So it's not the case that if documents are personal records - either judged to be by law or as a matter of jury determination - they don't have to be given back when asked? Could copies be made and those kept if the originals are returned?

Short answer: they probably have to be given back.

The relevant statute reads:

(e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

So, the Presidential Records Act dispute is over whether the bolded phrase - "unauthorized possession" - can be proven by the prosecution. But here's the thing - there's an exactly parallel subsection (18 USC 793(d)) that has the exact same language that applies to anyone "lawfully having possession...." of all that stuff as well. The defense is proceeding on a theory that if they can prove that Trump had lawful possession of the documents under their PRA case that section (e) doesn't apply (which is probably correct). Presumably, they also have an argument lined up that the PRA would mean that section (d) (as a lesser included offense) also doesn't apply (which I don't see).

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.