Moultrie Products
Trump pardons enviro Terrorists
Community
Contributors to this thread:
slade 10-Jul-18
KSflatlander 10-Jul-18
slade 10-Jul-18
JTV 10-Jul-18
JTV 10-Jul-18
Mint 10-Jul-18
KSflatlander 10-Jul-18
Shuteye 10-Jul-18
Jimbo 10-Jul-18
trublucolo 10-Jul-18
AndyJ 10-Jul-18
JTV 10-Jul-18
keepemsharp 10-Jul-18
KSflatlander 10-Jul-18
HDE 10-Jul-18
trublucolo 10-Jul-18
trublucolo 10-Jul-18
HDE 10-Jul-18
Amoebus 10-Jul-18
trublucolo 10-Jul-18
pipe 10-Jul-18
TD 11-Jul-18
TD 11-Jul-18
Pete In Fairbanks 11-Jul-18
Spike Bull 11-Jul-18
one-eye 11-Jul-18
Spike Bull 11-Jul-18
Pete In Fairbanks 11-Jul-18
KSflatlander 11-Jul-18
bigeasygator 11-Jul-18
slade 11-Jul-18
Thumper 11-Jul-18
HDE 11-Jul-18
Glunt@work 11-Jul-18
AndyJ 11-Jul-18
From: slade
10-Jul-18

slade's Link
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump pardoned Oregon cattle ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son on Tuesday, who had both been convicted on arson charges, sparking the 2016 occupation of a wildlife refuge, according to a White House statement.

From: KSflatlander
10-Jul-18
Arson on federal land and armed occupation of a federal facility should not be pardoned IMO. I thought we were a nation of laws.

From: slade
10-Jul-18
Being clueless is not a trait someone should be proud of.

From: JTV
10-Jul-18
Patriots .......... just sayin' ......

From: JTV
10-Jul-18

JTV's Link
http://freebeacon.com/issues/trump-pardons-oregon-cattle-ranchers-citing-overzealous-appeal-obama-administration/

From: Mint
10-Jul-18
Dwight Hammond, 76, and his son, Steven, 49, were convicted in 2012 for setting a fire that spread onto public grazing land. The two were initially sentenced to less than the legal minimum five-year prison sentence for their crimes and later released, the father after three months and the son after a year. But, in 2016, a federal judge ordered the pair back to prison to serve the full five years.

Trump should have just left them finish their terms.

From: KSflatlander
10-Jul-18
I agree Trump was clueless in his decision to pardon these guys.

From: Shuteye
10-Jul-18
Farmers here set fire to their thickets and fields every year. I comes up nice and green in the spring. In Delaware they wait for a strong west wind and set fire to the marshes. Muskrat trappers do it every year. It comes back nice and green and with a West wind it blows out to the bay.

From: Jimbo
10-Jul-18

Jimbo's Link
Patriots? Seriosuly? More like arsonists and poachers!

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

From: trublucolo
10-Jul-18
But nary a peep from Jimbo and KSFlander when 0bama released 5 real terrorists in exchange for a worthless pos deserter.... keep on keeping on in your irrelevance.

From: AndyJ
10-Jul-18
JTV-I think you’re a pretty good guy, but you don’t know what you’re talking about...”just sayin’”

These f-er’s are at the front of the public lands debate. Any support for them is support for federal lands turn over. IMO- 5 years each was a slap on the wrist.

From: JTV
10-Jul-18
I am more upset about the animals they killed and habitat damaged, than their dislike against the gov .... Thinking that Trump did this as more of another kick to the legacy of Obama .. still wont change my view about Trump ... of course the left as these on here will continue with their hate and discontent about him no matter all the good he has done .... par for the course...

From: keepemsharp
10-Jul-18
Fire is a great tool out here in flyover land, sometimes it goes astray.

From: KSflatlander
10-Jul-18
You are absolutely right trueblue. Since Obama did an exchange for an enlisted soldier Trump should be given a pass on this. These guys were neither soldiers or patriots IMO.

From: HDE
10-Jul-18
Just what does being a solider have to do with anything...?

From: trublucolo
10-Jul-18
Until the government starts convicting, sentencing and actually carrying through on the convictions of others charged and convicted of the same crime, the Hammond's conviction and sentencing will remain what it is and was from the start.

