President Clinton, in turn, apologised again to Monica Lewinsky, this time through his lawyers, for the ordeal she has faced over the past year because of her affair with him and subsequent investigations and publicity.

These were the highlights of yet another steamy day in the Clinton sex saga which continues unabated in Washington, while the rest of the country is so put off by lust and licentiousness that a major television network even pulled the plug on a torrid and long running soap called Melrose Place, for long a metaphor for promiscuity.

The Presidential apology came from White House counsels who were to question Monica today after she was deposed in camera by Republican prosecutors. But so confident and thankful were Clinton lawyers that the former internhad not changed her testimony, that they chose to forego their option of cross-examining her, and instead proffered an apology from their client and boss.

On behalf of the President, we would like to tell you that we are all very sorry for what you've been through, White House attorney Nicole Seligman is said to have told Lewinsky, according to one account. Thank You, Lewinsky is said to have murmured.

Earlier, the former White House intern was grilled in the $ 5000-a-day Presidential suite of the Mayflower Hotel under oath and on videotape for four hours by a Republican Congressman, who later described the session as productive. Some 40 lawyers and lawmakers crowded into the room for the in camera deposition.

Conservative spinmasters acknowledged Lewinsky may not have said anything new. But by sticking by her previous testimony, including details of sexual encounters that contradicts Clinton's denials, she had reinforced the Republican case, they said.

But word from the Democratic circles wasLewinsky did not deviate from her previous accounts, especially on the question of whether the President had promised her a job or asked her to lie----and the Republicans had come up with a dud. Apparently, Ms Lewinsky handled the questions with great poise, occasionally even showing some flashes of humour.

Once, when the Republican prosecutor apologised for a wrong question and wished to take it back saying, ``See, I make my own objections?'', she is said to have chuckled, ``Sustained!'', raising titters in a roomful of legal eagles.

When the Republican prosecutor meandered into details of her sexual liaisons with the President, her lawyer objected, and the objection was sustained by the two Senators---- one Republican and one Democrat---- who oversaw the process.

The Senate will now view the videotapes on Tuesday, even as House managers continue to depose two other witnesses. Clinton pal and Washington power lawyer Vernon Jordan will be questioned tomorrow, followed by White House aide SidneyBlumenthal on Wednesday.

Republican prosecutors hope to quiz Jordan to find out whether he and Clinton plotted to find Monica a job in return for her silence about the affair.

Under the laborious construct in the impeachment process, in which lawmakers are making up rules as they go along, the Senate will resume the trial on Thursday (the current developments are off Senate). It will first decide whether to have the videotape of the depositions publicly or whether to call the witnesses live before the Senate. In either case, the Senators have committed to complete the trial by February 12.

In a separate spat on the margins, the White House has tangled again with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr over the alleged leak of a story in the New York Times over the weekend which quotes Starr associates as saying the Independent Counsel had concluded that he could bring a criminal indictment against President Clinton while he was still in office.

White House lawyers today sought to bring contempt of courtcharges against Starr for illegal and partisan leaking and violating grand jury secrecy. Starr, while not confirming that she had reached such a conclusion, said he would investigate the leak.

But quite apart from the authenticity of the story, Starr purported conclusion outraged many Senators who see it as an infringement of a process they have been called to sit in judgment over.