Category Archives: Broadcast

Stuart’s Broadcast Transcripts.

Posted on

NewsHour Impeachment Coverage: Analysis and Commentary – Starr’s Performance

by

JIM LEHRER: And there we have it: Kenneth Starr delivering his statement to – as he just said it – to the chairman, to the committee, and to the American people. It was estimated beforehand it would take about two hours, and it did, in fact, take almost two hours.

We have some commentary now. We go to National Journal and Newsweek columnist Stuart Taylor and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew for some commentary on what happened this morning and how –what Mr. Starr said and how he said it. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is also here.

Okay, Elizabeth, how did he do?

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, I think he made the strongest possible case, which is what he went there to do, for impeachment of the president. I still think there’s a question statutorily whether that is his proper role. And in doing so, he did what prosecutors do – you bring in everything you can, and you give it the worst possible inference. I noticed a number of times, for instance, he said, "the evidence suggests." This is inferential material and circumstantial. And when you get all – in some cases he was just a little bit cute. For instance, just quickly, in talking about the job search, he said, that began after the Supreme Court ruling in the Jones case in May of ’97. Well, a lot of things happened after that. And then he says it intensified in December. But we know from the tapes, the famous tapes, that the job –

JIM LEHRER: This is the Linda Tripp tapes of Monica Lewinsky.

Posted on

NewsHour Impeachment Coverage: Analysis and Commentary – Starr’s Performance

by

JIM LEHRER: Good afternoon from Washington. I’m Jim Lehrer. And we’re back with our special PBS NewsHour coverage of Kenneth Starr’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal and Newsweek Magazines and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew are back to offer their commentary. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is here to assist me in keeping the story line going, among other things.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret, the first order of business now, when they reconvene, the two counsels are going to cross-examine Starr. Tell us about these two men.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, David Schippers, the Republican counsel, actually is a lifelong Democrat, but he’s a 68-year-old former prosecutor. He’s spent a lifetime as a prosecutor in Chicago, and he really brings the prosecutor’s approach to this. When he laid out the case for the Republicans back before they voted for the impeachment inquiry, he said that he believes very much, as Henry Hyde does, that lying under oath is not only an impeachable offense, but it really attacks the very foundation of our rule of law. And he made that very clear.

Abby Lowell is 20 years younger, 48. He’s a lawyer, of course, but he’s had a much more sort of inside Washington practice. He’s defended a number of –

JIM LEHRER: There he is there. There he is now on camera, right?

MARGARET WARNER: Yes. In fact, he’s spent some time on camera too doing court commentary on television, but he has also defended individuals such as Jim Wright, who have been under fire for ethics violations, or alleged violations. He made clear in his comments two months ago that as far as he was concerned, or as far as the committee was – as far as the committee Democrats were concerned – having an improper relationship and lying about it was not an impeachable offense.

Posted on

NewsHour Impeachment Coverage: Analysis and Commentary – Starr’s Performance

by

JIM LEHRER: All right. An afternoon break. We’re uncertain at this point as – let’s see – Congressman Gekus – there are 35 actually – yes, there are – there are still 30 to go — Margaret, if I have counted right. Margaret Warner is here, along with Stuart Taylor and Elizabeth Drew for this break. As you heard Chairman Hyde say, they will be back at 5 after 2. I wouldn’t take any bets on that, but that’s neither here nor there.

JIM LEHRER: But anyhow, the one question that’s been unanswered at this point – at least we don’t have an answer to it – is that the original plan was that the minority counsel, Abbe Lowell, was going to question Mr. Starr for 30 minutes and that got extended to an hour and then a little bit more, and then Mr. Schippers, David Schippers, the minority counsel, was going to question Mr. Starr, and then the members were going to do it. Obviously, they’ve made a change.

Where do you think things stand at this stage of the game, Stuart?

Posted on

NewsHour: Starr’s Tactics – October 2, 1998

by

JIM LEHRER: Congress will release another batch of documents from the Kenneth Starr investigation tomorrow. They come as a prelude to a decision on whether to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton. The Starr investigation that led to the documents and to the proceedings has been the subject of much debate. Margaret Warner now samples that disagreement with two columnists who have written extensively about it.

MARGARET WARNER: And those columnists are Anthony Lewis of the New York Times and Stuart Taylor of National Journal and Newsweek. Tony Lewis, you’ve been scathing in your criticism of Ken Starr’s investigation and his tactics, and last week you said it was essentially illegitimate, an illegitimate process. Explain what you mean by illegitimate.

