I'm not sure why you can't separate someone being guilty from someone being guilty under the law and punished for it. A child that tells a lie is guilty, but isn't going to be thrown in jail. There is a different standard for someone being guilty in a moral and objective sense and someone being legally declared guilty where the state can forcibly apply a penalty.
My question for you is why is it less concerning that the government is withholding information showing that Hillary broke no laws than it is that she broke the law and they are just sweeping it under the rug? What is the harm of showing whatever evidence is available proving Hillary was completely within the laws to do what she did? It's one of those questions that just can't be ignored. If the moon landing was faked, what incentive is there for people in on the conspiracy to not release the truth?
In Hillary's case, a lot of people's jobs and riches are all hinged on her never being prosecuted. And those people are the ones who decide if she is prosecuted or not. Sure there are people who want to see Hillary in jail, but those same people don't want a case because I'm fairly certain that both sides are doing shit like this and they don't want too much digging into how widespread the problem is. They are all in the same worm can and don't want anyone to dig.
I've never heard someone arguing so hard that a judge shouldn't hear a case because a prosecutor might have hidden evidence of innocence. Don't the citizens of a country deserve to hear in a court of law all of the evidence showing their leaders aren't corrupt?