Clinton calendars full of unexplained private meetings

Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:16 PM ET
Filed Under:

By Jim Popkin, NBC News Senior Investigative Producer

Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's calendar entries are full of unexplained private meetings on key dates when she and President Clinton were fending off a variety of scandals, the newly released White House records show.

Take Jan. 21, 1998. That's the day when most Americans first learned, courtesy of the Washington Post, that President Clinton had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton's calendar entry shows that she left the White House at 7:25 pm that evening and returned 25 minutes later. The National Archives, which released the 17,484 calendar pages today, has excised the reason for the brief trip and the names of any of the people whom Mrs. Clinton may have met. The Archives, working in consultation with President Clinton's representatives, cite privacy concerns in blacking out all details of the trip.

Dec. 22, 2000 also remains a bit of a mystery. That's the day when Mrs. Clinton and the President met in the White House with a New York rabbi who successfully lobbied President Clinton to commute the sentences of four Hassidic men who had been convicted of massive fraud and conspiracy. The commutations were extremely controversial at the time, and photos of the meeting exist. And yet, there's no mention of it in Mrs. Clinton's daily log. The calendar simply lists four separate "private meetings" in the Map Room that day, with no names attached.

On Jan. 4, 1996, the calendars also record four "private" meetings that the First Lady held with her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, and undisclosed others. That's the same day that one of the First Lady's aides discovered a stack of Mrs. Clinton's law-firm billing records in the private quarters of the White House. Whitewater investigators had been searching for the subpoenaed documents for months. 

A team of NBC News producers, correspondents and researchers pored over the White House logs today. The calendar entries show, as Sen. Clinton has argued on the campaign trail, that as first lady she had a continuing interest in substantive foreign policy matters, including Bosnia and the effort to find peace in Northern Ireland. “These documents are outlines of the First Lady's activities and illustrate the array of substantive issues she worked on,” Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson said. “Her daily schedules also list some of the meetings and travel she conducted to more than 80 countries in pursuit of the Administration's domestic and foreign policy goals.”

Foreign Policy Experience?
But the calendars also seem to show that, on occasion, Mrs. Clinton was not substantively involved with foreign affairs when a real 3 a.m. crisis hit the White House.

Take, for example, when Al Qaeda terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing hundreds of people. Mrs. Clinton’s schedule does not show any foreign policy meetings in the aftermath of the crisis, only a trip to Andrews Air Force Base to console victims and their families as they returned from Africa to the United States. And when, in retaliation for those embassy attacks, President Clinton bombed Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan, where was Mrs. Clinton? The records show that she was vacationing at a “private residence” in Martha’s Vineyard, Ma., and had no official events.

Foreign trips offer a mixed review of Mrs. Clinton’s national-security experience. On a trip to Japan and Korea in 1993, for example, her schedule was filled with teas, tours of gardens and other traditional first lady fare. And on a trip to Russia in 1994, Mrs. Clinton met with other first ladies and attended coffees and tours, separate from her husband or the Russian president. Clinton campaign spokesman Carson described the calendars as only a “guide,” and said that they “of course cannot reflect all of Senator Clinton's activities as First Lady.”

Indeed, on overseas trips in 1996, Mrs. Clinton held "private" or "closed" meetings with foreign heads of state in Greece, Turkey, and Bosnia--without the president's attendance. And on dozens of times throughout her White House years, she attended White House meetings with Cabinet secretaries, was briefed by senior National Security Council officials and met with foreign dignitaries from around the world.

--NBC News contributors to this report include: Erika Angulo, Rich Gardella, Alicia Jennings, EJ Johnson, Mike Kosnar, Luke Mayo, CarrollAnn Mears, Amna Nawaz, Aram Roston, Antoine Sanfuentes and Ken Strickland.

Comments

I find it very ironic that Sen. Clinton's critics spent President Clinton's eight years in the White House complaining endlessly that Sen. Clinton had too much undeserved power and influence but now insist that she did nothing of substance while there.  Astonishingly convenient, isn't it?

As an American citizen living abroad, I find this type of thing rather disturbing.  As such I felt a need to comment.

So much for transparency of information!

Anyone can make claims as to what they may or may not have done, regardless of the position they held.  It's time for HRC to fill in the blanks or to head back to Westchester.

We need a President who is open and honest; warts and all.
This is incredibly boring stuff. Hillary was first lady at this time and while she had access to power, she was not the final word on policy. In addition, the rehashing of the Monica controversy is a yawn considering all the other infidelities that have come to light on both sides of the aisle. I think it's time to move on folks.
Well, I guess she did have a foreign policy role. Naturally, she was not president and cannot therefore take credit or blame for anything specific, but this is a far cry from the Laura-Bush-like figure Sen. Obama tries to paint. And it's good enough for me.
I am truly disgusted with the media.  I would like would to know what Obama is giving to prove he has experience.  We all know that he can make a great speech, but what else?  He can blame race for everything, women have been held back just as much.  

