It's like saying because dogs don't go to jail for eating bones trump must be convicted. So yes I reject it as a relevant example

It's not trolling these are the exact arguments trumps lawyers are making.

That case has no presidential implications. It's not relevant at all. It establishes no precedent for a president.

You got me, found a gotcha. I mean convicted.

Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

It's been generally accepted that the president is not subject to his own executive orders because he can change them at will

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

As Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy wrote.

I will take my $500 in bitcoin thank you.