PUT ASIDE, FOR A MOMENT, ALL THE POLITICAL WAR-GAM- ing and the hotel-room titillation. At heart, just how strong a case does Paula Jones have? The answer changes depending on whether you focus on facts or law, and on which facts are most important to you. One relevant comparison: Jones’s evidence that Bill Clinton did what she says he did seems stronger than Anita Hill’s rather weak evidence of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas. Remember, too, that Hill accused Thomas of nothing worse than persistently pestering her for dates and talking dirty over a two-year period when he was her boss. No touching, no flashing, no request for sex. It surprises many people, but the fine print in Jones’s suit is more compelling than you might think. That’s what has the president scrambling for a strategy – and much of the country taking a second, more sympathetic look at Paula Jones.

Facts are what happened; law is the set of rules you apply to that evidence. On the facts, Jones’s suit seems strongest on her claim that on May 8, 1991, Clinton had her interrupted on the job and delivered to him for some kind of sexual overture. It is less convincing, but hardly frivolous, on Jones’s allegations that she spurned Clinton and he persisted by exposing himself and requesting oral sex. It seems most vulnerable on her assertion that she was treated badly at work for having rebuffed her boss’s boss.

On the law – which is far from clear on what it takes to prove illegal sexual harassment – the bottom line is that many judges would probab…