Apukerma:
I addressed your flawed statement in another post. Just because you can come up with a novel legal theory, it doesn’t shield from seizure. If someone is arrested for carjacking, he could argue that it’s really his car. Or he could show he had the legal right because he did it to rescue someone from a burning building. If law enforcement doesn’t buy it, he can bring up at trial. Otherwise you could never arrest a car jacker.
Contrary to what Trump claims, the FBI has been trying to work the issue of classified docs with Trump for months. If Trump had a good legal argument or evidence that he was within his rights, the DOJ would have dropped everything. Or if it was even a sketchy argument, he could have sought a declaratory judgment. He did not.
Trump lost 60-something cases last year on “novel” legal interpretations. Don’t hold your breath. Perhaps you didn’t see my post to you on this earlier, but if you’ll have to address this as a matter of your credibility.