People are misunderstanding the problem. So it's clear that a majority of people think Hillary is untrustworthy. But let's break that group up. A good portion of them are unpersuadable: partisan Republicans who answer negative to any democrat they are polled on and those people who have independently researched and come to the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt,. They aren't important tbh. However there is a large group of people who are less interested in politics, and don't know the ins and outs of every scandal (because they are normal human beings). With the current news cycle these people's understandings of the various scandals is that Hillary did something dodgy (after all, no smoke without fire?). Seeing as this is a majority of voters, this must include people who voted Obama so they obviously aren't just partisan anti-Democrats. These people are the ones that must be persuaded for a positive win (i.e. If the campaign is just a scorched earth attack on Trump, Hillary would probably win but her presidency will start off unpopular and she won't get any coattails).
Now how to persuade them? Obviously a Nixonian "I'm not a crook" won't fly. Cliche stuff like bringing out her family might work (so Michelle Obama made aloof Barack seem more like a regular guy) , but Hillary's spouse and daughter are known quantities to the public rather than say Romney's endless spawn. I would start chasing up anti-corruption initiates and stuff that Hillary hypothetically did in her SoS tenure. To counteract the idea that she changes her views for expediency, I would focus on "throughout her life" ads (e.g. Hillary has always been passionate about [issue x]. As a young lawyer she pushed through [issue X]. When First Lady, nobody was more specific about [Issue X] than her. And as your president, she will champion [Issue x] like she always has throughout her life.
As for the scandals themselves, have one bombastic press conference to apologise and put the issue to rest. Then leave it to proxies to rubbish all claims and make even the more grounded of them seem like Vince Foster tier.
I think a two track approach is always the best. If Hillary just addresses the issue by itself, she gets compared to perfection and obviously comes up short. George H W Bush in 1988 showed that destroying an opponent also means no longer be judged against perfection, but being judged against the main opponent.
Hillary Clinton may be a 2/10 on honesty/corruption but Rapist Trump is a 0/10. Just keep highlighting his endless lies and long history of corruption (buying off politicians, hiring illegal aliens from Poland, deceitful claims of charitable giving...) and I think she'll end up looking like the person Diogenes was seeking.
