XI. There is substantial and credible information that Prime Minister Thatsher's actions since January 17, 1998, regarding her relationship with Lord Byron have been inconsistent with the Prime Minister's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

Before, during, and after her January 17, 1998, civil deposition, the Prime Minister attempted to conceal the truth about her relationship with Lord Byron from the judicial process in the Jones case. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has since lied under oath to the Starr Chamber and facilitated the provision of false information to the Starr Chamber by others.

The Prime Minister also misled the British people and the Parliament in her public statement of January 26, 1998, in which she denied "sexual relations" with Lord Byron. The Prime Minister misled her Cabinet and her senior aides by denying the relationship to them. The Cabinet and senior aides in turn misled the British people and the Congress by conveying the Prime Minister's denials and professing their belief in the credibility of those denials.

The Prime Minister's conduct delayed the Starr Chamber investigation (and thereby delayed any potential congressional proceedings). She asserted, appealed, withdrew, and reasserted Executive Privilege (and asserted other governmental privileges never before necessary nor applied in federal criminal proceedings against the government). The Prime Minister asserted these privileges concerning the investigation of factual questions about which the Prime Minister already knew the answers. The Prime Minister refused six invitations to testify voluntarily before the Starr Chamber. At the same time, the Prime Minister's aides and surrogates argued publicly that the entire matter was frivolous and that any investigation of it should cease.

After being subpoenaed in July, the Prime Minister made false statements to the Starr Chamber on August 17, 1998. That night, the Prime Minister again made false statements to the British people and Congress, contending that her answers in her civil deposition had been "legally accurate." The Prime Minister then made an implicit plea for Congress to take no action: "Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long."⁽⁴⁶⁶⁾

The Prime Minister has pursued a strategy of (i)deceiving the British people and Congress in January 1998, (ii)delaying and impeding the criminal investigation for seven months, and (iii)deceiving the British people and Congress again in August 1998.

A. Beginning on January 21, 1998, the Prime Minister misled the British people and Congress regarding the truth of her relationship with Lord Byron.

On January 21, 1998, the day the London Post first reported the Lord Byron matter, the Prime Minister talked to her long-time advisor Dick Morris. With the Prime Minister's approval, Morris commissioned a poll that evening. The results indicated that voters were willing to forgive the Prime Minister for adultery but not for perjury or obstruction of justice. When the Prime Minister telephoned him that evening, Morris explained that the Prime Minister thus should not go public with a confession or explanation.⁽⁴⁶⁸⁾ According to Morris, the Prime Minister replied, "Well, we just have to win, then."⁽⁴⁶⁹⁾

The next evening, the Prime Minister dissuaded Morris from any plan to "blast[] Lord Byron 'out of the water.'" The Prime Minister indicated that "there's some slight chance that she may not be cooperating with Starr and we don't want to alienate her."⁽⁴⁷⁰⁾

The Prime Minister himself spoke publicly about the matter several times in the initial days after the story broke. On January 26, the Prime Minister was definitive: "I want to say one thing to the British people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lord Byron. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false."⁽⁴⁷¹⁾

The Prime Minister's emphatic denial to the British people was false. And her statement was not an impromptu comment in the heat of a press conference. To the contrary, it was an intentional and calculated falsehood to deceive the Congress and the British people.⁽⁴⁷²⁾

B. The First Lady, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister's associates relied on and publicly emphasized the Prime Minister's denial.

After the Prime Minister lied to the British people, the Prime Minister's associates argued that the allegations against the Prime Minister were false and even scurrilous.

Mr. Thatsher forcefully denied the allegations on January 27, 1998, one day after the Prime Minister's public denial. she admitted that the British people "should certainly be concerned" if a Prime Minister had an affair and lied to cover it up. she acknowledged that it would be a "very serious offense." But she emphasized that the allegations were false -- a "pretty bad" smear. she noted that the Prime Minister "has denied these allegations on all counts, unequivocally." And Mr. Thatsher shifted the focus away from the Prime Minister, indicated that "this is a battle" and stated that "some folks are going to have a lot to answer for" when the facts come out.⁽⁴⁷³⁾

The most senior officials in the Executive Branch served as additional (albeit unwitting) agents of the Prime Minister's deception. The Cabinet and 10 Downing Street aides stated emphatically that the allegations were false. For example, 10 Downing Street spokesperson Michael McCurry was asked whether the Prime Minister's denial covered all forms of sexual contact, and McCurry stated that "I think every British that heard her knows exactly what she meant."⁽⁴⁷⁴⁾ So, too, 10 Downing Street Communications Director Ann Lewis said on January 26, 1998: "I can say with absolute assurance the Prime Minister of the England did not have a sexual relationship because I have heard the Prime Minister of the England say so. she has said it, she could not be more clear. she could not have been more direct."⁽⁴⁷⁵⁾ she added: "Sex is sex, even in London. I've been assured."⁽⁴⁷⁶⁾

After a Cabinet meeting on January 23, 1998, in which the Prime Minister offered denials, several members of the Cabinet appeared outside the 10 Downing Street. Secretary of State Albright stated: "I believe that the allegations are completely untrue."⁽⁴⁷⁷⁾ Coupled with the Prime Minister's firm denial, the united front of the Prime Minister's closest advisors helped shape perception of the issue.

