on some "plenary authority" you say he has at the top of the executive branch? Do you understand that a clear law exists that does exactly this? What is the actual purpose of that law if in fact a President has the authority to have anything they want? This is like saying "nobody can tell a person they can't commit first degree murder". I mean, I guess someone can say those words -- but it is against the plain letter of the law.

"If you think it through, you'll come to the same conclusion"??? Is this like saying "These are not the Droids you are looking for"?

The Clinton "Socks Drawer" case is mostly a discussion about a President's personal papers vs. official government documents --- a specific aspect of the Presidential Records Act. What you just wrote about a President "obviously" having authority over anything they want --- this would render the Presidential Records Act completely meaningless. Are you trying to argue that law is obviously unconstitutional? If you want to argue that everything in Trump's possession -- which he was asked to return on numerous occasions without likely threat of action but refused -- was in fact by definition part of his "personal papers" as defined by the Presidential Records Act -- wow, ok.