Pardon Hillary

This may be the last message you expected from me, but Obama should pardon Hillary.  If Obama does not, Trump should.

Look, I am a FOIA absolutist.  Long before it came out that Clinton may have had top secret emails on her home server, I wanted to see her punished for her flouting of public accountability laws.  Her whole home-brewed email system was a transparent attempt to evade FOIA, and consistent with her history of attempting to duck transparency (going all the way back to her abortive health care initiative she ran as First Lady).  In addition, I have had it up to here with bogus non-profits that pretend to do charity work, but are in fact merely lifestyle and influence maintenance devices for their principals.  I would love to see the Clinton Foundation investigated (though market forces may take care of that institution on their own, as it is unlikely donors will be sending much money their way now that the Clintons have no prospect of returning to power).

But the optics, and precedents involved, with a winning candidate's administration criminally prosecuting the election's loser are just terrible.  Even if entirely justified, the prosecution smacks of banana republic politics.  And even if it were justified, half the country would not see it that way and next time, when the parties are reversed, as sure as the sun rises in the East there will be folks looking to duplicate the prosecution in the other direction.

The rule of law is seldom helped by ignoring wrong-doing, but in this case I will make an exception.

Postscript:  By the way, what could be a better political FU than having Trump pardon her?   An attempted prosecution could last for years and could lead nowhere.  But nothing leaves the impression of "your guilty" like a preemptive pardon (see Richard Nixon).  From a political point of view Obama should pardon her just to prevent Trump from doing so and getting credit for being a healer.

291 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What? Are you saying that they're related somehow, or just that the Clintons play dirty? I believe that Bush's past problems were already known, plus personal recreational drug use is very different from selling out our country to foreigners.

[Besides, Bill "nose like a vacuum" Clinton didn't have much room to criticize others, did he? But that never stopped a Clinton.]

Zachriel, screwing up may not be a criminal act, but implementing a half-backed idea with government resources -- and then refusing to come clean with Congress -- is an impeachable offense.

Zachriel, on Black Panthers, are you saying that everybody at the polling place agreed with the Black Panthers, so there is no way that there would be have intimidated?

The FBI recommendation stinks to high heaven and is contrary to precedent.

Ouch. Very nice satire....

But the parallel with the Nixon pardon will carve into stone the idea that "SHE WAS GUILTY".

Nixon Disappeared from view after the pardon. I want Bill and Hillary to diasappear.

I was kind of thinking the same thing as Coyote, but then changed my mind. A big part of the problem is over-criminalization generally. Many believe it's basically impossible to honestly conduct business without committing a crime. It seems like it's pretty much that way for taking campaign contributions, too. So seeing politicians prosecuted might help get them to see the light that maybe there ought to be fewer crimes generally.

See thoughts of Assistant Village Idiot here: http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2016/11/hillary.html
I believe his last paragraph is true.

Absolutely! Full agreement.
Ford was right in pardoning Nixon.
Someone must pardon Clinton.

But this goes beyond Clinton and that must be addressed.
This is not Just the Clinton's but an entire conspiracy.
Abedin, Mills, Blumenthal, myriads of others.

We do not need to send anyone to jail.
But we do need to do something that bars them from subsequent positions of public responsibility.

There is a serious danger that any prosecution of the Clinton's will consume all the air in the Trump administration.

If what you want is Trump and Republican's to fail to get anything done - then go ahead investigate and prosecute.

The Fundimental issue regarding the Clinton Foundation was the influence peddling at the state department.

I have zero problems with people giving to a bad charity.
I have zero problems with rich people giving to the Clinton's.

Though I suspect both will dry up shortly.

I have serious problems with Pay for Play.

The other issue is that this is not limited to the Clinton's personally.
While we do not need to send anyone to jail.

We do need to further expose this and prevent any of these people from ever holding power in the future

Not merely as a consequence for them. But to prevent the moral hazard encouraging others - democrats or republicans to do the same.

I would further note that I think for many excellent reasons investigating this mess is NOT going to be a Republican or Trump priority.

Trump and Republicans need to focus on "making america great again".

A rapid return to a vibrant economy would be the most damming indictment of progressivism we could hope for.

Pardoning Clinton is a far better choice than ignoring her.
The former comes with the stigma of Guilt, the latter will be perceived as an admission that there is nothing there.

John Say: Pardoning Clinton is a far better choice than ignoring her.

