A professional corporation
IN RE: CLINTON/CLINTON CONTINUATION OF MARRIAGE AGREEMENT 2000, AND ADDENDA, UPDATED JUNE 2012
Many thanks for your letter, and for your timely response to my client’s request.
As you know, my client has tried many times to contact your client directly — something he is allowed to do under the JOINT AGREEMENT 11/2008 ADDENDUM TO CONTINUATION OF MARRIAGE AGREEMENT, PARAGRAPH iv.
Your client was stated to have been unavailable because of “travel,” which is of course understandable for the sitting secretary of state. But my client is a former president of the United States and also has a busy travel schedule, and it was only natural that he would want to contact your client directly. As part of their healthy and strong marriage, both parties have negotiated through their attorneys a certain number of direct contacts (DCs) that are not required to be vetted for legal and compliance issues, and this certainly seemed to come under the agreed-upon definition of a DC.
That said, it’s simply onerous to expect my client to pay for and maintain the kind of personal security force required to ensure, as you and your client seem to demand, that no pornographic actress ever be photographed embracing the former president and current husband of your client. His travel and public events are simply too numerous and too varied for this to be possible. As such, my client was merely trying to come to some more flexible — and realistic — definition of lady-time/pornographic-actress/female-companion event, which, as you admitted to me on the phone, is a “murky legal area.”
In addition, my client feels that each event should be treated as a single event, irrespective of how many females there are in the photograph or encounter.
Finally, while we all agree that political advice, public messaging, and sudden disruptive for-attribution quotes are all part of the umbrella agreement on my client’s responsibilities and deliverables, it must be said that his recent work in re: the Romney campaign, and his clearly articulated criticism of the current occupant of the White House, go far beyond the outlines of the CONTINUATION OF MARRIAGE AGREEMENT, both in its original form and in its amended and extended form, with special regard for the 2011 ADDENDUM “NEUTRALIZING BIDEN” PROTOCOLS. All of his recent work inures to the benefit of your client, the secretary of state, and to her eventual presidential campaign in 2016. It is churlish and operating in bad faith to deny my client the full extent of the lady-time/pornographic-actress/female-companion events to which he is entitled, and to the most flexible definition of same.
I look forward to hearing from you.
(DICTATED BUT NOT READ)