If the prosecution believes that the judge's remarks have prejudiced the jury against them, then a mistrial would help them. New judge, new jury, fresh start. On the down side, the defense has seen the prosecutions case and would have more time to prepare. It all depends whether they think the judge's bias has caused more damage than a new trial would cause. At the end of the day, it's mainly a paper case. They have the tax records. They have the bank loans. They have the fraud documented. The defense can't change that.
But was there “intent” to commit a crime...Hillary destroyed physical evidence under subpoena, but they just couldn’t find the intent to commit a crime.