Trumps lawyers are telling us they have no defense in the secret document investigation.

[FBaggins]

62. No it didn't.

Jackson's ruling doesn't say that Clinton's tapes were marked as personal. Indeed, you won't find the word "marked" in the ruling at all.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834-0.pdf

While MSNBC is correct that the ruling distinguished presidential/personal (using the language of the statute)... it's also true that she said that

NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials.

Indeed, she appears to say (in footnote 2) that merely taking the recordings with him at the end of his presidency was proof that they were personal records. And then there's:

In the Court’s view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion

...snip...

Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.

Now - This is mostly dicta and not an appellate court or SCOTUS. It isn't precedent-setting. It merely shows that the common interpretation that PRA means that presidents can't take anything with them at all when they leave office because everything is a record and all of the records are the government's property... is not as cut and dried as some suggest. Non-MAGA judges have seen things in much the same way as TFG would like Cannon to see them.

I'm not saying that it necessarily wins in the end. But the reason that so many are pushing back hard on the special master ruling isn't less that it helps Trump win this argument. It's really that it moves the argument from occurring after an indictment (or even after a conviction on appeal) and puts all of that time-consuming constitutional maneuvering up in front of DOJ even being able to consider a prosecution.