Regarding relevance -- you continue to focus only on "classification" of any given document. I'm pretty sure the Espionage Act does not make reference to classification. It references whether a person is authorized to personally posses a document that has relevance to national security. Maybe it is classified, maybe not, maybe it was but isnt now or still could be declassified. Classification isnt some litmus test - you dont need to harp on this. Yes, the President has wide powers with classification. This us different as a former President still being allowed to posses certain documents that are not his right to have. But while on the subject -- did you know for example that there are in fact some documents (outlined in Atomic Energy statutues I believe) that a President cannot unilaterally declassify without some additional procedures? I'm not suggesting Trump had any such documents -- no idea and probably not -- but just an example that your sweeping "this is 100% the way it is" statement isnt fully accurate.

Yes, the President is allowed to retain anything deemed a personal document after he leaves office. No argument

On the substance and #3 - You remain completely mistaken imo with this notion that a President can obviously deem any possible document as something personal as if it is a type of personal diary or personal record and therefore obviously fine for him to retain. This is an absolutely false statement and frankly, its an absurd notion. Whether he unethically declassifies something or not -- do you think the President truly has the power to retain a list of undercover CIA operatives in his house and then try and claim "Hey, I declassified this whether you like it or not AND I am authorized to retain it personally after my term because I was the President and I am calling it a personal record". You can't possibly believe this. And it is is not some "technically" winning argument to say "you may not like it, but a President has the absolute power to do this as bestowed under the Constitution". Where? How? Because you say so? He doesn't and we have a statute with the Espionage Act that is an absolutely legitimate means by which the government can go after anybody saying they are not authorized to retain some documents. Is there some enumerated exception in the Espionage Act saying it cannot apply to a former President? No - why should there be.