Certainly it HELPS make the corruption case if there was a quid pro quo - but unless there is strict separation of Bill and Hill financially (yeah, right), this is a case, written right in the Constitution, where the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. The Constitution forbids acceptance of gifts and it forbids acceptance of emoluments - that is, salaries. It does not say, unless the emolument can arguably be said to have been earned, nor does it say, gifts are OK if disbursed for noble purposes as determined by the POTUS. It says that to accept a gift or a stipend you have to have the approval of Congress.Even if you argue that the Congress somehow bought off on their grifting when it ratified her nomination to SoS, that decision could not bind succeeding Congresses, such as the one elected in 2010.
What the Clinton server does do, indubitably, is to function as a character reference in the Craig Livingstone affair. Somebody in the Clinton WH hired Craig Livingstone. Hillary had motive and opportunity - and now we have clear indication of her lack of compunction against doing the deed.
HILLARY HIRED CRAIG LIVINGSTONE. The Clintons do it wholesale. Then when they are criticized wholesale, their acolytes say, Its those mean Republicans again.
Noble purpose - Clinton Foundation.
“arguably said to have been earned” - Speaking fees, which are a time-honored tradition. Even Reagan spoke for money.
Strict financial separation - “But we’re married, of course all the money goes into the family account!”
The Clintons are professional grifters. They’ve thought this all out. They’ve gotten out of worse jams, jams which involved dead bodies. The only thing they didn’t figure on was her emails being recovered. But prosecution will require spines, which are in short supply.