NR Digital

The Long View

A Professional Correspondence

by Rob Long

Wilson & Sterling
A professional corporation

IN RE: CLINTON/CLINTON CONTINUATION-OF-MARRIAGE AGREEMENT 2000, AND ADDENDA, UPDATED JUNE 2012, CODICIL AND FURTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

Dear Steve:

Many thanks for the phone call yesterday. It clarified many issues we’ve been discussing, and I think perhaps as our clients move forward, and as my client, former secretary of state Clinton, ponders a follow-on political career, many of the side agreements we’ve been discussing over the years need to be itemized.

I refer you to the CONTINUATION-OF-MARRIAGE AGREEMENT, CLINTON & CLINTON, and in specific Appendices XXIV and XLVII, “Definition of and Limitations upon Public Displays of Affection between the Parties” and “Definition of and Limitations upon Public Displays of Affection between Parties and Other As-Yet Undefined Persons.” As you know, this is the crux of the matter.

My client is very grateful for your client’s willingness, since his presidential term ended in January 2001, to be a supportive and arm’s-length partner in what continues to be a fruitful, financially beneficial, mutually convenient, and legally compliant “marriage.” As I know you’re aware, his conduct throughout this period has been governed and bounded, contractually, by the original language of the first executed draft of the CONTINUATION-OF-MARRIAGE AGREEMENT, CLINTON & CLINTON 1992–1997, inclusive of the “emergency protocols” put into the agreement in the wake of the independent prosecutor’s report. In exchange for her continued support and maintenance of the “marriage” and “marriage likeness,” your client agreed to those terms.

So, to get into it, here is the one non-negotiable deal-breaker:

That your client begins upon execution of the new agreement to curtail what we have previously defined as his “lady time” on a step-basis to be mutually defined, resulting in zero (0) instances of lady time should my client be successful in her follow-on political career. I think we both know this will be hard for your client to agree to, but we also know it’s a non-negotiable. We are using the broad definition of “lady time” for this purpose (please see Appendix XXXIV of the 2009 CONTINUATION ADDENDUM for further details), which includes flight attendants, current and former film actresses in both pornographic and non-pornographic materials, and, obviously, interns.

There are other items, of course. Still to be worked out, obviously, are the living arrangements should my client be relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But these are, as you mentioned on the phone, “doable.” It’s not as if our clients haven’t shared that facility before, in similar and frostier circumstances. But the item above is the deal-breaker for my client. And if your client cannot see his way to an agreement, it’s fruitless to continue to negotiate. It will be time to execute ARTICLE CXC of the AGREEMENT 1998 WITH UPDATES 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2013.

I look forward to hearing from you. Clearly this matter is not urgent, and, knowing our two clients and their wise choice to communicate exclusively via counsel, I accept that it will take some time to hammer out.

Best,

Greg

(DICTATED BUT NOT READ)

Wilmer, Patton
A professional corporation

IN RE: CLINTON/CLINTON CONTINUATION-OF-MARRIAGE AGREEMENT 2000, AND ADDENDA, UPDATED JUNE 2012, CODICIL AND FURTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

Dear Greg:

Many thanks for your note. As you know, my client is currently out of the country, attending to his duties as an international philanthropic leader, and at this time he cannot be reached for a lengthy consult.

While I agree that it might not be feasible for our two clients to speak directly or be in the same room — part of the health and longevity of their strong and loving marriage rests on their resolve on that point — I think we both know that my client has more than discharged his responsibilities pursuant to the previous agreement. In plain terms, when he wanted your client’s continued services as wife/helpmate, an agreement was struck and honored. Now, years later, it is your client who has political ambitions and my client who is wanted as a spouse/helpmate, and I would be remiss if I did not remark that in the entirety of your lengthy letter, you never once suggested what, exactly, your client is willing to offer my client in exchange for his compliance on your “non-negotiable” request.

May I suggest that you return to your client with this thought: My client needs to be incentivized. My client needs to know where his benefits lie in a new agreement. And to guide your thinking, may I draw your attention to the position of secretary of state, which has the added benefit of requiring a great deal of international travel resulting in fewer nights spent at home, or at “home.”

Looking forward to your response,

Steve

Send a letter to the editor.

Get the NR Magazine App
iPad/iPhone   |   Android