(2 of 2)
One sign of trouble was what some saw as a bout of negotiating through the media, a favorite Ginsburg tactic. On June 21 the Washington Post ran a story that appeared to reflect the Lewinsky camp's thinking, though Cacheris denies he or Stein was the source. The article set out her offer to acknowledge a sexual relationship with the President while refusing to say that anyone asked her to lie about it or otherwise cover it up. As a kind of warning to Starr, the article reported that Lewinsky's lawyers had told "people who have spoken with them" that they would win an acquittal if Starr prosecuted their client. Starr apparently wasn't impressed; four days later he upped the ante by issuing the subpoena to Tripp.
Her testimony could reverse a series of setbacks for Starr that began when Brill quoted him as saying his office had been leaking to reporters. As Starr was recovering from that gaffe, last week a federal judge freed the Whitewater convict Susan McDougal on medical grounds, and the Supreme Court refused to allow Starr to obtain notes taken by the lawyer for the late Vincent Foster, ruling that attorney-client privilege continues after the client's death.
Calling Tripp could be a signal to Lewinsky's lawyers to get serious about a deal or have their client face charges. "At a minimum, it's a shot across the bow," Tripp's lawyer, Anthony Zaccagnini, told TIME. A scenario being floated: Tripp testifies for a day or two, then is sent home for a break while Starr takes the temperature of Monica's team. If there's no change, Starr could complete Tripp's testimony and indict Lewinsky. Her lawyers may be confident of acquittal, but Lewinsky might not want to take the chance. Says a private attorney involved in the case: "The person being squeezed here is Monica."
--Reported by Viveca Novak, Karen Tumulty and Michael Weisskopf/Washington