Highlights of the video link:
1. Kendall turned in declaration on April 2, 2006. I was in the courtroom.
2. She swore that she could and would testify competently.
3. Next sentence she claims to have met Peter Paul in early 2000.
4. We show 2000 video of Peter and Hillary at a fundraiser at a private home in Los Angeles. Hillary and Peter talk about how they first met.
5. They first met in 1993, when Peter, who represented Fabio, arranged for a private meeting. In the room were Peter, Hillary, Bill, Dom DeLuise, Danny DaVito, and a WH protographer. The event was the Italian-American Foundation Dinner.
6. Peter had Fabio chase her around the room and pick her up in a romance pose. She squatted on the floor trying not to be picked up, but he picked her up anyway.
7. In the home video, Hillary promises that she will finally send Peter the pictures she promised.
8. Hillary recalls the Amazon roses sent by Fabio (actually sent by Peter on Fabio's behalf) to try to get her to send the photos.
9. When Bill spoke at the 1994 Italian-American Foundation Dinner, he talked about the impact the Fabio incident had on her.
10. Her claim that she met Peter in 2000 is preposterous and a lie.
I gather that the significance of the lie is that Hillary would have been quite acquainted with Peter at the time that Peter supplied the "in-kind" contribution, thereby making it unreasonable to believe that Hillary did not know of the contribution that he made. Is that correct?
I missed the significance of this the first time around. Poor Hillary seems unable to remember in 2006 events which were quite memorable to her in 1993.
Was Hillary's declaration sworn by her to be true, under penalty of perjury?
She probably did meet him in 2000. Did she state in the declaration that she FIRST met him in 2000? Some liars are pretty clever when it comes to choosing words that have just enough ambiguity to permit alternate interpretations.