I'll admit that I can't come up with a good defense for Hillary's post-attack behavior so I haven't gone there. I'll offer that I don't see it as "inexcusable" though because she's just engaging in the same sort of reprehensible behavior used by people whose political views correlate less well with mine.
In that last Bush Administration we had Cheney, Rove, Alberto Gonzales, etc. operating on morally questionable ground, obfuscating, lying and doing harm to good government. I'd have lower expectations for the sort of "yes men" a narcissist like Trump would surround himself with. I came of age earlier than you Deez. I watched Watergate hearings on network news after I finished a days stacking hay on trucks and in hot barns. I've never come to accept lying and and choosing the politically expedient path as good ... but I can discern general levels of government scumbaggery, and there are some levels lower than those where Clinton operates.
The other "defense" I would offer would be to cite a story about Admiral Nimitz, whom I assume is universally admired. After replacing Admiral Kimmel who led the disastrous Pacific preparations prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, he chose to keep in place most of a staff that had failed miserably. They rewarded him with loyalty and good service.
