It's pretty obvious she's just making up a statement. The key quote is:

“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

As stated in the article, their job is only to determine the fact of a lie and it's materiality (was it not simply trivial or an ordinary mistake). There are no underlying elements to each, so no way to "break it down", and therefore no possibility of "some ways and not in others". Can you imagine someone saying, "I bought a can of coke from the machine and it was already open in some ways and not in others."?

Also, facts are facts no matter to whose they play, but she reveals that "favor" was primary in her mind. Again with the coke, "This already opened (in some ways) can of coke is half-empty, so it did not pan out in my favor." What?

Is she one of the three Clinton donors that were on the jury?