For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind.
I'm no lawyer, but if I'm goofing around with wild golf club swings and I kill someone, I HAVE committed a crime, but I had no criminal state of mind. Likewise, I believe the statute on improper distribution of classified material (Hello Hillary) specifically states that intent does not matter.
Yes, Hillary did have a criminal mind -- but it wouldn't matter if she hadn't.
Any discussion of Comey, from any angle, which mentions the IMPORTANCE of criminal intent raises a flag for me, because I think the Left (erroneously) sees this as a safety net for Hillary. They slip it in to conversations in a subtle way, but I think they mean to sway people's thinking.
I agree that in Hillary’s case, intent is irrelevant due to the statute. She is guilty no matter how you slice it.