Los Angeles Times Issues Propaganda Hit Piece Against Bundy

By Deborah R. Jordan, Reporter & Co-Host of The Pete Santilli Show

Because decades of false reporting have left them unable to be believed, the Mainstream Media has been forced to give truth a backseat due to widespread distrust and disdain the public has shown towards the entire industry and now rely on sensational headlines and reports to capture the attention of the public.

Despite millions of dollars that are available to media outlets in advertising revenue, their readership and viewership has declined so dramatically that the public can rarely access websites without having to hit their paywall full of misleading ads and pop-ups.

The fact is, the public has shunned the Mainstream Media.  They are disgusted by their liberal or conservative bias, and people are waking up to discover things like the repeal of the Smith Mundt Act of 1946 in 2012, which allows the government to pay for propaganda and fake news.  They’re leaving them in droves and the Mainstream Media can no longer justify the millions of dollars in advertising because their customers have bailed.  They have to greet every website visitor begging for money to help offset the loss in ad revenue.  Mind you, we believe in independence through subscriber support, but the mainstream media should be able to sustain themselves with 10’s of millions of dollars in pharmaceutical or as we call them; Viagra ads.

The below Los Angeles Times article titled Why can’t the federal government win convictions against Cliven Bundy and his family?  published on December 21, 2017 by reporter David Montero,  is a perfect representation of liberal media bias and intentional omission.  It is either a sophisticated false propaganda hit piece with subtle linguistic nuances intended to program the public, or Mr. Montero is incompetent; In my opinion, I think it’s the former versus the latter.

I sat down with Pete Santilli and went over this article pointing out what he thought were the most critical points of propaganda.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Why can’t the federal government win convictions against Cliven Bundy and his family?

[Los Angeles Times Article Text In Red]

Three years later, Cliven Bundy’s cattle are still grazing on federal land.

The truth is; Cliven Bundy’s cattle are still grazing on the land “by pre-emptive right”   since his forefather’s settled the Bunkerville area back in 1877.  It’s called his pre-emptive rights, because they were established well before the BLM even came into existence in 1946. 

Additionally, there are serious reasons to debate whether Clark County is even federal land. 

In 1866, Clark County was transferred from Arizona to the State of Nevada, not the U.S. Government.  Either Google it, or….  intentionally leave that very important part out for the benefit of your friends at the Sierra Club & the Center for Biological Diversity.  

In that time, two of Bundy’s sons and several supporters have beaten back the federal government in court. Repeatedly.

The truth is; The Government has actually beaten themselves back.  All the Bundy “sons”  need do is point out that the Government continues to bully them using the grand statement “whatever it takes”  to a whole new level. Hiding evidence and committing “Brady violations”  is nothing new for them; This has been going on for decades.  The U.S. Government’s unsuccessful attempts at taking Cliven Bundy’s pre-emptive land and water rights through a process called a “Regulatory Taking” for the past almost 2 1/2  decades speaks for it’self; Out of 52 surrounding ranches Bundy Ranch is the only ranch left.   

The loss of hundreds of years of ranching tradition has all been done at the behest of the Environmental Industrial Complex.   There’s a reason the U.S. Government was unsuccessful in their attempts to enforce their own court rulings.

The fact is Cliven Bundy refused to sign the BLM “Full Force & Effect” agreement in 1993 that was of course cc’d to the Sierra Club, and other (state sponsored environmental terrorist organizations).  He has not since that time been under contract with the BLM.

First, Ammon and Ryan Bundy were found not guilty for their role in a 41-day armed standoff at a wildlife refuge in Oregon in 2016. Then, four of their supporters weathered two trials in Las Vegas this year, resulting in either hung juries or acquittals on charges stemming from the armed standoff at the Bundy ranch three years ago, where they tried to help Cliven Bundy halt federal agents from seizing his cattle.

Mr. Montero intentionally forgets to mention a couple very important elements.

a) The Oregon trial resulted in an acquittal and, in my opinion, the Nevada trial will likely produce the same results because jurors became aware that military force is being used upon the American people on behalf of special interest organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity.   

FACT: In 2014, protesters travelled from across the country when they discovered that BLM agents used excessive force by throwing a 50+ year old woman to the ground and tasing Ammon Bundy multiple times.

