• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's Latest Pardons Could Fan Anti-Government Anger In The Rural West

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrymp...ent-anger-in?utm_term=.mrrryr87O5#.ms1YMYKv5E

"Trump and [US Interior Secretary Ryan] Zinke are sending a message that they have their backs."

In a move that could embolden a movement that has clashed — at times violently — with the federal government, President Donald Trump has pardoned a pair of Oregon ranchers who were serving time for arson, and whose case was the impetus behind a deadly 2016 standoff at a federally managed wildlife refuge.

Trump signed pardons Tuesday for Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven Hammond, who were serving five-year prison sentences for starting fires that burned federal land. A White House statement called the sentences "unjust" and praised the ranchers as "respected contributors to their local community" who have support from "neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West."

The comment about support across the West hints at the pivotal, if sometimes reluctant, role the Hammonds have played in a movement that generally opposes federal management of public land — and at the reverberations their pardon could have across the West.
====================================================================
Trump is encouraging rugged individualists to go their own way & f**k the Government because Trump has their backs.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrymp...ent-anger-in?utm_term=.mrrryr87O5#.ms1YMYKv5E

"Trump and [US Interior Secretary Ryan] Zinke are sending a message that they have their backs."

In a move that could embolden a movement that has clashed — at times violently — with the federal government, President Donald Trump has pardoned a pair of Oregon ranchers who were serving time for arson, and whose case was the impetus behind a deadly 2016 standoff at a federally managed wildlife refuge.

Trump signed pardons Tuesday for Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven Hammond, who were serving five-year prison sentences for starting fires that burned federal land. A White House statement called the sentences "unjust" and praised the ranchers as "respected contributors to their local community" who have support from "neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West."

The comment about support across the West hints at the pivotal, if sometimes reluctant, role the Hammonds have played in a movement that generally opposes federal management of public land — and at the reverberations their pardon could have across the West.
====================================================================
Trump is encouraging rugged individualists to go their own way & f**k the Government because Trump has their backs.
Click to expand...

The other way to look at that would be that Trump pardoned a couple of guys who were subject to malicious prosecution by a DoJ which was trying really hard to score political points against citizens who held concepts such as individual liberty sacred.

Here's an article from the decidedly left leaning Slate which explains the situation in fair and reasonable terms. - Anti-terrorist laws should not have been applied against Dwight and Steven Hammond.



The point of contention between the prosecutor and the trial judge was over the increased penalties mandated by the legislation—five years was the minimum sentence. The judge said that the legislators clearly did not have the Hammonds in mind when they passed the anti-terrorist law. Five years in prison for burning 150 acres—which the Bureau of Land Management has said improved the land for grazing—was so “grossly disproportionate,” the judge said, that it violated the defendants’ Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. He sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in jail and his son, Steven, to a year behind bars.

It could have ended there, but the prosecutor appealed the sentence—the trial judge’s invoking the Eighth Amendment virtually guaranteed that. No one was arguing that the Hammonds deserved more time in prison, but Department of Justice prosecutors apparently do not want to lose the immense leverage they have obtained over defendants through the federalization of ordinary crimes and the often draconian mandatory sentences that accompany them. These enable prosecutors to pile on charges and intimidate defendants with threats of lifetimes in prison even if only some of the charges stick.
Click to expand...

See, the Hammonds were tried and convicted but the DoJ, hell bent on portraying them as terrorists, appealed the reasonable sentence and went after an unreasonable sentence. They were accommodated by a 9th Circuit judge who cited, among other cases, "3 strike" cases, repeat offender cases and child pornography cases to support his decision to vacate the lesser sentence and impose the more harsh sentence. - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html
 
"Fix Washington if you can, burn it down if you cant, we are done!" were Trumps instructions.
 
Trump is giving an open signal that if you are a criminal right winger whose cause is embraced by the right wing - a pardon just might be in your future.
 
haymarket said:
Trump is giving an open signal that if you are a criminal right winger whose cause is embraced by the right wing - a pardon just might be in your future.
Click to expand...

What was egregious about this pardon? Why should Steve and Dwight Hammond not have been pardoned?
 
Lutherf said:
What was egregious about this pardon? Why should Steve and Dwight Hammond not have been pardoned?
Click to expand...

Because they broke the law of the land and it sends a terrible message to others of their ilk.

Also, they did NOT go through the pardon application process - in fact it seems none of these Trump pardons go through the process - its just something purely political to cater to his right wing base. And that only increases division in our country and causes a further erosion of civility among the American people if one side believes they are protected by a fellow extremist and the other side feels that is what is happening and damn the process.
 
Lutherf said:
What was egregious about this pardon? Why should Steve and Dwight Hammond not have been pardoned?
Click to expand...

Someone died in the stand off for one.

They are convicted terrorists for another.

Starting fires out west is no joke, I have fought a couple. People and wildlife die, not to mention the billions racked up in property damage every year.
 
GDViking said:
Someone died in the stand off for one.

They are convicted terrorists for another.

Starting fires out west is no joke, I have fought a couple. People and wildlife die, not to mention the billions racked up in property damage every year.
Click to expand...

The Hammonds were in jail at the time of the standoff. The Hammonds were also convicted on only a few of the charges against them. The jury was unable to come to a decision on the other charges. The judge sent the jury back to deliberate some more and that's when the Hammonds took a plea. The judge sentenced the Hammonds and everything was handled....except that the DoJ wanted to score more points so they appealed the sentencing.

Trump pardoned the Hammonds from a sentence which the original judge decided was a violation of the 8th Amendment. The appellate judge cited a mess of 3strike cases, repeat offender cases and a child pornography case (among others) in his decision to vacate the original sentence and impose a MUCH more harsh sentence.
 
A President acting under the authority and power granted solely to the President, whether it's a pardon or an appointment to the Supreme Court, are a problem for the same people that supported when a different President walked roughshod over Article 1 of the Constitution and had his actions that that these same people agreed with overturned time after time by the US Supreme Court as unConstitutional - many times in a 9-0 ruling.

The irony and hypocrisy are laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom