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 who apparently was unfamiliar with the Merriam Webster dictionary, 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 [and as long as you don not listen to the tapes or read the dictionary you won't know that, if anything, she believed it 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)} ThePrime 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. [Don't listen to the tapes.]

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, and it is obvious that she just obstinately refused to interrupt her barrister in court.

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)}
Now we can convince you that 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."  We're sure you won't notice that, at that time, we had just informed her of what Bennet said so that she could comment on it.  Gotcha!

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. [Tee-hee, we're sure you couldn't spot our logistic jumps.]

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