I apologize for the length of this post, but given the gravity of the issue at hand when

I sat down to write late last night a long list of things came to my mind.

More than anything, I am struck by two truths. One, it seems that history well
documents that those who work to avoid conflict at all costs wind up being those
destined in many instances to find much conflict. Peace at all costs rarely brings it.
On the other hand, Jesus was incredibly clear in the book of Luke that we are to turn
the other cheek at offenses and that if someone took our shirt, we were to offer our
coat as well.

In this light I have struggled in how to respond since being contacted little more
than a week ago regarding yet another lawsuit by yet a new, and third, lawyer
retained by my former wife Jenny. I first learned of it through the media and I didnt
want to respond at all, but given the level of accusation after waiting a day I gave a
brief response.

My question now though is how to respond given I am being summoned to the court
room again on Monday. I have prayed on it, thought on it and asked the advice of
friends.

Here is where I have settled:

I cannot do this anymore. In all life there comes a point wherein lines must be
drawn in the way that we attempt to respond in ways that dont invite more in the
way of conflict and add more in the way of modeling Christs humility in giving in
every instance. Ill never get that mix right, none of us do, but I believe its what we
are to pursue in all of our responses to the inevitable reality of conflict in our lives.

So here are a few thoughts that hit me:

One, in as much as you sign my paycheck and you have elected me to represent you
in Washington, I think I owe you my thinking on this personal, but now public
matter. More than at any time in my life, I believe I am subject to not just the laws of
God, but the authority of my fellow man.

Two, I am going to get a lawyer to defend me on this case. I will instruct them not to
fight back, to work to de-escalate and defuse and to look for measured justice and an
end to controversy. At the time of the divorce I did not get a lawyer because I could
not imagine standing in a court room with one in some adversarial form against the
mother of our boys. Since then, and almost as clock work over the last four and one
half years since the divorce, unfortunately there has been either the threat of
lawsuit or actual lawsuit about every six months. In every instance I have either
settled, represented myself or gotten two longtime friends to help me in responding.
I have always tried to quiet the matter because at so many different levels I wanted
to do anything to avoid conflict. I didnt want to further hurt or embarrass the boys,
Jenny, the people I had once representedor even myself with more talk on my
personal life. In fact more public conflict after the events of five years ago was the
last thing in the world I wanted.

There was also the issue of money. Spending money getting lawyers to resolve
differences, when I believed any two people sitting down could do the same, also
broke with my belief on stewardshipor what some would call my frugal ways. But
here we are and I am comfortable knowing I have tried near everything within my
power to avoid lawyers and court - and in my belief that I will continue to work to
avoid acrimony going forward. I am simply handing off the keys in dealing with this
so that I can focus without further distraction on our boys and my work in
Washington.

Three, lets recognize the degree to which whats being done seems designed to
embarrass me rather than change anything. As mentioned I never hired a lawyer at
the time of the divorce which in practical terms means I just folded all the cards in
giving Jenny what she wanted at that time. She wanted a certain financial number
that I didnt have, and so I gave her pieces of our family farm that my dad and mom
assembled in the 1950s and 60s. They were obviously not marital assets
normally divided in a divorce, but the only way I could manage to get to her number.
She wanted full custody of the boys, I gave it. She wanted full control of their
custodial accounts which were very significant in size, I gave it. I did these things for
two reasons. One, because my good friend Cubby Culbertson had reminded me that
it was all Gods - and if he wanted you to have more, you wouldand if he wanted
you to have less, you would have less. He accordingly strongly advised against
spending money and time and controversy fighting over things that God ultimately
controlled. It was good advice. I also did it because in that chapter of life I could not
take any more controversy, and what Jenny had said at that time was that if she
didnt get those things we would go to court and just have another public spectacle. I
found that idea haunting, and so I indeed folded all the cards and that brings us to
today.

Jennys attorneys newest summons asks that the visitation schedule be changed to
limit my visitation with our youngest son Blake. The question is how do you change
what does not exist? There is no visitation schedule. She has full custody. Over the
last five years she has determined the visitation schedule and informed me at the
beginning of this year that I would not be given one. I pleaded otherwise, pointing
out that no boy wants to be put in the place of having to pick between their mother
and dad.

This year with no schedule has certainly resulted in a lot of time apart from the
boys, as for instance I was not able to spend a night with Bolton for 17 weeks this
spring. The same holds true last year when they were not allowed to be with me
during the five months of the campaign, save the election nights. The trump card has
always been, if you dont like it, take me to court, and for all the reasons described
this has never been a place I felt comfortable going. The absence of schedule now
simply results in strange emails, as for instance I got one two days ago from Jennys
new lawyer advising me that to arrange any visit with Blake I should come through
her. If I had normal parental rights why in the world would I be getting a note like
this from an attorney when in that case our son wants nothing more than to go to
the USC football game?

