President Clinton's defiant stance provided independent counsel, Mr Ken Starr, with a minimum of information. It appeared to be a gamble that Mr Starr will be left without enough evidence to bring a criminal case against him or be able to convince Congress to launch impeachment proceedings.
The centrepiece of the President's defence, is that, while admittedly misleading, his denial under oath last January that he had a sexual relationship with Ms Lewinsky was "legally accurate" and did not constitute perjury. He asserted that he did not encourage anyone to lie or obstruct justice in any way.
In acknowledging an improper relationship with Ms Lewinsky but denying that he lied under oath in his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, Mr Clinton appears to be adopting a narrowly legalistic view of the definition of "sexual relationship" used by the Jones lawyers and arguing that, whatever the nature of the contact between him and the former intern, it did not fit within that definition.
Answers that are technically true cannot constitute perjury even if they are misleading - something that could help Mr Clinton if he is correct in his understanding of the definition used by the lawyers for Ms Paula Jones.
But Mr Clinton's apparent argument does not address a number of other statements during the deposition, such as his assertion that he did not recall being alone with Ms Lewinsky and did not discuss with her the subpoena from Ms Jones' lawyers.
Mr Clinton's angry denunciation of the independent counsel and his refusal to answer questions that prosecutors put to him on Monday is a high-stakes strategy.
The independent counsel could re-issue a subpoena to compel additional testimony from the President - and seek to have him held in contempt if he refuses to comply. Mr Starr could also still decide to seek a criminal indictment of the President - although that is the least likely of the possible scenarios - and is writing a report to Congress that will outline evidence of possible grounds for impeachment.
Mr Starr's office was silent on its future plans, but some criminal defence lawyers said they thought Mr Clinton's approach risked an angry retort from the independent counsel. "It makes Starr put up," one lawyer said. "If I were Starr I would be livid and prone to want to issue my report tomorrow."
The unyielding tenor of Mr Clinton's address echoed the stance he adopted during the grand jury questioning, sources said. Mr Clinton refused to answer some of the questions Mr Starr's lawyers put to him and curtailed the session precisely at the agreed-upon hour but before they were finished.
Legal experts said that Mr Starr could cite Mr Clinton's refusal to answer questions as an attempt to obstruct the grand jury investigation when he sends a report to Congress outlining possible grounds for impeachment. While Mr Clinton was not under subpoena on Monday, in agreeing to testify he was obliged under the law to answer fully and truthfully. Mr Clinton could have cited his Fifth Amendment right and refused to testify but chose to appear instead.
"Unless a witness has a legitimate privilege to refuse to answer a question or series of questions, they have to answer them. A witness can't just refuse to answer a question because he or she doesn't feel like it," said former prosecutor, Mr Lawrence Barcella.
A White House source said the questioning was "no tea party", and said the President had drawn the line at answering sexual questions. Before his testimony, sources close to Mr Clinton's legal team said he had agreed to admit he had an "inappropriate physical relationship" with Ms Lewinsky but would not answer any questions about details of it.
Mr Starr's confrontation with Mr Clinton was the climax of seven difficult and bitter months of investigation and the last major step before Mr Starr sends the matter to Congress for possible impeachment proceedings.
Now that he has secured the President's account of his relationship with Ms Lewinsky, Mr Starr may recall a few final witnesses before the grand jury to test Mr Clinton's story, the most likely being Ms Lewinsky and Mr Clinton's personal secretary, Ms Betty Currie. Mr Starr may also have more Secret Service officers he wants to question, and he has not yet obtained the full testimony of deputy White House counsel, Mr Bruce R. Lindsey, one of the President's closest friends.
But Monday's session with Mr Clinton marks the beginning of the end for Mr Starr's role in the scandal, a turning point that within weeks will likely move the investigation of Mr Clinton out of the hands of the long-embattled independent counsel and shift it to Congress which has shown little enthusiasm for taking it on.
Mr Starr is virtually certain to produce a report detailing possibly impeachable acts on the part of Mr Clinton, sources close to the inquiry said, unless Mr Clinton's testimony somehow rebutted the evidence Mr Starr has assembled suggesting the President lied under oath in the Ms Jones lawsuit, and encouraged others to lie and otherwise obstructed Mr Starr's investigation.
What is important, said a Democratic congressional source, is "whether Starr has anything other than the affair. If there is nothing else, the House will find a means to truncate this, but if there is something else, the House will have to do something more".