what this lawsuit is saying is that it has to be replaced with somebody who can actually be an attorney general, otherwise, whatever actions this person takes in the course of the lawsuit are meaningless, that ultimately this person, whitaker, cannot act as attorney general because it's a violation of the constitution. he's a principal officer that has to be approved by the u.s. senate. it also doesn't comport with the attorney general -- the u.s. justice department vacancy law, that the next person in line would have to be rosenstein. >> isn't this suit unlikely to prevail in the end in federal court? >> i'm not so sure about that. i've read this brief. and it's -- it sits some pretty sound law. i think the question is, who substitutes for jeff sessions? he was the prior party in this lawsuit, the defendant.