So here is my take away. To now suggest that we need to amend what does not exist
strikes me as either pure theatre or a punitive restriction to further limit what has
devolved to be very limited time with the boys.

Four, lets call an ace an ace when someone is playing for the media. In fact there is a
touch of irony when one reads about the attorneys desire to seal the records to
protect the children at the very time when I am getting calls and emails from across
the country from friends reading about this matter in their hometown papers. Let
me give you a few examples of the way some of these accusations seem designed to
generate media attention, and let me in short form answer a few of these
accusations.

In their summons I am restrained from the following:

Consuming or being under the influence of illegal drugs or excessive amounts of
alcohol in the presence, or while responsible for, the care of the minor child. This
really is crazy. Why would one throw out the need for restraint if it were not a
problem - or if one did not want to raise the specter of a problem? On this one all I
can ask is that you talk to anyone who has seen or known me over my entire 54
years in the Low Country. I have never taken any illegal drug in my life. I did not
drink in high school or college and though I do drink now, my consumption is so
limited that my friends give me a hard time about it. I will have but one beer or two
when out at a social occasion.

Restrained from entering or attempting to enter the property of Plaintiff. We have
already been through this with the Super bowl and my taking our youngest son
Blake home from a Super bowl party two years ago when his mom was out of town.
I made the wrong call (though I thought the right call as a dad to be with him and
not to just drop him off) and have never set foot on her property since then. I dont
know why this is being brought back up again.

"Exposing the minor child overnight to a member of the opposite sex not related by
blood who could be reasonably construed as a paramour. Though Jenny herself has
certainly not lived up to this clause it is clearly aimed at me given near everyone
knows about Belen and in that regard it seems designed to create intrigue where
none exists. The younger boys have never spent a night housed under the same roof
with Belen and with the exception of one night and a major conversation that lasted
well into that night, the same holds true for the older boys. I was primarily
motivated to do so by a love for the boys and wanting to go to great lengths to never
again put them in an uncomfortable spot. I was also motivated by fear because there
was very frequently a consequence in not being allowed to see the boys if I did
something my former wife disliked.

No relationship can stand forever this tension of being forced to pick between the
one you love and your own son or daughter, and for this reason Belen and I have
decided to call off the engagement. Maybe there will be another chapter when
waters calm with Jenny, but at this point the environment is not conducive to
building anything given no one would want to be caught in the middle of whats now
happening. Belen is a remarkably wonderful woman who I have always loved and I
will be forever grateful for not only the many years we have known and loved each
other, but the last six very tough ones wherein she has encouraged me and silently
borne its tribulations with her ever warm and kind spirit.

Finally, Jenny and her lawyer also go on to ask me to undertake an array of
programs and evaluations, each one more riveting than the next. As a public figure
people have seen me over twenty years in the highs and lows and most trying of
times, and if I was plagued by the afflictions they suggest wouldnt people have seen
me mad or angry by now? In simplest form I dont understand how I can be elected
by a wide array of folks at home to attempt to represent their interests in
Washington, but if the Plaintiffs view was to prevail, be required to take psychiatric
and psychological evaluations to be with our youngest son. Posing those sorts of
questions is destructive plain and simple, and in fairness to my friends in the media
if those type questions are raised they will report them which is why you have
been subjected to reading this response and media accounts.

So where does all this leave us?

One, with my continued belief that for whatever our differences, I believe these boys
have a mom who loves them and cares about them. I will never attempt to detract
from her or all the positive things she has done in her life, but having to go
frequently to ask a former spouse when you can have time with a son is a recipe for
conflict. I hope and believe Jenny and I can find a new way. Its also reminder for
every one of you who have been blessed to avoid the agony of divorce, of how
important it is you spend time when you have it with those who now bear your
name.

Two, I am left with a wise oldest son whos wisdom is to follow Christs example of
just letting go and trusting that God is in control and will ensure his youngest
brothers future success. That the key to ending conflict sometimes just means
walking away from it. If there is a way I can do that without walking from my son, I
will pursue it.

Finally, I am left humbled in my inability to determine outcomes and reminded
again of how the only thing we can ultimately work on fixing is ourselves. So for me
these days it means rededication to trying as best I can to walk in the light of Gods
grace. It means pointing to truth wherever I see it and trying to live by it. It means
listening a bit more so that maybe I can better understand the grand canvas of what
I dont see and understand.

This posting has been most personal, but again given the gravity of what has been
alleged I felt compelled to address it and the larger context of where our family is
and where we are headed. I ask for both your prayers and consideration in this
process.

Thank you. Mark.