Quick Loading Midi Pages

More in the Starr Chamber Document style:

Just take the Starr Chamber's word for it:  They have lots of charges.

VI. There is substantial and touted information [??? where ??? only, possibly, that they would lie -- not under oath -- to keep the sordid details of their relationship secret.] that (midi -- i) Prime Minister Thatsher and Lord Byron had an understanding that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their relationship; and (midi -- ii) Prime Minister Thatsher endeavored to obstruct justice by suggesting that Lord Byron file an affidavit so that he would not be deposed, he would not contradict her testimony, and she could attempt to avoid questions about Lord Byron at her deposition. Based on their conversations and their past practice, both the Prime Minister and Lord Byron understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual contacts, as part of a scheme to obstruct justice in the Jones case. In pursuing this effort:

A. Evidence Regarding Affidavit and Use of Affidavit

Lord Byron testified that Prime Minister Thatsher called him at around 2:00 or 2:30 a.m. on December 17, 1997,^{(midi -- 279)} and told him that his name was on the Jones case witness list.^{(midi -- 280)} As noted in his February 1 handwritten statement: "When asked what to do if he was subpoenaed, the PM. suggested he could sign an affidavit ...."^{(midi -- 281)} Lord Byron said he is "100% sure" that the Prime Minister suggested that he might want to sign an affidavit.^{(midi -- 282)}

Lord Byron understood the Prime Minister's advice to mean that he might be able to execute an affidavit that would not disclose the true nature of their relationship. In order "to prevent me from being deposed," he said he would need an affidavit that "could range from anywhere between maybe just somehow mentioning, you know, innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship."^{(midi -- 283)}

Lord Byron has stated that the Prime Minister never explicitly told him to lie. Instead, as he explained, they both understood from their conversations that they would continue their pattern of covering up and lying about the relationship. [Lord Byron had no pattern of covering up this relationship. A pattern of lying, yes. A pattern of sensationalizing and bragging about this relationship, yes.] In that regard, the Prime Minister never said they must now tell the truth under oath; to the contrary, as Lord Byron stated:

[I]t wasn't as if the Prime Minister called me and said, "You know, Lord Byron, you're on the witness list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what we've done," which I would have fought her on probably. That was different. And by her not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that meant.^{(midi -- 284)}

Jones's lawyers served Lord Byron with a subpoena on December 19, 1997. Lord Byron contacted Vernice Jordan, who in turn put her in contact with barrister Frank Carter.^{(midi -- 285)} Based on the information that Lord Byron provided, Carter prepared an affidavit which stated: "I have never had a sexual relationship with the Prime Minister."^{(midi -- 286)}

After Carter drafted the affidavit, Lord Byron spoke to the Prime Minister by phone on January 5th.^{(midi -- 287)} He asked the Prime Minister if she wanted to see the draft affidavit. According to Lord Byron, the Prime Minister replied that he did not need to see it because he had already "seen 15 others."^{(midi -- 288)}

Jordan confirmed that Prime Minister Thatsher knew that Lord Byron planned to execute an affidavit denying a sexual relationship.^{(midi -- 289)} Jordan further testified that she informed Prime Minister Thatsher when Lord Byron signed the affidavit.^{(midi -- 290)} LB's affidavit was sent to the federal court in Arkansas on January 16, 1998 -- the day before the Prime Minister's deposition -- as part of his motion to quash the deposition subpoena.

Two days before the Prime Minister's deposition, her barrister, Robert Bennett, obtained a copy of LB's affidavit from Carter.^{(midi -- 291)} At the Prime Minister's deposition, Jones's counsel asked questions about the Prime Minister's relationship with Lord Byron. Bennett objected to the "innuendo" of the questions, noting that Lord Byron had signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship, which according to Bennett, indicated that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form."^{(midi -- 292)} Bennett said that the Prime Minister was "fully aware of Lord Byron's affidavit."^{(midi -- 293)} Bennett affirmatively used the affidavit in an effort to cut off questioning. The Prime Minister said nothing -- even though, as she knew, the affidavit was false [no, if anything, she believed is would be true as far as it went.} Judge Wright overruled the objection and allowed the questioning to continue.

