and upheld time after time against individuals accused of unauthorized possession of national security documents. You can continue to ask this question, but you are just ignorong the answer because yoi dont like it. It is quite interesting that you have referenced the PRA in some contexts as meaningless and "probably even unconstitutional" --- yet, when you say a former President has essentially unlimited authority to define any document as personal -- you must be referencing the PRA because I don't know any other law or regulation that even discusses the "personal paper" distinction. You really do seem to move any goalpost or adjust any argument to fit an outcome you think is the right one. Sorry, this is just my observation.

You seem to be arguing one primary thing -- that this provision in the Espionage Act cannot apply to a former President based on some notion of "plenary powers" and/or how you think a President can by personal edict or even just thought make himself authorized to possess any document he wants privately for the rest of his life. That LAHoo is not a burden for me to disprove -- that is something that you have to affirmatively prove --- why the Espionage Act simply cannot apply, for example, to a former President in a situation exactly like this when we have an individual who seems to believe he is authorized to privately possess for the rest of his life any national security document he so chooses. I dont think Trump is even arguing this is like a personal diary like you seem to be nor does the Espionage Act turn solely on exact classification of every document.