Originally Posted by
Stormdash
My understanding is that the Hammonds started control fires on their own property, which unintentionally spread to federal property, and were subsequently convicted of arson (which, normally would require an intent greater than negligence). Also vaguely recall there was something about their case being dismissed but then reinstated and sending them back to prison which, while not double jeopardy, has never been a "good look" per se.
In an entirely other transaction, the Bundys whom had their own beef with BLM raised the Hammonds case as a grievance when they seized the wildlife refuge, an act that ultimately led to a man's death (one of their own) and various prosecutions of variable success.
Embrace the power of "and"; the Hammonds may have been treated unjustly/excessively AND the Bundys have been wrong to take over a federal gift shop.
Or another way: if the point here by Trump was to vindicate and reward the Bundys, the pardons would have been for the Bundys, don't you suppose?