Pardoning Clinton would be a very bad choice. It would prevent justice from being served, if she is guilty. It would prevent justice being served, if she is innocent. And it would patently political in that it would imply guilt that may not exist.

John Say: But we do need to do something that bars them from subsequent positions of public responsibility.

Pardons would not bar them from positions of public responsibility, even if they were guilty of the worst possible crimes.

TruthisaPeskyThing: are you saying that everybody at the polling place agreed with the Black Panthers

They couldn't find anyone who actually felt intimidated. Video showed people coming and going without incident. Apparently, it is legal in some jurisdictions to be a poll-watcher while black. Go figure.

TruthisaPeskyThing: is an impeachable offense.

Apparently not.

TruthisaPeskyThing: and then refusing to come clean with Congress

It was thoroughly investigated. Holder put an end to the program, which began during the Bush Administration.

Nixon didn't have the media cover she'd get.

Tough to fully investigate when documents are not produced. The House voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. 17 Democrats joined the vote to hold Eric Holder in Contempt, and 108 other Democrats did not oppose the measure. Only 65 Democrats voted to oppose the measure. The movement to not only hold Eric Holder in contempt but also to impeach him had dozens of signatures, but he resigned before the movement went further.

Zachriel, Pulling out the race card is an absolutely disgusting move on your part. Hopefully, it will alert me not to try to have a serious or intellectual discussion with you. Poll watchers are named by the party -- not anybody who shows up with weapons at the polling place. To say suggest that black poll-watchers are not welcomed shows how fast and deep you go to the bottom of the barrel.

I'm all for that.

Justice is not going to be served no matter what.

She is not innocent. The only issue here is exactly what crimes is she guilty of and how serious are they.

Regardless of what Comey said - she is absolutely guilty of violating 18cfr793(f). Contra Comey if intent can be established - and it can, then she is guilty of violating 18cfr793(e).
You can google them and look it up. Negligence or recklessness are all that is required for (f).

Further if you have bothered to follow recent federal prosecutions a former vice chairmen of the JCS has been convicted of a FAR less serious violation, and an ensign was convicted of merely taking a couple of cell phone photos of a peice of classified equipment (not even secret or top secret, much less SAP), and sending those pictures to fellow sailors.

It is also certain that she committed several crimes in falsification with respect to her testimony before congress, her responses to State department inquiries, her responses to discovery in the several FOIA cases that triggered this.

There are potentially charges of obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence, and possibly lying to the FBI.

Those are the few things that are probably true but not yet proven.

Additionally she has absolutely violated numerous government record keeping laws.

And then there is the entire Clinton Foundation Pay for Play Scheme.

Overall, I am much less concerned about Clinton she is unlikely to ever hold office again.

There are two far more important issues:

The first is sending a message that this is unacceptable conduct - whether you are republican or democrat, whether you are a seamen or the secretary of state.

Clinton herself used in her defense the example of Colin Powell and Condeleza Rice. While there are several orders of magnitude difference in their misconduct, I do not want future federal officials at any level engaged in even their smaller efforts to evade FOIA laws or recklessly handle classified documents.

The second is the large number of people on clinton's staff that are equally or in some cases even more culpable.
Cheryl Mills is nearly certainly guilty of destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. Abedin is guilty of perjury.
And there are numerous others.

We need to end this while accomplishing several things:

Avoiding creating a moral hazard that makes this conduct likely in the future. A presidential pardon accomplishes that.
It makes clear the conduct was unacceptable, and that future miscreants are unlikely to get a pass.

Avoid consuming the next 2 or 4 or 8 years with investigations and recriminations and nonsense such as your assertion that there is some actual innocence here.

You do know that Comey rushed the June announcement that there was nothing there - because the investigators had asked the NSA to "find" her medical records, because they beleived she was lying to them about her failure to recall.
Failure to recall is NOT the same as invoking the 5th.
There are standards that have to be met, and failing to recall things that you should recall is obstruction of justice.

The last thing is barring everyone in her staff who participated in this from future federal office.

In this instance that is sufficient punishment.
It will not be the next time.

Regardless, I expect future members of the federal government to conduct government business with government communications systems. Private emails are for purely private communications. Most of the rest of us have the same requirements for our jobs.
Both Powell and Clinton made it clear they did this to avoid having to comply with FOIA requests. That is a violation of government procedures, and laws, it may be criminal - it should be, and it is not tolerable.
Government is not supposed to be easy.
Your work in govenrment belongs to the people - not you.

