HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
2.84 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book manuscript / legal analysis draft
File Size:
2.84 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a book draft or legal manuscript (dated April 2, 2012) written by a high-profile attorney (likely Alan Dershowitz). The text analyzes Bill Clinton's risk-taking psychology regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair, comparing Clinton's behavior to the author's own 'celebrity clients' who risk their careers for immediate gratification because they have successfully avoided consequences in the past. It discusses Clinton's legal strategy of defining sexual relations to maintain 'deniability' and references Maureen Dowd.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Clinton | Former President / Subject of analysis |
Analyzed for his risk-taking behavior regarding sexual encounters and his legal strategy of 'deniability'.
|
| Monica Lewinsky | Subject of relationship |
Described as having a sexual encounter with Clinton and wanting to 'talk about it'.
|
| Maureen Dowd | Journalist |
Quoted regarding Clinton's behavior.
|
| Author | Writer/Lawyer |
Refers to 'my own celebrity clients', implying the author is a high-profile defense attorney (likely Alan Dershowitz ...
|
| Unnamed Waitress | Subject of anecdote |
Mentioned at the very end of footnote 85 (cut off).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| N.Y. Times |
Source of Maureen Dowd quote.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document production (Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Text discusses their 'sexual encounter' and 'intimate relationship'.
Author refers to 'The history of many of my own celebrity clients'.
Key Quotes (5)
"She really did want oral sex: she wanted to talk about it."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
Quote #1
"Mr. Clinton’s habit, with language and behavior, has been to try to incorporate his alibi into his sin."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
Quote #2
"The history of many of my own celebrity clients is largely a history of defendants who for years – sometimes decades – have risked their careers, family lives, fortunes and freedom for some form of immediate gratification."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
Quote #3
"He wanted sex with deniability. What he got was unsatisfying sex with unconvincing deniability."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
Quote #4
"What that question fails to understand is that the 'little' thing for which they were eventually caught was usually only the tip of a very large iceberg of sin or crime which they had gotten away with for years."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,885 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
her conquest of the President as to engage in an intimate relationship. She really did want oral sex: she wanted to talk about it. And she did – to more than a dozen people. The President achieved immediate gratification while risking long term consequences to his marriage, his daughter, his presidency and above all the nation’s stability.
At the time he began his sexual encounter with Lewinsky, Clinton knew that he might possibly have to testify under oath about his sex life. He knew that two sets of enemies had the powerful legal weapon of subpoena power aimed directly at his presidency. That is probably why he was reluctant to engage in sexual intercourse. He wanted sex with deniability. What he got was unsatisfying sex with unconvincing deniability. Or, as Maureen Dowd put it:
“Mr. Clinton’s habit, with language and behavior, has been to try to incorporate his alibi into his sin. The result is more twisted than titillating.”84
This was surely not the first time Bill Clinton put his future at risk for immediate sexual gratification. But in every other instance he was able to avoid the long term consequences. I am certain that he believed that this pattern of short term risk-taking and subsequent avoidance of long term consequences would be repeated. I doubt he believed, at the moment that he first allowed Lewinsky to touch him in a sexual manner, that this action would eventually lead to possible removal from office and damage to his family life. He surely would not have consciously taken such a knowing risk. But when people have succeeded so often in the past in achieving both immediate gratification and long term avoidance of consequences, they miscalculate the odds and act as if they can have their cake and eat it too.
The history of many of my own celebrity clients is largely a history of defendants who for years – sometimes decades – have risked their careers, family lives, fortunes and freedom for some form of immediate gratification. Finally when they were caught, everyone asked the same question: “How could they have risked so much for so little?” What that question fails to understand is that the “little” thing for which they were eventually caught was usually only the tip of a very large iceberg of sin or crime which they had gotten away with for years. In their minds therefore, they were risking very little (the extreme unlikelihood that this time they would get caught) for a great deal (a lifetime of small, short term gratifications, which add up to something for which it is worth taking small risks.)
In retrospect, we consider such actions reckless because we are running the video backwards: we know he was caught. But at the time Clinton made the decision, he probably did not regard it as any more reckless than the many similar decisions he had previously made, without destroying his career and his family. He had probably played the same sexual-verbal game before: limiting his sexual contact so that he could plausibly deny that he engaged in “sexual relationships” outside of his marriage,85 but he never before had to testify under oath about these relationships. What he failed to comprehend was how much the risks had increased as the result of the legal proceedings
84 See Maureen Dowd, Maladroit Du Siegneur, N.Y.Times, 9/30/98, p.A23. (“He would be laughed out of any locker room in the country.”)
85 Prior to the Lewinsky matter becoming public, there were widespread reports that the President limited his extra-marital sex to oral gratification since he believed that it did not constitute Biblical adultery and it gave him verbal deniability regarding sexual relations. This history actually strengthens his legal claim that he did not commit perjury when he denied having what he regarded as sexual relations with Lewinsky. A 28 year old waitress was
85 Prior to the Lewinsky matter becoming public, there were widespread reports that the President limited his extra-marital sex to oral gratification since he believed that it did not constitute Biblical adultery and it gave him verbal deniability regarding sexual relations. This history actually strengthens his legal claim that he did not commit perjury when he denied having what he regarded as sexual relations with Lewinsky. A 28 year old waitress was
268
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document