Your job is to report the news - not give one sided opinions.
Mrs.Clinton was not an official of the U>S> Government so why was she included in any briefings relating to official business? I believe this must be a violation of the law pertaining to confidential business of the President.
O.K., SHE 'MET WITH' SOME IMPORTANT PEOPLE.  THE REAL QUESTION IS, WHAT DID THOSE MEETINGS ACCOMPLISH?  TO PARAPHRASE AN OLD T.V. AD CAMPAIGN, "WHERE'S THE HEADLINES?"
No matter there was some hesitancy in getting these records out.  No one, not even Hillary, wants to keep revisiting the Monica story, but you guys in the media just can't give it up.  Too bad your detective skills don't work so well when it comes to things like Obama, the war, etc.  Have fun!
There are a lot of SECRETS in Hilliary Clinton's closet.  They will be brought out eventually.
Interesting, 1998? 1996? 2000? Private meetings? Just what does all this mean? Officially the open record just may say one thing, that at least Mrs. Clinton has had some experience in world politics. I also must add as a married man my wife has a huge influence on how I face the world, just as her husband did.  
I honestly dont see anything exlaining he real expereience. I cannot agree with stateent that she says she is more experienced than Obama. Her records are full of holes and blackouts.
What do you expect?She will not let you know the illegal things that She was involved.The so call foreign policy experience were as you know was having tea and gardening experiences around the world while Her husband was presiding over the affairs of the country
How was it that she was briefed by senior National Security Council officials when she didn't have National Security clearance?
I think this is all old information and another biased treatment of Hilary Clinton.  How about Obma who has actually lived to the age of 45 or whatever and has done no wrong!  Or is it that he has never done anything of substance one way or the other.  Biased is written all over the treatment of Hilary Clinton.  Who is really playing the race card? I agree with the statement earlier if Obma were white he would not have survived the media's scrutiny.
Wow!! Great foreign affairs resume that Hillary has.  This's what she projects as being the strength against the "talks" of Senator Obama.  Please folks, don't brand this as left-wing conspiracy, and look into the truth.  I'd rather vote for a promising candidate than her with big baggage of inaction, isolation from real American people, association with only elites, etc.  Looks like the experience is portrayed as part of the win-at-any-cost strategy.
Experience! And what exactly WAS experienced are two seperate issue's.  This goes along with someone whom has been groomed, grown, matured and educated to take a certain position in life and someone who has just been to the groomer throughout their life to appear as if they can take that position.  Unfortunately, there are a few people running in this election that have been to the groomer's but don't have the true substance to do the job.  Let's face it, we're talking about the next leader of the free WORLD here.  This IS bigger than just the U.S.  SUBSTANCE, not smoke and mirrors, think about it. Thank you.
Garden parties, Tea parties, and planning state dinners do not constitute the kind of experience that Hilary has been alluding to.....much less having a parent teacher conference count as education reform.  It is not a question of whether or not Hilary was of value to her husband during his time in office, but rather the distortion and interpertation now being used.
why the bad press,you forget that Hilary worked hard on other issues,look at our heath care now would you? you have all the answers but never seem to relay anything positive
I really don't see a great deal of "deep background" into the issue of Hillary Clinton's calendar, especially if this is all you can come up with in 8 years' worth of meetings.  If anything, this post reeks of someone trying to find something substantial and coming up with crumbs.