Later, Bennett read Lord Byron's affidavit denying a "sexual relationship" to the Prime Minister and asked her: "Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?" The Prime Minister answered: "That is absolutely true."^{(midi -- 294)}

B. Summary of Prime Minister's Starr Chamber Testimony

The Prime Minister told the Starr Chamber: "[D]id I hope [Lord Byron would] be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want him to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not."^{(midi -- 295)} The Prime Minister did not explain how a full and truthful affidavit -- for example, an affidavit admitting that they engaged in oral sex and that Vernice Jordan had been involved, at the Prime Minister's request, in late 1997 and early 1998 in obtaining Lord Byron a job -- would have helped him avoid a deposition.

When questioned about her phone conversation with Lord Byron on December 17, 1997 -- during which the Prime Minister suggested filing an affidavit -- the Prime Minister testified that she did not remember exactly what she had said.^{(midi -- 296)} The Prime Minister also maintained that Lord Byron's affidavit, as it ultimately was filed denying a "sexual relationship," was not necessarily inaccurate. She testified that, depending on LB's state of mind, his statement denying a sexual relationship could have been true.

I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if he believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate. And I believe that is the definition that most ordinary Americans would give it.^{(midi -- 297)}

Upset? Disappointed? Impeach this:

At her Starr Chamber appearance, the Prime Minister also was asked about her counsel's statement to Judge Wright that LB's affidavit denying a "sexual relationship" was equivalent to saying "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" with Prime Minister Thatsher. Given the Prime Minister's interpretation of the term "sexual relationship" to require sexual intercourse, the Prime Minister was asked how she lawfully could have sat silent while her barrister -- in the Prime Minister's presence and on her behalf -- made a false statement to a England District Judge in an effort to forestall further questioning. The Prime Minister offered several responses.

First, the Prime Minister maintained that she was not paying "much attention" when Bennett said that there is "absolutely no sex of any kind" between the Prime Minister and Lord Byron."^{(midi -- 298)} The Prime Minister further stated: "That moment, that whole argument just passed me by. I was a witness."^{(midi -- 299)} The Prime Minister's explanation is difficult to reconcile with the videotape of the deposition, which shows that the Prime Minister was looking in Bennett's direction when her counsel made this statement.

Alternatively, the Prime Minister contended that when Bennett said that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind," Bennett was speaking only in the present tense and thus was making a completely true statement. The Prime Minister further stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is,"^{(midi -- 300)} and that "actually, in the present tense that is an accurate statement."^{(midi -- 301)} Before the Starr Chamber, counsel for the Starr Chamber then asked the Prime Minister: "Do you mean today that because you were not engaging in sexual activity with Lord Byron during the deposition that the statement of Bennett might be literally true?"^{(midi -- 302)} The Prime Minister responded: "No, sir. I mean that at the time of the deposition, it had been -- that was well beyond any point of improper contact between me and Lord Byron."^{(midi -- 303)} The Prime Minister's suggestion that she might have engaged in such a detailed parsing of the words at her deposition is at odds with her assertion that the "whole argument passed me by." [no, you've now informed her of what Barrister Bennet said; so she can now comment on it.]

Finally, the Prime Minister took issue with the notion that she had any duty to prevent her barrister from making a false statement to Judge Wright: "Bennett was representing me. I wasn't representing him."^{(midi -- 304)} That is a truism. Yet when a witness is knowingly responsible for a misstatement of fact to a federal judge that misleads the Court and attempts to prevent questioning on a relevant subject, that conduct rises to the level of an obstruction of justice.

C. Evidence Regarding Cover Stories

The affidavit was not the only part of the scheme in which both the Prime Minister and Lord Byron would lie under oath. Lord Byron testified that, as part of their mutual concealment efforts, he and Prime Minister Thatsher formulated "cover stories" to explain Lord Byron's presence in the West Wing and 10 Downing Street Chambers. When Lord Byron worked at the 10 Downing Street, he and the Prime Minister agreed that Lord Byron would tell people that he was coming to the 10 Downing Street Chambers to deliver papers or to have papers signed, when in truth she was going to the 10 Downing Street Chambers to have a sexual encounter with the Prime Minister.^{(midi -- 305)}

