1. Welcome to Oklahoma Shooters Association! Join today, registration is easy!

    You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.

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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by RugersGR8, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. Glocktogo

    Glocktogo Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    24,247
    Likes Received:
    3,346
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Location:
    Collinsville
    Rating
    100%
    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
     
  2. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    873
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Location:
    Kingfisher County
    I'm good with them. All the reasoning stated covers it for me.

    Woody
     
    dennishoddy likes this.
  3. Shadowrider

    Shadowrider Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    16,901
    Likes Received:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Tornado Alley
    Rating
    100%
    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. :faint:

    D'souza I'm good with too. He didn't do any damage to anyone.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    dennishoddy likes this.
  4. Glocktogo

    Glocktogo Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    24,247
    Likes Received:
    3,346
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Location:
    Collinsville
    Rating
    100%
    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.
     
    dennishoddy and Shadowrider like this.
  5. ignerntbend

    ignerntbend Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    11,829
    Likes Received:
    382
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Yeah, Libby believed that Cheney had Dubya wrapped around his finger and Dubya came unwound.
     
  6. Dave70968

    Dave70968 Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    3,948
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Location:
    Norman
    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....
     
  7. Shadowrider

    Shadowrider Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    16,901
    Likes Received:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Tornado Alley
    Rating
    100%
    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]
     

Share This Page