That's al upthread attempting to use my arguments against me. He's the one saying "it would be a crime"...and that includes the reporter.

No, you misunderstand.

The argument that people made alleging that Clinton committed a crime was that she deliberately chose to transact work on and have work-related information sent to a non-secure server, and therefore was responsible when it turned out that classified information ended up on that non-secure server. I've pointed out to you several times that this argument is wrong because the specific language in the criminal statutes doesn't cover it. But if someone accepted that argument - as you did - it would mean that participants like Rubio and Wiles and the others would be criminally responsible, since they had deliberately chosen to transact official work on unsecured devices.

None of that would include the reporter, who should not have anticipated that simply being a Signal user would result in him being included - by accident - in a group chat with the cabinet-level national security team of the U.S. government discussing national defense information.