I don't think you can say definitively that the server Hillary Clinton used to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests and to stymie congressional oversight was "never hacked". Even in the article you linked disgraced and fired FBI Director James Comey admitted:

"FBI did not find direct evidence that the sever had been successfully hacked though he also acknowledged that, 'GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM AND OF THE ACTORS POTENTIALLY INVOLVED,' IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNLIKELY FOR THE BUREAU TO FIND SUCH DIRECT EVIDENCE [emphasis mine]."

You allege that Hillary "… didn't have physical copies of classified documents at her home". But, that's not true according to this article from the Daily Mail. Not only were physical copies of classified information at her home, but those classified documents were printed by her housekeeper who did not have clearance. That housekeeper reportedly also had access to the Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) where she "collected documents from the secure facsimile machine" according to FBI notes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910326/Clinton-instructed-housekeeper-print-emails-including-classified-materials-Washington-residence.html

So, while there is no evidence in the public domain that any of President Trump's party guests without clearances had access to any of the classified information at Mar-a-Lago, reported FBI evidence indicates uncleared individuals DEFINITELY had access to the classified information Hillary Clinton grossly mishandled.

As far as I can recall, no information was ever presented over whether Hillary Clinton held "large parties" where people could have gained access to the server. But, access to the classified information she grossly mishandled was infinitely more likely to be compromised. An adversary didn't need to physically be in the same location as her unsecured server. They could be anywhere in the world and have accessed the information over the Internet.

Since 2016, the media ran with every negative story about President Trump attributed to "persons in the know" or "government officials" or other anonymous sources. By and large, those stories were never corroborated or often denied, on the record, by people who were provably present during the alleged acts. You indicate people shouldn't be skeptical about things the former President is accused of and use as an example the accusation he assaulted a Secret Service agent when they refused to take him to the Capitol after his speech January 6, 2021. You link to a CNN article that indicates Secret Service sources would corroborate that allegation.

But, there are alleged conflicting Secret Service sources like in this Newsweek article that indicate Secret Service Agents would testify, under oath, to "… dispute Trump grabbed the steering wheel or assaulted an agent". The source, Newsweek, is hardly a right wing publication or supporter of President Trump.

https://www.newsweek.com/three-denials-cassidy-hutchinsons-explosive-trump-testimony-1720338

To my knowledge, the Secret Service agents have never actually testified under oath about what happened that day. However, given the history of alleged acts by President Trump related second-hand that turned out to be false, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is prudent in this case.

I like that you broke down the hierarchy of classifications used by the government. Based on a lot of things I read here on "Medium", most people are ignorant about this stuff. "Restricted" is not an official government classification based on my Air Force experience. As I recall, the closest thing would be "For Official Use Only". Since it's not an official classification, the difference between FOUO and the actual classifications is that something being FOUO is not one of the things that would allow the government to keep the information out of Freedom of Information Act request responses.

Based on reporting I've seen, not all the documents recovered by the FBI were "Top Secret". Some were lower classifications. That doesn't make it any better. Reporting would seem to indicate none of the classified documents were stored properly. The former President and anyone on his staff holding a clearance with access to the classified documents should have known better and be held accountable.

While I agree the motive for having and holding the classified information is important, I'm not aware of any evidence made public that even hints that President Trump intended to or was selling access to that information. It's also not clear into what "compartments" the Top Secret documents fit.

Did the Top Secret documents only fall into Specially Compartmented Information (SCI) or were any classified as Special Access Programs (SAP) like some of the information on Hillary Clinton's unsecured server. Top Secret SAP is the highest government classification of which I'm aware.

Given the precedent set by the Obama DOJ with regard to Hillary Clinton's gross mishandling of classified information in 2016 up to and including information classified at the highest levels, absent any provable ulterior motives, once the classified information is recovered for the National Archives, neither President Trump nor any of his staff should be tried, admonished, or sanctioned in any way.

Personally, as a minimum, I think those who grossly mishandled classified information, whether as part of Hillary Clinton's staff or President Trump's staff, they should lose their security clearance. However, given the Clinton precedent (which I think was overtly political), absent an ulterior criminal motive, it should be impossible for Merrick Garland's DOJ to pursue any criminal charges or sanctions against President Trump or his staff in this matter. To do so given the Clinton precedent would also be overtly political and he promised his DOJ would not be influenced by politics. That is, if you can still or ever believed that…