Where there is a legitimate reason to avoid disclosing something - those decisions need to be made through our laws and courts. Not be office holders on their own.

If Trump and his staff run afoul of this - they too should be prosecuted.

Finally you and I can split hairs over legal interpretation - and you will lose.
But there is absolutely zero doubt in anyone not living in a bubbles mind that this conduct was WRONG - and that Clinton (and her staff) KNEW it. In fact there are several communications that make it clear that Pres. Obama knew about this and lied publicly about it. And in fact was using a private email of his own for govenrment communications.

One of the other factors that the left dismisses is that the activity and communications of the Sec. State are presumed classified until determined otherwise. Even her schedule is classified.
Many - most of these become declassified over time - where the sec state was a year ago may not be classified where she will be in a week is.

First I did not specifically state that the purpose of the pardon itself was to bar these people from positions of public responsibility.
Those can be conditions in return for the pardon.
Though I am not particularly concerned about that.

It is already probable that the FBI and NSA are unlikely to clear any of this people in the future. That would already bad then from many government positions requiring clearances.
A pardon would make it highly unlikely that could be finessed.
Further maybe new yorkers would vote for people pardoned.
But most of us would not. Further it would make it far harder to get appointed to most anything.

The House voted for contempt because the court tossed the judicial contempt finding. House contempt is a political act. The Justice Department cannot be required to release documents that are predecisional and deliberative. The legal issue is which documents are subject to Congressional subpoena.

Rather than appealing, the Obama Administration released the documents in April.

Regardless, there are 4 options here:

1) Obama Pardon's some or all of these people.
That gives democrats the greatest control.
There need be no strings attached beyond the (deserved) harm to ones reputation.

2). Trump can conditionally pardon them.

3). Trump can waste political capital prosecuting these people.
While he will likely be successful, some people - such as yourself trapped in a left wing bubble will always consider it political.
Did you know how minor the offense that required Nixon to resign ? He merely arranged for payment of the Watergate Burglars defense costs. Do you really think Clinton and her cronies can pass a bar that low ?

4). He can ignore this. Which will essentially give both the republican and democratic impramatur on this type fo misconduct forever.
Do you really want government to become even more corrupt ?

Those people who voted for Clinton from the primaries through the general demonstrated that far too many on the left are unwilling to hold their own accountable.
Either you are hypocrits and only prepared to hold republicans accountable, or you are willing to tolerate government corruption.
Which also makes you hypocritical given all you say.

And before you come after me - I did not vote for Trump either.
I consider some of his actions as disqualifying him for government. Though if someone put a gun to my head - he was the lessor evil.

Regardless, you can not expect good government until you are prepared to hold YOUR OWN accountable.

There is no provision in the law specifying that illegal conduct is acceptable if you have the right beliefs or ideology.
The law is mostly black and white.

More nuanced choices are for our private interactions - not govenrment.

John Say: Justice is not going to be served no matter what.

A pardon will preclude the normal process.

John Say: Regardless of what Comey said - she is absolutely guilty of violating 18cfr793(f).

That is incorrect. Case law requires a finding of intent.

John Say: Trump can conditionally pardon them.

Trump promised to "Lock her up!" A pardon would be a highly political act, and would forestall Clinton's ability to defend herself from the allegations.

John Say: While he will likely be successful, some people - such as yourself trapped in a left wing bubble will always consider it political.

If there is evidence of criminal acts, then she should be charged. However, the FBI investigated the email case, and career investigators unanimously agreed against recommending charges.

John Say: Those can be conditions in return for the pardon.

Clinton would never seek a pardon, much less agree to such conditions.

I don't mind pardoning her AFTER the facts have been made public. Including what did Obama know and when did he know it?

Its for the children.

"normal" went out the window long ago.
Normal would have been a confidential investigation with a grand jury and subpeona power starting in 2015 when this was first uncovered.

No case law does NOT require "intent"

In this specific instance we do have intent.
Intent is not required to be specific.
Hillary admittedly intended to impede FOIA requests, and that would subject her to the harsher penalities of 18cfr793(e).

I would suggest reading both the law and the case law.
The difference between section (e) and (f) is "intent".

"Mens Rea" is not required by a significant number of federal laws. This is one of the reforms that Senate Republicans tried to impliment that democrats impeded.