Three years ago, the protest had very little to do with cattle, and everything to do with government overreach and civil rights abuses.

b) The 41 day protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was anything but an armed “standoff”.   As a journalist who covered the story for the entire month of January 2016 and recorded over 200 hours of video footage, I can certify that the protest was yet another embarrassing U.S. Government attempt at using military force to conceal the truth about land ownership in the West.   

Leftist Governor Kate Brown — who, by the way, controls less land in her own State of Oregon than the Federal Government does — called the uncontrollable spreading of truth by the American people a “virus” in her appeal to Washington, DC requesting military force to get the protesters out of her State. 

It worked, only because the leadership in the Obama Administration authorized what resulted in the tragic ambush of protesters and killing of Rancher Lavoy Finicum.

And on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the felony case against the Bundy trio in the standoff with federal law enforcement authorities in 2014.

Each of the standoffs — on the surface — appeared to give prosecutors a strong case for convictions.

Pete Santilli – Although it’s been apparent to defendants like myself who actually read the indictment and viewed the discovery, it is now becoming apparent to the American public that on the “surface” — the criminal indictment —- is as fake and fraudulent as the propaganda hit pieces published by the Mainstream Media.  On the “surface”, it’s not apparent that the Mainstream Media is involved in a criminal conspiracy with the U.S. Government to protect the potential wealth in land, mineral and natural resources estimated to be worth $47 trillion dollars.  On the sub-surface, it’s now extremely apparent that the prosecutor’s office; under the leadership of U.S. Attorney Steven Mhyre; has weaponized the judiciary by crafting indictments and motions as if they were Los Angeles Times false propagandists.   

This is my opinion, of course, but I find it a strange a coincidence that the fraudulent indictments and motions miraculously show up in Mainstream Media news articles word-for-word, and neither the court documents nor the articles written thereafter match up with evidence in discovery.  We’ll let the juries continue to decide.  

There were photos and videos of armed Bundy supporters taking superior tactical positions with guns trained on federal law enforcement authorities near his ranch in Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. There was testimony from law enforcement saying they feared for their lives before retreating and releasing the cattle.

Again, these are words taken directly from what I will appropriately describe as pure propaganda  —

The indictment, despite several juries either acquitting or dead-locking, still gives the Los Angeles Times   regurgitation material for a false narrative unsuccessfully propagated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nevada. 

FACT:  Jurors have seen the evidence and have never convicted one person for having “tactical superiority”.  This a flat out lie, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is now under investigation for making allegations which are not substantiated by the evidence in discovery. 

 FACT:  One or two pictures of citizens possessing firearms in front of 75-100 heavily armed federal agents is hardly tactical superiority. 

FACT:  Two men, Greg Burleson and Todd Engel were convicted by jurors for words they spoke AFTER the supposed armed conflict.  The jurors in both these convictions were never allowed to review witness testimony or evidence that we now know were “willfully” withheld by the prosecution, and could have easily exonerated both men.

Ryan Bundy was quoted as saying he would “do whatever it takes” to stop the cattle seizure. Militia members traveled hundreds of miles to aid the Bundy’s in both Oregon and Nevada;

True, but what the Los Angeles Times article failed to say was;

Ryan Bundy was quoted saying his family would “do whatever it takes” after he was told by a BLM agent that it was going to end up like another WACO, and asked what he thought would avoid a confrontation and he replied: “simply do not show up…”. 

The BLM agent who recorded the call actually did not provide the entire conversation to give context.  To the contrary, he carefully slithered his questioning in order to get a quote to justify using excessive force, a tactic commonly used by unethical, immoral law enforcement officials who craft scenarios to allow them to justify excessive or deadly force.   (“I was in fear of my life, so I shot an unarmed man who appeared to be reaching for a gun”). 

Numerous documented reports contained in evidence indicate that there was no organized militia presence. The protesters were average American citizens who just so happened to want to exercise their second amendment rights as an expression of their first amendment right to assemble peacefully to redress their grievances, and call upon the Sheriff to protect them.

But in three years, the government has largely failed to obtain convictions, apparently because of bad tactics and missteps. Add to that the narrative pushed by the Bundy legal team that possibly swayed some jurors — that the family is pushing back against an unjust and oppressive government.

Pete Santilli – To clarify, Federal Judge Gloria Navarro referred to what you’ve characterized as bad tactics and missteps as “willful” misconduct, and an investigation by the Department of Justice is imminent.

Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal government “has been screwing up” on the Bundy cases in a variety of ways.

