I was chatting with a litigator about Real World Divorce and politics. The subject of the Clintons’ roughly $22 million/year in earnings came up and the litigator noted “Monica Lewinsky could have done pretty well for herself if she hadn’t left the white gold on her blue dress.” What did she mean? It turns out that if Monica had stayed in the District of Columbia with Bill Clinton’s child she would have been entitled to roughly $2 million per year for 21 years, i.e., about $42 million total in tax-free profit.
What about the fact that some of the money was earned by Hillary? “A judge could use discretion to award child support based on the combined income in a variety of ways,” she explained. “One is by awarding a higher percentage of Bill’s income with the explanation that Hillary’s earnings can replace those lost to a child support plaintiff. Another is by accepting the argument that Hillary wouldn’t be earning any of her speaking fees but for her relationship with Bill and being part of the couple. A third way of getting a child support award based on the full $22 million would be to argue that much of the Clinton Foundation spending, e.g., on travel or parties, should be considered income to Bill and Hillary. Adding in a judge-determined amount from the Foundation to Bill’s income would bring his income for child support calculation up to $22 million per year.”
7 thoughts on “Monica Lewinsky’s lost child support profits”
Supposedly Bill Clinton has told women that he is sterile (or possibly had a vasectomy). These rumors come up regularly in connection with rumors about Chelsea’s paternity. Also insemination is not quite so easy, according to many women who try to conceive. If Monica had worked in an IVF clinic before, then she would probably have known what to do.
There are many stories of young athlete groupies doing this to pro athletes.
Looking at Chelsea, I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton is the father.
More surprising to me is how the feminist Hillary stayed with her husband. I think it shows a lot about her political ambitions. As someone commented in NyTimes:
“Hillary Clinton is not a Democrat. In fact she is not even a Republican. She is a “Clintonist.” Her rudder is ambition; she polls the winds and will seemingly say whatever she thinks she has to be at the moment. She cannot be “nudged” to the left anymore than one can nudge jelly anywhere. She serves Big Money because Big Money fuels her ambition.”
I’m not a fan of the Clintons, but having a system that punishes Hillary for Bill’s mistakes is just too much.
One thing I’ve learned from this blog is that child support in this country is not fixed at a certain amount. I had assumed was that the purpose was to make sure that the father was providing enough money to raise the child, but “enough” was a function of the expenses of actually raising children. The father would have to meet that amount, if he could (and if he couldn’t that would be the problem), but no more. My parents didn’t have $21 million to raise me.
The way it actually is done seems to be some sort of golddigger’s charter. I’m surprised that a civilized country would allow things to get that way. Its basically a huge subsidy for women to file for divorce or have children out of wedlock.
No, that is not the purpose of child support in the USA. It is to equalize the mom’s and dad’s standard of living. The mom can spend all the child support money on herself, if she wishes.
A good friend of mine got divorced shortly after a 22-year Navy career. He initiated the divorce, but had to pay out big time. The ex-wife gets half of his $40K Navy pension for life, $800 per month child support for two teens until age 21, $800 per month lifetime alimony unless and until she remarries, and $60K in home equity.
Excluding child support, and assuming the ex-wife does not re-marry and the ex-husband lives for forty years after the divorce, that’s a $1.25 million dollar divorce pay out!
Comments are closed.