WASHINGTON -- President Clinton should refuse to testify before the grand jury, no matter what the political price.

He should testify fully and truthfully, and then tell all to the American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, even if it means saying he previously lied.

He should testify, but refuse to answer any questions about sex.

He should stick to his original story -- deny, deny, deny!

So goes the chorus of free, unsolicited legal advice being offered these days to the president, in the press and on the airwaves, in advance of his session Monday with the office of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and the Lewinsky grand jury.

The vast range of the speculation, advice and predictions -- from celebrated defense lawyers to little-known former federal prosecutors -- reflects the uncharted territory Clinton finds himself in as the first president to testify before a grand jury in a case in which he is the target.

In fact, one of the only pronouncements on which all the experts seem to agree is that there are no easy answers, and Clinton has few if any good options.

But this season of incessant legal talk also reflects the lack of hard information or real news available on the scandal, as well as the ever-expanding chattering class of lawyers spawned by cable networks that must fill hour after hour,day after day.

Talking heads have been plucked from all over: Watergate days, the O. J. Simpson trial, academia, politics. A few, such as Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor who specializes in environmental law but has cultivated a sort of sound-bite scholarship, have been far more visible than any of the actual players or lawyers in the Lewinsky saga.

One frequent voice, Stuart Taylor Jr., a legal affairs columnist for the National Journal, went so far as to allow television cameras at his vacation spot on Cape Cod so he wouldn't miss a chance to opine.

"We've suddenly produced a whole corpus of lawyers who seem to have nothing better to do than try to get face time on television," says Stephen Hess, a senior government studies fellow at the Brookings Institution. "I pass them by on my way from C-SPAN to the Orioles game. They're uniquely uninteresting. It's a terrible commentary on the legal profession."

Sharp contrast

The all-attorney-all-the-time airwaves and Op-Ed pages stand in contrast to the tight group of counselors who actually have knowledge of the situation and are crafting a strategy with Clinton. That exclusive group is composed of Clinton's private -- lawyers David E. Kendall, Nicole Seligman and Mickey Kantor, a former commerce secretary who has returned as an outside attorney -- the only people whose conversations with the president are protected by attorney-client privilege -- and Hillary Rodham Clinton, also a lawyer.

Harry Thomason, a Hollywood producer and longtime Clinton friend who testified this week before Starr's grand jury, has remained in Washington to help coach Clinton on his delivery.

Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office, said he doubts that the legal static -- "and there's plenty for the asking," he concedes -- is permeating the executive mansion's family quarters, where Clinton and his lawyers are meeting in preparation for the session Monday.

Kennedy, the spokesman in charge of scandal matters, says there are "so many Op-Eds, so many papers, so many interviews on TV" that it's hard to keep up with what's being said by whom.

The shift from the usual rumor mill to the "speculative fervor" over what Clinton will do, could do or should do, Kennedy says, is a product of "the dearth of hard information."

Indeed, it's possible that only two people -- Clinton and Lewinsky -- know the full truth about what sort of relationship the president and the former intern had. But that has hardly stopped "legal experts" from handing out advice.

Unsolicited advice

Here's the advice most of them say they would give to Clinton: The mea culpa: Tell all to the grand jury and then address the American people with a full explanation of your relationship with Lewinsky -- even if it means admitting some sort of sexual contact. This is perhaps the most unlikely scenario. It's based on the assumption that Clinton lied under oath in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct case when he denied that he and Lewinsky had had a sexual relationship. It is espoused by several former White House lawyers and officials, including former chief of staff Leon E. Panetta.

Sound bite: "I think this matter is important enough that he should sit down, stare the American people in the eye and do it directly from the Oval Office." -- Panetta

Stick to your story: Tell the grand jury that what you told Jones' lawyers and the public is the whole truth -- there was no sexual relationship with Lewinsky despite her testimony to the contrary. This approach is said to be favored by the president's lawyers, by Mrs. Clinton and by those who believe Clinton told the truth. The wild card here: the Lewinsky dress. If the FBI lab finds that it contains evidence of a sexual encounter, skip to next scenario.

Sound bite: "The era of the 'Checkers' speech is over." -- Stanley Brand, a Democratic lawyer.

I didn't inhale: Tell the grand jury that while there was some sexual contact with Lewinsky, you did not commit perjury in the Jones case because you didn't consider what transpired to have been "sexual relations." Say the Jones lawyers weren't specific enough in their questions. Such a loophole could save Clinton legally, but it could have political fallout if the public feels lied to.

Sound bite: "There are no good options for the president right now, and the best one may be to try to do what he's done successfully before, and that is talk his way out of it." -- Bradford Berenson, a criminal defense lawyer.

Zone of privacy: Testify. But say that although you will answer any questions about obstruction of justice or suborning perjury regarding Lewinsky or anyone else, you will answer no questions about your sex life because it tramples on your Fourth Amendment personal privacy rights. One downside is that Starr could subpoena the president again, sparking a constitutional showdown. Another is that Clinton has stated publicly that he will testify "completely" and truthfully.

Sound bite: " 'I respectfully refuse to answer questions you are asking me, or will ask me, about my private sex life. That is none of your business, and none of any prosecutor's or investigator's business.' " -- Nathan Lewin, a noted defense lawyer, on what Clinton should say.

Perjury trap: Change your mind and refuse to testify, because addressing the grand jury would be a no-win situation: Either you would perjure yourself, or you would admit that you did so in the Jones case. (This scenario is based on the notion that Clinton previously lied about Lewinsky.) Cite last week's federal court ruling that there was evidence Starr may have illegally leaked secret grand jury material, as reason for bowing out. This tactic is favored by numerous defense lawyers.

Sound bite: "I think Bill Clinton is crazy if he goes ahead with his testimony." -- Roy Black, attorney who has represented such notables-in-trouble as Marv Albert and William Kennedy Smith.

Pub Date: 8/13/98