One issue, among many, is that it doesn't appear to be consistent with the willful retention as defined. Had they asked for specific documents and there was a failure to deliver within an timeframe, that may be plausible.

However the subpoena issued on May 11, 2022 was a blanket order requesting a search and transfer of "any" document that "might" exist with 1 of 31 different possible labels.

Failure to locate 31 documents out of an approximated 87,000 with the 89 days he was given without knowledge of this timeline is not going to hold up. That's 0.000359 percent and well within a margin of error reasonably expected of a human being (which is approximately 1%).

In additional to this, there's 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.D.C. 2012) which pretty much appears to sink the entire case with relevant support from Public Law 85-745 (3 U.S.C. § 102 note) (b) and (Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 )(1988), and supporting statutes 18 USC 22 §2203(g)(2), 18 USC 22 §2205(2)(a)-(c), 18 USC 22 §2203(g)(1), 44 U.S.C. 22 § 2203(f), and 44 U.S.C. 22 § 2205(3)

That said, I do agree with you on the comparisons with Hilary, they are completely different situations.