Ex-Starr Aide Admits Statement Misled Judge

WASHINGTON —  A former aide to Kenneth W. Starr acknowledged to a federal judge Monday that portions of his sworn declaration in a leak investigation were incomplete and misleading.

Charles G. Bakaly III--who was forced to resign last year by the former independent counsel as his counselor and chief spokesman on the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation--said shortcomings in his court affidavit resulted from the fact that it was written by another lawyer.

But Bakaly insisted that he stands by the document as truthful--even though it lacks additional information that he later provided in a series of FBI interviews.

Bakaly, 45, a former Los Angeles lawyer, is being tried on charges that he submitted a false statement to Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who had ordered an inquiry into the source of a New York Times story on Jan. 31, 1999. The front-page article, attributed to “associates of Starr” reported that Starr had concluded he had the constitutional authority to indict President Clinton while he is still in the White House.

The story brought an accusation from David E. Kendall, the president’s lawyer, that Starr was trying to influence the ongoing Senate impeachment trial as “the 101st senator.” Starr denied any involvement.

Lawyer Could Be Disbarred

If convicted, Bakaly could face up to six months in prison and possible disbarment for the alleged false declaration. He is expected to conclude his testimony today in the nonjury trial.

It is not known if Johnson will hand down an immediate verdict or take the matter under advisement.

Bakaly, taking the witness stand in his own defense, said in response to questions from a member of his legal team, Michele A. Roberts, that his affidavit in February 1999 was truthful and accurate. But he said he was unhappy with the document because the author, Donald T. Bucklin, whom Starr had hired to question Bakaly, failed to adopt some changes in wording that Bakaly had suggested in order to make the statement more complete.

The declaration was oversimplified because it implied “that I had not provided any information for the article, and I did,” Bakaly testified.

But he added that Bucklin felt that the judge was interested only in whether Bakaly had given out privileged grand jury information, known as 6-E material, and Bakaly insisted he had not.

Bucklin, who testified last week, said that he had ignored some additions suggested by Bakaly because more complete information about Bakaly’s contacts with the newspaper would give Kendall more information to use against Starr’s office.

Bakaly said that he spoke with the newspaper reporter repeatedly over a period of weeks “to try to steer him away” from writing a story that others would conclude had come out of Starr’s office. Rather, Bakaly said that he provided a censored internal document to the reporter that discussed legal issues related to the presidential indictment question that had arisen in the Watergate investigation of Richard Nixon.

Bakaly said that he wanted the reporter, Don Van Natta Jr., “to take [a] historical approach.” Van Natta, however, told him he had sources “outside Starr’s office” who had told him about “options” being considered by Starr--including a possible sealed indictment of Clinton before he left office, Bakaly testified.

Bakaly denied that he ever discussed Starr’s thinking with Van Natta, saying that it would have been privileged information.

Court Shown Videotape

Clinton was acquitted by senators of perjury and obstruction of justice, the same two charges being debated within Starr’s office as charges to include in an indictment, Bakaly explained. He testified that there was nothing secret about the subject, since other newspapers, including the Boston Globe and Orlando Sentinel, had previously written about the issue.

On cross-examination, prosecutor John Griffith played a videotape of Bakaly’s appearance on ABC-TV’s “Good Morning America” show the day after the New York Times story was published. On the tape, Bakaly said: “The information did not come from our office. It’s not our story.”

“In fact, there was a good deal of information in that story that you provided,” said Griffith.

“I provided some information, yes,” replied Bakaly. “I meant grand jury information. I only talked to Mr. Bucklin about the 6-E matter.”