to know who he might get away with that position that would be most inclined to share his view of the investigation. the president being dishonest is not a rare thing. it's a daily if hourly thing. of course, i don't believe that at all. i think this was not only was it done for the reason of keeping an option on eroding -- you don't need to end the investigation. whittaker could simply cut the budget of the investigation. there is no question in my mind that the timing and orchestration of this acting attorney general was directed very fispecifically by the president to keep an option. >> he could step in the way of indictments and step in the way of subpoenas which is why i ask you if you have seen evidence. in theory, he does have that power which is why some senate democrats filed a lawsuit declaring his appointment as attorney general unconstitutional saying that such an appointment requires senate confirmation. do you think their lawsuit has