You're right. I'm wrong. So I'll go ahead and move the goalposts
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
I did a quick 5-minute search and couldn't find out if NARA is considered "guidelines" or "law", or what penalties violations carry. I'm more inclined to consider violations an oversight rather than intentional obfuscation, considering what was found in the released emails. The alternative is that the Clintons used their server for evil for years, then became squeaky clean after an arbitrary date for which we have leaked data.
Your laundry list of other laws isn't very compelling without evidence. Those are the laws she's accused of breaking, by people who haven't been able to gather enough evidence to make a case.
To convince me that Hillary is guilty of anything more than "being bad at email", you're going to have to produce a lot more. As I said, she may have technically performed "illegal acts", but I've yet to see a piece of evidence suggesting she's anything more than an aging bureaucrat who made some technical mistakes. Nothing that rises to the level of bribery or corruption being accused.