-=> Quoting John Sampson to All <=-
 JS> Someone, I can't remember who exactly, brought up the possibility that
 JS> this  is a big "hoax" by Monica Lewinsky. As improbable as this may
 JS> sound, let me  offer up an alternative theory.
It wouldn't be hard for me to believe Ms. Lewinski made up
the whole thing from an overactive imagination and a few
occasions when she was near the President -- except, of
course, for the facts that have come out so far, which
make it clear that there were more than a few of those
occasions and both she and Clinton have a history of
similar episodes with other people.  At most, she may have
exaggerated some of the details.
But that's neither here nor there.  Let's discuss your
theory instead.
 JS> The Paula Jones civil lawsuit is coming up for trial in May. What if,
 JS> this  was a very elaborate attempt by the White House and Uncle Bob to
 JS> totally  innundate the public before the trial with sexual escapades so
 JS> as to make  whatever comes out of the trial seem "old news" and get the
 JS> public to say:  "So what?" or "Big deal."  
I have no doubt that Uncle Bob and the bimbo-eruptions task
force are capable of something like this; but personally, I
doubt it.  I can't imagine that they'd invent L'Affaire
Lewinski in order to make the Paula Jones case seem ho-hum
by comparison; there are too many ways it could backfire.
 JS> It may also serve to make the prosecution of this civil suit more
 JS> difficult  since everything has already come out in the press. It may
 JS> very well  explain the leaks and where they're coming from. Thomas
 JS> Sowell in his  syndicated column has stated that the ONLY person who
 JS> benefits from all  these leaks is William Jefferson Clinton. No one
 JS> else and most certainly  not Kenneth Starr. 
I think you may have hit a bulls-eye here, John.  Regardless
of how Tailgate came about, it has certainly complicated the
evidence-gasthering process for Paula Jones' legal team (and
vice-versa) since both groups of lawyers want to talk with
many of the same people.  Leaks always benefit the side that
can best exploit the resulting interest; Clinton's side has
certainly put a variety of anti-Starr spins on these leaks,
which leads me to believe they had their spins worked out
before the leaks occurred.  Besides, Starr's team has been
criticized in the past for being close-lipped; it would be
out of character for them to suddenly start leaking like a
sieve.  Starr has nothing to gain by leaking info, but he
would have everything (all pending cases, his current job,
and his future job prospects) to lose if anyone exposed him
as the leaker.
Walter, Forked Deer River Ilks
wluffman@usit.net
... The reality of the Clinton Presidency is damning enough. - PJ O'Rourke
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------