So, where are the charges against the Bureau of Land Management and Federal prosecutors?

It will come as no surprise to many people that US District Judge Gloria Navarro today threw out all charges against Cliven Bundy “with prejudice”, meaning they can never be re-filed.

Navarro ruled a mistrial in the Bundy case last month after prosecutors “willful[ly]” withheld exculpatory evidence favorable to the four men on trial: Cliven Bundy, his two sons and one other person. The judge found that prosecutors had violated the defendant’s civil rights and violated federal law by hiding evidence from the court.

. . .

The Department of Justice, under order from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is currently investigating the federal prosecutors involved in the 2017 Bundy trial for misconduct.

Prosecutors, led by Myhre, dismissed several claims from Bundy attorneys that evidence was being hid from the court during the trial.

The defense claimed FBI snipers and surveillance were monitoring the Bundy household prior to the 2014 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) raid to remove the rancher’s cattle from federal land after decades of unpaid grazing fees. Cliven Bundy sent out a plea for help based on the snipers’ presence, prompting dozens of armed militiamen to meet at the ranch.

Prosecutors said snipers were not involved, called the claim “fantastical” and the defendants’ request for the evidence, a “fishing expedition.” However, the U.S. Attorney’s Office possessed video evidence the entire time, The Oregonian reports.

Prosecutors also withheld federal assessments that found the Bundy family was not likely to be violent, but only “get in your face.” Other federal assessments of the BLM revealed the agency was targeting the Bundy family, “trying to provoke a conflict.”

Defense attorneys asked federal prosecutors to hand over Inspector General reports on BLM agent Dan Love, who directed the agency’s raid on the Bundy ranch. Love was fired from the agency in September for corruption and unethical behavior.

There’s more at the link.

So far, so good.  Now, I want to see every one of the Bureau of Land Management agents and supervisors, and every one of the prosecutors, who lied, misled the court, hid evidence, and generally tried to set up Cliven Bundy to take the fall for their misconduct, tried on as many charges as can be laid at their door.  Furthermore, I’d like to see them sentenced to at least as much jail time as Mr. Bundy would have received if he’d been found guilty as a result of their machinations.

Well done to Mr. Bundy’s defense team for sticking to their guns;  and very well done to Judge Navarro, for refusing to be intimidated and sticking up for the rule of law.  It’s about time!



  1. Phssthpok: highly unlikely. Government actors enjoy broad immunity from prosecution for their official actions, and the further-removed they are from the person whose rights are violated (higher up the chain), the broader the immunity. Individual agents have some liability, but prosecutors have almost total immunity (as do judges).

    There have been a couple of civil cases against prosecutors, and when they've looked like they might be successful at holding a persecutor (not a typo!) responsible, the DoJ has generally conceded the case rather than risk an adverse precedent that would have a much wider effect.

    Criminal charges against a prosecutor? HA! Do you really think a DoJ criminal prosecutor is going to bring criminal charges against another DoJ criminal prosecutor that would have the effect of not only holding DoJ criminal prosecutors criminally liable for their persecutorial (still intentional) actions, but potentially establishing a precedent that could affect all DoJ prosecutors?

  2. All they will do is bring in another set of charges – e.g. they didn't pay for grazing rights? This time they will prosecute them for water extraction, disposal of cattle effluent, minor taxation errors etc.

    This sums it up nicely:

    You will note that promotion to the SPG (Special Patrol Group) was the end result …

    Phil B

  3. Don't hold your breath waiting for indictments.
    Remember that Things are Different when you are a Democrat.
    That means that you can break the law, rules, regulations at will and
    nothing will happen to you. You are SPECIAL and above the law.
    Just ask ole hillary. She's slipperier than the teflon don.

  4. Peter?

    It ain't gonna happen. In the case of Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK), with much worse
    consequences: a "legally improvedent" (q.v.) guilty verdict 7 days before an
    election that gave the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority…

    "At least two federal prosecutors involved in the botched ethics trial of the late
    Senator Ted Stevens “intentionally withheld and concealed” significant evidence
    from the defense team that could have resulted in his acquittal, a court-appointed
    investigator has concluded." — New York Times

    "In a cover letter to a 672-page report provided to Congress on Thursday, alongside
    additional attachments and findings, the Justice Department said the two prosecutors
    would be suspended without pay — Joseph Bottini for 40 days, and James Goeke
    for 15 days." — New York Times

    It was so indefensible that AG Holder (yep, *him*) later moved for dismissal, but
    protected his prosecutors.

  5. As I said…prosecutors don't rock the boat for other prosecutors; they like having the option to misbehave themselves.

  6. It'd be nice to see that particular swamp boil lanced.

    Side note: the Yard Ape got Take the Star Road for Christmas and is devouring my copies of the sequels.


  7. Pity that institutional amnesia has essentially erased the findings of the Nuremburg tribunals in that "just obeying orders" is not a sufficient defense against illegal acts.
    Of course it's still taught in the military and soldiers can and will be held responsible for a failure to refuse an illegal order, but for our own internal DOJ operators, not so much.

  8. Kudos to the judge.

    But the Bundy family are inbred retards, and Papa Tard will re-offend rather than bringing his accounts with BLM up to date.

    And when the feds move against them in Operation 2.0, they won't be as nice, nor act in broad daylight.

    Opportunity squandered in 3, 2, …

    1. Why should he pay the government to exercise a property right his family established well before the government had any jurisdiction?
      And which the government had previously aknowledged the legitimacy of?

      If the wants to claim these heading rights, there is a legal way for them to do so.
      But they cannot void his rights without compensating him.
      Seizing his property rights without compensation and demanding he pay rent is right out.

  9. + ! for dave at 3:18.

    And you have to remember with the DOJ that often times it's about the ride and not the destination.

    I recall a few years back, citizens of in town Tennessee, were upset about the Feds relocating large numbers of a protected group to their community. Due to added costs that the community would incur due to school costs, law enforcement costs, citizen safety, ad infinitum, they called a meeting to discuss the issue.
    The DOJ flew an attorneys down to address the meeting.
    The citizens were told that under the First Amendment they were free to speak against this protected group and even protest against it.
    But they would be arrested and prosecuted for a civil rights violation and yes, the citizen(s) would eventually prevail in court, due to the First Amendment, but the DOJ would persecute (yeah, again,no typo) until the citizen(s) were bankrupt.

  10. Hey Peter;

    I have no faith in the DOJ policing themselves. Ruby Ridge proved that when the FBI shot the wife of Randy Weaver while she was holding a baby after shooting their dogs and the FBI team responsible faced no penalties for their action and got promoted instead. When you are dealing with .gov the rules are different for you vs them.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *