ssification argument is bunk. And the idea is that Trump is claiming that he can declassify anything just by thinking it. I agree with that. So I agree with Trump's take that if there's no written law and it's up to the president, then he can do what he wants. But apparently during the Obama administration there was an executive order that was created that did give some guidelines about how to handle classified stuff. And apparently Trump did not follow those guidelines. But here's my question, not being a lawyer: Does a president have to follow an executive order? How does that work? It's an executive order. It's like the president's order. Now if it comes from a prior president, like I get it that that stays in place until it gets changed. But if you're talking about the president, does the president have to do what another president ordered, which the new president could reverse just by writing a piece of paper? Because if Trump didn't follow those executive orders, it's just a paperwork problem because he could have simply written on a piece of paper, I rescind this executive order, right? He had the full power to rescind it. I think it's an executive order. Yeah, they're not laws. And so if Trump ignored it, would that be breaking a law or is that ignoring an executive order that he could have made go away with a stroke of a pen? It looks like he just cut a corner. It doesn't look like the worst problem in the world.

Yeah. All right. Well, I just wanted you to hear that argument in case it comes up, because you're never going to hear it in the right-leaning press. But it doesn't look convincing to me. So here's my bottom line. You can't put my president, whether it's Biden or Trump or anybody else, you can't put my president in jail when lawyers can't agree what the law is. You can't. Will not happen. Will not happen. And furthermore, if the public isn't allowed to see these documents — I get why we're not allowed to see them — but you can't put them in jail if we can't see them. Now, I would be willing to allow that if Republicans have access to it, people who had security clearance, and it was a set of Republicans you could trust. You know, if you let your Thomas Massies in there or your Tom Cottons or people basically you would trust, if they said yeah, this is bad, you know, I hate to say it but we've looked at these documents and it's way worse than we thought, they would be, God admit they're bad. I believe that the Republicans would do that. I would trust them. Not everyone, not everyone, but there is a handful of Republicans that could have the right clearance that I would say all right, I don't need to know, but you know, and I'm going to take your word for it. I would go with that. But I'm definitely not going to listen to Democrats who say it's bad and they can't show it to