The Cross Burning Case: What Really Happened

National Review Online ^ | January 9, 2003 | Byron York

[Quilla]

And now you know the rest of the story.

[PhiKapMom]

<>In a move that baffled and later angered Judge Pickering, Civil Rights Division prosecutors early on decided to make a plea bargain with two of the three suspects. The first, Mickey Thomas, had an unusually low IQ, and prosecutors decided to reduce charges against him based on that fact. The second bargain was with the 17-year-old. Civil Rights Division lawyers allowed both men to plead guilty to misdemeanors in the cross-burning case (the juvenile also pleaded guilty to felony charges in the shooting incident). The Civil Rights Division recommended no jail time for both men. (from article)

Just wanted this highlighted as it goes to the heart of the story. Two men get off but Schumer and Co., wanted the 3rd man sentenced to the maximum for a crime committed by all three. This is absurd! This needs widespread dissemination IMO!

[Drewman626]

EXCELLENT Read. I knew nothing of the case, and now it's clearly visable that this whole bru-ha-ha is nothing but a Talking Point to further the stereotype that all Republicans are racists.

The sad part is that those who don't know this story will only hear Dicky Shumer's and Puff's remarks and will never be motivated to find out the ins-and-outs of the real story. American Politics at its best.

[Cicero]

We all know that the real reason the liberals are determined to destroy this nomination is that Judge Pickering will not bend the law in favor of abortionists.

The bottom line for all those lying liberal presstitutes and their political bosses is abortion. They pretend it's all about race instead because that plays better with their readers and helps keep blacks on the Democrat plantation.

Thanks to Byron York for presenting the facts of this case. This guy got more than two years for getting drunk and burning a cross, although he was not the chief instigator. If a judge gave some murderous mugger or rapist more than two years in jail, the press would be campaigning for his early release.

[Quilla]

Pickering set a sentencing date of January 3, 1995. As the date approached, he waited for an answer from the Justice Department. He asked in November, 1994 and received no response. He asked again in December and received no response. He asked again on January 2, the day before the sentencing, and still received no response. He delayed sentencing, and on January 4 wrote a strongly-worded order to prosecutors demanding not only that they respond to his questions but that they take the issue up personally with Attorney General Janet Reno and report back within ten days.

I thought this was a pretty telling paragraph as well. The Clinton Justice Department asleep at the wheel again.

[farmfriend]

ping and bump

[jackbill]

they charge that he abused his powers as a U.S. District Court judge in Mississippi to give a light sentence to a man convicted of the crime.

How come you don't hear them complain about the Reno Justice Department letting the other two off with a misdemeanor? How come?

[Quilla]

How come you don't hear them complain about the Reno Justice Department letting the other two off with a misdemeanor? How come?

The incredibly frustrating fact is that the "them" you refer to is the mainstream media, leftist whores all. (Exception: FNC)

[Bahbah]

Thanks for posting this, Quilla. I just e-mailed it to my somewhat liberal daughter in law school.

[Quilla]

You're welcome. In an exercise in futility, I'm going to email the article to Hillary's lackey, Schumer.

[PhiKapMom]

That paragraph jumped out at me too. Clinton's DOJ gets off two guys but not the 3rd and then his stoolies in the Senate try to block Pickering for giving the 3rd guy a break. That does not pass the smell test!

Don't you wonder why two guys got off with the Clinton DOJ but not the 3rd?

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[Steve_Seattle]

One other point - the sentence that Pickering delivered was hardly a slap on the wrist. Two years in jail is a significant sentence for what was basically a ont-time, drunken prank with no intent of actual physical harm.

[Steve_Seattle]

The article explains why they got off - one was literally an imbecile, the other was a juvenile. I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning, but that's what it was.

[Marysecretary]

I'm sure he already knows the truth, Quilla. These people have no morals, no consciences, no compuctions against smearing people whether it's true or not. Good luck, though. Maybe he'll get the message that not everyone believes his crap or likes it.

[baseballmom]

Thanks for the info.

Bump

[Quilla]

The actual facts of this case are being twisted to further the democrats' agenda of borking Pickering's nomination. I wonder if anyone's every told them that you go to he!! just as quick for lying as you do killing.

[PhiKapMom]

And the 3rd guy got two years which seems perfectly legit to me. This is jut more liberal crap when they cannot find anything else to use against Pickering.

[Marysecretary]

I agree, Quilla. They'll do anything to further their agenda, even if it means destroying someone as good and righteous as Mr. Pickering. Go figure.

[mass55th]

"Two men get off but Schumer and Co., wanted the 3rd man sentenced to the maximum for a crime committed by all three."

But Chuckie and Company had no problem with Clinton's pardoning of FALN terrorists responsible for over 100 bombings in the country, not to mention the murder of New York City police officers. Among Chuckie's associatates who supported the pardons were: Reps. Jose E. Serrano, Charles B. Rangel, Nydia M. Velazquez and Eliot L. Engel