Note that I say this not as a Clinton supporter, but as someone who cares about the facts and newsworthy reporting.
This story implies some matters that may need further inquiry, but I do not think these findings are substantive.  While serving as First Lady, Senator Clinton may have had some meetings with important people and discussed some issues that pertain to very sensitive issues.  I am glad she did not itemize those issues in her day-timer for someone to find.  In addition, on diplomatic visits there will always be some posturing involved.  The fact that the tea parties and social gatherings took place with the spouses, while the heads of states meet on issues should not really surprise any one.  
The subpoenaed documentation did raise my eyebrows a bit.  I would like to get more information on that.
If you want to say that Senator Clinton lacks real National Security experience, say that.  Making assumptions about events you are ignorant of accomplishes nothing.
Visiting 80 countries,meeting with 3 foreign heads of state, visiting with the troops and their families, and briefings with varous Cabinet Secretaries, meeting with a variety of foreign dignataries, and with the head of the National Security Council is quite an accomplishment.Your last paragraph should have been your first...this article is misleading and the facts seem to be in the last paragraph which most people do not read.
I would imagine that Hillary would not have everything on her calendar, but the last paragraph of this article gave many solid facts, and that is really what I find to be most important, as well as, the most objective.
Could you please also include in your report, the right-wing group that filed a lawsuit in order for these documents to be released?  Also, will you write a report as to why the current Bush White House will not release their emails leading up to the Iraq War?
After seven years of Bush-Cheney hyper-secrecy, the media is going to focus on a few private meetings of Senator Clinton's over a decade ago? Excuse me, but I don't see her refusing to release her calendar, citing national security issues. You find out what happened in Cheney's closed-door energy meetings and then I'll consider paying attention to your "investigation" of Mrs. Clinton's meetings. This is a non-issue.
Does Mrs. Clinton mention anything about when her husband was the Governor of Arkansaw allowing the contract for the Arkansaw prison blood plasma to be renewed, even though he was warned it should be rejected.....Many dying Canadians who received this tainted blood say that Bill Clinton knew the blood to be tainted and yet sold it to the public anway...Deputy White House Advisor Vince Foster who was allegedly murdered was tracking this information about the tainted blood when the Clintons were in their first term at the White House
It occurs to me that Hillary Clinton's potential return to the White House could be a front for Bill Clinton to resume presidential responsibilities. This has precedent (of a sort) in the rumors of Dick Cheney holding the reins of power, while Bush simply plays the role of President.
Obviously the Republicans and  certain media are afraid of Hillary. Why bring this up now? This has no bearing on current events. The war in Iraq is a quagmire , the economy is the worst in years, petroleum WILL become a luxury and MSNBC.com has sunk to the level of TMZ.com.
I think there is little doubt that Mrs. Clinton
was in violation of the security clearances she
had in conducting some of these meetings.  Being the Presidents wife should nopt have made her privvy to things she would like us to believe she was
Is this What Hillary Clinton call her Foreign Policy Experience? Touring and drinking tea.  We are in trouble if this is what she's calls experience. Are these the qualifications that's required to be a United States President?
First of all the article states Hillary has limited foreign policy experience and then states she had many meetings with foreign heads of state gaining much needed experience. Many unexplained meetings happen every day among people with just as much leverage as Hillary and they are part of doing business and settling differences. This article is just another example of bashing Hillary.
What happened to objective news coverage? This story sounds like it was written by the obama campaign. I'm not saying that news coverage can't be critical, but it has a prosecutorial tone to it. Moreover, while the story tries to point out inconsistencies or cite the lack of evidence of Sen. Clinton's foreign policy experience, it provides no "Aha!" moments, just mere assertions that could be rebutted.  Not surprisingly, the Clinton campaign wasn't asked to respond point-by-point. And I'm not even a Clinton supporter!
What's the matter with you people? Do you really think you've gotten hold of some red hot news here or is this just more network Hillary bashing.
This is such a non-issue. Since when did government records ever offer full disclosure? Use some common sense.
I certainly hope this becomes THEIR comeuppance. I'm surprised that the NBC folks were able to stay awake long enough to read what was left of her plainly uneventful and boring years in the White House. What was it she said about being a (yuk) housewife? Seems she was one.....
I think this whole thing is bogus. Is anyone checking Obama's records? He is all rhetoric and no substance. And besides, she WAS the first lady and was required to do "traditional first lady fare."
So much of hillary's cooked-up 35yrs of experience to be a commander-in-chief was covered up in black ink.  
Well, it's not surprise that any polititian, especially the Clintons, are going to block out things that look bad or questioning and leave in anything that makes them look good.
Really now, the fact that Mrs. Clinton was trusted to meet with some of these foreign officials at all speaks to her trusted authority. Is this all about stirring up controversy for the election?
This is a pretty poorly written article. It aims to highlight the 'insignificant'or potentially questionable days of Hillary. Did Obama's camp also edit it for you guys? You can't have two paragraphs detailing specific times when she was not substantively involved in foreign affairs and then two bland sentences summarizing the substantive stuff. I expect journalist to either not express an overt opinion or at least give both sides of the story when they do.
Clinton shenanigans have been going on since way beyond he was the honcho in Arkansas.  Recently I read a list of people deceased who were involved with the Clintons in one way or another.  Quite lengthy and impressive.  Oh well, I guess people tend to forget what they don't want to hear.
Senator Clinton clearly has the high level experience that Senator Obama does not. Senator Clinton has what it takes, she does not even need a refresher course. Senator Obama needs to get his feet wet, and there might not be any time for that, considering the wrld situation.
Oh, aren't those tea functions, walks through gardens, and lunches complete proof of the outstanding foreign & political experience? And I just love the detail on NAFTA that she strongly supported, but somehow in Ohio and PA she claims to have been against it. Will the lies and flip-flops ever end......No.
I'm not Clinton supporter, but I really can't believe you're trying to use against her the fact that she left the White House for 25 minutes on a day that the entire world was enlightened of the details of her husband's sexual exploits with a 21 year old intern.  Please, Mr. Popkin, of all the things you could find, there had to be something better than that.  Maybe the poor woman needed to go for a walk.  The fact certainly doesn't make her any less qualified to be President.  What has happened with this Presidential primary?  Suddenly the candidates and the press both seem to be so focused on finding the tiniest little things that they can blow up and use to attack.  Of course, we notice, this is the environment in which Hillary seems to once again be thriving.  And THAT is why I'm not a Hillary supporter.  But don't try to beat Hillary at that old game. If this country's going to change, if Democracy is going to thrive, then we need to play by different rules.  Let's get focused on the issues again.
Good Article.  I do think you could of started with Paragraph 5 and I think that the last paragraph deserved more importance.  "Dozens of time throughtout her White House years, she attended White House meetings with Cabinet secretaries, was briefed by senior National Security Council officials"  is what the voters really want to know about.  All in all a good article.
Why isn't this level of scrutiny applied to Bush? We wouldn't be close to the 4,000 American death mark in Iraq if the media hounds applied the same standards.
Who cares where she went for 25 minutes eight years ago?  
Paulette Zander  Niantic, CT
Popkin, Good work! Please keep it up...would be nice to balance the painful TRUTH of Obama's relationship to Rev. Wright against the UNTRUTH of Hillary's hidden tax forms and private meetings.

