Removal of classified documents is a crime. One would be accidental, but fifty...big problem. Destruction of government property is a crime. Intent will be important to defense and prosecution. Selective destruction is hard to define as "inadvetant".
Presuming guilt, whether he was acting on his own behalf or for someone else will be of great importance. Commiting a felony on behalf of another after discussion is called conspiracy. That too is a felony with heavy penalties.
I don't think he would have done it on his own, frankly. He was so brazen and blatant about it that he obviously thought he was protected, probably thought that the archivists weren't going to report his activities because they knew who had sent him.
IIRC, one of his initial "explanations" was that they were Clinton's papers and therefore Clinton or anybody working for Clinton had a right to them. However, I don't think it's likely that we're ever going to be informed of that connection. Like most of Clinton's co-conspirators in other criminal activities, I'm sure his lips are and will remain sealed.
I hope they have copies of the docs to prove this part...
Berger clearly had intent to steal the documents, every last one of them.
Once that first document leaves the table and finds its way down the reader's pants, it's not classifiable as an accident.
Berger, thank the good Lord, is no Houdini.
Former Judge Napolitano on Fox said that he could get 6 years per document (300 years) or 10 years per document (500 years) if they involved National Security. He said the burgular is in a heap of trouble since most of the docs pertained to the Clinton Administration's knowledge of Osama.