Hillary's lawyer: Oh, THAT subpoena? See, it depends what the meaning of 'I've never' is

I wonder if there has ever been a married couple in the history of mankind that has had to send its lawyers out to clarify their statements more times than the Clintons have. I said what? That's been immediately exposed as a blatant lie? Fine, I meant something else. The really interesting stat, if we could ever uncover it, would be how often they've pull crap like this in their conversations with each other. You were where? With who? Then again, that assumes that either of them views it as a real marriage and not as an alliance of convenience for the sake of their respective political ambitions. I wouldn't lay odds there. But back to the matter at hand: When you say you've never had a subpoena - "I've" of course being a contraction of "I have," which means at no point right up to the present time - that clearly means never. Not then. Not now. Not ever. That's what it means, and that's what the words were clearly meant to convey.

One problem: Trey Gowdy has a copy of the subpoena, and he immediately produced it. Busted? Not in Clintonworld. That just means you send out your laywer to do what lawyers do in Clintonworld:

Keilar asked if her predecessors had also been subpoenaed, to which Clinton responded, "You're starting with so many assumptions ... I've never had a subpoena. Again, let's take a deep breath here." But House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy said Wednesday, "It couldn't be more plain." "To state that you never received a subpoena, you did get one, in March. Your lawyer was on notice months before that, that this committee of Congress wanted your work-related emails," the South Carolina Republican told CNN Wednesday. Gowdy requested Clinton's emails last December, but did not subpoena Clinton until this past March, following reports that she had maintained a personal email server. Clinton lawyer David Kendall responded to the subpoena on March 27, writing that Clinton was awaiting approval from the State Department before providing them to the committee.

"This letter will respond to (1) the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Benghazi Select Committee to the Hon. Hillary R. Clinton and served by agreement on March 4, 2015," Kendall wrote at the time. Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN that Clinton understood the question to be if she was under subpoena when the emails were deleted, this past December. "The suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at the time. That was not accurate," he said on Wednesday. Actually Keilar suggested no such thing. She wasn't even referring to Hillary when she made that statement. She was referring to previous Secretaries of State. And the comparison doesn't work anyway, because Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright didn't delete tens of thousands of e-mails from the private server they used exclusively for their jobs ands then hand over selected, often redacted messages in hard copy only. But regardless, Hillary is about as busted as you can be in making the claim that she's never received a subpoena. It's not a bigger lie than the claim there was no rule forbidding her from using a homebrew server exclusively for her government business, of course, and she keeps telling that whopper too. She learned that from Bill, of course. Deny, deny, deny. Of course, when Bill deployed that tactic, online news searches weren't as ubiquitous as they are today. It's much easier now, when someone keeps denying a fact that's obviously true, to quickly lay hands on the information that proves they're lying. Then again, no one ever mistook Hillary for as good a liar as Bill. Everything rotten thing she can do, he can do better. And that's what drives her crazy.

Dan Calabrese——Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.