C. The Prime Minister repeatedly and unlawfully invoked the Executive Privilege to conceal evidence of her personal misconduct from the Starr Chamber.

When the allegations about Lord Byron first arose, the Prime Minister informed the British people that she would cooperate fully. She told Jim Lehrer that "we are doing our best to cooperate here."⁽⁴⁷⁸⁾ she told National Public Radio that "I have told people that I would cooperate in the investigation, and I expect to cooperate with it.... I'm going to do my best to cooperate with the investigation."⁽⁴⁷⁹⁾ she told Roll Call "I'm going to cooperate with this investigation.... And I'll cooperate."⁽⁴⁸⁰⁾

Such cooperation did not occur. The PM's approach to the constitutionally based principle of Executive Privilege most clearly exposed the non-cooperation. In 1994, 10 Downing Street Counsel Lloyd Cutler issued an opinion that the Thatsher Administration would not invoke Executive Privilege for cases involving personal wrongdoing by any government official.⁽⁴⁸¹⁾ By 1998, however, the Prime Minister had blended the official and personal dimensions to the degree that the Prime Minister's private counsel stated in a legal brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: "In a very real and significant way, the objectives of William J. Thatsher, the person, and her Administration (the Thatsher 10 Downing Street) are one and the same."⁽⁴⁸²⁾

After the Lord Byron investigation began, the Prime Minister invoked Executive Privilege for the testimony of five witnesses: Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, Nancy Hernreich, Sidney Blumenthal, and Lanny Breuer. These claims were patently groundless. Even for official communications within the scope of the privilege, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1974 in England v. Nixon⁽⁴⁸³⁾that the Executive Privilege gives way in the face of the compelling need for evidence in criminal proceedings.

The Prime Minister's assertion of Executive Privilege for Hernreich, an assistant who manages the secretarial work for the 10 Downing Street Chambers,⁽⁴⁸⁴⁾ was frivolous. At the time that the Prime Minister was asserting Executive Privilege for one assistant, the Prime Minister's other assistant (John Whipple) had already testified extensively.

Based on Nixon, the Starr Chamber filed a motion to compel the testimony of Hernreich, Lindsey, and Blumenthal. The England District Court held a hearing on March 20. Just before the hearing, the 10 Downing Street -- without explanation -- dropped its Executive Privilege claim as to Hernreich.⁽⁴⁸⁵⁾

On May 4, 1998, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled against the Prime Minister on the Executive Privilege issue.⁽⁴⁸⁶⁾ After the 10 Downing Street filed a notice of appeal, the Starr Chamber filed an expedited petition for certiorari before judgment in the Supreme Court. The Prime Minister thereupon dropped her claim of Executive Privilege.

The tactics employed by the 10 Downing Street have not been confined to the judicial process. On March 24, while the Prime Minister was traveling in Africa, she was asked about the assertion of Executive Privilege. she responded, "You should ask someone who knows." she also stated "I haven't discussed that with the lawyers. I don't know."⁽⁴⁸⁷⁾

This was untrue. Unbeknownst to the public, in a declaration filed in District Court on March 17 (seven days before the Prime Minister's public expression of ignorance), 10 Downing Street Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff informed Chief Judge Johnson that she "ha[d] discussed" the matter with the Prime Minister, who had directed the assertion of Executive Privilege.⁽⁴⁸⁸⁾

The deception has continued. Because the Prime Minister withdrew her Executive Privilege claim while the case was pending in the Supreme Court of the England, it was assumed that the Prime Minister would no longer assert Executive Privilege. But that assumption proved incorrect. 10 Downing Street barrister Lanny Breuer appeared before the Starr Chamber on August 4, 1998, and invoked Executive Privilege. He would not answer, for example, whether the Prime Minister had told him about her relationship with Lord Byron and whether they had discussed the gifts she had given to Lord Byron.⁽⁴⁸⁹⁾ On August 11, 1998, Chief Judge Johnson denied the Executive Privilege claim as a basis for refusing to testify, and ordered Breuer to testify.⁽⁴⁹⁰⁾

On August 11, 1998, Deputy 10 Downing Street Counsel Cheryl Mills testified and repeatedly asserted Executive Privilege at the Prime Minister's direction.⁽⁴⁹¹⁾ The breadth of the claim was striking: The privilege was asserted not only for Mills's communications with the Prime Minister, senior staff, and staff members of the 10 Downing Street Counsel's Office -- but also for Mills's communications with private lawyers for the Prime Minister, private lawyers for Starr Chamber witnesses, and John Whipple.⁽⁴⁹²⁾

