Cynthia Tucker Versus Byron York: Who Is Telling The Truth?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Cynthia Tucker's Op-Ed column ^ | January 13, 2003 | aas

[an amused spectator]

E-mail Cynthia Tucker

On Sunday, January 12, 2003, Cynthia Tucker published an editorial piece entitled Bush snubs black voters with Pickering.

In this column, Tucker takes on the issue of Bush's renomination of Charles Pickering for the federal bench. She claims that "Pickering's recent record suggests a glaring racial insensitivity. An example is Pickering's handling of a 1994 cross-burning case."

Tucker asserts that after burning a cross in the yard of an interracial couple, "...[Daniel] Swan and his friends, not content with mere symbolic violence, fired shots into the occupied house that just missed the couple's baby. I can't imagine Pickering demanding a lesser sentence for a black man convicted of a similar crime against whites."

E-mail Byron York

On January 9, 2003, Byron York, National Review's White House correspondent, published an article entitled The Cross Burning Case: What Really Happened.

In this article, he also addresses the issue of what exactly Daniel Swan did at the scene of the cross-burning incident. However, York is apparently working with a completely different set of facts:

"While it is not clear who originally suggested the plan, it is known that the 17-year-old appeared to harbor some sort of hostility toward the couple; on an earlier occasion, he had fired a gun into the house (no one was hit). Neither Swan nor Thomas was involved in the shooting incident [my emphasis]."

[an amused spectator]

Does Byron York have the facts wrong in this case? Or is Cynthia Tucker lying about the incident* in order to smear a political enemy?

Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)

*It's always dangerous to re-publish talking points from Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal. ;-)

[copycat]

Cyn says "Swan and his friends" fired shots. For that to be true, ALL THREE would have had to fire shots. Otherwise she would have to say "One of Swan's friends fired shots."

Either York's info is bad, or Cyn just told a fib.

[jackbill]

Does Byron York have the facts wrong in this case? Or is Cynthia Tucker lying about the incident* in order to smear a political enemy?

I e-mailed her the other day, and I challenged her to read Byron York's piece. Haven't heard back from her - and I doubt that I will.

She, and her ilk, can't handle the truth.

[Howlin]

Good post!

[Howlin]

My money would be on York.

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[an amused spectator]

Mine, too.

Maybe we can get a Tucker/York smackdown going. :-)

[hchutch]

I'd have to go with York - he's been on target before.

Cynthia hyperventilates too much on some issues to be credible.

[Redbob]

Swan and his buddies did the cross-burning; no question.

But his "buddies", including the ring-leader whose idea this was in the first place, did a plea-bargain and got ZERO time for the crime.
Swan pled "not guilty," was convicted, and got 6 - 7 years.

Pickering stepped in and said there was something unfair about this. Most rational people would agree, and Cynthia Tucker, unsurprisingly, doesn't.

[PJ-Comix]

In a related STORY, the New York Times BURIED an article in its TRAVEL SECTION by one of its own reporters about how Blacks in Judge Pickering's home town ALL support him.

[an amused spectator]

thanx, PJ - you're on top of things! Nice catch!

[an amused spectator]

Pickering stepped in and said there was something unfair about this. Most rational people would agree, and Cynthia Tucker, unsurprisingly, doesn't.

Apparently, she needed to embellish the facts in order to make a better case for her disagreement. ;-)

[Ditto]

Sonds to me like the Clinton Justice Dept. allowed the ring leader to walk free.

[Catspaw]

But his "buddies", including the ring-leader whose idea this was in the first place, did a plea-bargain and got ZERO time for the crime. Swan pled "not guilty," was convicted, and got 6 - 7 years.

His buddies did a plea bargain (no doubt having the original charges lowered), but Swan went to trial, was convicted & was sentenced to 6 to 7? No surprise about the disparity in sentencing.

[scooby321]

York's is the True story backed up by Al Gore's Bother-in-law , who work at the Clinton Justice dept

[LiteKeeper]

Liberal heads full of mush...I'll go with York.

[chiller]

Correct. Clinton Justice leniency got the issue rolling.

Pickering actually tried to bring actual 'justice' to the situation. What a concept!

John Edwards is culpable, too, in his dishonest grilling of Pickering last year in judiciary committee.

They're all guilty!

[an amused spectator]

I think Pickering was able to get it down to 2 and a half years:

Byron York:

...Finally, Pickering got word from Civil Rights Division prosecutors, who said they had decided to drop the demand that Swan be given the five-year minimum portion of the recommended sentence. Pickering then sentenced Swan to 27 months in jail. At the sentencing hearing, Pickering told Swan, "You're going to the penitentiary because of what you did. And it's an area that we've got to stamp out; that we've got to learn to live, races among each other. And the type of conduct that you exhibited cannot and will not be tolerated....You did that which does hinder good race relations and was a despicable act....I would suggest to you that during the time you're in the prison that you do some reading on race relations and maintaining good race relations and how that can be done."

So Swan went to jail, for a bit more than two years rather than seven."

[LiteKeeper]

Looks to me like the only shining star in this whole case was Judge Pickering. He showed an understanding of teh spirit of the Law while operating within the letter of the Law.

[LiteKeeper]

Just reread both stories. Tucker is all wet, and doesn't seemed bothered with the facts, just the superficial appearance of the case. She sounds like she is spouting "somebody's" talking points.