Pete Santilli – It’s remarkable that the first quoted “expert” on the subject is from an individual who specializes in sue & settle against the U.S. Department of Interior.  In my opinion, the Center for Bio Diversity is an Environmental Terrorist organization which put enough pressure on the federal government, that the government was forced to act upon the decades long legal dispute with the Bundy’s — due to what they described (in discovery, generally) as the potential risks of litigation from parties of interest, the Center for Biological Diversity being one of the named parties of interest. 

In the end, Mr. Kieran Suckling will be exposed for who he is, what he represents, and what his organization’s influence was over causing the Bureau of Land Management to spend an estimated $6 million to build-up their military operation before one protester ever showed up to Bundy Ranch on April 12, 2017.  For now, we take a moment to celebrate Attorney General Jeff Session’s recent declarations that “…the days of sue & settle are over…”.  Mr. Sessions was specifically referencing people like Kieran Suckling from the Center for Biological Diversity.

He said in Oregon, the prosecution was forced to simultaneously convince a jury that the Bundys and their supporters were dangerous and yet had to explain why they waited 41 days to act — while also letting them get food deliveries and collect their mail.

“You don’t let dangerous, armed criminals come and go to get their mail and have food delivered,” Suckling said. “The FBI put the prosecution in an impossible situation.”

Pete Santilli – Again, giving Mr. Suckling free reign in what I believe is a government-sponsored propaganda hit piece is not a primary concern when you write “He said…”, but we should all be concerned by what Mr. Suckling didn’t say.   As a new media journalist, I was not only confronted by Mr. Suckling and his band of FBI informants, but I almost became a victim of his clan’s perjurious statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigations.  Fortunately for Mr. Suckling, the U.S. Government realized that I was prepared to expose Mr. Suckling at trial with testimony and evidence of what I believed and still believe based on the evidence, his malicious intentions.  Another thing Mr. Suckling didn’t say was that my case was dismissed on the eve of trial in Oregon.  What you’ve allowed him to say in your article is that he was pushing a narrative for 41 days that the protesters were “dangerous”, but the evidence proved that they were cooking soup, cleaning up the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and reading documents which expose that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was working with Hillary Clinton’s good friends at Uranium One.

Mr. Suckling can kick; scream and make stuff up when he and his friends lie to the FBI, but he will never be able to manipulative the truth with his false narrative.  The truth is that the protesters were only “dangerous” to the entities who benefit from declaring the Hammond family “arsenal terrorists” in an effort to get them off the land, mine for minerals, and seize their water rights. 

The truth is that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 – cannot be deleted from the U.S. Constitution because he’s lobbied to use Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 as a weapon to control land that is not allowed by Article 1/8/17 to begin with. 

The truth is that the “steak and potatoes” American families who showed up to Burns Oregon had to have food and mail delivered because they were prepared to stay for a long time.   The sad truth is that Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and Oregon Governor Kate Brown had to kill Rancher Lavoy Finicum in order to shut him up, and jail Cliven Bundy in order to set him back temporarily.   

The beauty is that as long as I am alive on this planet, I will continue to fulfill my role in helping to expose the truth and set everyone, including all Americans free from the lies perpetuated by the Los Angeles Times & their fellow fake news outlets.

But with Wednesday’s mistrial, he said it appears a series of bad decisions was made by acting U.S. Atty. Steve Myhre. Evidence was intentionally withheld about federal sniper positions outside the Bundy Ranch and surveillance cameras installed by federal authorities on nearby hills.

Navarro called the withholding of evidence by prosecutors “willful” and it has opened the door for her to declare a mistrial with prejudice as early as Jan. 8 — meaning the three Bundys and fellow defendant Ryan Payne couldn’t be retried on the felony counts that included threatening a federal officer, carrying and using a firearm and engaging in conspiracy.

Pete Santilli – Once again, we remind the public that this is a “He said…” (Kieran Suckling) “She said…” (Federal Judge Gloria Navarro).  For the purposes of this He Said/She Said, let’s go with what you may have intentionally omitted.  Judge Navarro did not call Steve Myhre’s actions a series of bad decisions, she actually called them numerous “willful” violations. This is actually what She (Judge Gloria Navarro) said regarding the snipers: 

” ….coupled with the Government’s strong insistence in prior trials that no snipers existed justifies the Court’s conclusion that the nondisclosure was willful.  The Court also finds that there was prejudice and that the suppression does now undermine the confidence in the outcome of the trial.”

