“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted definitively at her United Nations press conference last month. “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send any classified material.”

“There is no classified material,” she added ominously.

That bizarre sentence construction led many observers to parse her comments in search of a truth that was obviously being concealed. In the weeks that have elapsed since her dubious presser, a cavalcade of lies and distortions Clinton offered up in her own defense have been exposed. The latest bold-faced untruth to be exposed by the press was her claim to have only wanted to use one mobile device as secretary of state, an impulse that led her to use a private email address exclusively. It seems more likely now that she wanted to use a private email account hosted on a private server in order to evade congressional oversight, which she has done by deleting the majority of her electronic communications in response to a subpoena.

This flagrant abuse of the public trust has not interested the press so much as has the prospect of gay weddings catered by unwilling pizza makers… Of course, I’m serious. Who could make that up? But the fact that Clinton brazenly jeopardized American diplomatic security in service to her all-consuming paranoia and then blatantly lied about her conduct is proving a tad disturbing to some intellectually honest liberals (hat tip to Washington Free Beacon and America Rising for this clip):

“All of her official emails should be released to the American people,” said Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois congresswoman and U.S. Senate candidate, of her “friend” the former senator from New York. “They should be able to read them all. There are going to be some that are classified and those that are classified—then show those to a bipartisan group of members of Congress.”

The only appropriate response to Duckworth’s contradiction of Hillary’s claim that “there is no spoon” is to acknowledge that it is obviously true the nation’s chief diplomat received classified information electronically. There isn’t a reporter inside the Beltway with even a modest amount of experience dealing with the State Department’s FOIA office that could truthfully expect otherwise. Even The New York Times has conceded that the State Department routinely over-classifies sensitive material in order to evade federal transparency laws.

“I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,” one former official told The Times. This official refused to go on record, however, in order to avoid appearing “ungracious” toward the nation’s former chief diplomat. “Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.”

No, it’s completely impossible to fathom. But Clinton calculated that, even as her myriad lies unraveled in the weeks to come, the press would grow bored of holding her to account and would move on to other matters in short order. Considering that every Republican has been compelled by the press to go on the record either supporting or opposing Indiana’s RFRA law while few Democrats have been asked if they are comfortable with Clinton’s compulsive mendacity suggests she made the right calculation.