<<<
Gloves come off in Starr-Brill slugfest
THE WAR OF WORDS
ESCALATES AS
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
FIRES OFF A 19-PAGE
LETTER AND THE
CONTENT EDITOR
SHOOTS BACK.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
BY JONATHAN BRODER | Last weekend, when
Steven Brill, editor of the new media watchdog
magazine Content, reported that independent
counsel Kenneth Starr had admitted leaking
information from his Monica Lewinsky
investigation to favored reporters, there were gasps
from the White House, growls from the journalists
Brill had identified and a gathering sense that a fuse
had been lit inside the independent counsel's office.
The explosion came Tuesday as Starr lashed back,
angrily accusing Brill of publishing an article that
"borders on the libelous."
"You challenge this office at a fundamental level --
alleging that we would commit crimes to uncover
crime," Starr wrote in a single-spaced, 19-page
letter to Brill. "This challenge goes so deeply to the
integrity of this investigation that it cannot go
unanswered."
Dripping with indignation, Starr's letter disputed
more than a dozen instances cited by Brill as
examples of possible leaks to reporters by
prosecutors in Starr's office. "I categorically and
unequivocally reject the charge that this office has,
in any way, violated any precept of law, policy or
ethics," Starr wrote.
Brill fired back a few hours later with a statement
that took note of the fact that Starr "does not
dispute any of the quotes attributed by me to him."
Referring to Starr's insistence that his background
conversations with reporters were entirely proper,
Brill added, "I am sure that Judge Starr sincerely
believes in his view of the law -- just as I believe
that other lawyers and judges have and will
continue to disagree with him."
Then, addressing complaints from reporters who
have challenged Brill's assertion that they were fed
by Starr or his deputy, the magazine editor
challenged Starr to release logs of the independent
counsel's telephone calls and in-person
conversations with reporters. "Also, assuming, as
Judge Starr states in his letter, that there was no
significance to these briefings having been done on
background as opposed to on the record, Judge
Starr might consider releasing all reporters from any
pledges of confidentiality that were extracted by
him and his deputies," Brill wrote.
David Kendall, President Clinton's personal lawyer,
jumped into the fray earlier Tuesday in a letter to
Starr pointing out the "breathtaking variance"
between Starr's previous denials of leaks from the
independent counsel's office and his quoted
remarks in Brill's article. Quoting from a Feb. 6
letter Starr wrote to Kendall, the president's lawyer
noted: "You stated 'leaks are utterly intolerable'
(your words, not mine) and you went on to say, 'I
have made the prohibition of leaks a principle
priority of the office. It is a firing offense, as well as
one that leads to criminal prosecution.'
"What is so astonishing about your comments in the
Brill article," Kendall wrote, "is that they contradict
... your own frequently and publicly expressed
views both about the need to put a stop to leaking
and your own protestations about your and your
own staff's utter innocence in that regard." >>>
Gee, I didn't know the shill, Larry Klayman, was taken' a cool half a mil from Scaife. Just fessed up to it on CNBC in the middle of a jerky defense of the Pepperdine Dough Boy.
You don't suppose there's some kinda connection here, do ya? |
