I fully agree that introducing “intent” would be a mistake. Your OJ reference is apt. The initial case argued against Clinton should be ultra simple and designed to eliminate the excuses jurors and even judges will try to latch onto. All involved will not want the responsibility of convicting Hillary, due to politics and personal safety. If there is strong evidence that she actually sold information for donations and favors, that’s a separate case that should be brought after conviction on the first counts. Could a DC jury be trusted on this? Nope.
We can envision the ironclad case that could be presented against the woman, but if she were actually indicted and prosecuted, the DoJ would likely choose the least winnable route and present it as badly as possible. This one would be better handled as a plea bargain, as unsatisfactory as that may seem.
Thank you.
Remember, her greatest fear is a case of fraud, unjust enrichment, failure to pay income tax, etc. from a Clinton Global Initiative matter, that was found due to the exploration of the emails.
Example.
Officer Friendly stops Doe due to a broken taillight.
On approaching car Friendly has Doe roll down driver’s side window.
Upon window being rolled down, Friendly, as a result of her training and experience, detects a strong odor of marijuana from inside Doe’s car.
Friendly orders Doe out of car and conducts a “safety pat-down of Doe. She notices a large lump in Doe’s pocket.
She finds lump is a pistol, for which Doe has no carry permit.
Friendly’s PD conducts ballistics tests on pistol and links it to prior murder.
Doe swings, because everything was a logical extension of a legal prior act on part of Friendly.