Lewinsky's Lawyers: Jacob Stein, Plato Cacheris

November/December 1998 | Contents

Interview
Lewinsky's Lawyers on the Press

"a mindless machine in pursuit of attention"

Jacob Stein and Plato Cacheris, the Washington pros who replaced William Ginsburg, spoke publicly only twice after they became Monica Lewinsky's lawyers. First, they announced that they had been retained. Second, they announced that an immunity deal had been reached with the Office of the Special Counsel. That's it.

Could it be that reporters and producers haven't asked them to comment? No, it couldn't. There's something else behind their silence -- their dark view of the press.

CJR's publisher, Joan Konner, recently spent an on-the-record afternoon with Jacob Stein -- during which four reporters called and Plato Cacheris dropped in -- talking about the media and the scandal. He did not want to talk about Ms. Lewinsky or Kenneth Starr, but Stein was quite willing to talk about the press. By way of background: Stein represented the only defendant not convicted in the Watergate investigation, Kenneth Parkinson, and he served as Special Prosecutor in the investigation into the financial affairs of Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration. Cacheris, among other notable cases, represented Fawn Hall in the Iran-Contra scandal and CIA spy Aldrich Ames. He is credited with saving Ames from the death penalty.

A report on the interview will appear in the Publisher's Note column in the November/December issue of Columbia Journalism Review. The following is a longer, edited version of the questions and answers. The interview began with a discussion about Ginsburg, the medical malpractice attorney who took such heat (from the press) for talking too much (to the press).

Stein: My feeling about the press is that they will build up a reputation, which is news, but it's more news when they tear it down. When Ginsburg was replaced, the media turned on him with a vengeance. In order to turn on him, they had to identify Plato and me with competence beyond our competence. We got a press that was incredible. But it was part of a larger process to take Ginsburg down.

Stein: I think it falls within a pattern of praise and blame. There is in the paper today a description of Gordon Craig, a very fine lawyer. He is now going to assist the president in his defense. If Gordon Craig asked me what I thought was going to happen to him I would say, this is Step One in the demolition of your career.

Stein: It says the public is interested in the misfortune of others. It's a basic element in the press, as I've observed it.

Konner: Is that why you and your partner, Plato Cacheris, have stayed away from the press?

Konner: We ran an article in the Columbia Journalism Review by Robert Shapiro, one of the attorneys for O.J. Simpson. It was called "How to Work the Press."

Stein: I don't have any respect for an article like that. It means you have a gift for cunning. I don't think that's anything to be proud of. My view is that I am afraid of the press. I think the press is treacherous, and if they lift you up, they will knock you down.

Konner: Was it part of the immunity deal that Monica did not talk to the press?

Stein: Well, we told [The Office of the Special Counsel] that we were not going to talk to the press.

Stein: I think that was on the table, because Ginsburg had talked to the press so much, and I think they were getting tired of that.

Konner: You don't recall? One wonders whether there was some concern about her credibility and therefore a desire to keep her away from the press.

Konner: There was so much revealed in the report. Was that a surprise to you?

Stein: Yes, it was. My assignment was to negotiate an arrangement that would put her out of harm's way -- not to get indicted. That really didn't require Plato and me to spend a lot of time with her. By the time we got into the case, the Independent Counsel knew much more than we would ever know.

Konner: How do you feel about having struck the deal that may bring down this president?

Stein: The evidence involving the president was either going to come out in a criminal trial that might well have lead to [Monica] being sentenced for a long time. Or, it could come out as it has. My assignment was to try and see that she didn't go to jail. The country has no stake in her going to jail. If someone would say to me, you were instrumental in bringing down the president, they don't understand the case.

Stein: I wasn't evaluating. But I saw things that appeared which were untrue. There were reports that we had been told that she was going to be indicted. We were never told she was going to be indicted. Other information I can't tell you. The press can take a story that has certain elements in it and define the outcome. That's the danger of the press….

I think the press can play a significant part in what happens to President Clinton.

Konner: Do you think the press does that consciously, or that it's a mindless machine pursuing the truth?

Stein: Yes. I think that TV has discovered that there is an infinite number of lawyers who will disagree with each other for periods long enough to interrupt commercials. And it has become of great economic value to bring these people on…..

Konner: Do you think the talk shows help inform the public about the legal system?

Stein: I think the public has enough information about the legal system to last it for 500 years.

Stein: In certain respects, I can. The press found itself in the odd position of knowing where the leaks come from and speculating about where the leaks come from.

Konner: Do you have a problem with the fact that reporters are likely to show some kind of consideration to the leaker, and perhaps distort the story?

