White House Attacks Starr for Leaks in Clinton Case

The White House charged Sunday that Kenneth W. Starr acted illegally in talking to reporters about his dealings with potential witnesses in his investigation of President Clinton and called for an independent probe of the special prosecutor himself.

As Clinton wrapped up a visit to Los Angeles, deputy presidential press secretary Joe Lockhart told reporters that Starr’s ability to conduct “any sort of fair inquiry” involving Clinton will be “completely in question until these allegations are resolved.”

Senior presidential advisor Rahm Emanuel called the disclosures about Starr “a bombshell . . . grave and . . . very serious.” He told an interviewer on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press” that “a cloud . . . hangs over the office of the independent counsel and on the legitimacy of that office.”

Starr issued a statement Saturday contending that the allegations raised in a magazine article are false and accusing the author of acting “recklessly and irresponsibly” in putting them forward. He said all contacts he has had with journalists have been legal and appropriate.

The full-court press marked an effort by the White House to persuade the American public to make Starr the principal target of scrutiny in the Monica S. Lewinsky controversy instead of the president, who has been under intense pressure.

Lockhart also charged that Starr “worked in active collusion with” the lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones, who filed a sexual harassment suit against the president that eventually was dismissed. “It’s a very serious allegation that needs to be looked into,” Lockhart said.

*

The counterattack by the White House came in response to an article by Washington reporter Steven Brill in which Starr says he talked privately with reporters about potential witnesses in Clinton-related cases to help keep the journalists from making mistakes.

Although Brill quotes Starr as insisting there was “nothing improper” about his actions because he never discussed actual grand jury proceedings, some critics say he acted improperly because some of the information he was disclosing ended up before a grand jury.

In truth, the substance of Starr’s admissions is not new. Several newspapers, including The Times, have openly reported that some of their information has come from Starr’s office. But his public admission broke an unwritten taboo, leaving him vulnerable to criticism.

Yet the vehemence with which the White House lashed back at Starr’s admissions underscored the intensity of the ill will that has developed between the two sides over the last several months, particularly as the scandal has intensified.

In January, Clinton’s personal attorney, David E. Kendall, asked U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who is supervising the grand jury probe, to punish Starr for allegedly leaking evidence to the press. But so far, nothing has come of the request.

Johnson has demanded briefings on the issue from both sides and has held closed-door hearings, but she has yet to reach a decision.

Clinton aides said the new allegations heightened the urgency of Kendall’s complaint.

Lockhart told reporters in Los Angeles that Clinton received a copy of Brill’s article Saturday during his California trip, but aides said they did not know whether the president had read it. Clinton returned to Washington on Sunday after a fund-raising dinner.

*

Starr won public backing Sunday from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hatch asserted that if Starr said he did not violate any rules, he for one would believe him.

“It’s crazy to say that prosecutors should not talk on background to reporters,” Hatch said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I would believe Ken Starr over almost anybody else because Starr has an impeccable reputation for honesty and decency.”

The allegations in the Brill article provide an unusual public glimpse of some of the ways that journalists historically have gathered information for the stories they write about major Washington political controversies.

In high-profile investigations of major public figures, prosecutors often leak bits and pieces of their evidence to a few reporters--usually those from prominent publications or TV networks--to help build public support for their cases and for the probes they are conducting.

At the same time, lawyers for those being targeted frequently provide reporters with information or points that support their side of the case. In both instances, the “leaks” come under ground rules that prohibit precise identification of the source.

Many journalists believe that accepting such leaks is the only way they can obtain the information they need to provide complete stories to readers.

In the Lewinsky flap, the independent counsel’s office and the White House, as well as private attorneys for both sides, have been leaking information--and seeking to discredit their opponents--while simultaneously blaming the other side for leaks.

*

What is different in this case is that the stakes are so high and the political climate is so supercharged that both sides have been aggressive and indiscreet. Reporters too have taken few pains to hide the fact that their sources were prosecutors or White House lawyers.

The article that Brill wrote about Starr is the featured presentation in the debut issue of a magazine called Content that Brill is launching this week. The flurry about the piece concerning the special prosecutor has been considered valuable in marketing the new publication.

*

McManus reported from Los Angeles and Pine from Washington. Times staff writer David Willman in Washington contributed to this report.