To the editors:

Much of the criticism of the "Pressgate" piece and the magazine in general has been from people in the mainstream media who were clearly part of the system I was writing about and, thus, responded accordingly. Because Slate and Jacob Weisberg don't in any way fall into that category and deserve to be taken seriously, I thought I should try to respond seriously to some of the factual stuff. (I'll let readers decide for themselves if the magazine is "boring," a knock that reminds me of lawyers' wishful thinking when I started the American Lawyer.)

First, I didn't "leak" the piece to the New York Times--a semi-important point for a magazine like ours. We blast faxed the piece to every major (and minor, I think) press organization, after first faxing it to Ken Starr. Everybody got it at the same time. So, the Times' decision to put it on the front page was not based on having any kind of exclusive.

Now to take Jacob's points in order:

l. Whether I prove Starr leaked grand jury information depends on one's definition of grand jury information. I used the one used by the relevant court with jurisdiction. Starr disagrees with that. No mistakes? How about the stained dress? Or the president testifying that he never was alone with Lewinsky? (I never say the Times made mistakes, by the way.)

2. Yes, Sue Schmidt disputes that quote. That happens with reporters a lot. But, interestingly, she didn't dispute it the first time she was asked about the story by Howie Kurtz for his first story. My notes have her saying exactly that, and then saying it again later on in our interview (at the Madison Hotel coffee shop) in almost the same language.

3. No self-contradiction here. She volunteered that item about Jordan and where she had got the story in the course of narrating that first weekend of the "scandal." When I later asked her directly about sources for her first day story (and stories beyond that) she declined to comment.

4. My point was that Lewinsky's "No" answer was the thing that stood out the most to Mike Isikoff when I talked with him about the tapes. And it's a big part of why Newsweek held the story. I simply pointed out that this is something Newsweek might have remembered to put in and quote when it went online with its first story. In retrospect, though, it would have been fairer and fuller to note that Newsweek did, indeed, say the evidence was not at all clear that the president had instructed her to lie. Nonetheless, I think Newsweek should have included this important quote if it had wanted to be fair.

5. To take one example, let's look at the first day reports from the networks.

What did I know? a) Starr's top deputy had spent "much of the day" briefing these people. Starr told me that and Bennett confirmed it but would not tell me specifics. b)The network reports included material from tapes that could only be the tapes that Starr's people had made (because these tapes allegedly have Lewinsky saying that Jordan and the president told her to lie--which was not on the tapes Newsweek heard and Newsweek had supposedly heard the most incriminating tapes.) Neither Tripp's lawyers or anyone else (even Tripp, though she might obviously remember what was on them but she was not accessible to the press at this point) could have heard those tapes or briefed reporters about them. So I don't think it's "intellectually dishonest" to say that this information must have come from Starr's office. Remember: he says his guy briefed them for these reports and the crux of the reports was what was supposedly on these tapes.

By the way, this criticism is kind of refreshing in the sense that it's so different from the "everyone knows prosecutors leak" criticism that I've got.

6. Jacob is just plain wrong. There are no court decisions in the relevant jurisdiction that support Starr on the notion that leaking what people tell investigators before they testify about what they will testify to is okay. Sure there are some from other courts elsewhere, but they are few and far between and Starr really wouldn't be able to cite them properly in a brief in the District of Columbia.

7. Oops, forget my last paragraph under Point 5.

8. My point about anonymous quotes is made by Jacob. I'm against totally blind uses of phrases like "sources" that don't say how many sources or what ax they might have to grind. (Example: Jackie Judd's citing of "several sources" to substantiate her witnesses-interrupted-the-president-and-Lewinsky "scoop.") When a source can't be named, enough identification should be supplied so that the reader knows the source's potential bias. This clearly worked here; Jacob can see that I'm using a Times person as the source and correctly identifies the potential bias. Now, go back and read what my description of all the truly blind "sources" in the article and see if you can tell the difference.

9. Conflict: Yes, I should have disclosed that in 1995 I gave a thousand bucks to the Clinton campaign. (I've also given money to Republicans, like Rudy.) But how could I prohibit anyone, even myself, retroactively from making contributions? That was 1995; this is 1998, and since I sent out the initial direct mail for this magazine (which I knew would cover political stuff and politicians) I haven't made any contributions to anyone, let alone the president (to whom, again, I made one contribution in 1995). The only "political" writing or editing I did around the time of that Clinton contribution was the Paula Jones piece by Stuart Taylor in the American Lawyer, which I instigated and edited and proudly published--and which, as you know, made the case against the president.

I'm proud of our magazine and proud of this piece. Prouder, in fact, now than when we published it because nearly two weeks later everyone who could take a shot at it has, and so far I can see that I've misspelled one name, screwed up one sequence (the Journal decided not to wait for comment from the White House on its incorrect steward-witness story after hearing the White House wanted a half-hour to comment, not before), and included two or three gratuitous adjectives that I now wouldn't. There may be more, and if there is I will be the first to concede it. But I hope my willingness to admit mistakes isn't misread as being so much more fallible than others--but only being more willing to admit it.

--Steve BrillBrill's ContentNew York City