HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017357.jpg

2.41 MB

Extraction Summary

4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Manuscript draft / legal analysis
File Size: 2.41 MB
Summary

This document appears to be a draft manuscript or legal analysis (possibly by Alan Dershowitz, given the style and context of these document dumps) critiquing the legal strategy employed by President Clinton's lawyer, Robert Bennett, during the Paula Jones case. The author argues that Clinton should have 'defaulted' the civil case rather than litigating or attempting to settle, which would have avoided depositions and potentially the fallout involving Monica Lewinsky. It details a specific rejected settlement offer of $700,000 and discusses the concept of defaulting in civil litigation.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Bill Clinton President
Subject of the legal analysis regarding the Paula Jones case options.
Paula Jones Plaintiff
Suing the President; refused a settlement without an apology.
Robert Bennett Lawyer
Lawyer for President Clinton; criticized in the text for not advising the President to default.
Monica Lewinsky Mentioned entity
Mentioned as 'the Lewinsky story' which might have leaked regardless of strategy.

Organizations (1)

Name Type Context
House Oversight Committee
Source of the document (via Bates stamp).

Timeline (1 events)

Historical context (1990s)
Paula Jones Lawsuit against President Clinton
USA

Locations (1)

Location Context
Mentioned in footnote 86 regarding the Paula Jones allegations.

Relationships (2)

Bill Clinton Attorney-Client Robert Bennett
Text discusses Bennett advising (or failing to advise) Clinton.
Bill Clinton Legal Adversaries Paula Jones
Discusses the lawsuit and settlement negotiations between them.

Key Quotes (4)

"Robert Bennett never told President Clinton that he could have defaulted and paid Jones without making any apology."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017357.jpg
Quote #1
"The third option, of which the president was unaware, was to default the Jones case."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017357.jpg
Quote #2
"In the Jones case, the president reportedly offered to pay Jones $700,000, in order to settle the case."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017357.jpg
Quote #3
"Perhaps the Lewinsky story would have leaked, but the President would not have had to dignify a rumor with a response."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017357.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,299 characters)

4.2.12
WC: 191694
I think the President could win if it actually went to trial, but it
won’t go to trial. What I would do if I were his lawyer is to say,
“Look, the dignity of the office precludes the [P]resident from
answering any of these questions. We realize that as a result of not
answering these questions, we will reluctantly, without admitting
anything, have to be sanctioned by having the verdict directed
against us on the merits. We accept that because we can’t answer
the questions and preserve the dignity. And now let’s move on to
the damages, where the focus is not on the [P]resident but on Paula
Jones.” And in that way, he can, in effect, settle the case, even if
the other side doesn’t settle because the damages will be very low,
there won’t be an apology. There’ll be a judgment against him, but
the judgment will be explained on the basis of the dignity of the
presidency. So if the settlement talks fail, that’s what I would
recommend that his lawyers think about. . . .
And the [P]resident has to start asking himself: Is he well advised
here?
The President had three options, but he was aware of only two of them. He knew that he could
litigate and try to win – as he ended up doing. He also knew that he could try to settle the case,
which would have avoided the necessity of testifying at the deposition or trial. A settlement
requires both sides to agree. In the Jones case, the president reportedly offered to pay Jones
$700,000, in order to settle the case. Jones insisted on an apology⁸⁶ and the settlement talks
eventually broke down.
The third option, of which the president was unaware, was to default the Jones case. Every
litigant in a civil case has the right to default – which means, essentially, to settle the case
unilaterally by simply refusing to contest the allegations in the complaint. Consider, for example,
the following hypothetical case: a fired employee of a high tech business sues for $10,000 in back
pay. The business realizes that in order to defend its actions, it would have to reveal commercial
secrets valued at $1,000,000 and take the time of executives which it estimates at being worth
$200,000. It offers to settle the case for the $10,000 that the employee is demanding, but the
angry employee prefers a trial at which he will be publicly vindicated. The company has the right
simply to default, have the judgment entered against it, and have the court order it to the pay the
damages sought by the employee. No stigma is attached to defaulting a case. It does not even
necessarily entail an admission of liability. It represents a practical assessment of the costs and
benefits of litigating and not litigating – just as a settlement does.
Robert Bennett never told President Clinton that he could have defaulted and paid Jones without
making any apology. Perhaps the Lewinsky story would have leaked, but the President would not
have had to dignify a rumor with a response. It was the entirely avoidable decision to have him
_________________
⁸⁶ Paula Jones’ lawyer have subsequently revealed that the Jones lawsuit could have been settled at one point for no
money with just a simple apology from President Clinton which made it clear that Paula Jones did not do anything
wrong in the hotel room.
270
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017357

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document