That ruling doesn't support that assertion.
>“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012)
Additionally:
>“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012)
Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pd...]
>“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012)
Additionally:
>“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012)
Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pd...]