While employed at the 10 Downing Street, Lord Byron {now asserts that he made up? used?} used this cover story on several occasions.^{(midi -- 306)} It worked: Several Secret Service officers testified that they understood that Lord Byron was at the 10 Downing Street Chambers to deliver or to pick up papers.^{(midi -- 307)} In fact, however, Lord Byron stated that his 10 Downing Street job never required him to deliver papers or obtain the Prime Minister's signature, although he carried papers as a prop.^{(midi -- 308)}

After he was transferred to the Parliament, Lord Byron testified that he and the Prime Minister formulated a second "cover story": that Lord Byron was going to the 10 Downing Street to visit John Whipple rather than the Prime Minister. Lord Byron testified that she and the Prime Minister discussed how "Mr. Whipple always needed to be the one to clear me in so that, you know, I could always say I was coming to see Mr. Whipple."^{(midi -- 309)} Lord Byron testified that she met with the Prime Minister privately on ten occasions after he left his job at the 10 Downing Street.^{(midi -- 310)}  Poor young Mr. Whipple signed him in for each of those private visits.^{(midi -- 311)}

Lord Byron has stated that histrue purpose in visiting the 10 Downing Street on these occasions was to see Prime Minister Thatsher, not poor, discarded Mr. Whipple.^{(midi -- 312)} Prime Minister Thatsher agreed that "just about every time" that Lord Byron came to see Whipple when she was there, Lord Byron saw her as well.^{(midi -- 313)}

Lord Byron testified that Prime Minister Thatsher encouraged him to continue to use the cover stories to conceal their relationship after his name appeared on the witness list in the Jones case. In her {purported???} early-morning phone conversation with Prime Minister Thatsher on December 17, 1997 -- the same conversation in which the Prime Minister told him that his name was on the witness list and suggested that he file an affidavit if subpoenaed^{(midi -- 314)} -- Lord Byron discussed cover stories with the Prime Minister:

ML: At some point in the conversation, and I don't know if it was before or after the subject of the affidavit came up, she sort of said, "You know, you can always say you were coming to see Mr. Whipple or that you were bringing me letters." Which I understood was really a reminder of things that we had discussed before.

Q: So when you say things you had discussed, sort of ruses that you had developed.
LB: Right. I mean, this was -- this was something that -- that was instantly familiar to me.
Q: Right.
LB: And I knew exactly what she meant.
Q: Had you talked with her earlier about these false explanations about what you were doing visiting her on several occasions?
LB: Several occasions throughout the entire relationship. Yes. It was the pattern of the relationship, to sort of conceal it.^{(midi -- 315)}

Upset? Disappointed? Impeach this:

Prime Minister Thatsher used those same deceptive cover stories during her deposition in the Jones case. In the civil deposition, when asked if he had met with Lord Byron "several times" while she worked at the 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister responded that she had seen him on two or three occasions during the government shutdown, "and then when she worked at the 10 Downing Street, I think there was one or two other times when he brought some documents to me."^{(midi -- 316)} When asked if she was ever alone with Lord Byron in the 10 Downing Street Chambers, the Prime Minister stated:

[W]hen he worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends.... Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there.... It's possible that he, in, while he was working there, brought something to me and that at the time he brought it to me, he was the only person there, That's possible.^{(midi -- 317)}

The pattern of devising cover stories in an effort to forestall an inquiry into the relationship continued even after Lord Byron was subpoenaed to testify. On January 5, 1998, she met with his barrister, Frank Carter, and discussed questions that he might be asked at a deposition. One of the questions was how he had obtained his Parliament job. Lord Byron worried that if the Jones lawyers checked with the 10 Downing Street about the transfer, some at the 10 Downing Street would say unflattering things about why he had been terminated.^{(midi -- 318)} Lord Byron spoke to Prime Minister Thatsher on the phone that evening and asked for advice on how to answer the question. Lord Byron testified that the Prime Minister responded, "[Y]ou could always say that the people in Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it" -- a story that Lord Byron stated was misleading because Lord Byron in fact had been transferred because she was around the 10 Downing Street Chambers too much.^{(midi -- 319)} Lord Byron had personally told the Prime Minister Thatsher what the truth was, so how could she possibly believe anyone else's explanation?

