I don't think pardons set any precedent at all as they are a one time, individually granted by the President thing. The Bundy trial may have set some precedent but only in how a case is handled as opposed to the actual indictments from my understanding.
Public Land arsonists get pardons
- Thread starter Irrelevant
- Start date
- Status
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
3+ years for one; 4+ years for the other; +$400,000 is my understanding.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
No legal precedent from any gubernatorial or presidential pardons or clemency. They can however, send cultural or political signals.
F
fwagner
Guest
Im speaking to the fact that the president who issued the pardons has no moral character. The topic is about the president and the thread is about his decisions. If I triggered your inner Trump Fan boy go read a non political thread and cry there
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,453
How do the presidents supposed affairs relate to wildlife?
I haven’t been around this site much in the last few months, but if you’re doing this stuff all the time, I’m surprised you’re not banned. Probably should be, real quick.
Sytes
Well-known member
When were they sentenced? How much (if any) time served?
What twerks me a bit about this is 1.) The first judge avoids the arson minimal sentence 2.) Appealed to assure the arson sentencing is applied. 3.) The next judge issues the MINIMAL sentence permitted.
Knowing full well the Bundy clan took advantage of the Hammond's situation and proclaimed in part their (Bundy) reasoning for the standoff, the Hammond's rejected the false association made by the Bundy nutters.
Hammond's arrogance aside, I'm curious if this is being blown out of proportion. Something does not add up and I wonder if the extremes of the " other side" are enhancing certain factors, such as the false accusations that they are associated with the Bundy's bunch.
Why two separate judges place minimal sentencing on what is often the case, biased media pronouncements of guilt by false/misleading journalism... Able to reach the POTUS to consider and to be pardoned... Something is off here and I wonder if the extremes are sidestepping some information that might bring a bit more light to the matter. Anti Trumpers aside, there are at least 2 judges and various steps to even reach the POTUS that found reasoning to make this the MINIMAL of any possible sentencing.
I'm on my phone w/o a comp handy to research further though I get the feeling this is a bit slanted from the truth. Maybe not... Maybe this his honest, objective journalism, excluding the Bundy association - pure as the driven snow facts provided to the masses. "Just the facts, mam"...
I think it's a righteous sentence considering the base poaching (example, were they charged/convicted of poaching?) And the associated group witness statements (was that witness charged/convicted with arson/pouching?)
The father and son were the only two charged/convicted with minimal sentencing?
Meh, love internet forum chats...
So was Clinton's, Kennedy's and FDR's. Sure there are ithers, but those three come to mind. So what the hell is different about the current POTUS other than the fact many on rhe keft have went bat shite crazy over his presidency. And what does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Since everyone else is throwing their 2 cents in....
I'm not a fan of any presidential pardon, and I don't care who holds the office or what the issue is. The law should apply to all equally and there would be no pardons if I had my way.
I'm not a fan of any presidential pardon, and I don't care who holds the office or what the issue is. The law should apply to all equally and there would be no pardons if I had my way.
As someone who did a write-in vote for the 2016 Presidency, I read political news as a party/partisan-agnostic, probably better stated anti-partisan. Hating the party-team rabidity of current America, these political detours and the behavior they evoke, especially in the digital world, make for some interesting observation. Maybe the digital world allows us to be our true selves, unrestrained, and therefore the ridiculous commentary a few have shown on this thread should not come as a surprise.
We are surely at an apex of behavior where some will criticize/rationalize anything on behalf of someone they voted for/against and use any opportunity to make their points regarding such. Unfortunately, I think we move the apex to new heights each week, with this thread being a certain validation of my belief that hunters are a cross-section of America and their behavior, both when good or bad, will be a pretty close mirror of that behavior illustrated by the rest of American society.
I think the string pullers behind the two-party system wanted to see how far down the ladder they could take us in 2016. Given the character of both candidates, I suspect most here can agree the two-party system surely accomplished that goal.
Having explained why I find a part of this an interesting human behavior exercise, it appears many folks here want to contribute to the WWE style of debate that the partisan-loyalists find useful. I'm gonna let this thread run its course. It will serve as the evidence for who I should delete from this forum and who is mature enough to actually have an adult discussion without getting their feelings hurt.
So, knock yourselves out. Just don't be surprised if some of you find your passwords not working when I get back to civilization.
We are surely at an apex of behavior where some will criticize/rationalize anything on behalf of someone they voted for/against and use any opportunity to make their points regarding such. Unfortunately, I think we move the apex to new heights each week, with this thread being a certain validation of my belief that hunters are a cross-section of America and their behavior, both when good or bad, will be a pretty close mirror of that behavior illustrated by the rest of American society.