"I agree Trump was clueless in his decision to pardon these guys", tell me KS, what makes you think you actually know all the facts regarding this? You only know what the government wants you to know on this one. The fact that you're arguing against it based on your contempt of Trump takes it to the petty level.

From: trublucolo
10-Jul-18
Some of you need to google search how many people convicted of arson and starting fires on federal lands actually serve their entire sentences.

From: HDE
10-Jul-18
The illegal in CO recently probably won't - sounds like he will get deported unless something changed.

10-Jul-18
Jeff,

sharp is correct, fire is an excellent habitat tool and it is not uncommon for loss of control to happen.

I am not concluding anything on this case as I just do not know.

From: Amoebus
10-Jul-18
trub - "Some of you need to google search how many people convicted of arson and starting fires on federal lands actually serve their entire sentences."

I am betting the total of those that have ever been pardoned is 2.

From: trublucolo
10-Jul-18
Probably, Isn't that awesome.......

From: pipe
10-Jul-18
Why did they get released originally?...before serving out their seemingly well deserved sentence? ..

From: TD
11-Jul-18
Some folks are clueless...... property damage was estimated at less than $100 at the trial if I recall..... and never disputed. But because it was fed property the POS that run the "sanctuary" next door..... yeah, FED POS..... even though knowing it was a 100% LEGAL controlled burn that got out and burned.... under 10 acres across the boundary I believe.... they called it arson. Because Fed land..... and because as POS they can..... they lobbied (after the fact) to bring TERRORIST charges against them. All because they are trying to force them out and have been for some time, Why??? They not only want the land..... the BIG deal is all because HAMMOND'S HAVE LEGAL WATER RIGHTS TO THEIR LITTLE WETLAND SANCTUARY. Let THAT sink in. They have had those rights for generations BEFORE THERE WAS EVER A SANCTUARY.

Good grief...... some folks with 40 hour "public sector" jobs need to do some introspection, or at minimum some fact checking. Those Fed "employees" that manage the place have been trying to move them off their land a good long time. Clueless comes to mind...... the folks running this didn't just want their little spot there.... they wanted.... and think they are owed..... ALL of it.

They can now go pound sand. Which may be more physical work than they have done in their entire worthless existence.....

From: TD
11-Jul-18
This is the Hammonds. Not Bundys. Plenty of leftists confuse them. Hammonds ran all their cattle on PRIVATE land. THEIR land. They had a ROW across the Fed land for decades.... until this wetlands group moved in and denied it. They tried to shut Hammond's water rights off as well as others.... but Hammond's won that in court too.

Make no mistake. It is the Feds that moved in and made the trouble. They not only made no effort to work with local ranchers..... they openly did all they could to displace them. People that had been working that land for generations.

11-Jul-18
The govt's decision to prosecute the Hammonds was obviously a political one.

Every year a lot of federal (and state for that matter) employees set prescribed fires/back fires/burnouts that get away and burn a lot more brush than was involved here. These federal employees are NEVER charged with anything. Much less arson.

Since the decision to prosecute was political, no one should really be upset when the case is resolved politically.

Pete

11-Jul-18
Truly they are patriots who stood up to the government goons trying to push them out for the envirowackos.

From: one-eye
11-Jul-18

one-eye's Link
This is an interesting timeline for those who may want to educate themselves, rather than get their "facts" from what the news wants to tell them.

The Hammonds are hardly terrorists. Nor are they heroes. They are ranchers trying to make a living, much like most of us would do in their place. If anything, they have been antagonized and victimized by the unaccountable federal government. In a perfect world, the judge who initially sentenced them, the judge who put them back in prison, the prosecutors, and the BLM goons who harassed them should all take their place in prison.

11-Jul-18
Exactly, one-eye!!

11-Jul-18
Reading One-eye's timeline is enlightening. Hammonds were charged with terrorism. it appears that the real terrorists were land-grabbing federal bureaucrats.

More evidence that when Trump pardoned the Hammonds, it was to right a wrong.

Pete

From: KSflatlander
11-Jul-18

KSflatlander's Link
By Tom Jackman January 4, 2016 ?

