But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent. That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not.
That's completely false even though that talking point has been oft repeated in the media lately. Intent is not required to be guilty of the crime of mishandling classified information. The Relevant law is 18 USC 793
>793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document … or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Aside from the fact that intent isn't required in order for a crime to have been committed, even a cursory examination of the emails clearly prove intent.
>one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.
>In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillar...
Nothing says intent more then a clear and direct command to strip classifying headers off classified documents and send "nonsecure".
>That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not.
The only factor in whether or not she is indicted is unfortunately the fact that our legal system has entirely broken down. She will not be indicted by the Obama administration no matter what she does. It seems much more likely she will be impeached by the Republican Congress if she wins the election.
This is not the smoking gun; there are innocuous readings of that instruction. They were likely using secure channel to transmit nonclasified information — which is something she should be praised for, given how little of what she was up to can be described as good practice.
The thread in the printout you link is about "TPs" (presumably Talking Points?). Unlikely to be classified.
do you have a source for this?