ALL THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS

This episode neatly illustrates the White House’s legal-defense strategy, which goes something like this: The moment someone is subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr to give Lewinsky-related testimony, an attorney will be procured who belongs to Washington’s white-collar criminal-defense fraternity and who can be trusted to act as a Clinton ally. The attorney will then sign on to what is known as a joint-defense agreement, enabling him to share information about his client with other defense attorneys. Finally, when any information surfaces that could be the least damaging to the president, the attorney will work with other Clinton allies inside and outside the White House to fashion a rapid response,all the while condemning Kenneth Starr and the media for being “recklessly irresponsible.”

White House officials insist they’ve had to resort to such tactics because of Starr’s prosecutorial zeal, and to guarantee that the defendants — many of whom are low- or mid-level White House aides — get a fair shake. But there’s really only one reason for what they’re doing: They think it will benefit Bill Clinton.

If one doubts that the fix is in to protect Clinton, one need only consider the attorneys representing figures who have been ensnared in the Lewinsky drama. They are a group disinclined to allow any harm to come Clinton’s way, even at the expense of a client’s interests.

Take Lawrence Wechsler, who represents Clinton’s personal secretary, Betty Currie. He came on the recommendation of Clinton attorney Robert Bennett, who had a word with Charles Ruff, the White House counsel. After being hired, Wechsler quickly confirmed his pro-Clinton colors. When the New York Times reported that Currie had met with the president to review his testimony in the Paula Jones case, Wechsler, under pressure from Clinton’s legal team, dutifully issued a statement: Any suggestion Clinton had tried to influence Currie’s recollection was “absolutely false and a mischaracterization of the facts.”

Bayani Nelvis, the above-mentioned White House steward, was strongly urged by the White House counsel’s office to hire Joseph Small, another Bennett acquaintance. As an employee of the defense department, Nelvis was entitled to a Pentagon lawyer — but it’s doubtful a government lawyer would be as vigilant as Small in defending Bill Clinton.

Ashley Raines, the White House aide in whom Lewinsky allegedly confided about a romantic relationship with the president, is in the hands of Wendy White, who now works for the firm of Shea & Gardner. Her last job? Associate counsel in the Clinton White House.

These three attorneys are all part of the joint-defense agreement that allows them to share information with one another, and with Clinton’s personal lawyer, David Kendall. But even attorneys who are not believed to be parties to the agreement have been demonstrably supportive of the president.

Michael Leibig represents Lewis Fox, the former Secret Service agent who has alleged Clinton and Lewinsky spent 40 minutes alone in the Oval Office in the fall of 1995. Yet since Fox made that statement in a television interview, Leibig has backed away from it. One reason may be Leibig’s work on behalf of the Secret Service’s uniformed officers’ association, which has him involved in an effort to unionize the officers. Doing so would require the support of the Clinton administration. So Leibig has a strong incentive not to antagonize administration officials.

Another administration ace in the hole has been the omnipresent William Ginsburg, Lewinsky’s attorney. After initially wavering between criticism and support of Starr, Ginsburg is now firmly rooted in the Clinton camp. (Prosecutors suspect he’s reached some kind of agreement with the Clinton side.) He stifled Starr’s effort to get Lewinsky’s testimony in exchange for a grant of immunity, denied that Vernon Jordan’s employment search had anything to do with Lewinsky’s being subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case, and acknowledged in an interview with an Israeli newspaper that he liked Clinton’s policy toward Israel and didn’t want to see him forced to resign. “Who knows who will come after Clinton,” said Ginsburg, “and what his attitude to Israel will be?”

All of which begs a simple question: At what point are the interests of these attorneys’ clients subordinated to the interests of the president? Indeed, if one of the defendants has incriminating information about Clinton, is it realistic to expect that an attorney of this group would make that information available to the prosecution?

The joint-defense agreement complicates the release of any such information, as a defendant’s attorney would be obligated to inform the other attorneys in the agreement and would then come under enormous pressure to keep mum. In the clubby world of white-collar defense lawyers — where referrals are often the best source of business — an attorney’s incentive to stay on good terms with his peers can be enormous. Under a joint-defense agreement, defense attorneys are permitted to share information with one another and discuss their clients’ testimony, while at the same time preserving the attorney- client privilege.

This sharing of information, known as “debriefings,” frequently occurs following a defendant’s grand-jury appearance. According to the Washington Post, shortly after George Stephanopoulos testified before the grand jury, his attorney, Stanley Brand, called the president’s personal lawyer, Kendall, to describe the questions asked of Stephanopoulos and the answers the former aide provided. Such debriefings are important because they can help defense attorneys craft the testimony of their clients. And in this case, the biggest beneficiary is, of course, Clinton.

So what’s Starr to do? The defendants’ united front obviously complicates his quest to determine the nature of the Clinton/Lewinsky relationship. Piercing this unity will be no small achievement, but it is not unheard of for prosecutors to challenge the legitimacy of joint-defense agreements if they feel those agreements are causing information to be withheld, or that the interests of those persons party to the agreement don’t coincide. These concerns were raised in 1992 by federal prosecutors investigating the BCCI scandal, prompting them to subpoena five BCCI-affiliated lawyers engaged in a joint-defense agreement (one of whom was Bob Bennett). Starr would undoubtedly prefer not to go this route. But when dealing with witnesses whose attorneys are all in the Clinton orbit, it may be the only option he’s got.

Matthew Rees is a staffwriter for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.