Sources close to Starr told NEWSWEEK they find Bakaly’s ouster perplexing. The information, even if it was disclosed by Bakaly, appears to be legal opinions, not grand-jury secrets. Moreover, the Times story was old news; NEWSWEEK had reported Starr’s conclusions about indictment back in August. The whole fiasco may have more to do with the ongoing leaks investigations of the OIC than with Bakaly’s own role. At the OIC last week, the mood was grim. Starr believes Bakaly may have lied to FBI agents during the course of the leaks probes, and given that the independent counsel’s own investigation of Clinton was based on allegations of obstruction and lying under oath, sources say Starr thought he had to act swiftly to maintain his own credibility. (Bakaly’s lawyer, Howard Shapiro, issued a statement denying that any “statute, regulation or court order” was violated.) Though Starr has spent weeks arguing vociferously that Janet Reno is too conflicted to supervise any investigations of his office, he did an about-face and referred the Bakaly matter to Justice.
If Starr is looking to deflect attention from his office, this may not be the best way to do it. One senior Justice official told NEWSWEEK he was “mystified” by Starr’s referral on the matter of the Times story and is skeptical it will ever lead to a prosecution. As the leaks probes continue, Starr’s headaches are far from over.
