Category Archives: Broadcast

Stuart’s Broadcast Transcripts.

Posted on

NewsHour: Presidential Subpoena – February 6, 1996

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you both for being with us. Rex Nelson, this trial is set to begin March 4th. Refresh our memory about the trial. What’s–who’s being charged with what?

REX NELSON, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: (Little Rock) Well, of course, we have a Whitewater grand jury which has been meeting for quite some time here in Little Rock. An indictment came down from that grand jury on August 17th of last year charging Jill McDougal, Susan McDougal, and Bill Clinton’s successor as governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker. They are being tried together on charges that are not directly related to the Whitewater Development Corporation, which, of course, was the President’s partnership with Jim McDougal.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, they have, what, 17 charges in total? They’ve been indicted on 17 charges, or at least Susan McDougal has, right?

MR. NELSON: There are actually nineteen charges against Jim McDougal, eleven charges against Gov. Tucker, and eight charges against Susan McDougal.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what–how was President Clinton related to this? Why would the McDougals want him to testify on their behalf?

MR. NELSON: Really, if the linchpin of the prosecution case is a former municipal judge here in Little Rock named David Hale. David Hale claims that a lot of Arkansas political figures back in the ’80’s put pressure on him to make unwise loans. One of those political figures was then Gov. Bill Clinton, and he says that Clinton put pressure on him to make a $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, and so Susan McDougal says I need the President’s testimony in order to clear me.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And we should make it clear that the President is not being accused of any wrongdoing here.

Posted on

NewsHour: Stuart Taylor on the Whitewater Grand Jury – January 23, 1996

by

MARGARET WARNER: First Lady Hillary Clinton has been subpoenaed by Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to appear before a federal grand jury here in Washington this Friday. For more on this unprecedented event we hear from Stuart Taylor, correspondent for the American Lawyer and Legal Times and a regular on the NewsHour. All first, first give us the context for this. Which grand jury exactly is it that the First Lady’s been asked to appear before?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: The grand jury in Washington. There’s also a grand jury in Little Rock being run by the same Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, investigating Whitewater and related matters. And the two grand juries are dividing their work up roughly with the Washington grand jury investigating the things that happened in Washington since President Clinton took office, the Arkansas grand jury investigating things that happened in Arkansas earlier, but there’s great overlap between the investigations. And they share information with each other.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And what do we know from the subpoena or from what’s come out about what she’s going to be asked to testify about?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, the subpoena and the fact that about six or seven other people were subpoenaed seems to indicate that the Independent Counsel is particularly interested in how these Rose Law Firm billing records for Hillary Clinton appeared mysteriously in the White House living quarters some two years after they had been subpoenaed and whether someone was hiding them or obstructing justice. However, the White House statement that was put out yesterday also indicated that the First Lady was prepared to discuss the content of the billing records which suggest that some of the questions may get into looking at particular entries and how do you explain this and how do you reconcile it with your testimony on that and so forth.

Posted on

NewsHour: Virginia Military Institute’s Men Only Policy – January 17, 1996

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You were at the Supreme Court today. Can you summarize the arguments for us?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender led off for the Justice Department, and he stressed that VMI’s unique adversative-style education, that’s the buzz word which is kind of the boot camp approach of being abused and harassed by upperclassmen, is a valuable asset and that the VMI degree is a valuable asset to those men who go there, particularly because it’s a very prestigious institution with a loyal alumni body that channels people into successful careers.

He said that there’s no reason women should be denied the benefit of that sort of education; that there are some women who can hack it at a place like VMI, in the records yes, there are some, and that they ought to have that opportunity. He also claims that the arguments VMI has made and the Mary Baldwin people have made for the solution of keeping them in separate places depended on outmoded stereotypes, basically depended on the idea that there are some things women can’t handle, and this is one of them, and that the only remedy, in his view, is to integrate VMI. He says that the Mary Baldwin institution 35 miles down the road is not equal, is not the same, is not as good in, in various ways.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How about the opposing side?

Posted on

NewsHour: Virginia Military Institute’s Men Only Policy – January 17, 1996

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You were at the Supreme Court today. Can you summarize the arguments for us?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender led off for the Justice Department, and he stressed that VMI’s unique adversative-style education, that’s the buzz word which is kind of the boot camp approach of being abused and harassed by upperclassmen, is a valuable asset and that the VMI degree is a valuable asset to those men who go there, particularly because it’s a very prestigious institution with a loyal alumni body that channels people into successful careers.