Though it would not have helped Hillary, because the change would have implicitly added mens rea requirements to laws that did not explicitly preclude it.
18cfr793(f) does not "omit" a mens rea requirement,
It is a recklessness/negligence standard - which by statutory law AND case means Mens Rea is not a required element.

And as noted if Mens Rea was found then Clinton would be guilty of 18cfr793(e)

Clinton can refuse the pardon if she wants.
Clinton has already "defended" herself - badly.

There is no question that she violated 18cfr793(f) - as I noted - and even Comey has subsequently admitted, there is no "intent" requirement.

Further there is far more that has been alleged and proven to varying degrees, the objective which you fail to grasp is to put this behind the nation AND to increase the odds it does not happen again.

The FBI agents involved were not "unanimous".
If you have paid the slightest attention you know far better.
Since June of 2015 they wanted to investigate both this, and the Clinton foundation, they wanted a grand jury, and subpeona power.

Put most simply when Comey stated that the investigating agents unanimously supported his decision - he lied.

The press conference in June was called hastily specifically because the investigating agents had made an end run arround the DOJ and were eliciting assistance from NSA to obtain information that DOJ would not allow the agents to subpeona.

Again if you paid attention reports indicate that the FBI is thoroughly demoralized by the efforts of DOJ and Comey to foreclose and prejudge their investigations.
One lead retired early as a result of it, numerous retiured agents have spoken on the record that this is unusual and wrong. Several current agents have spoken off record

In fact the investigation continued AFTER Comey's announcement and Agents involved are ON THE RECORD confronting the DOJ about asking them to stand down.

Whether you like it or not there has been a holy war between DOJ and the FBI over this.
DOJ has been unwilling to step in and absolutely bar the FBI from investigating - that would be illegal.
But they have done everything short of that.
They have deprived them of normal resources, and impeded their investigation at every point possible.

It can be offered - and then we shall see.

You seem to think that Clinton is both innocent and has integrity.

Neither are true.

I think she would jump at a pardon.

Regardless, conditions are not needed for a Clinton pardon. She is not holding a government position ever again.

Pardon's for her staff and the rest of those involved need to be conditional. Many of those people are younger, and their role is less well known.
Frankly they should go to jail.
But most of the country would like to put this behind them, and the easiest way to do this is to pardon all of them - Conditional to their not holding any government position in the future.

Pardon her under these conditions:

1) She must list all of her actions and crimes for which she is to be pardoned. Anything left out can and will be prosecuted when it is discovered. I'd ask for truthful testimony on a signed affidavit and reading it on video, but she does not appear to be capable of telling the truth.

2) The pardon is contingent upon her leaving politics and government employment forever. She can't accept any position at any level of government, help any political campaign, or endorse any candidate or policy, or she's subject to prosecution for everything. By accepting the pardon, all statutes of limitations for her alleged crimes are tolled (suspended), so (if she lives long enough) she cannot wait for them to run out and then resume politicking.

3) She must compensate the families of the Benghazi victims.

4) Her aides will be offered the same conditions of pardon - except #1 requires truthful testimony as to the crimes of themselves and others.

John Say: No case law does NOT require "intent"

The Supreme Court disagrees, finding in Gorin v. United States that enforcement of the law requires "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." The FBI determined there was no intent.

John Say: Put most simply when Comey stated that the investigating agents unanimously supported his decision - he lied.

Now you're saying that the Director of the FBI lied to Congress. You may want to include citations to primary sources for your assertions.

John Say: There is no question that she violated 18cfr793(f) - as I noted - and even Comey has subsequently admitted, there is no "intent" requirement.

That is incorrect. Case law is clear that intent is required.

markm: Pardon her under these conditions:

Clinton will not seek a pardon, much less agree to conditions to a pardon.

John Say: Clinton can refuse the pardon if she wants.

That is also incorrect. If the president pardons her, there's nothing she can do.

Letting important people get away with crimes that little people are serving 5 or 10 years for _is_ swamp politics.

Or even making it clear what he was pardoned for. That part of it was a mistake.

And ended during the Bush administration, after one small-scale trial of the idea in which they discovered that the guns could not be tracked once they crossed the border. It was under the Holder DOJ that the program was reinstated on a huge scale, with no effort to track the guns. Quite aside from the crimes committed trying to cover this up, there is a point where negligence becomes criminal.