Stein: There is a theory of knowledge, and a component of it is that people manipulate the press, and the press manipulates what they've heard, to attract attention. Then the public reacts to that. Then they poll the public….

Stein: Well, here again, I'm getting into [Ms. Lewinsky], and I don't want to do that.

Stein: There were things said about Monica which were not true. Things that were said about her mother which were not true, offensive things.

Konner: You served as Independent Counsel in the investigation of Edwin Meese. And you made a very telling statement, if it was quoted accurately. You said that the Independent Counsel has the power to destroy people.

Stein: I do. I thought it was a test of my sanity to be given that much power. Not to abuse it is a contradiction in terms. I think it's inevitable with power like that, you would abuse it.

Konner: Do you have an opinion on the debate that's going on about the renewal of the Independent Counsel Act?

Konner: Do you think there has been an excess of coverage [on this subject]?

Konner: Do you think that the press -- the news media -- today actually damages the country?

Stein: I think it does, in a way. By taking a subject that has expired. Keeping it alive so that it begins to build on itself. Then report on reactions to it.

The reporters are being carried along by competition -- the desire to attract attention. There are limits to what you can say about a subject. And that point is reached rather quickly. Let's say that's done in fifteen minutes. And it has economic value to keep it going for three hours….

Stein: It may be a good idea for people who have a political motive. And yes, there is some economic value. I think there is tremendous competition for any bit of information. So, the traffic in information is intense. If someone has something, a little bit of something new, they put a $50,000 frame around it. It's a

bombshell. My advice to people is to be very careful of this. When you read the newspapers, it's a form of entertainment.

Stein: I don't know. I'll reinforce that by saying the press is going to define it -- to a large extent.

Konner: Do you think the press can actually run the President out of office?

Konner: Do you think the story has gotten to this crisis point because of press coverage?

Stein: The press has made a substantial contribution to it. And the president has met them more than halfway.

Stein (to Cacheris): Do you believe that the press is paramount in determining what is going to happen in this case?

Cacheris: Yes. I think the classic example is this impeachment situation. [The press] wants there to be impeachment hearings; there is no question about it. They are ridiculing the defense that Clinton is putting on. Maybe with good reason.

Cacheris: I don't think the average journalist has an economic interest. But …somebody has got to be looking at the figures and saying, "This is making money."

I think another motive would be that it fits with their philosophy, their morality, what they think should be being done in this country…

Stein: What is your explanation for the hostility of the New York Times editorial page to Clinton? They are almost rabid about trying to destroy him. They are strident.

Cacheris: I think they are feeling, either morally or on some other basis, outraged at the conduct. And they think it calls for drastic measures.

Cacheris: It's my explanation for what they're doing. Whether it's appropriate or not, I don't know.

Konner: Why did you determine that you were not going to make yourself accessible to the press in this case?

And I wouldn't want to do a show with one person, because the rest of them would eat you alive, if you didn't do them all. I don't want to do them all. I don't want to be on Geraldo in any circumstances. If I want to be on Larry King that means that I have to go on CNN, ABC, CBS. And that means I spend the rest of my life on shows. My name is not Ginsburg.

Number two: there are a lot of questions I do not feel comfortable answering. And would not answer. Concerning how Monica feels; confidences that we have gained in the course of our representation of Monica. I will not disclose them publicly. I would not go on any TV show because I think it would do violence to client confidences.

What he had done, which was the worst, in my opinion, is that he had the client believing that Starr and his staff were evil. That they were untrustworthy. And they couldn't be trusted for anything. So that was her frame of mind. I think one thing Jake and I did is we convinced her that they would be honorable with her. And once she understood that that could happen, as it did happen, then she was in a position where she was forthcoming and therefore credible. So, to

Cacheris: (sigh) Well, it was rather detailed. But if I try to look at it objectively, it can be said -- I don't necessarily subscribe to this -- I think it could have been done with less detail. It could have been done with references, and asides. But the position taken by the president in his grand jury testimony -- that he did not have a type of relationship -- gave them the ability, if you will, to unload all these salacious details….

Konner: Do you think it was in the interest of the country for the media to publish every word of it?

Cacheris: I don't think that you could expect the media to be restrained. Once a report like that is filed, I think they have to publish every word of it.

Stein: And I think [the media] made a contribution to its being filed. To get it broadcast. They kept pushing for this.

Konner: Are you concerned with the way Monica has been represented in the press?

Cacheris: Nobody has really done a piece on her that I think is a penetrating analysis. Do I like it? No, I don't like it.

Konner: When is she going to talk to the press? Isn't she free and clear at this point?

Konner: Have you given her any advice on the press? How to deal with reporters?