The only scandal-related article on the front page of the Washington Post today is a trash job on Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William H. Ginsburg. According to the authors, Bob Woodward and Ruth Marcus, "[i]nterviews with more than a dozen experienced former prosecutors and defense lawyers produced a consensus that Ginsburg's tactics seem incomprehensible." These attorneys are "astonished" and "perplexed" that Ginsburg--who became the reigning Iron Man of punditry by appearing on no less than five chat shows over the weekend--is spending so much time on television. The Post piece even tweaks Ginsburg for his vocabulary--or, as the authors describe it, his "fondness for fusty words like 'peccadillo,' and 'fraught' and 'broach,' as in 'broach the attorney-client privilege.' "
       Ginsburg is assuredly a fat target. A pompous fellow, a Washington outsider unschooled in both politics and criminal law and a press hound dazzled by the bright lights of television, he is everything the locals here delight in mocking. He may, in fact, be completely clueless and a hazard to his young client.
       But he may also be foxier than he seems. Washington lawyers and Washington Post journalists think Ginsburg's client is in a conventional kind of legal jeopardy, which he appears to be making worse. By negotiating in public and casting doubt on Lewinsky's credibility (saying, among other things, that all 24-year-olds exaggerate), the theory goes, he is angering the guy who will decide whether to press charges. But what if Ginsburg has concluded that prosecuting Lewinsky is not among Starr's options? To indict an immature 24-year-old for lying about her sex life--in an affidavit in a civil suit--would make the independent counsel look like an enormous bully. If his only evidence is Linda Tripp's illegally recorded tapes, Starr could be in real trouble. A Washington, D.C., jury, of the kind that routinely nullifies drug cases because of its suspicion of law enforcement and its tactics, would be unlikely to convict her. Defending Lewinsky in court would be Ginsburg's co-counsel, a savvy black lawyer named Nathaniel Speights, who is a former federal prosecutor. Perhaps worst of all from Starr's point of view, a decision to bring charges against Lewinsky would constitute an acceptance of ultimate failure. Once indicted, she would surely not be a friendly witness against Vernon Jordan, Bruce Lindsey, or Bill Clinton.
       That said, there is no reason Ginsburg should not pursue immunity for his client if it is available on his terms. He has been criticized by other lawyers for passing up the exploding offer of unconditional immunity that Starr made Jan. 16, when Lewinsky was detained in the Pentagon Ritz-Carlton. But Ginsburg, freshly retained, was in no position to evaluate his client's options in the few hours they were given to reach a decision. And in fact, Lewinsky would have had to turn not only government witness but also undercover operative. Starr wanted her to wear a wire and try to help him nab Jordan. Ginsburg is now holding out not for the same offer, as has been widely asserted, but for a far better deal--unlimited immunity without Lewinsky having to participate in a sting operation.
       Even compromising his client's credibility, which seems so obviously foolish, might make sense in this case. Here's the theory, which I'll admit may be a bit of a reach. Lewinsky doesn't want to testify against the president or Jordan. By casting doubt on the story she apparently told Tripp on tape, Ginsburg damages her value as a witness and diminishes the chance that anyone else will be prosecuted with her evidence. This is infuriating to Starr, and Ginsburg's critics say making Starr mad is a bad idea. According to Robert Luskin, a defense attorney quoted in the Post piece, "[I]t's going to be that much harder for Starr to do anything with her, and if he can't do anything with her, the only thing that's left to do is prosecute her." But if Starr can't plausibly prosecute Lewinsky, Ginsburg doesn't care how angry Starr gets. Showing a willingness to blow Starr's case, even at some risk to his client, might be a brilliant bluff on Ginsburg's part. Seeming more dangerous than you are can actually be a rational tactic. According to game theory, a crazy opponent is a formidable one. If you can telegraph that you're willing to risk your own destruction, you can take anyone in a game of chicken.
       Of course, such a legal strategy might still harm Lewinsky's reputation. If she ruins Starr's case by proving herself a liar and a lunatic, she'll still look like a liar and a lunatic. But even as he sends signals to Starr, Ginsburg is doing his best to mitigate the harm to his client's reputation. Like all good flacks, Ginsburg appears to understand two things. One is that the press is a hungry bear. If you don't feed it, it will eat your arm. The other is that you can blunt the edges of bad publicity, but you can't invert the truth. If Lewinsky had a sexual relationship with Clinton, and it's obvious to most people, there's no point flatly denying it. What Ginsburg can do is portray Lewinsky as more victim than aggressor and describe her as not being the kind of young lady who would have phone sex with the president or keep a semen-stained dress hanging in her closet. On these matters he may be telling the truth--and the truth may never be known.
       Furthermore, Ginsburg may understand that it is better to admit your own misdeeds before someone else admits them for you. This might have been his reason for his acknowledging that Lewinsky does have an interest in a condo in Australia, substantiating allegations that she offered it to Tripp in exchange for her false testimony. You lance the boil by getting the bad news out yourself. If I'm right, and there is a method behind Ginsburg's media madness, he is also shrewdly preserving the economic value of Lewinsky's only commodity--her story, which one publisher described in today's paper as being worth $5 million. If she sells it someday, her lawyers are much more likely to get paid in full.
       On the other hand, Bob Woodward may be right. Ginsburg may just love the limelight and be incapable of keeping his big mouth shut. But he wouldn't be the first lawyer in the case to fit that description. And I'd venture he bills out at a lot less than Bob Bennett.