BS. Watch the video. These were not poll watchers. They dressed as thugs and acted as thugs - although quite possibly they were too feeble-minded to be actually frightening or responsible for their actions.

The media hated Nixon long before any of the events of Watergate. They hated him in 1952. They hated him in 1956. They hated him in 1960. And when he came back in 1968, they really hated him. Any public appearance after his resignation that didn't avoid any _hint_ of controversy would have invited another media firestorm.

But mainly, as slimy as Nixon was, he did have the capacity to feel shame. I don't see any signs of that with Hillary. She could stand in front of a TV showing video of her selling Ambassador Steven's location to terrorists, and deny that it showed any such thing.

Isn't sending an e-mail to her aides telling them to remove the classified markings and forward documents to her server "intent"? For that matter, as someone who held a Top Secret clearance for 12 years as an airman and defense contractor, but never saw anything nearly as important as what routinely crossed Clinton's desk, I can tell you what would happen to a military member of any rank whose excuse for mishandling classified information was that he didn't understand the rules: You signed here that you attended and understood briefings on handling classified information. [So did Clinton.] If you didn't attend, you are guilty of forgery - and you are still guilty of mishandling classified information, because the law does _not_ require intent.

Taking a selfie and forgetting about the Confidential equipment in the background is enough intent for a 6 year sentence. Leaving a document unsecured on your desk during a fire drill might not be criminally prosecuted, but you will probably be reduced in rank and pay, you'll never be trusted in an important job again, and you'll spend the rest of your time in the service in the worst menial job they can find.

When Comey went before Congress, he detailed much evidence of serious crimes - and then in a complete logical disconnect, he claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would indict. The first part was a statement of facts. The second part is an opinion, for which a perjury prosecution is nearly impossible, no matter how ridiculous the opinion was. He knew which part he could be held responsible for - read that and ignore the rest.

markm: Isn't sending an e-mail to her aides telling them to remove the classified markings and forward documents to her server "intent"?

No. Clinton said to turn the document into a nonpaper. As Comey testified, a nonpaper is a term of art in the State Department for an unclassified form of a document.

markm: I can tell you what would happen to a military member of any rank

Clinton is a civilian, so is not under the Military Code of Conduct.

markm: Taking a selfie and forgetting about the Confidential equipment in the background is enough intent for a 6 year sentence.

If you are referring to Kristian Saucier, the photos were not inadvertently capturing background, but "methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor." He then tried to destroy evidence. Others on the same ship who had taken selfies were given administrative punishment only. Saucier received a one year sentence.

markm: When Comey went before Congress, he detailed much evidence of serious crimes - and then in a complete logical disconnect, he claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would indict.

FBI career investigators unanimously recommended against indicting Clinton because the law requires a finding of intent, which was not found.

markm: And ended during the Bush administration, after one small-scale trial of the idea in which they discovered that the guns could not be tracked once they crossed the border.

Operation Wide Receiver, during the Bush Administration, lasted for a year-and-a-half, and involved 450 guns. Indictments were not brought until the Obama Administration.

These programs were seriously mishandled, and it is reasonable to investigate them, but using them for partisan purposes does nothing to improve law enforcement.

markm: They dressed as thugs and acted as thugs

They weren't wearing the approved costume, you say.

Jackson was a certified poll-watcher. An injunction was filed against Shabazz to prevent a recurrence. As no crime had been committed, that was a reasonable course of action.

Gorin v. United States was a case involving the Espionage act. Espionage would require intent.

18 793 is the law involving "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

United States v. Dotterweich which came AFTER Gorin made it clear that Congress can pass criminal laws without requiring Mens Rea.

The Supreme court has addressed intention numerous times subsequent to Dotterweich and at various times moved the lines a bit one way or the other.
Regardless, Mens Rea is not an implicit element of all federal crimes.

Specific to 18 793 intention is required for many sections but not others - and specifically not (f).

I would further note that even where "intent" is required - the standard is extremely low.
Mens Rea does NOT require that a defendent knew they were committing a crime.
It merely requires that they know what they are doing, and that are doing so for an improper purpose.

Clinton's emails demonstrate that she deliberately setup her private server to avoid complying with federal records keeping laws.

That alone is sufficient to meet a mens rea requirement.

Further it is incredibly hypocritical of the left - which has thwarted - as recently as 2016 the efforts of the right to impose a default mens rea requirement to federal laws - except where it is precluded - and 18 793(f) and other negligence or recklessness laws all exclude mens rea.

