CLINTON, COUNSEL DROP THEIR GLOVES.

Byline: Angie Cannon and Jodi Enda / Knight Ridder Newspapers

The White House and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exchanged heated accusations Friday, charging each other with using smear tactics in the Monica Lewinsky imbroglio.

Lawyers for President Clinton initiated the highly unusual skirmish, saying they would seek criminal contempt charges against prosecutors for leaking information that is protected by grand jury secrecy laws.

Starr responded angrily, asserting that the White House was engaged in an ``orchestrated plan to deflect and distract this investigation.''

The White House began its offensive in the face of recurring leaks concerning Starr's investigation into allegations that Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky and tried to cover it up. Clinton denies the allegations.

In a 15-page letter Friday, Clinton attorney David Kendall accused Starr of illegally divulging false and misleading information to the news media. He said he planned to seek judicial relief, including contempt sanctions, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where the grand jury is hearing testimony in the Lewinsky investigation.

Earlier in the day, Clinton fended off questions about Lewinsky in a 45-minute East Room news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

``I never asked anybody to do anything but tell the truth'' Clinton said. His statement was in response to published accounts Friday that suggested the president coached his personal secretary before she testified to a grand jury about Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

``We've seen leak after leak, which often, ultimately, and in the fullness of time, turns out to be false information,'' Kendall told reporters. ``They often appear to be a cynical attempt to pressure and manipulate witnesses, deceive the public and smear persons involved in this investigation.

``The office is obviously out of control when it comes to leaking.''

Late Friday, Starr issued a missive of his own. In a letter to Kendall, he said he would investigate whether leaks had emanated from his office. But he blistered the Clinton lawyer for lecturing him on his professional conduct.

``Fiercely aggressive representation, including through media grandstanding, cannot be an excuse for smearing a lawyer through reckless accusations,'' Starr wrote.

Immunity talks

Meanwhile, Lewinsky lawyer William Ginsburg and Starr remained locked in a dispute over the status of immunity negotiations for the young woman. Starr said his office is being denied a face-to-face meeting with Lewinsky to judge her credibility, a charge Ginsburg denies.

But Ginsburg says he already has an immunity agreement and that Starr is now reneging. Under the terms of that deal, Ginsburg said, Starr would be entitled to interview Lewinsky and even subject her to a polygraph test.

The White House's latest offensive Friday signals an escalation of its criticism of Starr, who already had come under attack from first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Clinton advisers.

`Mad as hell'

``People are angry. They're fed up,'' said Paul Begala, a senior adviser to Clinton. ``Remember `Network,' when Peter Finch opens the window and says, `I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore?' That's where we are right now.''

Begala said the White House, which had initially tried to keep a low profile as the allegations mushroomed, will continue to go on the offensive in the face of what he called false leaks.

The New York Times and The Washington Post reported Friday that a day after Clinton denied an affair with Lewinsky under oath, he met with his secretary, Betty Currie, and discussed his contacts with the former intern.

The newspapers said Currie has been cooperating with investigators. During the press conference, Clinton complained about ``leaking unlawfully out of the grand jury proceeding.''

But the two newspapers did not attribute the information to grand jury testimony, citing instead information that Currie gave investigators. The distinction is important legally because it is a felony for a prosecutor, grand juror or court reporter to divulge grand jury testimony.

Currie's lawyer, Lawrence H. Wechsler, said he was ``shocked and dismayed'' by the leaks, adding, ``I want to be absolutely clear: To the extent there is any implication or the slightest suggestion that Mrs. Currie believed that the president or anyone else tried to influence her recollection, that is absolutely false and a mischaracterization of the facts.''

Though a witness is permitted to release that information, legal experts say that law is very strictly enforced if a prosecutor or grand juror violates it. A violation can be prosecuted as criminal contempt or obstruction of justice.

John Barrett, a law professor at St. John's University in New York who worked with the Iran-Contra independent counsel, said it is not a crime to leak information given to investigators outside of grand jury proceedings, but that it violates professional prosecutorial ethics.

Handling leaks

Barrett also said leak investigations can be handled several ways. Starr could conduct an internal investigation, using FBI agents to take sworn affidavits from the people who work in Starr's office and even going so far as to have them take polygraph tests. If anyone refused to give a sworn statement, that person would be asked to leave the office, Barrett said.

The law professor also said that Starr could have Attorney General Janet Reno do an independent leak investigation. A third possibility, he said, is that Congress could get involved and require Starr and his prosecutors to testify under oath about whether they had contact with the newspapers.

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said the White House views the leaks as not only damaging, but criminal.

``The harm is that information has time and time again proven to be false and misleading,'' he said. ``And it fundamentally violates the fairness of the grand jury process. The grand jury process is about getting the facts, not pursuing alternative agendas. This appears to have more to do with Starr vs. Lewinsky than anything else.''

Asked how Clinton was faring, Lockhart said, ``He's got a stiff upper lip. He's been going through this for a long time, and this is nothing new.''