And all those cases against Trump were on the solidest of solid legal footing, amirite?

Solid enough to pass a motion to dismiss, yes.

I'm not going to litigate this here with you. I know what the NDA's they sign say, and I know what they've done to lesser humans in the past. All of that was on the table for Herself...

No, it wasn't. Again, the difference between "lesser humans" and the Secretary of State is that there's almost nothing in the world that the Secretary doesn't have clearance to view and possess. The criminal laws governing classified information are easier for lower-level government employees to violate, because there's less that they're allowed to do with classified information. Once you get up to the highest levels of clearance, though, there's a very narrow universe of actual criminal statutes that you can actually break. Clinton didn't break any of those.

You don't want to litigate it, because in the past when we've discussed this you prefer to just ignore the details of the statutes and assume that if something was wrong (either in this case or in other contexts), it must therefore be criminally prosecutable against Clinton. That's simply not the case. Federal classification of information is mostly a creature of Executive Order (which constitutionally can't support a criminal case); only certain aspects of it were actually incorporated into the criminal code, and there's lots of things that break the rules that aren't actually crimes.

...and Trump passed. He didn't have to.

He did. There was nothing he could have done other than pass. Had he directed DOJ to bring charges, they would have been dismissed out of hand - and possibly resulted in sanctions against whatever AG filed them.