But from that legal standpoint, obstruction may be the weakest link in Starr's case. The independent counsel has accepted Monica's assertion that she, not Bruce Lindsey, wrote the "talking points." And the discrepancies between Betty Currie's testimony and Monica's -- which Starr seizes on as evidence of Presidential influence -- certainly cut the other way too. "Starr has relied on Lewinsky's version of events as accurate and has reported Currie's contradictory evidence dismissively," says TIME Washington correspondent Elaine Shannon. "But any good defense lawyer would assert that Currie's credibility is greater than that of Lewinsky."
And Currie is one of the rare third parties in this story; most of Clinton's alleged obstructions, such as the "Titanic"-inspired mash note and the suggested cover stories, rely on Monica's account alone. "Anything substantive took place out of earshot of anyone else -- it's all dependent on that," says TIME senior writer Jeffrey Kluger, who is also a lawyer. And Starr's relentlessly salacious drags Monica through the mud right along with Clinton. "Starr may have done himself a disservice by presenting the naked Lewinsky," says Kluger. "She becomes a less credible, less stable witness." Of course, this case isn't going to court -- it's going to Congress. But if House members need a reason to try this one on the polls, Starr's legal weak spots might just do the trick.