puerto Rican independence that carried out more than 120 bomb attacks on United States targets between 1974 and 1983, killing five.

López Rivera admitted committing every act with which he was charged, but declared himself a political prisoner and refused to take part in most of the trial proceedings. He maintained that according to international law he was an anticolonial combatant and could not be prosecuted by the United States government."

I wonder what the message was?

[HelmutKohl]

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Perhaps, that it's ok to storm govt building with guns in hands and threaten to shoot anyone in the process. Anyone want to go storm the WH? We can get pardons..

jiminy crickets crockett! you're all in other threads threatening violence as per the Constitution. that's what these clowns did.

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

jiminy crickets crockett! you're all in other threads threatening violence as per the Constitution. that's what these clowns did.

[onwebcam]

The message is the government overstepped it's authority.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

Will lead back here when the public gets a full understanding...

Why change the subject? Why point at Clinton? Why not instead answer or challenge the OP if you believe differently?

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

Obama used his powers to grant clemency to Oscar Lopez Rivera.

Why change the subject? And who cares what Obama did. What's important now is what Trump is doing, isn't it?

What would you say if it were 4 years ago and Obama did something you didn't like, and I said "Oh yeah well what about Bush!?"

See where I'm going?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by crockett

Perhaps, that it's ok to storm govt building with guns in hands and threaten to shoot anyone in the process. Anyone want to go storm the WH? We can get pardons..

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Why change the subject? Why point at Clinton? Why not instead answer or challenge the OP if you believe differently?

Subject was not changed. OP posted about the pardon - I suggested the reason for the pardon - which includes Clinton.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Why change the subject? Why point at Clinton? Why not instead answer or challenge the OP if you believe differently?




Why change the subject? And who cares what Obama did. What's important now is what Trump is doing, isn't it?

What would you say if it were 4 years ago and Obama did something you didn't like, and I said "Oh yeah well what about Bush!?"

See where I'm going?

It's part of their job to divert any Trump thread off topic to Clinton and/or Obama.

"Trump pardons Oregon ranchers who sparked 2016 militia men standoff"

What signal is he trying to send and to whom?

Telling malitia men to unite behind him and he'll pardon anything they do as long as they are loyal to him?

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Why change the subject? Why point at Clinton? Why not instead answer or challenge the OP if you believe differently?




Why change the subject? And who cares what Obama did. What's important now is what Trump is doing, isn't it?

What would you say if it were 4 years ago and Obama did something you didn't like, and I said "Oh yeah well what about Bush!?"

See where I'm going?

I hate when you guys edit later...

Yes, I see where you're going.

In order to show how illogical it is to hate on Trump for a pardon, I'm not allowed to discuss the individuals that previous presidents they DO support HAVE pardoned.

Got it.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by crockett

Perhaps, that it's ok to storm govt building with guns in hands and threaten to shoot anyone in the process. Anyone want to go storm the WH? We can get pardons..

Unfortunately, the Hammonds, (the one's that were pardoned), had nothing to do with taking over the government buildings. In fact the Hammonds distanced themselves from the occupation of the wildlife refuge.

The Hammonds were convicted of arson because they accidentally had a controlled burn on their property get out of control and burned some federal lands.

The conviction was sketchy at best if you go read up on it. After the conviction and after they had served their sentences in full a judge decided that the sentence they had been given (3 months for the Father and one year for the son) were too short so they were sent back to jail.

All very sketchy bullshit, if you ask me.

But the important thing here is that the Hammonds did NOT participate in, or encourage the occupation of the wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Ammon Bundy led the occupation of the wildlife refuge, the militia used the Hammnds re-sentencing as their excuse for the occupation.

I am about as liberal as you can get and I agree with this particular pardon.

.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Unfortunately, the Hammonds, (the one's that were pardoned), had nothing to do with taking over the government buildings. In fact the Hammonds distanced themselves from the occupation of the wildlife refuge.

The Hammonds were convicted of arson because they accidentally had a controlled burn on their property get out of control and burned some federal lands.

The conviction was sketchy at best if you go read up on it. After the conviction and after they had served their sentences in full a judge decided that the sentence they had been given (3 years for one brother and one year for the other) were too shirt so they were sent back to jail.

All very sketchy bullshit, if you ask me.

But the important thing here is that the Hammonds did NOT participate in, or encourage the occupation of the wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Ammon Bundy led the occupation of the wildlife refuge, the militia used the Hammnds re-sentencing as their excuse for the occupation.

I am about as liberal as you can get and I agree with this particular pardon.

.

appreciated. I hadn't recollected this or may not have even been aware.

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

What would you say if it were 4 years ago and Obama did something you didn't like, and I said "Oh yeah well what about Bush!?"

For future reference, I disliked Bush intensely and approved of Obama at the time so I wouldn't have said anything...however, what would you say to this...

