Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lazarre who wrote (16141)	6/15/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Law Professor on Brill piece: 'Not good enough for small town newspaper' Meet the Press June 14, 1998 L.N. Smithee BOB SCHIEFFER: So what do you make of this article that Steven Brill has written? Has the independent counsel done anything wrong, Professor Turley? PROF. JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, it hardly makes a case for suggesting actual wrongdoing in any legal sense. I, I, I'd be surprised if this article made it past the copy editor of a small town newspaper. BOB SCHIEFFER: Really! PROF. JONATHAN TURLEY: .it's very, very, one-sided. And it also has a sort of misplaced emphasis. Rule 6E, the Grand Jury rule, does not prevent the prosecutor from doing background conversations with reporters. Everyone in this town must do [?], it's nothing cynical, nothing sinister. These are complex cases. Most reporters are not lawyers and they need to know what is being sort of done in this process, what the stage is, what is the direction. If you don't do that, then you have a lot of misinformation out there, and so there is nothing sinister about it. The White House has to do it, and so does Ken Starr. The important thing is for the independent counsel to able to assure the public that certain facts that might be wrong are in fact untrue, or to assure that the investigation is balanced. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: lazarre who wrote (16141)	6/15/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

NEWSWEEK REPORTER MICHAEL ISIKOFF AND THE WASHINGTON POST'S BOB WOODWARD SUPPORT STAR!!! LOS ANGELES TIMES (Excerpt) June 15, 1998 David G. Savage On MSNBC on Sunday, Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who broke the Lewinsky story, intimated that leaks from prosecutors to journalists -- from the federal to the local level -- are a fact of life in journalism and law enforcement. He also accused magazine publisher Steven Brill of "slanted" and "selective" reporting that displays "quite a bit of naivete" about the relationships between prosecutors and journalists. The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who helped crack the Watergate mystery a quarter-century ago, asserted that Starr was within his rights to talk to reporters under certain circumstances. "It is within the guidelines when it's a public controversy" and the goal is to "give people direction" about the path of the investigation, Woodward said on "Meet the Press." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: lazarre who wrote (16141)	6/15/1998 6:18:00 PM
From: alan w	Respond to of 20981

lazarre Boy, for someone who wants "facts" before conviction, you sure have Starr being punished in a hurry. Typical. Shill, shill, shill. Do you type with your head down there? alan w

To: lazarre who wrote (16141)	6/15/1998 6:20:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20981

What is this Rule 6E you are talking about? Is that from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? I'm a civil practitioner so I must confess I'm not as familiar with Criminal Rules of Procedure. What does the rule say and how is Starr alleged to have breached it? I can understand his wish to respond to all the disinformation and demonization which has been spewing from WH spinmeisters but IMO the prosecutor is best to keep silent to the press and do his job. If he did not reveal secret testimony however, I can't imagine what the problem would be to give an interview. JLA