And past rulings (before the allegations of withheld evidence were made) tended to indicate the judge was not particularly sympathetic to the Bundy clan. So it’s obvious that the withheld evidence was really, really egregious.
So why dismiss the charges with prejudice? Were these clusterfucks so bad that, not only must this trial be aborted, but no future re-trial could work right either?
What could that be though? None of the five items linked above would seem to be exculpatory.
For those who might wish to better understand the frustration with government agencies in the rural west, I’d encourage you to listen to this speech by Greg Walden: Greg Walden addresses U.S. House on situation in Harney County, OR, federal overreach in the West - YouTube
watched the speech from the Hon. Congresscritter from OR. Pretty right on the money. Such a shame it won’t do the least bit of good.
Sometimes I think we should relocate the national capitol to Bozeman for a couple of presidential terms.
…from the latest round of reporting I couldn’t quite figure out what the prosecution withheld, so I had to dig a bit deeper, a cite from last year:
They charged them with making “false claims” that turned out to be actually true?
:smack:
No wonder the judge smacked them down.
That kinda makes me wonder if the prosecutors were actively trying to screw up so bad that the judge dismisses the case? Probably silly to wonder, but goddamn, how can you possibly fuck up THAT BADLY? I don’t think I would have screwed up that badly, and my legal experience consists of watching Matlock and Law & Order, so how could actual prosecutors do such a colossal screwup?
It’s not entirely clear to me how much blame should be laid at the prosecutor’s feet. I have a vague sense that the FBI and BLM share at least some portion of the blame.
Turns out there was a lot more going on than withholding evidence by prosecutors. The government’s actions in this case were egregrious, arbitrary, and thuggish.
Not sure if your question is rhetorical or not, (hopefully it is), but think about it for a minute, Ruby Ridge debacle, the more recent prosecutorial flub in Oregon, there are others sometimes more sometimes less similar.
Who ever is directing the prosecution of these, is somebody who doesn’t seem live in the west, doesn’t seem spend any or much time east of St. Louis or Kansas City unless its Denver or some other big city. That or those persons are someone who, maybe they factually know a few things they’ve read about living out here, don’t really get it. They have a romanticized vision of life in this part of the country that is or seems to be just flat wrong. Plainly speaking, the prosecutorial incompetence to many reeks of “Big City Federal Government Easterner Disdain and Arrogance” and also seems to have the taint of assumption that we’re all uneducated tobaccy chaw’n gun totin’ rootin’ tootin’ cowboys out here.
Also, prosecutors like to win, and they work in a profession where lying and cheating isn’t necessarily considered a bad thing as long as you win. They withheld evidence because if they hadn’t withheld evidence they would have lost, and they didn’t want to lose. This sort of thing happens all the time. Lawyers gonna lie and cheat.
Yeah, basically rhetorical, I don’t seriously believe the prosecutors were conspiring to get the charges dropped in a bizarre way, but it seriously does strain my credulity that they could screw up so badly as to charge someone with making false claims while having documentation that those claims were, in fact, true. And anybody that’s seen My Cousin Vinny knows that the prosecution has to turn over all their shit to the defense, basically. I’m sure there’s details there that actual lawyers know that I don’t, but I know enough to be sure that hiding documents that you’re supposed to reveal is a big deal and likely to outright lose you the case.
It’s not too difficult IMO. One of the aspects of Obama’s administration was that lower level people tended to take opposition to him personally and no one threw feces in his face the way Bundy did. They wanted him bad and they were willing to do whatever it took. Obama inspired devotion in a lot of people and some were misguided in that devotion.
And yet legit protesters get actual jail time 2 Dakota Access protesters sentenced to jail in North Dakota
Good to know pointing guns at Federal Officials, destroying public places, and stealing income from the government is A-OK … as long as you are a white rancher in a white state.
While protesting for clean water gets you shot by water cannons in frigid temps, shot by rubber bullets and bit by dogs. And even if after being arrested, charged and then having your case dismissed “Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Grosinger said some of those dismissed cases would be re-charged.”
The issue isn’t that the government didn’t TRY to come down hard on Bundy it’s that they tried TOO hard. They hit him with some pretty huge charges, much more than normal protesters would get, but due to misconduct the case got dismissed.
As for pointing guns at federal officials, that’s what kept them from being attacked by hoses and rubber bullets. You lefty types might want to consider bringing guns to protests. That is, if you’re disciplined enough to not actually fire them but just use them as a deterrent. I realize that’s a lot to ask of left-wing protesters. We on the right can control ourselves a little better.
I don’t think you know any actual lawyers.
The legal profession considers lying and cheating by lawyers a very very bad thing. Which is of course why the (Democrat-appointed) judge came down so hard.
When it becomes less common I’ll believe that. Especially from a profession that makes it’s living portraying everyone else as liars and cheats and criminals.
:rolleyes:
But the pretty sound that rings out as I point a rifle, pull the trigger, and it goes “crack” is so pretty even through ear muffs. But that’s on our gun range. I was taught to never point a gun at anything I wasn’t willing to shoot.
You on the weird right* prefer to use cars. And bombs. Oh, and guns. Usually not at a real protest, though, because that’s when you whip out the Tiki Torches.
*Because not all on the right are bad people. Some are very Fine people.
Right wing protests don’t normally involve a lot of armed men, although Tea Party protests always had a few. But they also tended not to violate any laws, so there wasn’t any need for police action like there is with most left wing protests.
The Bundy situation was different, but you were still dealing with disciplined folks who weren’t going to start a fight. The reason left wing protests don’t involve firearms is because some jackasses WILL start shooting. Whereas you can get a few hundred “crazy” armed right wingers together in a face off with the government and nothing bad happens in the end.
Heck, if history has shown us anything it’s that “sovereign citizen” types are much less trigger happy than government gunmen.