...anything other than a passing fashion by simply noting that a president can declassify anything he likes. I only did this to bring to light the absolute power that a president has over all executive branch documents.

That said, I agree that neither the PRA nor the Espionage Act -- nor Jack Smith's subpoena and indictment, for that matter -- reference classified documents as being part of the crime here, so "classification" is moot in that regard. That is a misconception of many on the left -- "Drumpf stole classified documents and never formally declassified them!!!" -- but they are wrong. Whether the docs were declassified is immaterial to the case, and I never claimed otherwise.

Moving on, I don't know how to make my argument any clearer than I already have:
1) Presidents are AUTHORIZED to possess any doc they like while they are president.
2) Presidents are AUTHORIZED to take their personal docs with them when they leave office.
3) Presidents are AUTHORIZED to determine which of their records are personal.
4) Based on 1-3 above, ANY doc could be deemed a personal record by the president, giving him AUTHORIZED possession of it and -- just as importantly -- forbidding anyone else from being entitled to it.

The first two statements are simply indisputable. The only way to dispute the third is by claiming that there is some other person/entity in the government whose power supercedes the president in the categorization of his records in the context of the PRA I keep asking who that could be, and you keep not answering it. And I think the reason why is because there is no such other nor could there be. Hence, the president decides.

With respect to PRESIDENTS ONLY, then, the Espionage Act and PRA are in conflict. You say that the Espionage Act prohibits the WILLFUL and UNAUTHORIZED possession of national defense docs. That is true. BUT WHAT IS ALSO TRUE is that the PRA AUTHORIZES former presidents to possess whatever documents they deem as personal. So, if a former president is AUTHORIZED to possess personal records, then how could the president be in unauthorized possession of those same records? Answer: They can't, so the Espionage charge fails.

The only way that a president could be in unauthorized possession would be if there is some other authority that could tell a president how to categorize his records. It's up to you to name that authority because you are the one claiming that it must be so.

As a side note, I would point out that even if I were wrong about all of the above, Trump still believes or could reasonably have believed that the the PRA 1) did authorize him to possess the docs in question AND 2) means that no other entity was entitled to them. Thus, even if the argument is wrong, his belief in it (and surely he was advised by counsel to that effect) annihilates the willfully/knowingly element of the Espionage crime. Case closed.

I'm happy to keep conversing, but realize we've gone on awhile here. Just want to say that I appreciate your comments.