Help debunk this viral story about the Hammond/Bundy debacle from "theconservativetreehouse.com"

[bhikkhu]

38. My sense is the Hammonds must have had a lousy lawyer

...and I don't think they were sentenced fairly. Perhaps there were mitigating circumstances that led to the harsh sentence, but I'd rather see them sentenced fairly for the long list of supposed crimes and "crimes of character", one might say, than sentenced unfairly on the two things they were charged with.

Why were they charged under title 18 section 844, which deals with the "Importation, manufacture, distribution and storage of explosive materials"? The testimony was that matches were used to create two fires, but why not charge on simple arson? The penalties would have been as bad probably, but it still seems like a stupid lawyer problem. The fire set to cover up the poaching should have bee prosecutable, but its hard to imagine jail-time for a back-fire set that was actually successful (apparently) in helping contain an existing fire. Had it gone wrong, that would be another story, but it seems to have been done competently. And why the years of delay from the first fire?

Agreement that this hasn't much to do with armed occupation of a bird sanctuary...anyone who actually ranches in the basin has more sense, and no time for that sort of nonsense.