Cover Page
Table of Contents
Chronology
Study Chart
Table of Names
Introduction
Narrative
Grounds
End Page
The Star Field
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pages of Proof

Time Line
Lord Byron's Cheat Sheet
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pictures!
The Hidden Gifts!
The Starr Chamber MIDI Page
First Cigar
Third Cigar
Chic Counsel
Holidays
Pizza
Starr Dust
Homework

Cover Page
Table of Contents
Chronology
Study Chart
Table of Names
Introduction
Narrative
Grounds
End Page
The Star Field
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pages of Proof

Time Line
Lord Byron's Cheat Sheet
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pictures!
The Hidden Gifts!
The Starr Chamber MIDI Page
First Cigar
Third Cigar
Chic Counsel
Holidays
Pizza
Starr Dust
Homework

Cover Page
Table of Contents
Chronology
Study Chart
Table of Names
Introduction
Narrative
Grounds
End Page
The Star Field
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pages of Proof

Time Line
Lord Byron's Cheat Sheet
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pictures!
The Hidden Gifts!
The Starr Chamber MIDI Page
First Cigar
Third Cigar
Chic Counsel
Holidays
Pizza
Starr Dust
Homework

Cover Page
Table of Contents
Chronology
Study Chart
Table of Names
Introduction
Narrative
Grounds
End Page
The Star Field
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pages of Proof

Time Line
Lord Byron's Cheat Sheet
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pictures!
The Hidden Gifts!
The Starr Chamber MIDI Page
First Cigar
Third Cigar
Chic Counsel
Holidays
Pizza
Starr Dust
Homework

Cover Page
Table of Contents
Chronology
Study Chart
Table of Names
Introduction
Narrative
Grounds
End Page
The Star Field
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pages of Proof

Time Line
Lord Byron's Cheat Sheet
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Pictures!
The Hidden Gifts!
The Starr Chamber MIDI Page
First Cigar
Third Cigar
Chic Counsel
Holidays
Pizza
Starr Dust
Homework

Sunday, December 13, 1998 the American public was informed that Judge Starr has finally turned in his written answers to House Judiciary Committee members' questions about OIC treatment of Ms. Lewinsky that she testified to in the Grand Jury hearings.  Under oath, Ms. Lewinsky testified that she was threatened with 27 years of imprisonment and that she was told that her mother faced criminal prosecution.  Timely as always, Judge Starr's answers did not reach the committee until after it had already voted on several articles of impeachment.

Specifically, Judge Starr denied that his prosecutors threatened Ms. Lewinsky with a long jail term, that his prosecutors threatened her mother with prosecution, that his prosecutors prevented her from speaking to her lawyer or that his prosecutors asked Ms. Lewinsky to tape conversations with President Clinton or his friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr.

Starr's prosecutors and FBI agents surprised the former White House intern while she was lunching with her friend Linda Tripp at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Arlington, Va., on Jan. 16.

The Lewinsky-Tripp luncheon conversation was secretly recorded by Tripp for the FBI.

Reportedly against her will, Ms. Lewinsky then became Judge Starr's main witness in his case against the President of the United States.

Now the discrepancies between the testimony of Clinton and the former intern about the precise nature of their sexual encounters is at the heart of the key impeachment charge of grand jury perjury that goes before the House this week.  In fact, it is only select portions of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, often cited out of context, that have been offered as "evidence" against the President in Judge Starr's impeachment referral that alleges perjury or perjorious statements.

After Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last month, each member of the committee was allowed five minutes to question him about the statement he read that day, the 450 page referral he sent to Congress, and the boxes of documents he sent along with the referral.  Several democratic members of the committee asked him about a series of allegations lodged against his office, including reports of heavy-handed treatment of Lewinsky at the Ritz Carlton. These reports include portions of Ms. Lewinsky's Grand Jury in which she specifically described the events of that day at the Ritz Carlton.

But Starr replied that the criticisms "rely on Ms. Lewinsky's perception of events as they unfolded that day."  Please note that she did not indicate these were only "perceptions" when she testified to the Grand Jury about how she was treated by OIC investigators, prosecutors and FBI agents at the Ritz Carlton.

She was "understandably upset and distraught" and her later testimony should be seen as coming "from the perspective of a very difficult and emotional day."   One might also believe that all of her testimony comes "from the perspective of a [many] very difficult and emotional day[s]."

Repeatedly, Starr prefaced his answers by saying,

"I was not, of course, present" at the hotel.

Judge Starr, sounding a bit like the man he has been accusing, then went on to deny almost all her allegations.

He denied that: * Lewinsky was threatened with a 27-year jail term.

"At no time was Ms. Lewinsky told what her actual sentence would be.
She was advised of the nature of the possible charges against her and what the maximum penalty would be for each offense." Did she miss-add the maximum penalties she was given?  Was the maximum penalty total more or less than 27 years? 

"At no time was Ms. Lewinsky told what her actual sentence would be."
Apparently what actually happened was that "Ms. Lewinsky was told what her maximum sentence could be."  Judge Starr's defense appears to to rest on a distinction between the words "could" and "would."

Threat:  "If you stand in front of that truck, the actual consequence would be physical injury."
Benign: "If you stand in front of that truck, the consequence could be physical injury."

Threat:  "If you do not hand over your wallet, I would actually kill you."
Benign: "If you do not hand over your wallet, I could kill you."

Threat:  "You will be imprisoned for 27 years."
Benign: "You can be imprisoned for 27 years."

