<<Oh, I do indeed think that a sort of networked conspiracy was involved here. And I have been very hesitant to come to such views in the past.>>
I make no comment regarding your viewpoint on this possible conspiracy. I do ask, however, why this one is any more believable than the one's presented by Gary Aldrich or the guy that wrote Spin Cycle, or any of the other anti-Clinton conspiracy theories. They actually make a lot of sense, and are quite internally logical.
Calling this a conspiracy is insulting to the Republicans <g>. Monica could easily have made sure that there was better evidence against Clinton, and would not have needed to try to trap him with perjury. The actual affair, had it been exposed prematurely, could have been far more effective.
Using Tripp would also be stupid. She was a holdover from the Bush days, is singularly unphotogenic, obviously has an axe to grind and makes a terrible witness. Couldn't they have found someone better? Wouldn't a savvy agent like Lucienne Goldberg have known that a different client would have resulted in real earnings power? By the way, what was Goldberg's motivation? You've probably mentioned it, but my mind is slipping in my dotage.
<<An ideal vehicle for dredging into court, and hence leakable territory, juicy details of the President's philandering>>
Why not have Monica sue for harassment then? Why not get an intern that is really on your side to go for Clinton? He obviously has a weakness for the flesh, so why not use an attractive young supporter of the GOP? Why settle for a thin or bogus suit when it should have been easy to get the real thing? Why not have Tripp ask meaningful, really leading questions of Monica (was he trying to buy your silence? Did he ask you to lie? Was his ***** bent to the left?) |
