I'm not "ignoring" your statements regarding the Espionage Act -- I'm just pointing out that the president is in a different position than literally anyone else who could be charged with it as I'll describe below, so your statements don't apply in the way you think they do. Also, I'm not moving any goalposts. My statements have consistently been and remain the following:

1) The president has a right to possess and declassify ANY exec branch document that he likes while president.
2) The president is allowed to retain ALL of his personal records when he leaves office.
3) The president has SOLE discretion in determining which records are personal.

If 1-3 are correct, then the president/former president cannot be convicted of Espionage because ANY document in his possession is rightfully his as a personal record, and therefore the willfullness element AND the unauthorized possession element of the crime cannot be proven. How could it be otherwise?

The folks pushing back on this conclusion (which is fair -- and I'm not being close-minded here) would not dispute my first and second claims, so that leaves a dispute over only the third claim. And here the Convict-Trump folks would say that the records Trump had were not personal, so the PRA doesn't protect him. THIS is the point at which I start to get interested in the PRA in the context of this case. Remember -- I didn't raise the PRA. The Trump detractors did.

The PRA explicitly states that presidents can retain personal records. This is implicit in the Constitution, IMO, but it is explicit in the PRA. It states that the president is the one who separates "personal" from "presidential" records. And it provides no standard of review, nor any enforcement mechanism, to bring to bear on a recalcitrant president.

To claim that Trump is guilty, therefore, you must claim that it's because the records he had were not personal since the president indisputably has the right to retain his personal records -- he can't be convicted of unauthorized possession of something he was authorized to possess. This is axiomatic.

Further, to claim that they were not personal, you have to prove that someone other than the president gets to make the determination on which of a president's records are personal and which aren't. To do so, you MUST identify that person AND identify the authority on which they are relying to override the president's discretion. This is what neither you nor anyone else can do.

I am generally interested in your response here: Who has the power to overrule a president's decision over records he categorizes as personal, and what is their authority to do so?

As an aside, I am only claiming that the PRA might/would be declared unconstitutional if someone actually answered my questions because that answer would require either 1) placing a subordinate in the executive branch above the president and/or 2) placing a separate, co-equal branch of government above the executive. Either option is unconstitutional, IMO. Assuming you haven't done so, you should read the Clinton "Socks Drawer" case. It's an interesting read and touches on some of these quandaries.