Sidebar:  This parsing of words may be difficult to follow.   Therefore, although it is acknowledged that Judge Starr does not concede that the Merriam-Webster dictionary or any dictionary for that matter is an authority of the meaning of words in the English language, dictionary definitions of "could" and "would" are included here.  It appears that, in at least one case, the dictionary defines "could" and "would" as synonymous.

Main Entry: could
Pronunciation: k&d, 'kud
Etymology: Middle English couthe, coude, from Old English cuthe; akin to Old High German konda could
past ofCAN -- used in auxiliary function in the past <we found we could go>, in the past conditional <we said we would go if we could>, and as an alternative to can suggesting less force or certainty or as a polite form in the present <if you could come we would be pleased>

Main Entry: would
Pronunciation: w&d, &d, d, 'wud
Function: past of WILL
Etymology: Middle English wolde, from Old English; akin to Old High German wolta wished, desired
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : WISHED, DESIRED b archaic : wish for : WANT c (1) : strongly desire : WISH <I would I were young again> -- often used without a subject and with that in a past or conditional construction <would that I had heeded your advice> (2) -- used in auxiliary function with rather or sooner to express preference <he would sooner die than face them>
2 a -- used in auxiliary function to express wish, desire, or intent <those who would forbid gambling> b -- used in auxiliary function to express willingness or preference <as ye would that men should do to you -- Luke 6:31 (Authorized Version)> c -- used in auxiliary function to express plan or intention <said we would come>
3 -- used in auxiliary function to express custom or habitual action <we would meet often for lunch>
4 -- used in auxiliary function to express consent or choice <would put it off if he could>
5 a -- used in auxiliary function in the conclusion of a conditional sentence to express a contingency or possibility <if he were coming, he would be here now> b -- used in auxiliary function in a noun clause (as one completing a statement of desire, request, or advice) <we wish that he would go>
6 -- used in auxiliary function to express probability or presumption in past or present time <would have won if I had not tripped>
7 : COULD <the barrel would hold 20 gallons>
8 -- used in auxiliary function to express a request with which voluntary compliance is expected <would you please help us>
9 -- used in auxiliary function to express doubt or uncertainty <the explanation... would seem satisfactory>
10 : SHOULD <knew I would enjoy the trip> <would be glad to know the answer>

* Her mother was threatened with prosecution.

She was simply told "some of the facts . . . concerning her mother's apparent involvement in the crimes under investigation."   So, if the FBI tells you that you or a member of your family is apparently involved in a crime under investigation, you should never assume that this constitues a threat that you or that family member might be prosecuted.

* She was told that she would be treated better if she did not call her lawyer.

"We invited Ms. Lewinsky to cooperate with our investigation," he wrote.
"We warned her, though, that any cooperation could be less effective if others, including [her lawyer] Mr. [Francis] Carter, knew she was cooperating."

* She was asked to tape the president or Jordan.

"Ms. Lewinsky may have reached an incorrect inference as to this office's intentions based upon our general discussion of the possibility of tape-recording conversations," he wrote.  

Apparently, Judge Starr believes Ms. Lewinsky capable of coming to incorrect inferences about intentions, even when her inferences are based on actual discussions. 

Additional question to Judge Starr:  Your statement indicates there was a "general discussion of the possibility of tape-recording conversations."   When you were having a general discussion with Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility of tape-recording conversations, if you were not considering having her tape The President of the United States or Mr. Jordan, whom were you considering having taped by Ms. Lewinsky?  Her mother?  Linda?  Betty?

Meanwhile, further on in Judge Starr's written replies, he may have also denied that he had heard in November 1997 a rumor that a woman had been taped telling of her sexual affair with the president.  Given Judge Starr's written response, it is difficult if not impossible to tell what he is denying.

In his written response, the Judge first noted that the FBI has been told that he was at a dinner party in December of last year [December, 1997] and spoke of the tapes.
"I deny such an event occurred," he wrote.  

This answer is very confusing.  Is Judge Starr denying that "the FBI has been told that he was at a dinner party in December of last year and spoke of the tapes"?  Or, is Judge Starr denying that "he had heard in November 1997 a rumor that a woman had been taped telling of her sexual affair with the president"?   Or, is Judge Starr denying that he was at a dinner party in December 1997?   Or, is Judge Starr denying that he spoke of the tapes at a dinner party in December 1997? 

Is Judge Starr giving an equivocal response here? Does Judge Starr believe equivocation is perjorious or an instance of perjury?  Does Judge Starr believe that giving equivocal answers constitutes obstruction of justice?

Tripp delivered her secret tapes of Lewinsky to Starr's office on Jan. 12, and on Jan. 16 [she was apparently speaking to the OIC earlier in the day and then] she briefed lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones, who had filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton.
The Jones lawyers questioned Clinton under oath the next day.

Starr again denied that he knew of the link then. "To my knowledge, no employee of the office knew that [Tripp] was going to meet that evening with the attorneys representing Paula Jones," Starr said.

Please note that Judge Starr inserted the words "that evening" into his written response, as well as a now infamously parsed version of a verb, e.g. "was going to meet."

Therefore, if he knew that Ms. Tripp had already consulted with the Paula Jones attorneys but did not know that a meeting would occur on the evening of January 16th, his statement is literally true but misleading. 

If Judge Starr knew that Ms. Tripp planned to meet with Paula Jones attorneys sometime in the future but he did not know that she planned to do it on the "evening" of the 16th of January, his statement is true but misleading.

If Judge Starr knew that Ms. Tripp and the Paula Jones attorneys had planned to talk on the evening of January 16th but he did not know whether or not Ms. Tripp would actually show up and meet them at that time, his statement might still be viewed as legally true but misleading.

Presented to the public no later than Sunday, December 13, 1998