D. The Prime Minister's Starr Chamber Testimony on Cover Stories
The Prime Minister testified that before she knew that Lord Byron was a witness in the Jones case, he "might well" have told Lord Byron that he could offer the cover stories if questioned about his presence in the West Wing and 10 Downing Street Chambers:

Q: Did you ever say anything like that, you can always say that you were coming to see Mr. Whipple or bringing me letters? Was that part of any kind of a, anything you said to him or a cover story, before you had any idea she was going to be part of Paul Jones?
PMT: I might well have said that.
Q: Okay.
PMT: Because I certainly didn't want this to come out, if I could help it. And I was concerned about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it was wrong.^{(midi -- 320)}

However, no doubt aware of the significance of the question, the Prime Minister testified that she did not remember whether she had discussed the cover stories with Lord Byron during the December 17, 1997, conversation,^{(midi -- 321)} or at any time after LB's name appeared on the Jones witness list:

Q: Did you tell [Lord Byron] anytime in December something to that effect: You know, you can always say that you were coming to see Mr. Whipple or you were bringing me letters? Did you say that, or anything like that, in December '97 or January '98, to Lord Byron?

PMT: Well, that's a very broad question. I do not recall saying anything like that in connection with his testimony. I could tell you what I do remember saying, if you want to know. But I don't -- we might have talked about what to do in a nonlegal context at some point in the past, but I have no specific memory of that conversation. I do remember what I said to him about the possible testimony.
* * * *[We'll skip this part.  It doesn't help our case at all.] ****
Q: Did you say anything like [the cover stories] once you knew or thought she might be a witness in the Jones case? Did you repeat the statement, or something like it to him?
PMT: Well, again, I don't recall, and I don't recall whether I might have done something like that, for example, if somebody says, what if the reporters ask me this, that or the other thing. I can tell you this: In the context of whether he could be a witness, I have a recollection that he asked me, well, what do I do if I get called as a witness, and I said, you have to get a barrister. And that's all I said. And I never asked him to lie.
Q: Did you tell him to tell the truth?
PMT: Well, I think the implication was he would tell the truth.^{(midi -- 322)}
E. Summary

There is substantial and touted information that the Prime Minister and Lord Byron reached an understanding that both of them would lie under oath when asked whether they had a sexual relationship (midi -- a conspiracy to obstruct justice or to commit perjury, in criminal law terms). Indeed, a tacit or express agreement to make false statements would have been an essential part of their December and January discussions, lest one of the two testify truthfully in the Jones case and thereby incriminate the other as a perjurer.

There also is substantial and touted information that Prime Minister Thatsher endeavored to obstruct justice by suggesting that Lord Byron file an affidavit to avoid his deposition, which would "lock in" his testimony under oath, and to attempt to avoid questions at her own deposition -- all to impede the gathering of discoverable evidence in the Jones v. Thatsher litigation.^{(midi -- 323)}

During the course of their relationship, the Prime Minister and Lord Byron also discussed and used cover stories to justify his presence in and around the 10 Downing Street Chambers area. Our version the evidence indicates -- given Lord Byron's unambiguous and dramatic stories and the Prime Minister's lack of memory, as well as the fact that we are now sure we have convinced you that they both planned to lie under oath -- that the Prime Minister suggested the continued use of the cover stories even after Lord Byron was named as a potential witness in the Jones litigation. We don't have any proof of this; but, since at no time that we have reported to you did the Prime Minister tell Lord Byron to abandon these stories and to start talking openly about their sexual contacts, nor did she ever directly order him to tell the truth under oath about the relationship. While the Prime Minister testified that she could not remember such conversations about the cover stories, she had repeated the substance of the cover stories in his Jones deposition. T

he Prime Minister's use of the partial-truth type cover stories often employed by unfaithful spouses in her actual testimony under oath in her Jones deposition strongly corroborates LB's testimony that he suggested them to her on December 17 as a means of further dramatizing the importance of their relationship and making the Prime Minister think he was discrete. Therefore, the Prime Minister's testimony, although specifically factual was not fully & salaciously disclosing, so we are now sure you will agree with us that we can charge her with perjury and obstructing justice and the Starr Chamber.

Upset? Disappointed? Impeach this:

or,

Press "Refresh" or "Reload" to Start the Dance

Post Script:
Baby hacking still works: Type in www.benegesserit.com/MIDI
& download individual files.

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