There is universal expectation that the President will change his earlier testimony in the Paula Jones case to acknowledge some sort of sexual relationship -- euphemistically dubbed sex play -- with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. In blunt, graphic, terms, this means he will acknowledge that the relationship involved oral sex. He will also say he did not lie or ask her to lie when they both denied an affair.

Here is the latest scenario laid out by the pundits: The President will come out and acknowledge a sexual relationship. By doing this he will come close to perjuring himself since he had earlier said there was no sexual relationship. But the President will say there was only a kind of sex play, and as heunderstood the definition of sex provided to him in the Jones case, that did not constitute sexual relationship.

But he is still in trouble because a) even under that definition of sex, if he initiated any contact he still had a sexual relationship and b) in his earlier testimony he said under oath that he did not remember meeting Monica Lewinsky alone.

So how does he square it with acknowledging sex play now? Did they do it in public?

Starr will be on hand at the White House as Clinton testifies, but it will be the Independent Counsel's tenacious and feared prosecutors who will do the grilling. The 23-member Grand Jury -- comprising mostly anonymous Washington residents -- will be sitting in the courtroom about a mile away and watching the spectacle on a TV screen.

The President could argue that he did not initiate sexual contact (and was merely a passive observer), but the `never-met-Monica-alone' trap is a difficult one to get out of. The pundits say at this point the President will politelydecline to answer any more questions. (Incidentally, Clinton himself is no mean legal eagle, having taught law at the University of Arkansas). The technique is being called the `limited hangout' approach ie tell the truth and then shut up, offer no details.

If Clinton does that, here is what could happen. The testimony will be terminated. Starr will issue a new subpoena which will demand Clinton testify again, this time before a Grand Jury in the court room (he is now testifying voluntarily, from the White House). His lawyers will seek to quash it. But the judge will overrule the appeal and ask Clinton to testify. Clinton will ignore the subpoena.

If this happens, the matter will go before the House of Representatives. It is considered highly unlikely that the House will impeach the President for declining to disclose details of a sexual relationship. Clinton escapes, but his credibility is badly damaged and his Presidency further stained.

Amid all this scenario-building, the most suspenseful part iswhether the American people will stomach the cynical semantic shambling and buy into his artful and somewhat ludicrous explanation. Conservative commentators like Pat Buchanan are saying 'no', and predicting a precipitous decline in Clinton's popularity the moment he acknowledges a sexual liaison and tries to talk his way out of the perjury trap.

But the number of political obituaries written for Clinton would have booked up a goodsized morgue. The man nicknamed Slick Willie and Comeback Kid is famed for his Houdini-esque acts of survival and political bookies are betting on yet another grand escape.

The Grand Jury testimony itself will be in camera (this town of 5000 hacks and talking heads will be whinnying themselves silly as they stampede around looking for leaks from prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers). But the hot button will be a proposed address to the nation that Clinton has scheduled for 9 pm EST (6.30 am IST, Tuesday morning). Depending on the fatigue factor (the testimony is expected to go onfor four to five hours) and how it all went, Clinton is expected to address the American people for about five to six minutes, briefly and contritely explaining himself and asking that the matter be put behind.