ANTHONY LEWIS: That would be a long explanation, Ms. Warner, because I think in a great number of ways Kenneth Starr and his people have behaved like overzealous prosecutors in ways that no other federal prosecutor would be allowed to do. Take, for example, when Mr. Starr’s men confronted Monica Lewinsky in the Ritz Carlton Hotel on January 16th. She was told we’re going to bring 27 felony counts against you unless you cooperate with us. Now that was absurd and outrageous. Then they said she couldn’t call her lawyer. They kept her for there for 10 hours and not letting her call her lawyer, and they denigrated her lawyer, Frank Carter, and said, well, he’s not a criminal lawyer anyway, and so he couldn’t help you. And when she wanted to call her mother, instead, you know, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Starr’s deputy, said, oh, you don’t want to call your mommy. It was an overbearing and entirely unfair procedure. Any of us can understand that it’s wrong not to let somebody call a lawyer. That’s basic.

MARGARET WARNER: Was it so unfair that it de-legitimizes, though, the entire process, the entire investigation, the fruits or results of the investigation?

Posted on

Online NewsHour: Supreme Court Watch – March 4, 1998

by

PHIL PONCE: For a legal explanation of today’s same-sex sexual harassment ruling we turn to NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek, and we look at the ruling’s impact on the workplace with Ellen Bravo, co-director of 9 to 5, the national association of working women which represents women and men in non-management positions, and Kathleen Neville, a business consultant and author of "Corporate Attraction: An Inside Account of Sexual Harassment on the Job." Welcome all. Stuart Taylor, first, a quick statement of the facts of the case that led to this decision.

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: This is a lawsuit by a man named Joseph Oncal, who had been harassed on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico on which only men worked. Two of his supervisors and a third man engaged in a succession of sexually harassing types of things with him, including humiliating him with a bar of soap when they were naked in the shower once, for example, threatening him with rape. He ultimately resigned, saying that he feared being raped, although none of this was apparently motivated by homosexual desire–it was just being nasty to him–and ultimately sued for sexual harassment, claiming a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, sex discrimination provisions.

PHIL PONCE: And the lower court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, held that?

STUART TAYLOR: They held flatly that because he was a man suing for sexually harassing conduct by other men he had no federal remedy. He could sue in state court for battery, or something like that, but they held broadly that same-sex sexual harassment doesn’t violate federal civil rights laws. And that was the issue the Supreme Court took the case to consider.

PHIL PONCE: And the Supreme Court held that.

Posted on

NewsHour: Independent counsel – January 26, 1998

by

PHIL PONCE: Differing views on the independent counsel law and how it’s being implemented now. Joseph DiGenova was the U.S. attorney during the Reagan administration and was appointed independent counsel to investigate former Bush officials in the Clinton passport matter. Kenneth Gormley is professor of law at Duquesne University; Anthony Lewis is a columnist with the New York Times. Byron York is a reporter with the American Spectator and contributor to the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard. And joining them is NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek. Welcome everyone. Stuart Taylor, some basics under the law, what is an independent counsel supposed to do?

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: To investigate any allegations of criminal conduct, only criminal conduct on the part of the President or people close to him. The law defines a set of people, cabinet secretaries, top White House aides, and the like, who are subject to investigations by independent counsel, but an independent counsel can only be appointed at the initiative of the attorney general if she believes there’s evidence that warrants the appointment of one. Then she asks a special three-judge federal court to do the appointing, and they choose the person to be appointed.

PHIL PONCE: And what are the special powers that an independent counsel has under the law?

Posted on

NewsHour: President Clinton’s Troubles – January 22, 1998

by

PHIL PONCE: We get answers from NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with the National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek. Joining him are Dan Webb, a former special prosecutor during the Iran-Contra investigation, and Richard Ben-Veniste, an assistant special prosecutor during Watergate, and the former Democratic counsel during the Senate Whitewater probe. Gentlemen, welcome.

Stuart Taylor, first, some basic concepts. The President’s good friend, Vernon Jordan, said that he has been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. What happens in that kind of a context? Is it just like appearing before a criminal grand jury?

Perjury in the context of a grand jury.

