Intent is a part of the criteria to consider, but it is not the only aspect.
A drunk driver that kills somebody may not have “intended” to do so, but should have known of the risks involved with their drunk driving.
Intent does not alone determine criminality, but it factors into the case.
A lawyer, former first lady, former Senator, and now Secretary of State, sets up private system to handle classified electronic communication.
Can hardly claim no intent to violate rules and advisories, more likely intended to avoid rules and consequences.
That is what a reasonable person could conclude.
I did not intend to leave a single page of a classified message on my desk inside my secure office in the Pentagon.
Security did an overnight sweep of offices chosen at random, found the classified message on my desk and when I returned to work on Monday, I was interviewed by security and had to receive a couple hours re-training on the handling of classified material. They were not amused.
Since I had a TS clearance since 1984, I already knew the rules but unintentionally left a single page of a classified document on my desk and was threatened that if I ever did that again, my clearance would be revoked and potential charges may be filed. . .all for ONE piece of classified data (a weather forecast for a select country that would affect “things”).
Yet, hitlery and huma gets away with THOUSANDS of classified information/messages being tossed around willy-nilly over an open unsecured hacked server.
Key-rist.
Seems you didn’t read the article. Intent is not a factor in the federal law, and is not mentioned in that law at all.