XI. There is substantial and credible information that Prime Minister Thatsher's actions since January 17, 1998, regarding her relationship with Lord Byron may 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 [we'll just continue to repeat this as if we have proved this beyond a reasonable doubt until you believe we actually have proved it rather than just repeated if as often as possible] 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 Parliament by conveying the Prime Minister's denials and professing their belief in the credibility of those denials. [We thought that if we could get you angry enough about Prime Minister Thatsher misleading you, you want want to convict her of something.]

The Prime Minister promised in January 1998 to cooperate fully with the Starr Chamber investigation and to provide "more rather than less, sooner rather than later." At that time, the Starr Chamber was conducting a criminal investigation and was obligated to report to Parliament any substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

The Prime Minister's conduct delayed the Starr Chamber investigation (and thereby delayed any potential Parliamental 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 Parliament [ -- remember, if we say it, it must be true. And, you should be angry enough by now that you may have been mislead that you'll be ready to just accept our characterizations of what she did as the truth. -- ], contending that her answers in her civil deposition had been "legally accurate." The Prime Minister then made an implicit plea for Parliament 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 Parliament in January 1998, (ii)delaying and impeding the criminal investigation for seven months, and (iii)deceiving the British people and Parliament again in August 1998. Remember these words:  "She tricked you."  That will help you believe us.

A. Beginning on January 21, 1998, the Prime Minister misled the British people and Parliament 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⁾

We  like Dick Morris.  We have decided he always tells the exact truth about everything.  A man of sterling character that we have come to count on immeasurably.  He also told us this:  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, unless you use dictionary definitions rather than those of The Starr Chamber. 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 Parliament and the British people.   [Tee, hee, now that you have decided we are the authority on the English language rather than that upstart Webster, we can get you to be really offended about what the Prime Minister said to you.]⁽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. he admitted that the British people "should certainly be concerned" if a Prime Minister had an affair and lied to cover it up. He acknowledged that it would be a "very serious offense." But he emphasized that the allegations were false -- a "pretty bad" smear. He noted that the Prime Minister "has denied these allegations on all counts, unequivocally." Apparently, Mr. Thatsher also believes in Webster's definition.  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.  [Once again, please not how we cleverly insert the word "deception" here.  Start using our choice of words, and you are much more l ikely to believe we have proof for our charges.]  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⁾ Please do not listen to the tapes or any of Lord Byron's friends on television when the lord and some of his friends say only coitus is sex.  That would distract you from the point we are trying to make here.  After reading this far in our report, you must know that we are not only the experts on the English language but we are also the experts on sex.

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. This certainly could pose a problem for us if people began to believe that the definition of sexual relations is coitus.  It would wipe out many of are arguments.

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 White House'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⁾ It is terribly important that the Prime Minister of England never talk about matters of state during a personal contact or, ever, with someone who is a friend as well as a colleague.

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. Make no mistake about it, we consider this a criminal  proceeding now.   If we can put Prime Minister Thatsher in jail, we'll do it.  We think it is just unfail that adultery is not a criminal offense in England, and we intend to correct that problem.

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. By calling Heinrich a secretary, we are sure we have convinced you that she never ever knows about any secrets of state.  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. If one assistant to the Prime Minister can testify without revealing state secrets, certainly all of them can.

Based on Nixon, the Starr Chamber filed a motion to compel the testimony of Hernreich, Lindsey, and Blumenthal. The British 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⁾ Since they dropped it, we can make you think it must have been frivolous in the first place.  We never drop anything; we never do anything frivolous.  We just spend lots of time and money to redo investigations, like the Foster one, that two other investigations and the initial coronor's report had already confirmed the facts [using much less money] that we eventually had to admit were true.  However, this was not frivolous, because it allowed us to harass anyone who might be grieving his death.

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. Well, we don't really know what the Prime Minister remembered or recollected at that moment, but we can demonstrate that someone did try to discuss this matter with her.  Therefore, we can convince you that she lied to the press which of course elegantly proves that she must have committed perjury in court and is also criminally guilty of not doing and saying what we wanted her to do and to say.   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 [directed is our word, of course.] the assertion of Executive Privilege. ⁽⁴⁸⁸⁾

The deception has continued. [See how we cleverly inserted that word "deception" again?]  Because the Prime Minister withdrew her Executive Privilege claim while the case was pending in the Supreme Court of the England, it was assumed [by someone, we're sure.  We certainly never assumed this.] that the Prime Minister would no longer assert Executive Privilege. But that assumption, if anyone held it in the first place, proved incorrect. Of course, anytime assertion of privilege is withdrawn, this will not be interpreted as cooperative or facilitative of us in any way, shape or form.

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⁾   Now, if we could prove it was the PM that directly told Breuer to assert privilege, we would insert that here.  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 if you still hold the silly belief that anything said to any attorney under any condition could possible be confidential: 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' 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). Obviously, Prime Minister Thatsher prefers to act on what she thinks rather than what she feels.  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 his 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 information we were trying to get at. The Prime Minister also acquiesced [oops, we should have worded this better -- something like "complicitly complied" could have sounded more sinister.] 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. We are not sure that the Secret Service ever complained about this, so we would like to lodge their complaint for them. 

The frivolity of this claim put forth by the Secret Service 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. [We like this.  If something we don't like doesn't get a full hearing, it must have been privileged.  But if something we do like -- such as the PM's sex life -- doesn't get the exposure of a full public jury trial, we assert it is a travesty.] 

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 we thought the secret services officers might know should be fully available to the Starr Chamber. This is quite congruent with our overall policy.  Please note that in our Starr Inquisitor's testimony before Parliament he concurs that anyone charged with a crime who immediately confesses should not be punished as severely as a citizen who is charged with a crime and has the audacity to plead "not guilty" and assert his or her right to a trial.

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. Remember, if you are ever invited to appear before a Grand Jury that it trying to discover crimes you might of committed, you better go immediately and just ramble on about any possibly relevant item in order to help them to dig up something to hold against you.  Otherwise, you have committed the crime of obstructing justice.  The constitution just did not cover this problem adequately.

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⁾ We just couldn't get her to be explicit about sex.  Therefore, don't blame us if we couldn't bring the public more salacious details.

For the first time in history, a PM lies to the British people!

E. The Prime Minister misled the British people and the Parliament 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 [i.e., you have now come to believe that we have proved our allegations are true beyond a reasonable doubt; and, therefore, anytime the PM contradicts us, you must believe she is lying], 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 [We said it; therefore, it must be the incontrovertible truth!] 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 [phew, we wanted to get that word in at least one more time] and concealment that has accompanied her relationship with Lord Byron since her first sexual encounter with him on November 15, 1995.

[Note, isn't it great how by stating this section is about charges we can get away with making declarative statements, which of course mislead you into thinking they are proven truths, without labelling them allegations?]

F. Summary

In this case, the Prime Minister made and caused to be made false statements [certainly not to be  called "misleading statements" at this point in our referral.  We slid you through that transition a long time ago] to the British people about sex with Lord Byron. Please by now confuse misleading statements made about sexual contacts when not under oath with perjury and obstruction of justice. 

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 man" and these "allegations are false," the Prime Minister also effectively delayed a possible Parliament inquiry, and then she further delayed it by asserting Executive Privilege and refusing to testify for six months during the Independent Counsel investigation. Remember:  Never assert your innocence in public.  This is now a crime called obstruction of justice.  You are guilty until proven innocent.  To say anything else in public is a lie and, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proves you have committed perjury.

If you carefully followed all our wording and have come to accept all of our assertions, characterizations and interpretations as true, you will agree with The Starr Chamber that we have said and written actually represents substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

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