He said that there’s no reason women should be denied the benefit of that sort of education; that there are some women who can hack it at a place like VMI, in the records yes, there are some, and that they ought to have that opportunity. He also claims that the arguments VMI has made and the Mary Baldwin people have made for the solution of keeping them in separate places depended on outmoded stereotypes, basically depended on the idea that there are some things women can’t handle, and this is one of them, and that the only remedy, in his view, is to integrate VMI. He says that the Mary Baldwin institution 35 miles down the road is not equal, is not the same, is not as good in, in various ways.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How about the opposing side?

Posted on

NewsHour: Drawing Lines – December 5, 1995

by

MARGARET WARNER: Joining me is Stuart Taylor. He’s a senior writer at "American Lawyer" and at "Legal Times," and a regular on this program. Welcome, Stuart. First, very briefly, give us the legal history of how we got to this point where you have the Justice Department and two states defending these racially drawn districts.

Posted on

NewsHour: O.J.’s Civil Trial – November 15, 1995

by

JIM LEHRER: Now, the differences between civil and criminal court cases. It’s relevant because of a civil court hearing that began today in Santa Monica, California, concerning O.J. Simpson. The former football star was acquitted last month in criminal court on charges he murdered his ex-wife and her friend. Stuart Taylor is here to explain the differences in the two trials. He’s a senior writer at "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times" and a regular on this program. Stuart, welcome.

STUART TAYLOR: Nice to be here.

JIM LEHRER: Set the situation for us in this O.J. matter, the civil court case. What, who brought it? What do they want?

MR. TAYLOR: The families of the two murder victims here of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman are suing and in essence, they’re suing for money, which is the only thing they can sue for, but Mr. Goldman, at least, Frederick Goldman, the father of that victim, has made it clear that his real objective is to render O.J. Simpson penniless, if he can, not so much to make himself rich.

JIM LEHRER: Why does the double jeopardy thing not apply in this matter? The man’s already been acquitted of murder. Why can this be allowed?

MR. TAYLOR: Double jeopardy only applies to criminal prosecutions. The historic purpose of it was to prevent the government from coming back at you again and again after you get acquitted. In a civil case, there’s a different standard of proof. For example, there are a lot of differences, and the purpose is to enable the victims of a civil wrong to get compensation.

JIM LEHRER: So they are essentially suggesting or charging in a civil way that O.J. Simpson did, in fact, murder these two folks. Now what do they–how do they have to prove it? You say there’s a different burden of proof or a different element of proof. What’s the difference?

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Decision on Gay Rights in Colorado – October 10, 1995

by

GALE NORTON, Colorado Attorney General: Our position has been that Amendment Two preserves the status quo, that it allows the people of Colorado as a whole to make the decision about the issue of sexual orientation, and the Justices, through their questioning, saw that issue as being one of the primary concerns.

SUZANNE GOLDBERG, Lambda Legal Defense: The Constitution forbids the singling out of one group of people for different political rules, and today, through our briefs and argument, we made that clear. Amendment Two is a patent of the Constitution for all of the reasons we’ve discussed, but it’s also absurd. And I think that many of the questions today pointed that out.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, legal analysis of today’s case. Stuart Taylor, senior writer at "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times," is with Charlayne Hunter-Gault.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Stuart, thank you for joining us. What is at issue in this case?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: Basically, the state’s voters by initiative adopted what almost comes down to a right of the people to discriminate against homosexuals. It’s more complicated than that. What had happened is that some of the cities in Colorado, Boulder, Denver, and Aspen, had passed gay rights laws. You can’t be fired for being a homosexual. You can’t be denied housing for being a homosexual. The voters of the state basically wiped out those laws with this referendum and said, localities cannot adopt gay rights laws, cannot adopt laws banning discrimination against gays, and nor can the state legislature. So if homosexual people want to get relief from discrimination in Colorado, they have to pass a constitutional amendment getting rid of this one, which apparently doesn’t seem politically likely.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That’s Amendment Two, and then something like 57 percent of the voters of Colorado voted for it.

Posted on

NewsHour: A look at Justice Blackmun’s Legacy – April 6, 1994

by

ROBERT MACNEIL: To assess Supreme Court Justice Blackmun’s legacy, we’re joined by four court watchers. Kathleen Sullivan is a professor of law at Stanford University. Charles Fried was solicitor general during the Reagan administration and now teaches at Harvard. Stuart Taylor covers the Supreme Court for American Lawyer Magazine and is a frequent court analyst for The NewsHour, and Harold Koh teaches law at Yale University. He also served as a law clerk for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court.

Stuart Taylor, besides the most famous Roe vs. Wade decision, what other decisions mark Justice Blackmun’s time on the court?