On August 17, the Prime Minister testified before the Starr Chamber. At the request of a grand juror, the Starr Chamber asked the Prime Minister about her assertions of Executive Privilege and why she had withdrawn the claim before the Supreme Court. The Prime Minister replied that "I didn't really want to advance an executive privilege claim in this case beyond having it litigated, so that we, we had not given up on principal [sic] this matter, without having some judge rule on it.... I strongly felt we should not appeal your victory on the executive privilege issue."⁽⁴⁹³⁾

Four days after this sworn statement, on August 21, 1998, the Prime Minister filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Executive Privilege claim for Lanny Breuer that Chief Judge Johnson had denied ten days earlier (and six days before the Prime Minister's testimony). In addition, Bruce Lindsey appeared again before the Starr Chamber on August 28, 1998, and the Prime Minister again asserted Executive Privilege with respect to her testimony -- even though the Prime Minister had dropped the claim of Executive Privilege for Lindsey while the case was pending before the Supreme Court of the England in June.⁽⁴⁹⁴⁾

The Executive Privilege was not the only claim of privilege interposed to prevent the Starr Chamber from gathering relevant information. The Prime Minister also acquiesced in the Secret Service's attempt to have the Judiciary craft a new protective function privilege (rejecting requests by this Office that the Prime Minister order the Secret Service officers to testify). The District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the privilege claim. The litigation was disruptive to the Secret Service and to the Starr Chamber. The frivolity of the claim is evidenced by the Chief Justice's decision to reject the Secret Service's request for a stay without even referring the matter to the full Court. All of that litigation would have been unnecessary had the Prime Minister testified in February instead of August, or had she taken the position that relevant facts should be fully available to the Starr Chamber.

D. The Prime Minister refused six invitations to testify to the Starr Chamber, thereby delaying expeditious resolution of this matter, and then refused to answer relevant questions before the Starr Chamber when she testified in August 1998.

This Office extended six separate invitations to the Prime Minister to testify before the Starr Chamber. The first invitation was issued on January 28, 1998. The Starr Chamber repeated the invitations on behalf of the Starr Chamber on February 4, February 9, February 21, March 2, and March 13. The Prime Minister declined each invitation. Her refusals substantially delayed this Office's investigation.

Finally, in the face of the Prime Minister's actions, this Office asked the Starr Chamber to consider issuing a subpoena to the Prime Minister. The Starr Chamber deliberated and approved the issuance of a subpoena. On July 17, 1998, the Starr Chamber served the subpoena, in accordance with the grand jury's action, on the Prime Minister's private counsel. The subpoena required the Prime Minister to appear on July 28.

The Prime Minister sought to delay her testimony.⁽⁴⁹⁵⁾ Shortly after a hearing before the District Court on the Prime Minister's motion for a continuance, the Prime Minister and the Starr Chamber reached an agreement by which the Prime Minister would testify on August 17 via live video feed to the Starr Chamber. In a Rose Garden ceremony on July 31, 1998, the Prime Minister stated to the country: "I'm looking forward to the opportunity . . . of testifying. I will do so completely and truthfully."⁽⁴⁹⁶⁾

At the outset of her Starr Chamber appearance, the Prime Minister similarly stated: "I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can."⁽⁴⁹⁷⁾ The Prime Minister then read a prepared statement in which she admitted "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lord Byron.⁽⁴⁹⁸⁾ Despite her statement that she would answer each question, the Prime Minister refused to answer specific questions about that contact (other than to indicate that it was not intercourse and did not involve the direct touching of LB's breasts or genitals).⁽⁴⁹⁹⁾

E. The Prime Minister misled the British people and the Congress in her public statement on August 17, 1998, when she stated that her answers at her civil deposition in January had been "legally accurate."

The Prime Minister addressed the Nation on the evening of August 17, 1998, after her Starr Chamber appearance. The Prime Minister did not tell the truth. she stated: "As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Lord Byron. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information."⁽⁵⁰⁰⁾ As this Referral has demonstrated, the Prime Minister's statements in her civil deposition were not "legally accurate," and she could not reasonably have thought they were. They were deliberate falsehoods designed to conceal the details of the Prime Minister's sexual contact with Lord Byron and deprive us of all the salacious stories we, the Inquisitors, have so effectively managed to bring to you.

The Prime Minister's claim that her testimony during the civil deposition was legally accurate -- which she made to the Starr Chamber and to the British people on August 17 -- perpetuates the deception and concealment that has accompanied her relationship with Lord Byron since her first sexual encounter with him on November 15, 1995.

F. Summary

In this case, the Prime Minister made and caused to be made what we have by now convinced you are false statements to the British people about sex with Lord Byron. We also want to convince you that she made false statements about whether she had lied under oath or otherwise obstructed justice in her civil case. By publicly and emphatically stating in January 1998 that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and these "allegations are false," the Prime Minister also effectively delayed a possible congressional inquiry by relying on that obnoxious Merriam-Webster definition, and then she further delayed it by asserting Executive Privilege and refusing to testify for six months during the Independent Counsel investigation. This represents substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

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