The Relationship

b. Starr Chamber Testimony
We would like to take this irresistable opportunity to bring you more sex.

Testifying before the Starr Chamber on August 17, 1998, seven months after her Jones deposition, the Prime Minister acknowledged "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lord Byron but maintained that her January deposition testimony was accurate. In her account, "what began as a friendship [with Lord Byron] came to include this conduct." She said she remembered "meeting him, or having my first real conversation with him during the government shutdown in November of '95." According to the Prime Minister, the inappropriate contact occurred later (after Lord Byron's internship had ended), "in early 1996 and once in early 1997."

The Prime Minister refused to answer questions about the precise nature of her intimate contacts with Lord Byron, but she did explain her earlier denials. As to her denial in the Jones deposition that she and Lord Byron had had a "sexual relationship," the Prime Minister maintained that there can be no sexual relationship without sexual intercourse, regardless of what other sexual activities may transpire. She stated that "most ordinary citizens" as well as Webster's dictionary embrace this distinction.

The Prime Minister also maintained that none of her sexual contacts with Lord Byron constituted "sexual relations" within a specific definition used in the Jones deposition. Under that definition:

Warning: If you are under 18, skip the next few paragraphs....

[A] person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -- (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

According to what the Prime Minister testified was her understanding, this definition "covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify," but it does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed. She testified:

[I]f the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on her, then the contact is with -- not with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person. It seems to be self-evident that that's what it is. . . . Let me remind you, sir, I read this carefully.

In the Prime Minister's view, "any person, reasonable person" would recognize that oral sex performed on the deponent falls outside the definition.

If Lord Byron performed oral sex on the Prime Minister, then -- under the Jones' case definition -- he engaged in sexual relations, but she did not. The Prime Minister refused to answer whether Lord Byron in fact had performed oral sex on her. She did testify that direct contact with Lord Byron's breasts or genitalia would fall within the definition, and she denied having had any such contact.

After reading the court's "definition," you must be marvelling at our clever ability to sneak in the phone sex anyway. Just remember, we did it all for you!