You are wrong on the law, you are hypocritical and you are "hoist by your own petard"

I would find your arguments more plausible if it was not absolutely certain that if Clinton had been a republican you would be arguing exactly the opposite.

One of the lefts greatest problems today is that its standards of right and wrong - only apply to others.

Lying under oath is acceptable - if it is about sex.
Or if there is a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get you.

Bill Clinton's conduct is acceptable - after all he was a good president. Trump's far less serious offenses disqualify him. The DOJ's bogus indictment of Casper Weinberger a few days before the 1992 election is not political interferance, while Comey's required letter to congress is ?

While there are important reasons why the law should be specific ways. More important than specifically what the law is, is that the law is imposed the same on all.

There are myriads of cases - including ones this administration has prosecuted where members of government have been convicted of violating 18 793(f) with far LESS intention and involving far LESS material than Clinton.

Further even in the event that Congress actually managed to pass the republican law generally requiring intent. That still would not apply. Laws with Gross negligence and Recklessness standards ARE the laws that do not EVER require intent.
It makes zero sense to require either recklessness or gross negligence AND intention.

The classic example would be laws that hold people responsible for actions committed while they are drunk.
There is no "mens rea". If you drive drunk and kill someone, there is no requirement that you intend to kill someone.

Gorin has been raised and debunked before.
It predates the laws in question - and honestly it is not good law - meaning it has been overruled.

Myriads of federal laws are enforced and have been upheld by the supreme court on a regular basis without requirements for intent.

Further the holding in Gorin was not - intention is required, but that the law was overly broad. That vague assertions of a national defense interest were not sufficient.

No I am saying that he lied to the american people in his press conference.

Further if you have paid the slightest attention to this at all,. you already know this.

It has been widely reported that the lead investigator retired early because he was not allowed to vigorously persue this.
It has been widely reported that the FBI continued the investigation AFTER Comey's announcement.
It has been widely reported that DOJ repeatedly foreclosed FBI requests to continue, broaden or empower this investigation both before and after Comey's statement.
It has been widely reported that the FBI is demoralized because they were not allowed to do their job.
Numerous retired agents have come forward and explicitly stated that this investigation was NOT conducted with the usual thoroughness and resources of similiar investigations.
It has been widely reported that in the summer of 2015 the FBI agents investigating clinton were ALREADY recomending prosecution of not merely the classified matter, but public corruption and federal records keeping violations.

Much of this has been reported even in left wing media such as the New York Times.

I am not obligated to prove what is obvious to most everyone in the planet to your satisfaction.
As you are so deeply in the bubble there is nothing that would constitute proof to you.

There is no question that Clinton is guilty of violating 18 793(f). That has been obvious for a long time.
There is little question that she is guilty of violating 18 793(e). There is no question that she has violated perjury and sworn falsification laws in her testimony to congress and in her pleadings in the FOIA cases.
There is an excellent prima fascia case for public corruption with respect to the Clinton foundations improper back channels into the State department.

Let me address this a different way.

Is Clinton's conduct acceptable to you ?
Forget the law. Is it moral, ethical ? Is it how you wish to see government conducted ?

Should public officials be allowed to conduct public business on private emails ?
Should they be allowed to deprive government of control of the records of their government activities ?
Should they be allowed to communicate and store classified information in their basements ?
Should they be allowed to evade FOIA requests ?
Should they be allowed to structure their public role to favor specifc private actors - such as a "charity" in their name ?

I can go on and on.

Regardless, there are two points.
If you say no to anything above - then you have accepted that Clinton meets the requirements for mens rea. Mens Rea is NOT the intent to commit a specific crime. It is the intent to do wrong.

The second is that either Clinton's conduct is illegal - or it should.
If you accept that it already is - then either she must be prosecuted and convicted or pardoned.

If you accept that it should be - then all we are arguing over is whether it actually already is - not "intent"

If you continue to beleive that it is not illegal - then Congress must act to change that.
Hopefully that is something we can agree on.

And finally if you do not accept that it is or should be illegal - then why have you sought to malign and prosecute others - particularly republicans for similar misconduct ?

The most fundimental problem you have is that the overwhelming majority of us are not stupid.

We know that what Clinton did was WRONG.
We know that she knew that when she did it.

And that is the actual standard and all that is required for "intent"