say it is very strong disagreement. In my opinion, you continue to state things at basic "matter of facts" that are the opposite of what I believe is fairly plain reality -- and then you base arguments on your statement of such "facts".

There is a different discussion that can still be had about technical document declassification and Presidential authority over classification. But -- unless I'm completely mistaken -- the Espionage act for example doesn't turn on this exact point. It is about "willful and unauthorized possession" of documents related to national defense that could be used to hurt the U.S. or help a foreign country. This is where something like the PRA can have meaning because we have a nearly 50 year old constitutional statute that among other things, helps define what a (former) President is "authorized" to retain as personal documents vs. what is simply not his property under any reasonable interpretation -- whether it currently classified, was classified, was formally declassified, was declassified by "thought", etc... You are conflating different concepts to make an argument and making it way more complicated than it is in reality.

You are also simply incorrect that if looking at the PRA as some guide that a former President has a reasonable argument that he has complete authorized authority to retain essentially any kind of document as he leaves office by merely saying the words or even just "thinking" -- "these are all personal documents". Under the PRA, he has authorization to retain reasonably argued personal documents and I'm sorry, it's ludicrous to suggest that a former President can argue by personal edict that absolutely any and every possible document "magically" can be defined as purely personal work product simply by saying so or thinking it. There is no basis for thinking this is some constitutionally accepted principle and it doesn't turn on classified vs declassified status. But again, this is just using the PRA as a guide about authorization.

There have been and I'm sure will continue to be other prosecutions over unauthorized retention of documents under Espionage Act authority of individuals in the government -- whether a former President or someone lower in the chain. Trump isn't the first and he won't be the last. Suggesting that it is "obvious" that a President is somehow completely different and under some understanding of what sure sounds like essentially boundless "plenary powers" or "Constitutional mandate" or should be completely immune to this -- I'm sorry, this sounds almost absurd. It doesn't mean that there isn't some other argument that may exist or that you don't believe "in your heart" that Trump is being treated 'unfairly'" --- but that is different than him not being under a reasonable obligation regarding unauthorized retention of documents that are not his or not even close to any universe of a definition of "personal papers".

And you do show more colors when you lob in "as an aside" that the notion of any kind of "obstruction" is a sideshow. What does "obstruction" mean if it doesn't potentially apply to a situation where there are multiple efforts made for document retrieval and how Trump to respond. Trump can argue that his refusal was justified all he wants, but it is at least as reasonable for the government to suggest his efforts were in no way reasonable and the very definition of legal "obstruction". I don't know enough about every last detail of the overall battle, but it isn't some "sideshow". When an individual chooses the path that Trump chose in this case, you better be ready for someone to suggest that path has been completely unreasonable to the point of legal obstruction. You don't automatically win that just because of what you "think".