Methinks you're wasting too much energy trying to debate folks who'll find boogie men under their bed when their mattress has already been tossed on the floor because of previous boogie man theories.
As a fan, and one who is far too naive about how the world works, I'd prefer it if you delved into more of the "what-if" kinda stuff. I always learn something when you're fired up and on a roll.
I already know how to fight. I was married once. She got mad, kicked me out, and stole my millions. I know that drill.
BTW, I'm patterning a character in a screenplay after you and three other FReeper hell-cats. I need some more fodder. I'm running out of juice.
Are you serious?
Ignoring the people who see everyone in the conspiracy, I shall return to my initial thesis. If you will remember, one of the ways that the Clintons turned people was a two pronged approach. They would find a peson who was compromised, but also offer them a bribe (money, job, etc.) If the person spoke out, not only were they compromised by the initial scandal, but they were also under the pay of a Clinton crony, so that they were deemed untrustworthy and ungrateful.
For example, the former Miss America who was both threatened with disclosure of her one-night (apparently unwilling) liason with Clinton, but also was given a role in a television production by Harry Tommason. This is the same pattern. The initial assumption we made when first suspecting Ritter was that he had done this for the money. (Sounds suspiciously like the "book deal" accusation often made against Clinton enemies, doesn't it?) Now we find out what the initial hook was to keep him in line.
I am not explaining myself very well, I think. In almost every case (Webb Hubbell, Susan McDougal,etc.) there was both a threat and a pay-off. The pay-off covers up the threat, should the media go looking into motivation.