The dispute between Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond and the federal government would not seem like the type to ignite a standoff by armed protesters. But sometimes the facts get lost amid the long-brewing conflict between private landowners in the West and their neighboring landlord, the Bureau of Land Management.

The case also revives the controversy around mandatory minimum sentences, which many advocates feel require judges to issue unfairly long prison terms, often in drug cases, which Congress is gradually addressing. The original judge in the Hammonds’ case elected to defy the mandatory minimums after their convictions, setting up the protests on behalf of the ranchers when they were resentenced to five-year terms.

The facts are these, court records show:

1.) The Hammonds admitted to, and were convicted of, setting two small fires that had nothing to do with the unrest over how the Bureau of Land Management rules its own land. In Harney County, Ore., roughly 75 percent of land is federally owned.

2.) The key witness against them in the first fire was Dwight Hammond’s then-13-year-old grandson, Dusty, who said he and four of his relatives set the fires at his family’s instruction to conceal their illegal deer hunting, and that he nearly died when the flames quickly surrounded him. He said the fires were set because his uncle, Steven Hammond, wanted the evidence of their hunt destroyed. Prosecutors said the fires also were intended to chase away witnesses who’d seen them hunting illegally.

3.) The Hammonds claimed that the second fire was set as a “back fire” on their own property to protect it from wildfires sparked by lightning. But trial testimony showed that the back fires were actually set more than a mile from the Hammonds’ ranch, on federal land.

4.) After a jury convicted both Hammonds of some counts, but was still deliberating on others, the Hammonds accepted the convictions and agreed not to appeal, in exchange for the government not seeking consecutive sentences and dropping the remaining counts. The prosecutor told them they still faced five-year mandatory minimum sentences for the convictions, court transcripts show.

5.) The sentencing was handled four months later by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan, in his last day on the federal bench after 39 years. He elected to ignore the five-year mandatory minimum terms because he felt it was “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here,” instead sentencing Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to a year and a day. The government appealed, as it routinely does in cases where judges defy mandatory minimums, and a federal appeals court ordered the Hammonds resentenced. A new judge gave them five-year terms in October, and allowed them until January to surrender.

6.) The Hammonds’ lawyer has made it clear publicly that they are not affiliated with the armed group now occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Their lawyers released a statement Monday saying that “Dwight and Steven Hammond respect the rule of law. They have litigated this matter within the federal courts for over five years and, in every instance, have followed the order of the court without incident or violation. ... As the Hammonds have previously stated, they will be reporting to the United States Bureau of Prisons today to serve their sentences.”

From: bigeasygator
11-Jul-18
So poaching animals and destroying that evidence via arson makes you a patriot? Not saying there wasn't a history with the government and that there wasn't government overreach, but what I know about the case is that these individuals were convicted by a jury of their peers for crimes related to poaching and arson and some want to hold them up as heroes and patriots? I'd also have less of an issue if Trump commuted their sentences vs. pardoning them of these crimes.

From: slade
11-Jul-18
So being ignorant progressive lapdogs makes you patriots?

"" (o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty's memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty's testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson. ""

From: Thumper
11-Jul-18
"Trump pardons enviro Terrorists"..???????

Say what? They set a back fire to check the fire the Feds had set intentionally to burn lands they grazed their cattle on.

From: HDE
11-Jul-18
"Not saying there wasn't a history with the government and that there wasn't government overreach, but what I know about the case is that these individuals were convicted by a jury of their peers"

When the feds really want to put the screws to you, they make sure all the evidence is weighted in their favor...

From: Glunt@work
11-Jul-18
I have read both sides and don't know what the truth is. I will say that even if I accept the Fed version, 5 years and $400,000.00 is excessive.

I doubt they are innocent of any wrong doing. I also doubt either sides story as being 100%.

From: AndyJ
11-Jul-18
Trump’s pardoning of these two is way too timely to be simply “righting a wrong”. Farmers and ranchers are beginning to grow a little nervous as this impending trade war cranks up and he needed to do something to appear faithful to the ranchers.

Also, the arguement of occasionally these fires get out of hand is correct, but who ever starts the fire is still responsible and subject to punishment.

11-Jul-18
Andy, I agree they are still responsible, but not 5 years of one's life responsible.

  • Sitka Gear