Hugh Hewitt talked about the process and it was amazing. The warnings/agreement you speak of is apparently also affixed to many of the documents. Bergler did this because (1) he was incredibly arrogant or (2) incredibly scared. Time will tell...
Yes. Most people have no idea what the process entails. The operational guidelines we had to adhere to were VERY well thought out, and really left an offender with no recourse in the face of a violation.
He's in a bad spot. The very fact that he had access indicates that he understood the "terms".
He should be frightened! I've been close to (but never involved in!) incidents involving mishandling classified information, and I remember being ever SO glad that I wasn't the one in the "hot seat"!
But "sloppy" just doesn't describe what he did, given the preconditions he agreed to before gaining access to the information. Would we apply the adjective, "sloppy" to a bank teller who gets caught stealing a quantity of cash from the bank?
I seriously doubt it.
He AGREED to safeguard classified information during access to such information! Such information is classified to PROTECT national interests! But then, apparently for personal/political reasons, he broke his agreement, and put our national security at a lesser priority. ...and this was our former National Security Advisor? Gee...nice guy... :-) Quite in contrast to Dr. Rice I think. Does "integrity" mean anything to these people?
This seems to be a pattern amongst leftists. Their priorities are DEFINITELY out of order! But he stepped into a BAD area with this offence. It's not a very forgiving system, and now he gets to deal with it. :-)