that former presidents are entitled to claim the privilege. now, whether it applies or not is a separate issue. >> exactly. but you're being clever. >> they're entitled to claim it -- no, i'm not, i'm reading the supreme court case. >> but you're not reading it in context. does a sitting president have the privilege of executive immunity? yes. in all cases? no. which is why the primary holding of nixon versus gsa was seizing and examining records related to a former president that was still in control of the executive branch does not violate the separation of powers. the privilege is not with the president -- excuse me -- is not for the benefit of the president as an individual but for the benefit of the republic, which means it has to make sense in context. he's not even a president. he's a former president. so when have you ever heard a former president assert the privilege successfully?