I’m confident the public will go with the New Media Journalist Pete Santilli’s “She said” versus the discredited Los Angeles Times’ “He Said” by Kieran Suckling. 

The mistrial prompted Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior to issue a statement saying Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions “has personally directed that an expert in the Department’s discovery obligations be deployed to examine the case and advise as to next steps.”

Pete Santilli – As a New Media Journalist who has literally been embedded with this story since April 8, 2014,  I feel obligated to inform the public that the investigation must include each of the Defendants (with the exception, in my opinion, of the 2 felon’s with firearms), as they are truly the best, most qualified whistleblowers of the entire case.  The Defendants know the discovery, they know the U.S. Constitution, and they especially know that a mistrial without a complete and thorough investigation which includes the Defendants as case experts would perpetuate the cover-up of the truth and concealment from the American people.  Each individual Defendant has the best interests of the American people in mind, and they should not be excluded. 

Myhre said in a statement that his office “welcomes the assistance of the Attorney General as we continue to evaluate the case in light of the Court’s ruling.”

Pete Santilli – And one day soon the American people will welcome Mr. Myhre’s tendered resignation as a demonstration that he is truly interested in honorably pursuing justice and fairness in this important case.

But Ian Bartrum, law professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, said it’s unlikely that a seasoned prosecutor like Myhre needs a refresher course on the rules of discovery.

He said the federal government’s failure in the legal arena has also given the Bundys capital and victories in the public and political arenas.

Pete Santilli – Why doesn’t he just say that the indictment is a fraud, the discovery has been concealed from the public as a means to cover-up the truth, and the Bundy defendants should be commended for spending every day of incarceration preparing for trial and studying the discovery to become the most qualified whistleblowers to assist the Department of Justice in their investigation?  


Bartrum said the case may have legally been about Cliven Bundy’s refusal to pay federal cattle grazing fees since the early 1990s — authorities say he owes $1 million — and the subsequent armed standoff. But to Bundy supporters, the case is bigger than that.

Pete Santilli – What’s disappointing to me is that a mistrial will conceal some of the most laughable facts of the case.  The actual fines, if one considers what Cliven Bundy refused to pay in the beginning of this attempted “Regulatory Taking” back in the late 90’s —- before he brought it to their attention & they made the adjustment in one of their court orders — the fees were calculated at almost $600 million.  As a new media journalist and supporter of the truth, I also believe that the case is much bigger than the $1 million dollars and the estimated $600 million he was potentially forced to pay.   If the government, the liberally biased media and their parroting minions were truly concerned about “grazing fees”, then why did they run off so many 1000’s of ranchers throughout the West who were paying grazing fees before they were issued their “Full Force & Effect” agreement, and now pay zero because they’re all out of business?  The public should recognize 2 things about the “grazing fees” fake news narrative:  (1) Kieran Suckling & the Center for Biological Diversity

Bundy has offered to pay fees to the state but not the U.S. government. The cattle are just a trigger, Bartrum said. “But really it’s about who has the power to manage and control the land,” he said.

Pete Santilli – Cliven Bundy and the Bundy family make a great point in this regard, and it has nothing to do with “control”.  The American ranchers are the best stewards of the land.  Heck, if Cliven Bundy had control over the decision making regarding protecting the Desert Tortoise, I believe Mr. Bundy could have prevented the killing of 1000’s of tortoises caused by neglect and mismanagement by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Bartrum said the government’s failure to disclose evidence plays into the hands of Bundy supporters who have accused the Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies of being arrogant bullies that don’t trust local ranchers to be good stewards of the land.

Pete Santilli – Once again, as a defendant who knows the discovery as well as my fellow defendants, this is not a “play”.   If protesters were not afraid to be shot by 100+ BLM agents, Bartrum should know that supporters are certainly not afraid to tell the truth to the American people.    Ultimately, the evidence will clearly show that the Defendants and most of their supporters are men and women of God, and that the Bible should be submitted as an article of evidence, particularly the first lines in the Bible which say that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” Nowhere in the Bible or the Constitution does it say that Harry Reid, Sally Jewell or Neil Kornze shall have dominion over them.  As a law professor, Mr. Bartrum should give the Environmental Industrial Complex (which includes some of the Godless, un-indicted co-conspirators within the U.S. Government) advice on how they can convince humanity that the Government is the best stewards of the land —- by amending the Bible to give the BLM jurisdiction and authority over God’s creation.

