The news coming out just keeps getting worse and worse for Hillary Clinton. We all now know she was criminally dangerous in her handling of classified information, especially with respect to information gathered by actual human spies. These are people who are risking their lives for the country. She had this information on an insecure server on the Internet, and her excuse? She's trying to hide behind technicalities.

This is Al Gore's "No Controlling Legal Authority" all over again.


[caption id="attachment_270026" align="aligncenter" width="600"]Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges supporters after filing papers to be on the nation's earliest presidential primary ballot, Monday, Nov. 9, 2015, in Concord, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges supporters after filing papers to be on the nation's earliest presidential primary ballot, Monday, Nov. 9, 2015, in Concord, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)[/caption]

Once Al Gore used that line, in being questioned about making fundraising phone calls from the white House, we all knew he was guilty as sin. He wasn't even pretending he didn't do it. He just wanted to find some fig leaf of a technicality that didn't make it illegal. He said "My counsel advises me that there is no controlling legal authority or case that says there was any violation of law whatsoever." He became a laughing stock.

Keep in mind Gore was trying to be succeeding a popular President in 2000, he had what was perceived to be a great economy and a great world climate, and he had a hard fight in the Presidential election. This was the start of that great fall for him.

Clinton's line? "I want people to understand that based on what happened when it was happening in real time, there was no classification and that's what you have to be guided by." Really? "That's what you have to be guided by?" How about common sense that you don't take important intelligence and ship it off of government servers?

I don't think an indictment would end her campaign, any more than an indictment ended Rick Perry's. She'll drag it out as long as possible, and so too would the prosecutors want to take their time with a defendant this powerful.

So the only question is, how will the voters react? Will they find this a credible statement? Or will they find it laughably ridiculous?