Ex-Starr Aide Goes on Trial Today on Charges of Lying to Judge

For Charles G. Bakaly III, who left Los Angeles two years ago to join the Whitewater independent counsel’s staff, appearing in federal court today will be a bitter pill.

The 44-year-old lawyer and scion of an old-line Pasadena family is facing criminal charges in a leak investigation that resulted from his work as Kenneth W. Starr’s counselor and chief spokesman.

Despite his years of experience in dealing with the Washington press corps, dating back to service in the Ronald Reagan White House, Bakaly’s alleged missteps could bring a six-month prison term and likely disbarment if he is convicted.

In typical Washington fashion, however, he is not charged with leaking the story last year that Starr was considering indicting President Clinton while he was still in office. Rather, Bakaly will stand trial before Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson for the capital’s most common cardinal sin: lying about what he did.

Article Appeared on Eve of Senate Trial

Bakaly, who has pleaded not guilty, is charged formally with criminal contempt of court for allegedly making “false and misleading statements” in writing to Johnson about his role in providing information for a New York Times article in January 1999.

That front-page story, which appeared on the eve of Clinton’s Senate impeachment trial, said that Starr had concluded he had the constitutional authority to indict Clinton while he was still in the White House. The article drew an angry retort from David E. Kendall, the president’s lawyer, that Starr was trying to influence the upcoming proceedings as “the 101st senator.”

Clinton later was acquitted by the Senate of perjury and obstruction of justice, the same charges that Starr reportedly was considering to frame in an indictment.

Johnson, who had supervisory authority over Starr’s grand jury, asked the Whitewater counsel to investigate the source or sources of the newspaper story immediately. The newspaper attributed the information to “associates of Starr.”

Judge Angered by Story’s Appearance

The story had enraged Johnson, as well as the White House, because it followed months of charges and countercharges between Starr and Kendall over leaks about the independent counsel’s investigation of the Monica S. Lewinsky affair. In addition, Johnson had warned both sides sternly that she would tolerate no disclosures of grand jury information or leaks from closed-door court sessions.

After initiating a leak inquiry, Starr subsequently fired Bakaly, concluding that he had been involved. He then referred a criminal inquiry to the Justice Department. Department lawyers said in court papers this week that Bakaly had acknowledged he might have “inadvertently confirmed” to the newspaper that some of Starr’s prosecutors believed Clinton could be indicted.

Robert W. Ray, who succeeded Starr last October, has said that he still is studying a possible Clinton indictment--but after Clinton leaves office, not before. Ray has asked colleagues who know Bakaly not to discuss his case.

Bakaly, who publicly denied leaking the story, since has qualified his position in court filings to say that he spoke several times with the reporter, Don Van Natta Jr., in an effort to ensure that his story would be accurate. Bakaly also acknowledged giving the reporter an internal memo from Starr’s office that discussed the legal questions surrounding the potential indictment. But Bakaly has insisted, without contradiction from the Justice Department, that none of the information he conveyed involved secret grand jury material, which would have amounted to a grave offense.

It is common practice in Washington for government information officers, when confronted with the possibility of a news story adverse to their interests, to try to steer reporters to a more favorable treatment--sometimes without being named--if they can demonstrate facts to support it.

The reporter stressed to Bakaly that his principal sources were outside Starr’s office, Robert M. Weinberg, Bakaly’s defense attorney, said in recent court filings. The case became complicated, said Weinberg, because Bakaly’s initial statement contained inaccuracies because of a misunderstanding by two lawyers whom Starr retained to question his former spokesman.

Weinberg said that Bakaly, despite his public statements, has never sought to deny that he spoke with the reporter and gave him some material.

“It’s been an extremely difficult time for [Bakaly],” said a longtime friend and lawyer in Los Angeles, who asked that his name not be used. “But he’s determined to see this thing through. He feels he did nothing wrong or improper.”

Ironically, Bakaly sought a job with Starr in April 1998--in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation--because he thought Starr was taking too much unwarranted criticism and needed someone to deflect it and explain his thinking to the press.

He previously had handled media relations for Donald C. Smaltz, another Californian who in 1994 was appointed as an independent counsel to investigate former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. But Bakaly left that job and returned to Southern California in 1997.

Bakaly had the advantage of being an attorney and press specialist too. Following in the footsteps of his father, Charles Bakaly Jr., a retired labor lawyer from the Los Angeles firm of O’Melveny and Myers, the younger Bakaly earned his law degree from Southwestern University in 1980 and soon began working as a press advance man in the Reagan White House.

He headed back to the West Coast in 1986, where he first met and worked in the same law firm with Smaltz on white-collar criminal cases and complex business litigation.

A tall, dapper man who loves California surfing, Bakaly in many ways was the antithesis of the proper, buttoned-down Starr. When someone joked that the laid-back Bakaly, with his pink shirts, white collars and bright pocket hankies, had been hired as a fashion consultant for Starr, Jackie Bennett, Starr’s hard-driving deputy, had a ready answer.

“That’s exactly right,” Bennett said with a smile. “And Starr has rejected all his advice.”

Bakaly Was Public Face for Office

Bakaly, however, made concessions to his boss. He stopped wearing his long dark hair in a ponytail, except on weekends. And he signed on to Starr’s workaholic schedule, often arriving at the Whitewater prosecutor’s office at 4 a.m. Colleagues said he answered as many as 100 calls a day from reporters.

Weinberg, in his court papers, described Bakaly’s duties.

“His mission was to attempt to ensure that the public was properly informed about the work and function of the OIC [office of independent counsel], to correct misinformation or misconceptions about the OIC, and to try to put the OIC’s relationships with the media on a professional basis,” Weinberg said.

“In performing these duties, Mr. Bakaly was governed by and mindful of his responsibilities under Rule 6-E [grand jury secrecy] as interpreted by this court.”

From his first day on the job, Bakaly assured reporters that he would be “proactive” on behalf of Starr.

“It is fair to say that the office is going to protect the integrity of the investigation and the integrity of the process,” he once said. “To the extent that means responding to inaccurate information, the answer to that is definitely yes, we will be aggressive.”