based your entire argument on the bogus interpretation of a Clinton activist judge, and some link to a university that doesn't even contain the full contents of the law.
What part of what I highlighted in post #103 do you not take as being part of my argument?
And the Clinton activist judge apparently understands Article II Section 1 of the Constitution more than you do. Which is why she allows the Chief Executive to determine what a president can take as a personal record, instead of a law, written by a Democrat House and Senate and signed off by Jimmy Carter.
LOL!
Silly argument, Presidents are still bound by laws, even while President. They may choose to break them, but they can still be punished for that by impeachment, and/or trial after leaving office.
A good example is Air Force One. While that is an Executive Branch Asset, Trump does not have the ultimate authority to break laws regarding it’s use. He would not be allowed to order it be delivered to Moscow, or to pilot it himself for a joy ride, as there are laws governing who can pilot that plane. If he tried he could face impeachment, and trial after leaving office for breaking the laws that govern that plane, and there are countless ones. Sure, he can order it to take him places, but he can not legally order a pilot to land it in a corn field for kicks, there are laws against that, whether it is an executive branch asset or not.
A lot of you have this fantasy about Trump being our king, that everyone must bow before but that is simply not the case. He is still subject to our laws even while in office. One of those laws is the Presidential Records Act.