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: It is a criminal grand jury. That’s the only kind of grand jury there is. The grand jury is a group usually of 23 citizens, although they’re not always there, in a room, you know, prosecutors running the show, and the witness walks in and testifies, they exist almost exclusively, if not exclusively for the purpose of conducting criminal investigations and returning indictments. Mr. Jordan will walk into the room. His lawyer will not be allowed to accompany him. He can wait outside. Mr. Jordan will have the option of going outside to consult with his lawyers as often as he wants. The prosecutor asks questions. Mr. Jordan has the option of claiming the Fifth Amendment. I think he made it rather clear today that he would not do that and that he would make a statement consistent with what he said–what we just saw. And then the prosecutors will ask him lots of detailed questions, presumably based on all the little things they think happened between this young woman, Monica Lewinsky, and the President and Vernon Jordan.

PHIL PONCE: And basic terminology, perjury in the context of this investigation.

Posted on

Online NewsHour: Ellis Island Dispute – January 12, 1998

by

MARGARET WARNER: Now, for more on what happened today, we’re joined by NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor of Newsweek.

Stuart, why are these two states arguing over this? I mean, doesn’t the federal government actually own and operate the museum on the land there?

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: Yes, it exerts total control. New York does collect about $500,000 a year in tax revenues from concession stands that are in the historic part, but this dispute, as the deputy assistant solicitor general suggested for the United States and the argument today has little to do with practical consequences and a lot to do with perhaps symbolism, bragging rights over this historic immigration gateway. It has a lot to do with the territorial imperative. In fact, The New York Times gave an interesting example–an editorial which we were reminded of courtesy of The Washington Post this morning–in whichThe New York Times said, "New Jersey’s attempt to snatch Ellis Island is unfriendly, unbecoming, un-American, untoward, unhelpful, unprincipled, unseemly, unwarranted, and underhanded," to which a New Jerseyian might add "and right."

MARGARET WARNER: So taxpayers might ask, why is the Supreme Court taking its time with this?

Posted on

Online NewsHour: Proposition 209 – November 3, 1997

by

MARGARET WARNER: Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to California’s Proposition 209. The 1996 initiative bans race or gender from being a factor in state hiring or contracting decisions and state college or university admissions. We get more now from NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek.

Stuart, first, just explain what exactly did the court do today?

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: Strictly speaking, all they did was nine simple words; the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. What that means is we’re not going to hear this case. They issued it without comment and without dissent. They didn’t say why they weren’t going to hear it. Typically, they do that hundreds–thousands of times each year, and it’s usually not–it’s never a precedent, a national precedent when they do it, and it’s usually not much of a news event. This time, I think, because of the vast importance of this case it is a substantial news event.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Explain what you mean when you say it isn’t a precedent?

STUART TAYLOR: That means that in lower courts that lower courts around the country are not bound by what the court did today. The U.S. Court of Appeals from the 9th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 209, and in the western states that are within its jurisdiction that is now law. But let’s say if Florida–which has thought about adopting a similar measure–does so–and there’s a challenge there, the federal courts in that part of the country will not be banned by what the Supreme Court did today. They will at least theoretically have the option of saying, well, we think it’s unconstitutional. In that sense the argument is not resolved for all time.

MARGARET WARNER: And what is the significance of the court not making any comment whatsoever? They could have made some written comment.

Posted on

NewsHour: Campaigns Under Scrutiny – Reno Testifies – October 15, 1997

by

KWAME HOLMAN: Even with Attorney General Janet Reno ready to testify before them, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother to ask the question they most want answered: Will she request the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate President Clinton’s fund-raising related activities at the White House? Yesterday, Reno put off having to make that decision when she extended her preliminary investigation until at least the first week in December. But this morning Committee Chairman Henry Hyde made it clear from the start he thinks an independent counsel should be appointed.

REP. HENRY HYDE, Chairman, Judiciary Committee: I question her view that soft money is not covered under criminal law. I question her notion that the White House belongs to the President to use as he pleases. I find her belief that she has no conflict of interest frankly astounding. I’m not alone in believing her situation fairly bristles with conflicts of interest. The standard response that this matter is under investigation and that it cannot be discussed has some merit. And we don’t want to compromise any ongoing investigation, but at some point questions must be answered if only to build confidence that a rigorous investigation is underway and the justices are merely circling the wagons to defend the White House.

KWAME HOLMAN: Attorney General Reno has heard congressional Republicans repeat those criticisms for months, and she repeated the response she has given for months.