Ah, got it. OK - here's how I interpret that, FWIW. Certain documents are indeed illegal to possess; I'm sure you would agree it's illegal to possess top secret military documents, as an example. But more generally, it is illegal to possess any document marked by the government or military as 'classified'. So in that context, if these documents were deemed / marked / stamped 'classified', then it's a true statement that it is illegal to possess them (or traffic in them). Wikileaks intentionally released thousands of classified docs, some benign, some actually damaging to the government. The Emails in question (Clintons) were deemed classified because she was SOS at the time.
But I agree, the CNN context was kinda bogus; and Cuomo is s dick.

If some 'citizen journalist' got his/her hands on a truly top secret military doc that revealed that the US was about to invade China, for example, and leaked it out on some YT channel (and blew the cover of the op), I would expect everyone would be quite happy for that person to be arrested / charged. My point being - documents being illegal seems reasonable to me in some contexts.

My last paragraph above wasn't a critique at all on your letter, of course - it was just something that was triggered in my mind when I read your words. And to add to it, I have friends who are doctors, friends who are biologists, Chemists, etc. I've known them since I was at University with them - 40 years ago, so I trust them explicitly. When I talk to them about some of the stuff being discussed here (in relation to vaccines), by self-described experts, they pretty much fall off their chair laughing. This notion that the vaccines are mind-controlling, or location tracking, is just completely nuts to them. But can they DISPROVE it? No. And that raises yet another issue - it's virtually impossible to prove a negative. It came up on another thread that John Roberts is a pedo. My question in response is, how could he ever PROVE he was NOT a pedo? If I accused you of being a pedo, how would YOU go about proving that I was wrong? Once I make that accusation, I've potentially damaged your reputation and nothing you do or say can recover it, despite the total false nature of the accusation. These are the things that really bother me about today's 'everyone is an expert' mentality.

Ah, got it. OK - here's how I interpret that, FWIW. Certain documents are indeed illegal to possess; I'm sure you would agree it's illegal to possess top secret military documents, as an example. But more generally, it is illegal to possess any document marked by the government or military as 'classified'. So in that context, if these documents were deemed / marked / stamped 'classified', then it's a true statement that it is illegal to possess them (or traffic in them). Wikileaks intentionally released thousands of classified docs, some benign, some actually damaging to the government. The Emails in question (Clintons) were deemed classified because she was SOS at the time.
But I agree, the CNN context was kinda bogus; and Cuomo is s dick.

If some 'citizen journalist' got his/her hands on a truly top secret military doc that revealed that the US was about to invade China, for example, and leaked it out on some YT channel (and blew the cover of the op), I would expect everyone would be quite happy for that person to be arrested / charged. My point being - documents being illegal seems reasonable to me in some contexts.