That ties into the overall point of the comment that the person using the backdoor may not be the one who created/mandated it, i.e. one president that people trust mandates a backdoor but never uses it improperly, but the next president after them is more unscrupulous and uses that backdoor for nefarious purposes, effectively piggy-backing on the trust of the previous president.
The point is that it might not be appropriate to give someone the keys to the castle even if you trust them completely not to abuse that power, because people don't last forever in a position and that power will eventually pass to a successor who may be less trustworthy.
This is an important approach to this problem. If you attack a hypothetical future leader, everyone can picture someone that might be worse, whether or not they like the current leader. It's a good way of avoid being dismissed over partisan concerns.
This seems to be a pretty big blind spot for our two-party system here. Every president I can remember has set precedent by using some rule/loophole in the powers granted to the Executive Branch and then their party gets bent out of shape when the next president uses that same technique to do something they don't like.
Doing the 'right thing' the wrong way just conditions the American public toward accepting an autocracy. While particularly bad for one party, it's not great for either of them, and certainly not for the citizenry.
I laughed out loud reading this. This is a great, very clear explanation (though I think you may be responding to a joke). Can I get you to write my comments from now on? :)
Current president isn't intelligent enough to pull the political maneuvers to pull this one off -- even his base would be up in arms. You can't say "bigly cyber" and click your heels three times and get back doors.
