<< It was “sort of whatever he wants to grab for whatever reason,” Mr. Bolton said. “He may not even fully appreciate” precisely why he did certain things. >>

Indeed.

Agreed.  But we were talking specifically about the handling of documents, which led to the Mar-a-Lago search.  Jan 25 is a completely separate matter.

If we're looking at the totality of everything they've both ever done, there's no comparison.  Trump is worse by far.

IMO, This is not quite as clear cut as the author of the article suggests

Berger cut a deal.  Here are the facts he admitted to in the plea agreement:

 - Using his security clearance, Berger accessed classified documents at the National Archive.

 - Berger concealed and removed 5 classified documents.

 - At his apartment, Berger destroyed 3 of the documents.

 - When contacted by the National Archive after they noticed the documents were missing, Berger lied about having removed them, and claimed he had merely "misfiled" them at the Archive.

Berger later returned the remaining two documents and admitted what he had done, but by that time he'd been caught.  

These facts are enough to establish all of the elements of 18 USC 2071, and possibly Section 1519.  He could easily have been charged with violating statutes other than Section 1924.  All of these statutes share common elements.

"Hillary was never charged but the allegations against her also revolved around §1924."

That is absolutely correct, but again, based on the factual allegations against Hilary, a number of statutes could have been used as the basis of the investigation.   

For example, all that is required to prove a violation of 18 USC 2071 is that the accused removed or destroyed a government record. That definition is easily broad enough to include any work related e-mail.  The document doesn't even have to be classified.

The difference between Sections 1924 and 2071 is that 1924 addresses removal of documents, whereas 2071 addresses removal or destruction.  However, since Clinton was accused of deleting electronic records, she could potentially have been charged with either.

Section 1519 contains one additional element- that the removal or destruction of a document was done with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence an investigation.

Here, investigators could have chosen to use that statute, because the accusation was that some e-mails were deleted that pertained to Benghazi, for the purpose of covering up information relevant to that investigation.

Let me pause here to clarify that I'm not suggesting Clinton was guilty of this. Thats a whole other topic.  What we're comparing are accusations, and how they were investigated.  As you pointed out, she was never charged.  And so far, Trump has not been charged.  

Among the statutes you referenced,18 USC 793 is the one that is potentially the most meaningfully different from 18 USC 1924, in that most of the provisions of that statute involve the transmission of classified information to a third party in a way that injures the United States, or gives an advantage to another country.

But some subsections don't go that far.  For example, a person violates 18 USC 793(e) if he "willfully retains" any document which "could be used to the injury of the United States" regardless of whether the document was actually shared with any third party.

Since the Court has not revealed the supporting affidavit attached to the Trump search warrant, we don't know what Trump could be accused of with regard to Section 793, and we probably won't know for quite some time. 

Similarly, its hard to say whether this was ever a potential charge with regard to Clinton, because we still don't know (and probably never will know) what was in the e-mails that were classified as Top Secret Special Access.  

I don't think releasing the entire document is realistically on the table.  The judge is likely trying to decide whether there is any portion that could be released without compromising the investigation.

We'll likely get a very heavily redacted version that doesn't really tell us anything that hasn't already been revealed in the actual warrant.

But Trump isn't just the latest ethical morass he's dropped his fat ass into during one news cycle; he's an accumulated total of every thing he's done outside of the norm since he first stepped on that escalator back in 2015.  He's literally the elephant the blind men are trying to describe in fragments.  Engaging in any type of discussion that doesn't begin and end with the fact that he's a singularly terrible man and a genuine fascist as a political leader misses the point of him entirely.

^^^Good vibes and thoughts coming your way, Rebecca^^^

That's what happens when you have a reputation for completely ignoring your lawyers' advice and not paying them.....