Since you seem to want to act like a dumbass and are now intentionally misquoting me to explain my "lahgik", let's review this again:
Anything said by the client to the attorney alone is privileged. Anything said by the client (you know, such as being asked questions be a polygraph examiner or in open court or whenever anyone else is in the room) in the presence of the attorney is not privileged. Can you follow this so far? I hope so, because this really isn't as hard as you're trying to make this.
Those non-privileged statements are - I would normally assume you could guess this part, but your complete lack of reading comprehension in this thread precludes that possibility - not privileged. That means, because you don't seem to understand this, that the attorney can talk about what was said by her client in the presence of the third party later. Because they're not privileged statements.
As for the person interviewing Clinton a decade later, I have absolutely no idea why you think I ever at any point said anything about the person interviewing Clinton mattered, other than a basic lack of reading comprehension.
Now I know why Tom just defaults to "you're an idiot". It makes life far easier than responding to this brand of stupidity.