My point on intent is based on the timeline here:
The FBI concluded that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted over her decision to conduct State Department business…www.politifact.com
My understanding is the “slam dunk” would require the court order being in effect at the time that she asked for the deletion, but that’s not quite what happened.
My reading of this is that Clinton was asked for e-mails by Congress, which she turned over (the ones she labelled “work related” or whatever). Then probably, by all normal human reasoning, knew that a subpoena was coming. So she asked for the rest to be deleted. Untoward and wrong, but not technically illegal at that time. Would she be fired if she were a lower level employee ? Of course . Would she be asked to resign if still working as Secretary of State — probably (unless Bill intervened :).
But there was no way to fire her because she was no longer employed. And ordering e-mails to be deleted before there is a court order to obtain them is not a crime unless, unless (I hope) it can be shown that the person intended to delete them on the expectation of a court order. But that seems hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The Clintons are very good at occupying that gray area where everyone knows its wrong but it’s not quite illegal.
Then a subpoena is issued.
Then the computer guy at Platte claims he “forgot” to delete them. So then goes ahead and deletes them, post subpoena.
So Hillary Clinton violated an important policy of her employer, but it was discovered after she was no longer employed there.
Then her e-mails were deleted post-subpoena, but not by her. She requested that they be deleted before the subpoena.
If all of those facts are true, then obstruction is hard to prove in a court of law, I think. The one possibility is that the Platte guy is lying, covering for Clinton who asked him to make the deletion post-subpoena. But how can one prove this. Maybe there are payments to him.
Anyway, the court of public opinion ruled on Hillary, and she lost.