I think the string pullers behind the two-party system wanted to see how far down the ladder they could take us in 2016. Given the character of both candidates, I suspect most here can agree the two-party system surely accomplished that goal.
Having explained why I find a part of this an interesting human behavior exercise, it appears many folks here want to contribute to the WWE style of debate that the partisan-loyalists find useful. I'm gonna let this thread run its course. It will serve as the evidence for who I should delete from this forum and who is mature enough to actually have an adult discussion without getting their feelings hurt.
So, knock yourselves out. Just don't be surprised if some of you find your passwords not working when I get back to civilization.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 575
Hard to follow up BigFin, and maybe I shouldn't. Regardless of how I feel about President Trump, or the completely hypothetical but-still-somehow-argued-about-as-if-it-really-happened Hillary Clinton presidency, this move by The President reeks of "virtue-signaling" to the anti-public lands group, just as his "You also had some very fine people on both sides" statement signaled to White Nationalists that the President of the United States doesn't exactly find their views abhorrent.
That's what this is. Hard to believe that Trump has the minimal restraint not to just come out and say it, but apparently he does.
That's what this is. Hard to believe that Trump has the minimal restraint not to just come out and say it, but apparently he does.
Last edited:
elkduds
Well-known member
I'm w the other posters here who expressed disregard, distaste, disgust, dis-what have you for the crimes by these 2 maroons. I also note the calculated and likely encouragement by these presidential pardons, of Sagebrush Rebel types against federal authority on federal lands. Which is a bumper sticker on the PLT bandwagon, in my view.
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
Partison Agnostic is my new favorite term!
Wow! The word delusional come to mind after reading this statement.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Oh yeah? How's the economy where you live? Here, it's booming. Never been better and unemployment is at an all time low. And, we're not at war. It's unbelievably delusional that you somehow think Hillary Clinton would have done a better job. There's a good reason Hillary lost the election. People don't trust her. Explain this- how did the Clintons get to be so rich? I can promise you this- they didn't do it honestly. Bill and Hillary are criminals! She risked our national security by illegally using her own private server for government business and therefore allowing other countries to hack into her emails which contained top secret information. And you think she's a good person worthy of being our president? Who's really delusional?
Sytes
Well-known member
At least they did serve a good portion of their time. Not excusing them from their arrogant actions, if it is as our modern day partisan "journalists" portray.
I agree with Buzz - Never really understood why pardons were written into our Constitution (Article II Section 2).
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,453
It’s a check and balance, just one of the many.
Outside the small world of HT, that is actually some pretty decent time. You usually won’t go to jail that long for meth or child/domestic abuse (unless there is serious, lasting injury). More than a few have been out of jail faster for killing someone while DUI, too.
I realize it infuriates the HT crowd, but in the context of how we punish criminals in our society, 3 & 4 years plus a heavy amount of cash for starting a fire and poaching some deer is quite substantial.
Sytes
Well-known member
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/6276...ranchers-dwight-and-steven-hammond-over-arson
I believe biased media is taking a broad stroke of the journo paintbrush - they convey the Hammonds were "Pardoned" YET - reading further, this is not accurate.
NPR lists the Hammonds situation as Commutation within the article - NOT a pardon as titled...
Welcome to the world of partisan hurled crap - to see what sticks.
I believe biased media is taking a broad stroke of the journo paintbrush - they convey the Hammonds were "Pardoned" YET - reading further, this is not accurate.
NPR lists the Hammonds situation as Commutation within the article - NOT a pardon as titled...
Welcome to the world of partisan hurled crap - to see what sticks.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
As VikingGuy reminded me earlier on the thread... careful with these kinds of statements. I definitely see where you are coming from as there have been lots of ridiculous pardons, on both sides of the aisle, but I think on the whole it's a good thing and is a means by which the executive branch can intervene when popular sentiment has changed and or the law. Law's are not necessarily just or moral, the presidential pardon among other things has been given to run away slaves, members of the underground railroad, a newspaper man convicted of blasphemy (clearly a first amendment issue there), men who joined the military underage to serve our country in various wars, along with numerous people in jail for nonviolent drug and alcohol (prohibition) offenses that became legal acts when the law changed. Donald Trump pardoned Jack Johnson a black man, who was arrested for essentially marrying a white woman.
Schaaf
Well-known member
While I would have liked to see it as a commutation, that is the only place that has reported it as a commutation. I hope they are correct, but I have my doubts.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
“Full Pardons” from the source.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ing-executive-clemency-dwight-steven-hammond/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ing-executive-clemency-dwight-steven-hammond/
- Status
