Posted on 01/07/2016 1:45:49 PM PST by dware
Jerry DeLemus, a Trump campaign official and the husband of New Hampshire state Rep. Susan DeLemus, has arrived in Burns, Oregon — where some of his associates have taken over a visitors center at Malheur National Wildlife Reserve.
DeLemus met many of the participants, including ringleader Ammon Bundy, when he traveled cross-country to take part in the armed standoff with federal agents at the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and social media posts show he has maintained ties to the militants who took over the federal building.
(Excerpt) Read more at rawstory.com ...
Raw Story.
IF (Big IF) this is true, then this a s seriously STUPID mistake for Trump.
NOBODY with half a political brain would go within 1000 miles of these Bundy baffoons.
“ringleader”
Loaded term. Portraying them as if they’re the Hole in the Wall Gang.
The author has its panties in a wad over Trump not correcting a true statement about Muslims, I flag this a liberal hit piece.
I agree. Trump should NOT embrace this action. Although some of the ideas behind what prompted the action should be addressed, this is not the hill to die on. There is a reason that the Oath Keepers and 3% groups are NOT participating or endorsing this takeover.
YUGE liberal hit piece.
Nothing but liberal trash (Think Progress, Daily Kos, etc.) reporting it.
That depends (note, Cruz is my first choice, not Trump, but I approve of Trump far more than Rubio, Christie, or Jeb). If true, and if Trump handles it well, it could be more free publicity, with very little downside. The risk is something unforeseen that reflects badly on Trump, but my guess is that he can handle the unforeseen well if it shouldn't reflect on him.
The federal government was very much in the wrong sending these two ranchers back to prison after they had served their sentences. So far, I have seen no sign that these "Occupy A Building in the Middle of Nowhere" protesters are violent or guilty of any significant crimes. If they are just drawing attention to Obama's vindictive prosecutions and persecutions of conservatives, this could be yet another boost for Trump.
I wouldn't go there, but I don't have Trump's billions or his instincts for handling tough situations. I wouldn't mind seeing this help Trump, and it has the potential to do just that, without motivating leftist voters in November.
Arguably, the fault there lies with the activist Federal judge who failed to follow the law when he initially sentenced them to a prison term well below the sentence prescribed by law.
Should we get you a fainting couch or perhaps some smelling salts?
Maybe so, but I saw a few days ago that Cruz was catching flak by Trump supporters for telling the ‘militia’ to stand down. Cruz was right and was only telling the ‘ Bundy militia’ the same thing that the national Oath Keepers/3% militias were telling Bundy. This is the wrong fight at the wrong time since even the family and town refused all help.
A better hill to die on would be the illegal BLM land grab of the Texas/Oklahoma border ranches since there are no allegations of any criminal misconduct by the ranchers in the Texas case.
Really man, it's painfully clear you are nothing more than a half-cocked statist jackboot thug - what are you doing on a CONSERVATIVE forum??? This place is for REAL AMERICANS.
I don't see anything in this article that says that Trump sent this guy, or that he is there in any way in his capacity as someone involved in the "Veterans for Trump" group. Trump couldn't possibly control (nor should he try to control) the activities of everyone involved at any level of his campaign.
That could be argued. However, the judge, in his sentencing, said (I believe correctly) that following the sentencing requirements would have been cruel and unusual punishment.
In any case, by failing to resolve this before the sentences had been completed, I believe the federal government lost the authority to legitimately change that judge's sentencing decision. Changing it after they have been freed looks cruel and vindictive. Sending someone to prison for five years for a couple of controlled burns that reached a total of 140 acres of federal land is so disproportionate that it should do more than just raise eyebrows.
I wonder what the judge would have done if he did not believe he had the authority to impose a sentence less than five years. Would that have changed the outcome of the trial? For example, could the judge have told the jurors that a finding of "guilty" would require a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, and if so would the ranchers have been acquitted?
Are you stoned again?
Remember the Kim Davis fiasco? Trump, Cruz, even the Huckster all defended her.
But these morons invading a vacant building? How many candidates have supported them?
(crickets)
Everyone needs to read ALL the article. No one was sent by the Trump campaign to Oregon to meet the protestors. Trump does not endorse this!
“Donald Trump was finally asked late Wednesday about the standoff, where he joined most other Republican candidates in calling for the militants to stand down.
From the article: “You have to maintain law and order, no matter what,†the Republican frontrunner said.
Another co-chair of the Veterans for Trump group said he had not spoken to DeLemus about the standoff, but he said Trump could probably resolve it peacefully and quickly.
Interesting story.
This is NOT sanctioned by Trump!
From the article;
Donald Trump was finally asked late Wednesday about the standoff, where he joined most other Republican candidates in calling for the militants to stand down.
“You have to maintain law and order, no matter what,†the Republican frontrunner said.
Another co-chair of the Veterans for Trump group said he had not spoken to DeLemus about the standoff, but he said Trump could probably resolve it peacefully and quickly.
I have a hard time believing that a jail term of five years is "cruel and unusual" punishment.
In any case, by failing to resolve this before the sentences had been completed, I believe the federal government lost the authority to legitimately change that judge's sentencing decision. Changing it after they have been freed looks cruel and vindictive.
My understanding is that the government appealed the sentence immediately. It just takes some time for these things to wind their way through the appellate process sometimes.
Sending someone to prison for five years for a couple of controlled burns that reached a total of 140 acres of federal land is so disproportionate that it should do more than just raise eyebrows.
I realize that the "controlled burns" thing is their story, but you realize there is another side of the story, right? That the burns were intentional, and were set for the purpose of covering up other activities. It's not so clear-cut.
I wonder what the judge would have done if he did not believe he had the authority to impose a sentence less than five years. Would that have changed the outcome of the trial? For example, could the judge have told the jurors that a finding of "guilty" would require a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, and if so would the ranchers have been acquitted?
I don't believe there is anything that would stop the judge from telling the jury about the mandatory sentence during the guilt phase of the trial.
He could take Nevada if this is all resolved to the Bundy’s satisfaction. IF of course Trump actually has anything to do with this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.