They have confronted the chill of winter, the rains of spring and the searing heat of a capital summer. They may occasionally doubt themselves, physically and emotionally spent, rattled by the intense gaze of spectators.
But as a day of reckoning awaits Monday, they can all say with a mix of pride and disillusionment that, yes, by God, they have endured the Monica Marathon.
Geraldo Rivera, Jonathan Turley, Greta Van Susteren, Laura Ingraham, Ben Ginsberg, C. Boyden Gray and Dan Webb are among the hosts, regular analysts and guests who have been television presences for month after month on virtually one subject: Monica Lewinsky.
Often chauffeured about in black sedans, they gather thoughts before arriving at the next studio destination. By now, they are on a first-name basis with drivers and security guards. Pros, they have their makeup applied in workmanlike fashion, stare at a robotic camera and perhaps glance at a few hastily scribbled notes as a disembodied voice double-checks their voice levels.
Then they opine to a waiting nation.
More Top Picks Best Shoes For Stability And Motion Control
Like any soap opera, even a tawdry and corrosive one, this has a distinct cast of characters and issues: Linda Tripp. Kathleen Willey. The blue dress. Betty Currie. The talking points. A dead cat. Subornation of perjury. Bruce Lindsey.
Monday brings the grand jury testimony of President Clinton. So, with the understanding that nobody can be sure what Kenneth Starr’s minions may ask, I solicited suggestions from battle-hardened members of the Monica Marathon.
For Washington lawyer Ginsberg, a sound bite meister of Republican bent, his first question would be:
Did you testify truthfully at all other times you have been under oath and would you want to change anything?
“The nub of the case is whether he told the truth or not in his deposition in the Paula Jones case,” said Ginsberg, a member of the lobbying law firm headed by Tommy Boggs, brother of ABC’s Cokie Roberts. “Here you give him a chance to clear the air at the beginning.”
“If he doesn’t change his story, then go through the evidence you have gathered in the course of the investigation and ask him about all the inconsistencies,” Ginsberg said. He also would ask:
Did you have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Why did she of all interns receive such special treatment, including 37 visits to the White House, the job offers and (help finding employment) from Vernon Jordan and others?
Gray, White House counsel under George Bush and a man of means and charm, suggested this from a Maine vacation home:
What steps did you take to arrange . . . or were you aware were taken . . . for her employment in the legislative affairs office at the White House, then the Pentagon, at the United Nations or the private sector at American Express and Revlon?
“I would ask that because there are statutes dealing with preferential hiring, and there is potential liability for giving special job treatment in exchange for things not entirely above board,” Gray said. “It is the flip side of sex harassment. There might be a claim by another intern that they did not get the same job treatment.
“Also, this would underscore that this is more than private sex between consenting adults but with an employee who got increasingly better jobs perhaps as a result of the relationship.”
Ingraham, a lawyer-commentator of conservative bent, thinks those pundits who contend Starr’s minions will be specific with Clinton about sex acts and a coverup are flat wrong.
She said, “Assuming Clinton stays with broad denials, Starr might not want to show him many specifics regarding sex, conversations with Monica, the Betty Currie testimony and instead may choose to dump it all in the report (to Congress). That way, Clinton has no time to spin publicly about what others have testified to–at least others whom (Clinton lawyer David) Kendall hasn’t debriefed.
“At the start, Starr will set a foundation establishing the president’s (presumably) broad denials or memory lapses,” Ingraham said. “He will likely start by asking general questions regarding their contacts, extent of the contacts, whether they spoke on the phone, whether he was personally involved with Monica’s job search, whether he asked Currie to help out. Clinton’s `I don’t remembers’ or perjurious responses will then be dumped into the final report after specific contradictory evidence has already been presented by Starr.”
So questions she figures will be asked include:
Did you leave phone messages for Monica? If so, why? Did you ever leave messages late at night?
Did you have a similar practice with calls and gifts with other interns? How often were you and Monica alone? Under what circumstances (purpose, time of day, day of week)?
Were you aware of the White House personnel decision to transfer her to the Pentagon? Did she express dissatisfaction about the transfer to you? Did you promise to help her return to the White House after the election? Did you discuss keeping the relationship quiet? How did you find out about the Starr investigation of Lewinsky?
Have you had relationships with other women in the White House similar to that with her?
As was true with the O.J. Simpson case, Rivera has devoured this story. His “Rivera Live” on CNBC is a sprightly, nightly foray into Monica Mania, with the host clearly a Clinton partisan. His suggestions:
Did you allow Ms. Lewinsky to touch you in an intimate fashion with any part of her body? Did Ms. Lewinsky allow you to touch her with any part of your body in an intimate fashion?
“Those two questions are perjury relevant,” he said.
Did you have any conversations with Ms. Lewinsky concerning the gifts you and or Betty Currie had given her?
“That’s for obstruction,” he explained.
Did you have any conversations with anyone, including but not limited to Betty Currie and Vernon Jordan, concerning finding private or public employment for Ms. Lewinsky?
“That’s for subornation (of perjury) and obstruction,” he said.
More Top Picks Best Chicken Coops
Van Susteren, co-host of CNN’s “Burden of Proof” and a defense attorney sympathetic to Clinton, would basically ask him the same questions asked Lewinsky, then look at the documentary evidence and see which it supports.
From your recollection, list every instance you have ever touched her (Lewinsky).
“Then I would go to Monica’s testimony, mention specific citations by her and ask, `Do you remember all those?’ ” Van Susteren said.
Chicago native North Sider Turley, a professor at George Washington University, is so much in demand that Time magazine noted with tongue in cheek, “Ten consecutive Sunday show appearances!” He counsels starting with questions identical or nearly identical to those posed in Clinton’s Jones deposition. In addition:
Did you lie during the deposition? Was there anything in there that was either misleading or false? Were you ever alone with her?
“I tend to fear the more innocuous questions, not the central ones” Turley said. “The client is prepared for the central ones. But if he says his relationship with her was similar to that with other interns, it would open a hornet’s nest.”
“This will take incredible endurance and concentration by him. . . . And when you have a witness as well-prepared and intelligent as the president, he’s more likely to be brought down by a thousand paper cuts than a single blow.”
Finally, a late-starting, increasingly sought analyst is Chicago’s Webb, a former prosecutor. He believes the key lines of questions won’t involve sex but obstruction. A line of questioning about Clinton suggesting that she keep the relationship quiet “could exhaust in enormous detail his version of what he said to her. Then after his recollection is exhausted, ask him a series of leading questions that will be phrased in identical language as to those asked when Monica testified.
“With non-leading questions, have him explain every conversation on this matter, then make him admit or deny her version. `On this day, did she say this?’ And he has to say yes or no.”
“The key,” Webb said, “is what happened with any effort to influence her.”