I'm trying to imagine voting with a conscience this year as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils.
I am a John Edwards supporter and a proud “Populist Democrat”  so I now have no favorite dog in this race. Both Clinton and Obama are pretty much equally beholden to corporate special interests. (do you really believe 100,000 college kids gave him 32 million)  No “REAL CHANGE” can happen until there is 100% public financing for campaigns. That said, I really hope that Obama can win the General election because it looks like he will be our parties nominee and any “D” is better than any “R”. However, anyone who thinks that the debate Add is "negative" is in for a big surprise in November. Which is the part that scares me most about Obama not that he can't take the heat, it's that his supposed independent & cross over supporters will run for the hills once they find out what his positions are. In addition why do most of the Obama supporters on these blogs express such venom and hate for Hillary, you sound like the conservative right. You have bought into the misleading, false & derogatory things the GOP has been spinning for the last 15 years about the Clintons. The very things most of you say wont effect senator Obama. Don't you understand if it wasn’t for people like Bill & Hillary Clintons service in public life for the last 30 years Barack Obama would not even have this opportunity.
If it really is all about the new politics of HOPE & INCLUSION then why all the HATE & CONDEMNATION!
Just A Thought, Go DEMOCRATS IN 08
Wow.  Serious non-story on a serious non-issue, littered with pointless red-herrings.  Maybe this "producer" (pronounced "shill") should leave the reporting to the journalists and pay attention to producing substantial news, with real, conclusive information.  Pretty embarrassing display for someone that gets paid to deliver news.

I'm not a big fan of either candidate (McCain? funny.), nor am I a big fan of vague information being specifically framed for a purpose.  MSNBC Blogs should not be touted as real news for the benefit of MSNBC's reputation.  Using the excuse, "It's only a blog." doesn't apply when stories like this make the Google news box on millions of google home pages.  Then, it's MSNBC distributing inferior product.
Wow, I'm not a Hillary supporter but it's obvious that this news source is out to get her.  Did anyone try to compare her schedule vs. other former First Ladies?  Did she engage in more policy than Mrs. Bush?  Mrs. Kennedy?  I don't think that she's ever said that she was the President, I think she has said that her experience as the first lady has given her experience to be the president.  Doesn't having private meetings with world leaders fulfill her claim?  Especially when First Ladies don't really need to do much more than decorate the White House during Christmas?  Although it's obvious this author has a bone to pick with the former First Lady, it has done nothing but allowed me to see that Hillary really does have some of that experience she claims to have, and has opened my eyes that the media really is harder on her than on Obama.  
This article is a bit ridiculous and
apparently biased...why? Senator Clinton must be closing the campaign gap and "somebody" is desperate to discredit her. Don't you have something better to report on?
Why are we talking about this?  This is so crazy that you would bring this up when all the junk about Obama is much more important. Lets have a fair report on both and quit picking on her.


Send a comment

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

About the blog

Deep Background is NBC News’ investigative blog. It covers national security, terrorism, spies, Iraq, and politics, as well as government waste, fraud and abuse. It is edited by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin.

Archives


Browse by topic:

Add this blog to your news reader