She was subpoenaed by Ken Starr to produce her billing records from the Rose law firm in Arkansas. Various high level Democratic leaders advised her to just produce them. She stonewalled and lied that she couldn't find them for TWO YEARS, when mirabile dictu! they were found in the family quarters of the White House. As it turns out, those records did not hurt her, but her stalling kept Ken Starr's investigation active long enough for Monica Lewinsky to come on the scene. And the rest is impeachment history. Bill says, Thanks, Hillary!
Classic Clinton duck, dodge, weave and prevaricate:
Later, in another sworn statement, Mrs Clinton said, quote, 'It is possible that I did once know something more that would be responsive to these interrogatories, but if I did, I do not recall it now.'
CHRIS BURY: The first lady has conceded her answers have often been too lawyerly, but Mrs Clinton has not acknowledged how
her own instinct for evasiveness may have contributed to a pattern of stonewalling and possible perjury among her loyal allies at the White House.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html
Bill & Hillary: The Audacity of Opacity
The Post story notes that during a Jan. 15, 1996, interview on Diane Rehm's WAMU-FM radio talk show, Rehm asked Hillary Clinton, “In the last few days, it's been reported a number of times that early on in the administration, David Gergen, adviser to President Clinton, advised you both to go to the Washington Post, lay out all the documents and just put it all out on the table. Number one, did he advise you that? And number two, do you now think maybe that would have been a good idea?”
“Yes, David did,’’ she answered, “and I certainly understand why he gave us that advice and I have a very high regard for him. David was not with us in the '92 campaign. We actually did that with the New York Times. We took every document we had, which again I have to say were not many. We laid them all out, but the New York Times was getting many documents; they were getting many stories. They were getting, you know, accusations from other people. So when they would ask us a follow-up question, we'd have to say, we don't know anything about that, and then they would say, well, then, maybe you can't answer our question.”
“But her answer to Rehm was inaccurate,’’ according to the Post:
The Clintons had not, as she had claimed, taken “every document” they had and “laid them all out” when questions first arose about Whitewater. Five days after the Rehm interview, the White House issued a clarification which said the first lady "mistakenly suggested that the New York Times was provided access to all of the Whitewater-related documents in the possession of the 1992 campaign. According to the statement, Hillary Clinton "believed that the campaign had turned over all the documents in its possession" but had since learned that some records were withheld.”
Nearly 20 years later, has she learned that David Gergen’s advice was worth following? The appearance of “we know better” secrecy is so much more damaging than anything we know the Clintons to have done in connection with Whitewater or any number of other controversies that that’s even more worrying than the security of her personal email account.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/hillary-clinton-s-audacity-of-opacity-goes-back-to-whitewater
What does one do when caught in a bald-faced lie? Simple. Just "issue a clarification."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Good ole duck-and-run-for-cover Hillary.