When classified documents were removed from Donald Trump’s possession at Mar-a-Lago, there was a great deal of alarm that the nation’s secrets could be treated so cavalierly. While the consternation continued after classified documents were found in President Biden’s residence and former offices, the line entered the discussion that government intel is often over-classified. Now that top secret documents have been found in former Vice President Mike Pence’s Indiana home, that line has taken on a life of its own.

Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg wants to put an end to that. We feature Rosenberg’s columns frequently — anytime he writes one, really. That’s because he has extensive experience with the issues of the day unlike some commentators (Tucker Carlson and Joy Reid spring to mind for some unknowable reason), and he applies his principles evenly to both political parties unlike other commentators (Chris Hayes and Laura Ingraham spring to mind for other unknowable reasons). Rosenberg brings each of these qualities to bear in his terrific analysis of document classification. Summarizing his points would only dilute them, which we don’t wish to do. We do, however, wish to remark on how refreshing it is to have an actual expert’s take on events. Where even more commentators (Hannity, O’Donnell, Gutfeld, Maddow) seek to weaponize issues, Rosenberg’s goal is to illuminate them. While we’d never typically encourage a person to watch any of the personalities listed above, we would challenge you tonight to seek out the ones you see yourself agreeing with most. Compare their analysis to Rosenberg’s and ask yourself how constructive it really was. Did they appeal to reason or emotion? Did they offer clarity or talking points? Do you already know the answers without watching? 

If we’re going to engage in meaningful discussions, we need to stop consuming frivolous commentary. We need to seek out experts, not showmen, to help us form our opinions. Rosenberg’s column — fair-minded, well-informed, deeply nuanced — is definitive proof why.