BLM officials did not comment, citing the case as pending litigation.

Pete Santilli – The BLM also did not comment because whistleblower and lead investigator for the BLM Mr. Larry Wooten educated them all about several important facts:

(1) 43 USC 1733 , which essentially states that the BLM did not even have law enforcement authority on April 12, 2014.

43 USC 1733:

(c)Contracts for enforcement of Federal laws and regulations by local law enforcement officials; procedure applicable; contract requirements and implementation


When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.

(2) Special Agent in Charge Daniel P. Love’s recklessness almost resulted in the deaths of protesters, local law enforcement, and even his own BLM agents.   Pete Santilli was on the story about Danial P. Love from day one, and never relented in his pursuit of the truth about Bundy Ranch in 2014, and the death of Dr. James Redd in Blanding Utah that the everyone within the U.S Government now knows about Agent Love —- which is why they terminated him, thankfully.

(3) The BLM also knows that the Los Angeles Times published and article titled “Sting In The Desert”, and they’re probably still upset about it.   It’s ironic, yet disgusting that the Los Angeles Times reporter who wrote this article never mentions Danial P. Love, nor does he link to a bombshell report written by his own news agency.   Was it intentional, or maybe Mr. Montero accidentally forgot to let the public know that Bundy Ranch was not the first time Danial P. Love used military force to execute his court orders upon peaceful, Godly Americans.  (Please read STING IN THE DESERT published by the Los Angeles Times)

Bret Whipple, Cliven Bundy’s attorney, said Bundy’s father was a rancher near Alamo, Nev., but died when he was a young teen after being downwind of atomic bomb testing that took place in Nevada. He said the federal government’s use of state land with little regard for local populations has been a constant theme in the Bundys’ battles.

“We’ve had to live with this for generations,” Whipple said. “Then you come back and here we are again with the federal government doing the same with the cattle. They insist on making Nevada a nuclear repository. The issue is about state’s rights.”

Bartrum said that while the federal government can still try the Bundys again in court — presuming Navarro doesn’t declare the mistrial with prejudice — each defeat brings with it a stronger claim politically for the Bundys’ point of view.

Pete Santilli – In my humble opinion, as an embedded journalist, I can report that the Bundy’s point of view has never been “politically” motivated. They’ve actually become victims of what’s wrong with our country politically.

Meanwhile, the cattle graze on.

One day very soon Mr. Montero, I believe that you will be on the wrong side of history, and grazing will no longer be a crime in America.  The days of using tortoises, sue-and-settle, the judiciary as a weaponized arm of the Center for Biological Diversity (and other Environmentalists), and the State sponsored propagandists such as the Los Angeles Times will be over, and the truth will set us all free on both the left and the right side of the political spectrum.

Twitter: @davemontero

via latimes.com http://ift.tt/2BfH1cb

  • viccotrip

    Pete…you have grown an entire new dimension in intellect since incarceration. I watched your videos before the Bundy encounters and they were good but what you are doing now is phenomenal! You have all my respect. Thank you for all that you do to get the truth out to the public. Fight that good fight!!

    • Desert Rat

      By Deborah R. Jordan, Reporter & Co-Host of The Pete Santilli Show

    • Thanks so much! This is a very high compliment

  • Great article

  • A mother

    Wow Pete right on

    • Desert Rat

      Deborah R. Jordan, Reporter & Co-Host of The Pete Santilli Show

  • LadyBrady

    Let us also not forget, It was a CIVIL Impoundment order (not CRIMINAL), and there is a VERY big difference, between the two.. and CIVIL Orders do not REMOTELY justify what was deployed for a “Criminal” type operation. There are differences in law, and this is the BIG KAHUNA!

    • We could write a full article on the “Court Orders” which the Nevada Department of Agriculture questioned whether the Federal Court was a court of “competent jurisdiction” —especially as it relates to Cliven Bundy’s water rights.

  • John Hackett

    Excellent article, l hope Jeff Sessions reads it, this is Truth….

    • I hope so John. The Defendants are all the one’s who know this case inside out. They know the discovery, and they especially know the fraud that has been perpetrated upon the Judiciary and the Public with the indictment.

  • Pingback: TheHill.com – Another Propagandist In The Bundy Trial Information War | The Pete Santilli Show()