Hillary Clinton ‘Central Figure’ In Whitewater, Says Prosecutor

Hillary Rodham Clinton was identified as a central figure in the Whitewater investigation by independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who also charged that her sworn testimony had changed over time or differed from that of other witnesses, according to documents unsealed on Tuesday in a courthouse in Little Rock, Ark.

The assertions brought a sharp denial from President Clinton in Mexico City, where he is on an official visit. He told reporters that he knew of “no factual discrepancy” in his wife’s testimony before investigators.

Starr’s assertions about the embattled first lady are referred to in a court ruling that was issued last November by a Federal District judge in Little Rock.

In the ruling, Judge Susan Webber Wright rejected a request from Starr for notes taken by White House lawyers of their conversations with the first lady. Wright agreed with the White House that the notes were protected by lawyer-client privilege.

But Friday, a divided three-judge appeals court panel in St. Louis overturned that ruling, saying that the notes should be turned over because the lawyers work for the government and not for her.

The White House has said it will appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

All of the court rulings were sealed from public view because they involve grand jury testimony but have since been disclosed after a request from the White House.

Starr’s assertions about Hillary Clinton’s secret testimony are contained in a footnote in Wright’s ruling. In discussing the first lady’s meetings with White House lawyers, the judge notes, “The independent counsel candidly states in his motion to compel that Mrs. Clinton’s testimony on several issues ‘has changed over time or differs from that of other witnesses’ and that she ‘is a central figure’ in his investigation.”

David Kendall, a private Washington lawyer who represents the Clintons, said in an interview on Tuesday that the first lady had testified before investigators six times in connection with Whitewater matters and that in all that time her testimony “has not changed in any material respect.” He would not discuss whether there may have been minor or irrelevant discrepancies in her testimony, which included three appearances before Starr’s investigators, one before a grand jury, and one appearance each before two agencies involved with the savings and loan bailout, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Resolution Trust Corp.

Kendall also dismissed the significance of the other two accusations by Starr.

“It is simply a banal truism to say she is a central figure,” he said. “Of course she is. Her name was in the original (special counsel) request the president made in January 1994.”

He also said the fact that her testimony might be different from others “is neither significant nor surprising as people try and recall the events of long ago.”

At a news conference with Mexico’s president, Ernesto Zedillo, Clinton said of his wife’s testimony: “I know of no factual discrepancy, period. I am unaware of one.”

He added: “I have no reason to be concerned about it whatever. We’ve both done our best to answer all the questions that were asked of us and already tens of millions of dollars have been spent on this.”