Category Archives: PBS News Hour

pbs

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.

Posted on

NewsHour: Campaigns Under Scrutiny – Reno Testifies – October 15, 1997 (con’t)

by

JIM LEHRER: Now how all of this looks to our regional commentators: Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; Robert Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune; Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe; Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; and Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman. Lee, how do you think the attorney general did before the House committee today?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Jim, I thought she did very well. I thought she held her own. I like her imperturbability, and I think that she should be very pleased with her performance today. You know, I find support for her in this part of the country which surprised me actually because Dallas tends to be very Republican. Of course, there are those who stay she’s weak administratively, but they’ve said that for a number of months, if not years, but I found in talking to people about her the last two or three days I have found that especially young professional and businessmen speak well of her. They say that she’s a decent public servant in a very difficult circumstance. So I don’t think her reputation is suffering from this campaign funds crisis.

JIM LEHRER: You think so, Cynthia, her reputation is suffering?

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Watch – October 6, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: This is the first Monday in October, always the first day of a new term of the U.S. Supreme Court. We look at the prospects and the possibilities of this term with NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of Legal Times and The American Lawyer. Stuart, welcome. STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: Nice to be here.

JIM LEHRER: In general, what should we expect from this term?

STUART TAYLOR: The biggest cases on the horizon so far involve race, gender, and the complex of issues under the rubrics racial, affirmative action, racial preferences, and sexual harassment.

In particular, the civil rights groups I think are awaiting this term with trepidation because when you count the votes in past cases, they have a hard time being optimistic about two big cases: one which the court has already agreed to here involving two schoolteachers in New Jersey in which a white teacher was laid off ahead of a black teacher, who was deemed equally qualified, on the ground that diversity in the business education department of a high school was the goal to be pursued. And the court’s going to review that. A lower court in that case held very broadly that any kind of racial preference could not be justified in employment if the only reason was diversity.

And there’s a huge case from California coming that may be even more important that the court will probably decide whether or not to hear sometime in the next month or two, and even if they say we’re not hearing it, even if all they say sert denied, it would be enormous.

JIM LEHRER: That’s a big deal.

STUART TAYLOR: It would be a very big deal.

A case challenging affirmative action.

JIM LEHRER: I’ll just go through those one at a time. The New Jersey case; give us the facts on that and where the matter rests as we speak.

Posted on

NewsHour: New Direction – September 17, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: The Justice Department is also conducting a fund-raising investigation. Phil Ponce looks at the developments there.

PHIL PONCE: That investigation went through a maker shake-up yesterday when Attorney General Janet Reno replaced the top federal prosecutor and the FBI agent in charge with more experienced senior personnel. For more on this we’re joined by NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, correspondent for Legal Times and the American Lawyer, and Dan Klaidman, Justice Department correspondent for "Newsweek." Dan Klaidman, before we get into the question of the changes that the attorney general has made in the task force, what exactly are they looking at?

DANIEL KLAIDMAN, Newsweek: Well, among the principal allegations is that the Clinton administration systematically solicited contributions, millions of dollars in contributions from foreign donors, which is illegal, and that in some instances perhaps tried to disguise the source of those contributions by laundering through–laundering them through legal donors. Among the other allegations, most serious allegations, is that in exchange for political contributions contributors got certain favors, perhaps policy changes, access.

That would be a bribe, and that’s very serious but very difficult to establish the quid pro quo. Then there are the allegations involving Vice President Gore, essentially soliciting contributions from federal offices, and under some analysis what he did is illegal. And that remains to be seen. But most serious–potentially the most incendiary of the allegations is the Chinese government had a plot to subvert the American–the 1996 presidential and past congressional elections. That remains to be seen as well.

PHIL PONCE: And what exactly prompted her to make these changes? What was the motivation there?

Posted on

NewsHour: Death Penalty Update – July 30, 1997

by

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In 1992 George McFarland was tried, convicted and sentenced to die for the murder of a Houston convenience store owner. The trial lasted less than three days–and through much of it one of McFarland’s attorneys was asleep.

GEORGE McFARLAND: So I’m nudging him with my feet–what are you doing–wake up! So later that day I asked him I said: "Well what happened?" "Oh, I was just tired." And I asked him, I told him, I said, "Man, I’m fighting for my life here. You’re supposed to be helping me"–"Oh, I got it under control George." He always told me: "I got it under control."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: McFarland appealed his conviction to the Texas criminal court of appeals, citing, among other things, ineffective counsel. The appeals court said it "did not condone" the behavior of the attorney but ruled that because there was a second lawyer present during the trial McFarland failed "to make any showing that he was not effectively represented" added Congress in here.

Now McFarland wants to go into federal court to seek relief through habeas corpus–a legal term meaning he is alleging his constitutional rights have been violated. But under the anti-terrorism-Effective Death Penalty Act passed by Congress in 1996, it will be harder for him to do that because the new habeas corpus law places a time limit on death row inmate appeals ; streamlines the entire appellate process; and may limit inmates’ ability to appeal state court decisions in the federal system.

Before the new law, McFarland could make one appeal after another sometimes on the same issue. University of Houston Law Professor David Crump says the law is designed to do what is says–make the death penalty more effective.