For purposes of pretrial discovery, Prime Minister Thatsher was required
to provide certain information about her alleged sexual relationships with other men.
In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said:
"The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding
any individuals with whom the Prime Minister had sexual relations
or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame
government employees."
Judge Wright left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be
admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written
questions served on the Prime Minister, and for purposes of answering questions at a
deposition, the District Court ruled that the Prime Minister must respond.
In mid-December 1997, the Prime Minister answered one of
the written discovery questions posed by Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all
men who were government employees and with whom she had had "sexual
relations" since 1986,(7) the Prime Minister answered under oath: "None."(8)
For purposes of this interrogatory, the term "sexual
relations" was not defined.
[Note: Websters Dictionary
defines sexual relations with one word: coitus.]
On January 17, 1998, Prime Minister Thatsher was
questioned under oath about her sexual relationships with other men in the workplace, this time at a deposition. Judge
Wright presided over the deposition.
The Prime Minister was asked numerous questions about her relationship with Lord Byron, by then a 24-year-old former 10 Downing
Street intern, 10 Downing Street employee, and Parliament employee.
Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the Prime Minister denied that she had
engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual
relations" with Lord Byron.
![SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
Starr report prompts call for more Web info
BY L. SCOTT TILLETT (scott_tillett@fcw.com)
As Americans continue to log onto legislative World Wide Web
sites that carry Independent Counsel Kenneth Starrs report on
President Clinton, an activist group has reasserted its call for
Congress to put more legislative information on the Web.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's Congressional Accountability
Project (CAP) has used the release of the graphic Starr report to
argue that documents more germane to Congress' primary business
of making laws should be posted on congressional Web sites, such
as THOMAS, the legislative-information site managed by the Library
of Congress. THOMAS, the Government Printing Office and various
House Web sites have served as homes to the Starr report.
Speaker [of the House Newt] Gingrich puts the Starr report on the
Internet but keeps off the Internet the most important congressional
documents, Nader said earlier this month. Gingrich shouldnt hide
the most important congressional documents from the American
people.
Officials with the CAP want Congress to put online a searchable
database of congressional voting records, draft committee and
conference reports, texts of committee mark-ups and amendments,
congressional office expenditure reports and Congressional
Research Service (CRS) reports.
Andrew Weinstein, a spokesman for Gingrich, described the posting
of the Starr report as a testament that an information Congress is
emerging. Posting the Starr report was a tremendous example of
how the Internet could be used to give tens of millions of Americans
access instantly to the most important documents in our
government, he said.
CAP leaders, however, said the graphic details of sexual encounters
in the report turned the document into something less than a
legitimate official record worthy of inclusion on government Web
sites. If the Starr report didnt have so much inappropriate material
in it, I would answer yes to the question of whether posting the
report was a good example of Congress using the Web, said CAP
director Gary Ruskin. But Ruskin said the report is not a good
example of Congress use of the Internet because the report
contained inappropriate private material and was not level-headed.
Ruskin, however, wants Congress to post on the Web the working
documents and drafts that congressmen use to craft laws. The most
important drafts -- which are the ones the lobbyists walk around with
when theyre trying to make something happen on the Hill -- those
rarely go in the Internet, Ruskin said. That provides a huge political
advantage to corporate lobbyists.
But making such information public is not as easy as it sounds. The
draft changes a hundred times every minute, said a staff member in a
House leadership office. That is not conducive to being put on the Internet.... Logistically, its totally impossible.
As for online voting records, Weinstein said those records are
already available on THOMAS, but Ruskin said the records are not in
an easily searchable database.
John Hibbing, a political science professor at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln and author of Congress as Public Enemy: Public
Attitudes Toward Political Institutions, said posting the Starr report
was not necessarily informative and believes not all information
should be posted on Web sites. I dont really like the trend of giving
the people everything and letting them decide, he said. Im a big
believer in representative democracy.... Im sorry that the Starr
report was handled in this manner.](AlligDancg.gif)