$Monday, February 23, 1998 Published at 17:34 GMT Has the Grand Jury become a Starr Chamber? Letter from America, Alistaire Cooke. There are two and only two topics that absorb our days - and some of our nights. It seemed a few days ago we were close to an American-sponsored attack, an aerial attack on Iraq and something close to a confession from Mr. Clinton about the nature of his odd relationship with a young White House woman intern (one, by the way, of two hundred and fifty lowly White House aides.) That was less than a week ago. Today - although as I speak both the United States Air Force and Monica Lewinsky might well have blown their stack overnight - as I speak, we seem neither quite on the verge of war in the Middle East nor of a confession from the White House. Since I last talked about the White House personal scandal, Ive tracked through the daily steps taken to protect one or other witness or potential witness in the Clinton/Lewinsky matter - and I find that over fifty lawyers are involved doing what American lawyers are meant to do: either belligerently protecting somebody from prosecution or blocking the threatening legal moves of other lawyers, or defying the opposition counsel, or examining the law as it now stands and wondering how to bend it. And now, we have lawyers both inside and outside the game threatening to prosecute the independent prosecutor, Mr. Kenneth Starr, for his rough tactics in collecting evidence - such as wiring people so as to record their conversation with unwitting second persons. (The original taping of Monica Lewinsky without her knowledge was done in Maryland, where such a tactic is illegal.) Nobody seems to have bothered much about that, since the ensuing tapes were so hot as to attract the attention of Mr. Starr - the Special Counsel or Prosecutor. I might as well repeat now, that this institution of a Special Prosecutor is only a quarter of a century old - one was appointed, with great resistance from President Nixon, to look into the murky business of Watergate - the midnight raid on Democratic headquarters inspired by Nixon, covered up by him - whose actual involvement from the beginning took over two years to expose and had him resign in disgrace to avoid trial for impeachment and certain conviction. Well, after Nixons going, Congress passed an Act setting up the institution of a Special Counsel in cases where there might be a suspicion of crime in the executive, that is, the Presidential branch of government. The idea was admirable in the beginning, based on the sensible old Roman question - who shall police the policemen? In serious matters - like Watergate - better not have the Presidents resident Prosecutor, the Attorney General. So we got used to the idea of a Special Counsel or Prosecutor. He was called upon when that land deal the Clintons were involved in, in their Arkansas days, turned fishy - and I believe that investigation is still not closed. Anyway, two people at least have gone to jail over it. Then there was the even fishier story of the missing FBI files which turned up in the White House. Somebody better look into that. And then, the Attorney General denied a Prosecutor over a scandal that called for a Senate investigation - the contribution of millions of dollars, many from Asia, to President Clintons re-election campaign. Much of that has been proved and subpoenas have gone flying - some suspects have got lost, either here or abroad - and Mr. Clinton and Vice President Gore have used a flock of lawyers to maintain that none of these millions were solicited expressly for Mr. Clinton, even if thats where they wound up. However, win one, lose one. Since the Special Prosecutor can poke his nose into any corner of the Presidency - the White House, the Cabinet, federal judges, embassies, I assume - anywhere that gives off a suspicious smell - Mr. Starr has been free to move into the Paula Jones case. Shes the young lady who accused the President of a gross sexual approach in a hotel room in Little Rock when he was Governor. Mr. Starrs association with Ms. Lewinsky is very slender indeed - he heard about, and heard her secret taping and what it was alleged to contain and thought she might be a useful character witness in the Paula Jones case. So he subpoenaed her to appear before the grand jury thats sitting on the Jones case. I take a deep breath at this point - a breath of disbelief in a sentence Ive just read in a Washington dispatch from an English correspondent saying that most Americans probably dont know what a Special Prosecutor is or even a grand jury. Well, Americans have now had twenty-five years daily experience of the sleuthing of Special Prosecutors (six in Reagans time, four already in Clintons) and there can hardly be an American over eighteen who has not been called or sat on a grand jury. On the other hand, I doubt any of my listeners in Britain has ever sat on a grand jury. (I dont know about the Commonwealth.) Which immediately urges me to sketch out the fascinating history of the grand jury, of the brilliant, arrogant English lawyer who alone mounted a devastating attack on it and got it abandoned eighty-four years ago and abolished in Britain forever. But that can wait. Best till the Paula Jones grand jury has decided, which is all grand juries have to do, whether there is a case. From the massive, suffocating coverage that Ms. Lewinsky and her allegation has been given, youd think we were coming to the end of a trial. We have, in law, not yet decided whether its worth a trial. But the feeling - that were deep inside an unprecedented Presidential ordeal - is due to two overlapping habits that have overwhelmed the press and the other media in the past twenty-five years or so. One is the decision of serious newspapers to fall into the tabloid habit of printing and blowing up sexual allegations about public men. And, in this country, the entirely new habit of leaking testimony given in a grand jury room. This is a criminal act - for a grand jury hearing is secret: the public prosecutor presents his case, the defendant, the accused is not even allowed a lawyer; (he may sit outside for consultation.) How much more, then, is the grand jury Mr. Starrs special creature? Mr. Starr may wander far and wide, peering into every cranny, picking up anybodys tapes if they could serve his purpose and he can - and has - put on the witness stand at the grand jury hearing anybody he thinks could be a useful peripheral witness - Ms. Lewinskys mother, for instance. Who, from merely the visible facial evidence of a drained woman coming out of the jury room - the Lewinsky mother had a brutal two days or more under Mr. Starrs attentions. The unrelieved harshness of these tactics has given Mr. Starr the nickname of Inspector Javert the police inquisitor who went so mercilessly after Jean Valjean. His qualifications as a neutral, disinterested judge are being questioned far and wide. Hes an ardent Republican, associated with the Right, and if theres one aim of his legal pursuit that becomes more glaringly clear every day, it is his determination to bring President Clinton down. This has recruited a whole new band of Clinton sympathisers. When the President was faced last weekend with the suggestion - with the pleas of some of his friends that he come forward and tell us all - to say what exactly was the nature of his attachment to a very, very minor young woman aide he gave presents to, he wrote to, he got his closest friend to procure a job for when things went wrong in the White House and again at the Pentagon - and who, once she was gone, was given access to the White House thirty-seven times. The Presidents response to this plea has been to mobilise many of his old advisors, Cabinet office and cronies - from Arkansas, from his first administration - and barricade himself behind batteries of lawyers. So it looks now as if the defence of the realm, the Clinton realm, is deep in a last-ditch resistance to the special animus of the Special Prosecutor. And knowledgeable people who were saying a month ago that the President might go within the week are now predicting a long, hot summer. And at the quickest, the passing of testimony and a report from Mr. Starr (he cant prosecute) to the House Judiciary Committee, which then would have to go all over everything and decide - it then sitting as a grand jury - whether there is a case to be made for drafting articles of impeachment - is there evidence of high crimes and misdemeanours as the Constitution defines them? So that such articles might then be passed on to the Senate, which then sits as a trial court, with the President in the dock. Just now, it looks like a long, long trail a-winding into the land of our dreams and our fears. And how about Iraq? The administration took the brave step last Tuesday of holding a sort of New England town meeting come one, come all in the middle of the country in Ohio. Six hundred ordinary citizens gathered and posed questions about the plans for Iraq. Secretary Albright and Defence Secretary Cohen got much more than they bargained for. Sharp questions, shrewd questions, full of misgivings about what aerial bombing would or could do a small riot outside; inside, a fractious booing mob that wants peace at any price. It was a bad omen, and in the following days turned out to be a blurred reflection of a country not at all united on a policy toward Saddam, as it was united and with the blessing of the United Nations and most of the Arab world on the mission to get Saddam out of Kuwait. The fact is, or was, as United Nations Secretary General Annan went to Baghdad the administration was beginning to fear it might have more to lose at home as well as in the Arab world if it maintained its purpose of mounting war, however limited, in Iraq.$

email complaints, suggestions & satirical contributions to
mirth@benegesserit.com