Trump Issues Full Pardons To Oregon Ranchers(Hammonds) Forced Back Into Prison Under Anti-Terror Law

[Glocktogo]

I get there were federal sentencing guidelines in place the judge ignored. I guess if I believe in jury nullification, I have to believe in judge nullification too. Obama's DoJ didn't have to challenge the sentence handed down and if I were given on sentence, served it and someone came to put me back in prison for a sentence I'd already served, I'd be pissed too! I honestly don't think either Holder or Lynch would've done the same if the convicted was a minority. So yes I'm OK with these pardons.

As for the Libby & D'Souza pardons, I'm of two minds. D'Souza's penalty should've been civil (fine), but the Obama DoJ weaponized selective prosecution for political purposes (something some Obama holdovers in the system continue to do to this day). So I'm OK with D'Souza's pardon, even though I don't condone what he did. Libby's prosecution turns out after the fact, to be another byproduct of James Comey's view of "justice". Comey wanted payback on Libby and the only way he was going to back off was if Libby gave damning criminal information to Comey on Dick Cheney (for a guy who's allegedly a Republican, he sure seems to have a hardon for GOP operators while going easy on Dems). I think the evidence on Libby was flimsy, so I fully support the pardon in that case.

What I do appreciate is that Trump doesn't wait till the waning days of his administration to issue pardons. He's done so for various reasons to people on the far ends of the spectrum that is our society. Right or wrong, that speaks of Trump's conviction and I'm OK with that too. JMO, YMMV

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm good with them. All the reasoning stated covers it for me.

Woody

 

[Shadowrider]

He pardoned Scooter Libby and Dinesh D'souza, as well. Any thoughts on those?

Trump finished what Bush half assed (commuted Libby's sentence). Bush is an establishment swamp creature of the first order. I see it in my work from time to time. I've seen disputed land cases where both parties to a prior deed agree and state a conveyance was to include minerals and a court say the deed didn't actually convey them because it wasn't constructed (worded) right. That was a Texas Supreme Court case. Bush is in this pompous group of big headed A-holes that do stupid **** like this. With Libby, he said he "respects the process" and wouldn't give Libby a full pardon.

D'souza I'm good with too. He didn't do any damage to anyone.

 

[Glocktogo]

Trump finished what Bush half assed (commuted Libby's sentence). Bush is an establishment swamp creature of the first order. I see it in my work from time to time. I've seen disputed land cases where both parties to a prior deed agree and state a conveyance was to include minerals and a court say the deed didn't actually convey them because it wasn't constructed (worded) right. That was a Texas Supreme Court case. Bush is in this pompous group of big headed A-holes that do stupid **** like this. With Libby, he said he "respects the process" and wouldn't give Libby a full pardon.

D'souza I'm good with too. He didn't do any damage to anyone.

I think Bush only commuted Libby's sentence to spite Cheney. I don't blame him for being upset with Cheney mind you, but taking it out on Libby is uncool.

 

[ignerntbend]

Yeah, Libby believed that Cheney had Dubya wrapped around his finger and Dubya came unwound.

 

[Dave70968]

I've seen disputed land cases where both parties to a prior deed agree and state a conveyance was to include minerals and a court say the deed didn't actually convey them because it wasn't constructed (worded) right. That was a Texas Supreme Court case.

Based solely on what you've said here, I have to agree with the Court on this one. Contracts are governed by the objective manifestations of intent (i.e. the wording expressed in the contract), not the subjective thoughts and feelings of the parties. This is hornbook law, most famously exemplified in Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954). Absent more facts--and I'd love to read more about it, if you can give me some sort of case citation or name--the Court was right to look at the wording in the contract, not any external evidence. See also the "parol evidence rule." Wikipedia article; Cornell Legal Information Institute's article.

But I digress....

 

[Shadowrider]

Based solely on what you've said here, I have to agree with the Court on this one. Contracts are governed by the objective manifestations of intent (i.e. the wording expressed in the contract), not the subjective thoughts and feelings of the parties. This is hornbook law, most famously exemplified in Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954). Absent more facts--and I'd love to read more about it, if you can give me some sort of case citation or name--the Court was right to look at the wording in the contract, not any external evidence. See also the "parol evidence rule." Wikipedia article; Cornell Legal Information Institute's article.

But I digress....

There were more mechanics to the language, but the bottom line was the seller intended to sell an interest, the buyer intended on getting the interest he paid for and it was BOTH of their understanding that he in fact did. A few years later a party several deeds down the line in the title chain successfully "horned in" on it and got it reversed with the blessing of the Texas supreme court in a 5-4 decision. One of the majority judges even stated in the opinion that the original parties intent was "this", but he had to go with "that" because...reasons I guess. So the judges couldn't even agree on it. PM sent. [/threadjack]