I don't really understand what explanation is possible. She's already said it was a mistake. What we can see now is that she had to know she was doing something that threatened national security and yet she continued to do it. What explanation could make the facts appear any better? I can only think of explanations that would make it worse. So I assume we'll never hear more from her about this.
Does that mean the USA Today editors are saying Hillary doesn't deserve to be President? No. Look how they worded it — in terms of whether voters will accept her.
I got to that editorial via Instapundit, who quotes, "Clinton broke the rules" and says: "If by breaking the rules you mean committed a felony, then yes."
But the USA Today editors clearly refrain from opining about criminal law, presumably because the FBI is still working on that:
While Clinton is under potential criminal investigation by the FBI for the mishandling of classified material sent through her email.... It's already clear that, in using the private email server, Clinton broke the rules. Now it remains to be seen whether she also broke the law.How can you be under a potential criminal investigation? That's an odd way to put it. Also, it's odd to make the distinction between breaking the rules and breaking the law. I'd like to ask Clinton to explain exactly what that means and whether, as President, she plans to insure that we all get the advantage of the rules/law distinction.