President Hillary Clinton has been sworn into office. Trump supporters have taken to the streets on multiple days to protest everything she says or does and claim she is illegitimate. Most Republicans remain stoic and realize that sometimes they lose elections, but there is a vocal minority advocating hate, violence and intimidation. They ask fellow Republicans to harass and intimidate Mrs. Clinton's staff wherever they find them.

How crazy do you think you'd be saying those Republicans are?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

appreciated. I hadn't recollected this or may not have even been aware.

There was more to it than that. The Hammonds were basically at war with the BLM over what they considered to be federal overreach for years but the actual convictions and especially the changing of the sentences were pretty much bullshit.

.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by sarettah

There was more to it than that. The Hammonds were basically at war with the BLM over what they considered to be federal overreach for years but the actual convictions and especially the changing of the sentences were pretty much bullshit.

.

If I recall they were using blm land for grazing their cattle with no fees, then there were fees, which went unpaid.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

If I recall they were using blm land for grazing their cattle with no fees, then there were fees, which went unpaid.

Depends on which side you listen to on that. The cattle trails that were in use date back to the late 1800's. The wildlife refuge was established in the 1920's.

There was a lot of rejection of the Feds grabbing the land when it occurred and there were problems between the local ranchers and the feds for decades.

There was a lot of bullshit in the trial, stuff that could not be proven effectively. The big one was that the Hammonds were accused of setting a fire to cover the fact that they were illegally taking deer. One of their relatives testified against them regarding that. They were also accused of another fire where they set illegal backfires and put firefighters in danger.

Proof of all that was sketchy at best. They were only convicted of the one charge of arson so that is really all that is in question regarding the pardon, imho and in that matter the resentencing should not have occurred.

.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Unfortunately, the Hammonds, (the one's that were pardoned), had nothing to do with taking over the government buildings. In fact the Hammonds distanced themselves from the occupation of the wildlife refuge.

The Hammonds were convicted of arson because they accidentally had a controlled burn on their property get out of control and burned some federal lands.

The conviction was sketchy at best if you go read up on it. After the conviction and after they had served their sentences in full a judge decided that the sentence they had been given (3 months for the Father and one year for the son) were too short so they were sent back to jail.

All very sketchy bullshit, if you ask me.

But the important thing here is that the Hammonds did NOT participate in, or encourage the occupation of the wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Ammon Bundy led the occupation of the wildlife refuge, the militia used the Hammnds re-sentencing as their excuse for the occupation.

I am about as liberal as you can get and I agree with this particular pardon.

.

This is a bit of white washing there. They set a fire in 1999 that got out of control and burnt up some federal land.

At that point they were reminded that they needed fire permits to burn. They were simply given a warning in 1999.

They were charged for arson for 2 other fires one in 2001 which was to cover up for a illegal hunt on federal land and in 2006 for setting backfires during a wildfire that put firefighters lives in danger..

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Unfortunately, the Hammonds, (the one's that were pardoned), had nothing to do with taking over the government buildings.

Can you link to proof of that please?

We know they are not the militia men because they were in jail of course but you're saying you have proof that they had nothing to do with the militia men, notifying them, common acquaintances, asking for help, etc?

[crockett]

The illegal hunt was to kill deer that grazed in the same areas as their cattle. They killed the deer illegally and some other hunters caught them in the act. They then set the area on fire to run the hunters off and cover up the deer killings..

In the 2nd fire, they started back fires during a wild fire knowing firefighters were in direct path of the fires they started..

These fucks were criminals.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Can you link to proof of that please?

We know they are not the militia men because they were in jail of course but you're saying you have proof that they had nothing to do with the militia men, notifying them, common acquaintances, asking for help, etc?

Despite several early meetings with Bundy and Payne, the Hammonds eventually rejected their offers of assistance, with Hammond attorney W. Alan Schroeder writing that "neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family."[2]

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

A lawyer for the Hammonds said, however, they did not welcome the Bundys’ help, according to The Associated Press.

“Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family,” the lawyer, W. Alan Schroeder, wrote to David Ward, the Harney County sheriff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...activists.html

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Depends on which side you listen to on that. The cattle trails that were in use date back to the late 1800's. The wildlife refuge was established in the 1920's.

There was a lot of rejection of the Feds grabbing the land when it occurred and there were problems between the local ranchers and the feds for decades.

There was a lot of bullshit in the trial, stuff that could not be proven effectively. The big one was that the Hammonds were accused of setting a fire to cover the fact that they were illegally taking deer. One of their relatives testified against them regarding that. They were also accused of another fire where they set illegal backfires and put firefighters in danger.

Proof of all that was sketchy at best. They were only convicted of the one charge of arson so that is really all that is in question regarding the pardon, imho and in that matter the resentencing should not have occurred.

.

I do think the arson conviction is baloney, I recall it was a controlled burn on their own property.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

The illegal hunt was to kill deer that grazed in the same areas as their cattle. They killed the deer illegally and some other hunters caught them in the act. They then set the area on fire to run the hunters off and cover up the deer killings..

