6 Questioners of Thomas, Hill Face Difficult, Dangerous Task : Hearing: They must delve into an explosive issue without appearing to the TV audience to be insensitive or intending to harm the witnesses.

The six senators assigned to question Clarence Thomas and Anita Faye Hill today face an extraordinarily difficult and dangerous task: delving into some of the most explosive issues in modern life without appearing insensitive in the eyes of voters watching on national television.

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want to explore fully the University of Oklahoma law professor’s motive for accusing her former boss of sexual harassment, yet do not want to appear to attack a victim. Democrats must avoid seeming to rough up Supreme Court nominee Thomas on a charge that stains, perhaps indelibly, whenever it is made.

And all six white, male committee members must put to rest any impression that they have been unfair to an aspiring black man or have given insufficient weight to the assertions of a black woman.

In a grueling set of hearings that may last three days, the interrogators run risks if they ask too few questions--and other risks if they don’t ask enough. They know that their own reputations, and that of the Senate itself, also are at stake.

“This is no-win for everybody,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor. Said a veteran congressional committee counsel: “I wouldn’t ask the questions in this one if you put a gun to my head. They’re going to end up with everybody a casualty--members on both sides and witnesses.”

The committee said Thursday that these six senators will pose the questions: Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the committee chairman; Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.); Howell Heflin (D-Ala.); Arlen Specter (R-Pa.); Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.).

Some Republicans--notably Sen. Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming--have suggested that they plan to turn the full prosecutorial heat on Hill, with such questions as whether she drank wine on the day of the alleged sexual harassment and whether she would define sexual harassment to include the telling of dirty jokes.

But trial lawyers and congressional committee counselors Thursday cautioned that it will be easy to provoke a public outcry with probing questions of a woman who many believe has suffered too much already for coming forward.

“If this takes on the complexion of a rape trial, where they’re attacking the complainant, it will blow up on them,” said Ben-Veniste, who is now in private practice in Washington. “They would need their heads examined to go that way.”

Attorneys noted the growing intolerance of the public for attacks on alleged gender-crime victims. It was evident earlier this year in the outcry that came after lawyers defending William Kennedy Smith leaked defamatory information about a young woman he allegedly had raped. Smith is the nephew of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a committee member.

Some Thomas supporters said that they fear a hostile atmosphere in the hearing could make Hill a heroine to great numbers of Americans just as the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings made Col. Oliver L. North a hero. Yet it will be hard for them to question her “without it turning into a rape trial,” said a former White House official.

The racial element will add to the discomfort of the event, some predicted. “It’s always difficult for males to ask questions in cases that involve female witnesses and sexual issues,” said Arthur L. Liman, the New York defense attorney who was a committee counsel in the Iran-Contra case. “It’s more difficult when there’s a racial element.”

The public’s impression of the event may not turn out well for the Republicans if Hill maintains the poise that she has displayed until now. But if she becomes rattled under their questioning, the impression could be even worse.

“If they reduce her to tears, they’re not going to look like decent fellows,” said Beville May, a Boston trial lawyer who has defended high-profile sexual harassment cases.

The committee members have said that they intend to treat Hill with respect and dignity and focus on narrow questions of fact and truthfulness. But maintaining dignity may be hard to do, simply because the committee must fully detail the accusations, which include charges that Thomas described pornographic movies, including sex scenes with animals, to Hill.

Adding to the burden of the Republicans is that they must so completely rebut the accusations that their nominee will be deemed worthy of the U.S. Supreme Court. That will be more difficult than in a trial where defense attorneys need only establish reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty, said one Republican strategist.

Daniel Webb, a former Chicago prosecutor, said that Thomas probably will have a credible explanation to support his denial that any harassment took place. But, he said, the nominee’s supporters could be harder-pressed to explain the testimony of persons Hill had told of her complaint in years past.

Such corroborating witnesses “could be his Achilles’ heel,” Webb said.

Defense attorneys said that there may be other ways for the Republican side to win points for its case, without attacking Hill directly. One defense attorney said that, if he were directing the interrogation, he would stress that it was an investigative aide to Sen. Kennedy, who has a reputation for womanizing, who brought Hill forward.

“I would play that like a violin,” the attorney said, to convey the idea that the Democrats should not be throwing stones on such questions.

Michael D. Barrett Jr., former chief counsel to the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, had one piece of advice for the questioners: “If I were them, I’d be out of town.”

Differences of Opinion

Many of the questions asked of Anita Faye Hill and Clarence Thomas as the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on sexual harassment charges unfold will attempt to reconcile their differing recollections of events and conversations that transpired between them. Here are the major points of dispute:

HARASSMENT: Hill has told the FBI that Thomas sexually harassed her between 1981 and 1983--when she worked for him, first as special counsel at the Education Department (1981-82) and then as his special assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982-83). In an Oct. 9 affidavit, Thomas “totally and unequivocally” denied the charge, saying, “these allegations are untrue.”

DATING: Hill says Thomas began asking her for dates shortly after she first went to work for him. Thomas has denied ever asking her out, according to two GOP senators. (But National Public Radio says Senate sources tell it that Thomas told the FBI he did ask Hill to go out with him, but that he dropped the matter after she declined.)

THREAT: Hill says that when she left the EEOC in 1983, Thomas warned her that her career would be ruined if she ever publicly disclosed his behavior toward her. Thomas has not responded directly to this charge.

TELEPHONE CALLS: Thomas’ supporters have produced excerpts from telephone message logs taken by his EEOC secretary. They allegedly show that Hill called Thomas’ office 10 times between January, 1984, and August, 1987. There also is an 11th message, dated Nov. 1, 1990, in which Hill apparently called to follow up on a speaking invitation issued to Thomas by others at the University of Oklahoma. Thomas’ allies say it seems inconsistent for a woman allegedly harassed by Thomas to continue calling him.

A Jan. 30, 1984, entry read: “just called to say hello. Sorry she didn’t get to see you last week.” Another, on Aug. 4, 1987: “in town till 8/15 . . . wanted to congratulate you on marriage.” Hill told the Washington Post that the logs were “garbage” and denied that she initiated any phone calls to Thomas. “If there are messages to him from me, these are attempts to return phone calls,” she said. “I never called him to say hello. I found out about his marriage through a third party. I never called to congratulate him.”