The issue is negligence, not intent, otherwise Petraeus should be exonerated and his fine returned. With negligence being the threshold, the mere setting up of the private server while refusing to use the dot.gov system, is a crime.
The moment the CIA was apprised of the private server being used by the Secretary of State, a massive removal of possibly compromised foreign assets will have been put into motion. A compromise HAD TO BE ASSUMED. This is the damage done to the people’s interests, even if the server was not breeched. Content of the communications is not at issue. There is evidence it was hacked, but it is still not necessary to prove intent, or at least it wouldn’t be if it were you or I in the government’s crosshairs.
What some see as business as usual is still crooked at its heart. This looks like an upcoming national discussion once the details are released from the FBI investigation.
Only a progressive, marxist, or a democrat could dream up the phrase “legal form of corruption”
Intent is irrelevant. Whether a foreign power actually has the documents is always irrelevant. As a person with access to secret documents, it is part of the obligation, to keep them secure. Failure to keep them secure, is a violation - doesn’t matter if you did not intend to expose them, doesn’t matter that you got lucky and they weren’t taken.
The reason those documents were destroyed was to cover up her solicitations of bribes and other illegalities.