General Discussion

I'm guessing that she did manage to get 14 of 23 to vote a "true bill" on two of the counts presented, particularly since I have little doubt she excluded the fact the accusations had already been investigated and dispensed with, or the fact that her predecessor was fired for refusing to pursue an indictment because there was no "there" there.

Grand juries are prosecutors instruments. While they can be highly selective in what to present (they are only required to present exculpatory evidence in certain jurisdictions) any prosecutor who gives a shit about convicting on an indictment is motivated to present relevant facts, even if some of those facts could undermine the case. Getting an indictment that will be tossed on the first motion to dismiss that includes those "adverse" facts is not a "win," unless the prosecutor cares only for political "points" scored with the indictment, and cares about nothing else (i.e., can confidently count on getting a pardon when charged with malicious prosecution).

My speculation:
Maybe she got a "no-bill" from one grand jury and submitted a modified case to a new grand jury, got a "true bill" on two of the counts presented, and incompetently got all the paperwork fouled up.

Such resubmissions after a "no-bill" generally require new evidence and approval from the relevant U.S. Attorney's Office. Since she is that relevant office, all bets on needing reasonable grounds to resubmit are off.