I’m surprised that intent is a consideration in any case related to handling of classified material. As the article says, those who receive security clearances to handle such material are instructed as to the requirements and the importance, and are required to sign a statement saying the understand the requirements and will follow them.
The mere fact that someone did not follow the guidelines should be all that has to be proved. When we get a driver’s license we go through a similar procedure and are tested on the road for driving skill and given a written test to prove we understand traffic law.
What Hillary did was the equivalent of a licensed driver driving down the highway drunk at 100 mph. No one would, or should, be having mealy mouthed debates about whether that driver intended to break the law, and there should be no such debates when someone clearly failed to follow the guidelines for handling classified material.
I wonder if the same guidelines/requirements apply to members of the military and regular government employees?
It’s a misuse of the concept of intent. Intent for the purposes of criminal law doesn’t involve motive; it just means “not by accident”. The only question is whether she intended to set up her private server and send classified emails to it.