I didn't have time for a full response this morning before going to work. Your "no harm, no foul" principle does not apply. It seems you're mixing civil with criminal matters. In a civil case, the plaintiff claims to have been harmed and the trial is held to discern if the claims have merit. In this case, no harm, no foul applies. In a criminal matter, the defendant is charged with actions perceived to be in violation of the law and punishable under the law. The trial is held to determine if the charges have merit and if they do, to hand down an appropriate sentence.
As I've pointed out many times already, Clinton's action were in violation of the law. The matter of lack of intent, though mentioned in the FBI report that there didn't appear to be any, is dubious at best. A person with Clinton's experience and in her position would know or should have known not to put top secret/special access information on an unprotected server. She did anyway. That's pretty simple intent.