Hence if some pea brain of an autocratic president patently violates his constitutional oath by trampling on your constitutional rights, and you in fact can prove it, you in fact can't prove it, because you can't "provide evidence that [you] are personally subject" to the patently unconstitutional violation, because the violator is permitted to claim that your proving it would be harmful to national security, which he happens to be dismantling by trampling on your First and Fourth Amendment rights, which is absurdly illegal, which you can prove, which is why you sued in the first place, but the president's illegality against you is protected by his greater illegality against the nation. Got it?
Oh. I'm getting it all right. So are we all. A kiss and some lube would be nice.