State Department’s One Clear Message: Hillary is a Liar

On Wednesday, the State Department Inspector General released a 78-page security audit that made one thing perfectly clear: Whether or not Hillary Clinton actually broke the law while serving as secretary of state, she is most certainly a liar.

According to the report, Hillary knowingly broke federal rules by maintaining a private email server. Additionally, there were officials at the State Department who knew about the server and expressed concern. These officials were told: “Never speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

Okay, but we knew all of that, right? How does this make her more of a liar than we already knew?

Well, it turns out that her whole “personal convenience” excuse was a fiction. The real reason she wanted to set up this system was to keep the public’s prying eyes out of her private affairs. Emails published in the report show that she resisted efforts to put her on the official State Department server in 2010, telling her aides: “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

“This report underscores what we already know about Hillary Clinton,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan. “She simply cannot be trusted. Think about this: the highest ranking diplomat in the United States – the secretary of state – deliberately broke agency policy to serve her own interests.”

The next natural question is: what wouldn’t Hillary do to serve her own interests? Would she draw the line at lying to the families of those killed in Benghazi? Would she draw the line at using her power to silence Bill’s harem? Would she draw the line at using her position at the State Department to trade favors for donations? In Hillary’s moral map, which way is South?

The email scandal is about who Hillary Clinton is. What are her beliefs? Her ethics? Does she have any moral standards, or does she regard life situationally – making decisions based only on how they can benefit her?

What if you offered her a choice: In one scenario, you can be president, but you’ll get none of your agenda through Congress. In the other, you can see all of your lofty policies come true but you can’t be president.

Which one would she choose?

The more we find out about her time at the State Department – the more we look into her psychology and her life’s background – the more we see the true answer to that question.