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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (7998)	10/7/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 13994

I'm very familiar with Tribe and, in my opinion, he is more partisan than scholarly. Have any of the others you mention offered the same opinion as Turley? Or are they just FOBs or politicos, like Dershowitz?

To: Doughboy who wrote (7998)	10/7/1998 3:35:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

>><I've been reading articles in the Washington Post about how professors at his school, George Washington Univ., are furious at his selling himself as some sort of constitutional/impeachment scholar. He is no such thing. Actually, the Washington Post has had articles on how the Clinton WH has decided to wage war on Turley and his credentials. Kurtz recently had a column on it too. >>about impeachment like Larry Tribe of Harvard A real joke/media whore who pops up to support the Left in every political/legal controversy from Bork, to Thomas-Hill. He appears where he won't be pinned down for his partisan views of the law.

To: Doughboy who wrote (7998)	10/7/1998 3:40:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

Let's see some of your articles, here's one on how the well-documented Clinton slime machine works: TAKING ON TURLEY Legal commentator Jonathan Turley says he has "never seen a more glaring example of false and unprofessional reporting." Kim Eisler, author of the offending piece in Washingtonian magazine, accuses Turley of "a supreme overreaction" and "excessive paranoia." Eisler's item flatly declares that Washington editors of the New York Times have declared their offices " 'a Turley-free zone' where correspondents are prohibited from quoting him." An unnamed Times source says "real experts" believe the George Washington University law professor has "no expertise in constitutional law." One problem: Eisler didn't call Turley -- or the Times, where Washington Bureau Chief Michael Oreskes says Turley has not been banned from its pages. "Had they asked me, I would have told them there was no such policy," he said. Turley says he's "astounded" at Washingtonian's failure to call him. The talk show fixture is "mystified" at the jab at his credentials, saying he lectures on constitutional issues and works with a GW project on criminal law as well as environmental law. Turley fired off an ominous-sounding letter demanding a retraction, telling Washingtonian that "this false story was intended to produce an obvious professional injury." But Eisler, noting that the Times hasn't quoted Turley since April, says the ban is unwritten and "there's nothing to retract because everything I said was true. . . . "We just kind of threw it in at the last minute. There was nothing in it that required a comment," said Eisler, who had interviewed Turley for an earlier feature. Besides, given the magazine's lead time, "if he'd known we were going to run this item, he would have made life very difficult." search.washingtonpost.com

To: Doughboy who wrote (7998)	10/7/1998 4:41:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

So much for your theory and defamation of Turley - Yale Law School, Dean, disown Bill Clinton and cronies: Yale Law School Debates Impeachment By Brigitte Greenberg Associated Press Writer Friday, September 25, 1998; 9:18 a.m. EDT NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- Yale Law School is not responsible for the legal interpretations of alumnus Bill Clinton. So say its scholars. Even though President Clinton got his legal schooling from Yale, professors say it doesn't teach students to parse words to twist the law. ''I think you have to tell the truth,'' said Law School Dean Anthony Townsend Kronman, a 1975 graduate who was an acquaintance of Clinton at the school. ''It has to be part of your professional character and it is not something that can be taught by putting it down in a rule book and handing it to students.'' About 300 law students packed a school auditorium Thursday to hear Townsend and other scholars debate the future of Clinton. One professor questioned what students were learning from the courses. ''I worry, do we teach you that all that counts is your brains, your creativity? I worry that we teach you the Constitution means whatever you can make it mean,'' said Professor Kate Stith. ''How can you lie under oath if there are no lies, if words have no meaning, if ... it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?'' she asked. Stith was referring to Clinton's videotaped grand jury testimony in which he was asked a question about whether he was having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He responded by distinguishing the past from the present tenses of the word ''is.'' Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton both graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. Clinton's private attorney, David Kendall, also attended Yale then. Professor George L. Priest, who believes impeachment is in order, said the president tried to use his law school rearing as a weapon against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. ''The president is a lawyer. He knows the significance of a sworn affidavit,'' he said. Professor Bruce Ackerman predicted Clinton would not be impeached and called the release of Clinton's videotaped grand jury testimony ''a government-subsidized pornographic broadcast.'' ''This is not a constitutional crisis. It is a tempest in a teapot,'' he said. search.washingtonpost.com

To: Doughboy who wrote (7998)	10/7/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 13994

On the "Opinion Mafia", the "Commentariat", and professors "who know how to schmooze news producers" The terms "Opinion Mafia" and "Commentariat" were both (I think) coined by Slate Magazine, and I find them marvellously appropriate. This brotherhood is composed of two basic elements: 1) Talking head journalists -- almost invariably the same ones, over and over. For some reason (their ability to shoot any kind of bull at a moment's notice?) they are considered experts on anything and everything. (Needless to say, they are carefully selected to reflect all shades of the political spectrum -- except for its most radical left & right wings.) 2) Talking head professors. Also -- all too often the same ones, over and over. On category (2), I consider myself -- as a Washington journalist, with much experience in seeking out interviewees -- something of an expert, alas. In my field (the former Soviet Union), there are a certain number of "media hounds." These are people who, for the most part, are quite knowledgeable about their own little sub-field, but who hire themselves out to the media to comment on anything and everything relating to the field as a whole. Thus you get a well-known economist (who shall be nameless) pontificating about nationality policy, religion, foreign policy, etc., etc., at the drop of a news producer's hat. Never will he (or anyone else like him) ever say -- "Gee, this is not really my bailiwick. You ought to talk to Professor X. on this." No, indeed -- because he loves that media limelight (and, perhaps, the dough that occasionally goes along with it). Personally, I never interview people like that: I always look for the person who really does have expertise in the particular question I am investigating -- a person who often turns out to be really obscure, really (although not deservedly) unknown. But reporters & news producers are often lazy -- or busy. They don't have the time, or the necessary background themselves, to hunt down the "right" person for the job (of commenting on the issue at hand). They have a limited stable of "experts," and it is easier for them to recycle the same ones over and over again, thus inflating the already overblown reputations of the stable inhabitants still further... Sorry to sound irascible, but this has bugged me for a long time. <g> I guess my point is to sound this note of caution: in following the impeachment controversy, be properly skeptical of anyone, whatever his/her political orientation, that you see on television too frequently. Beware those talking heads, their flashing eyes, their floating hair... jbe