In the 2nd fire, they started back fires during a wild fire knowing firefighters were in direct path of the fires they started..

These fucks were criminals.

Dang, I don't remember any of that!

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by crockett

The illegal hunt was to kill deer that grazed in the same areas as their cattle. They killed the deer illegally and some other hunters caught them in the act. They then set the area on fire to run the hunters off and cover up the deer killings..

In the 2nd fire, they started back fires during a wild fire knowing firefighters were in direct path of the fires they started..

These fucks were criminals.

Right and the judge gave the father a 3 months sentence and the son a 1 year sentence, despite the FEDERAL MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence, set by congress, of 5 years each.

So them getting out early was the judges fault for not following the federal mandatory minimum for their crimes.

Trump was saying the "government" was being overzealous, when in fact the mandatory minimums are set by Congress and voted into law had nothing to do with "the government prosecuting them and then overzealous way."

Trump is such a fucking liar.

More info here.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by sarettah

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



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...activists.html

Right so your source admits the met with the men in advance of their actions. Then once things got too hot they said "they don't speak for us" "nothing to see here"

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Dang, I don't remember any of that!

They were criminals, undeserving of Presidential executive authority is what we're to understand.

They must be very unlike this list of almost 2000 Obama recipients:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons

Why bring up anyone else, though? Don't mention the previous President and who HE pardoned - that's irrelevant, we are told.

[crockett]

Let's not forget that they also pleaded guilty to avoid even more charges. Meaning they agreed they were guilty of arson.

[kane]

These guys were bad news and shouldn't have been pardoned.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by crockett

Let's not forget that they also pleaded guilty to avoid even more charges. Meaning they agreed they were guilty of arson.

Setting fire to government property 5 year minimum. And they only got caught twice. All other charges dropped.

[kane]

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

They were criminals, undeserving of Presidential executive authority is what we're to understand.

They must be very unlike this list of almost 2000 Obama recipients:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons

Why bring up anyone else, though? Don't mention the previous President and who HE pardoned - that's irrelevant, we are told.

When it comes to something like this, it is irrelevant. If Obama misused his power of pardon in the past, that doesn't forgive Trump for doing it now.

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by kane

When it comes to something like this, it is irrelevant. If Obama misused his power of pardon in the past, that doesn't forgive Trump for doing it now.

I agree, it doesn't.

However, it serves nicely to point out the hypocrisy of those that complain now but did not then.

Agenda driven.

Also - "if"?

[kane]

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

I agree, it doesn't.

However, it serves nicely to point out the hypocrisy of those that complain now but did not then.

Agenda driven.

Also - "if"?

Well, maybe it should have read "when" lol

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by kane

Well, maybe it should have read "when" lol

I know you're one of the good ones, so that was for the insane among your clan.

IMO, this pardon has other elements that will be revealed in the future but I have only a faint outline of how that is shaping up.

Love him or hate him, this President has a reason for things that he does.

Hilarious of Mrs. Bladewire to think it's a signal that he will pardon militia people. Trump could send out Girl Scouts to handle Antifa and it's crowd of supporters.

[kane]

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

I know you're one of the good ones, so that was for the insane among your clan.

IMO, this pardon has other elements that will be revealed in the future but I have only a faint outline of how that is shaping up.

Love him or hate him, this President has a reason for things that he does.

Hilarious of Mrs. Bladewire to think it's a signal that he will pardon militia people. Trump could send out Girl Scouts to handle Antifa and it's crowd of supporters.

I don't think it is a message to militia that he will pardon them, but I do think it is a message to his base. My Facebook feed erupted with conservatives happy about this pardon. It's a political move, like most pardons made by most presidents are.

[xClips Jim]

Originally Posted by kane

I don't think it is a message to militia that he will pardon them, but I do think it is a message to his base.

Of course, you are 100% correct.

So the question is: how do you know this and they don't?

Because you're not crazy.

[kane]

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

Of course, you are 100% correct.

So the question is: how do you know this and they don't?

Because you're not crazy.

I think there are a lot of people out there who can't imagine why anyone would ever want to live anyway other than how they live. While I may look at some people and have no desire to live my life in that way, I can respect that they want to live that way and it makes them happy, just like they may not want to live the way I do. I can also understand that there is often more than one way to solve a problem. If a person has an opposite opinion than mine on something I can respect that so long as their position is reasonable and based on some kind of fact. Where I get annoyed is when things seem to happen primarily out of spite and I see a lot of that in our leadership (past and present) with some of the laws they pass and things they do and see people on both sides who support that and cheer for it not because the thing is actually good, but because it will anger the other side. We shouldn't be doing things just to piss off those with opposing views because I really believe that what goes around comes around so I try to be respectful and try to make reasonable arguments and leave the gaslighting to others.