just not my speculation as to what s going on. the letter that was given to the court by the justice department as part of this affidavit and it s attached. you can read it. it s in may of 2022, and it s by mr. corcoran to the justice department actually says that the president cannot violate the criminal laws involving classified information. that s the title of one of his sections. upon there s the law, of course, doesn t support the proposition, but that is the kind of thing that you can see donald trump himself writing. that should be your lead point, and i can t break the law because i essentially am the law. his surrogates have been on tv making that point. the affidavit analyzes the lame defenses and we ll ignore them for a minute, but what the affidavit emphasizes, frank
voted with dp democrats to pass this. the big question now becomes, will the department of justice act? so far, this will be the third and fourth criminal contempt referrals the january 6 select committee sent to the attorney general. a he acted on one for steve bannon who has been indicted. they have been sitting for week oweeks on the one for marked me doze. the attorney general was asked to comment on that. this is another question as to whether the criminal contempt referrals carry any weight, especially once they get to the department of justice. the committee wants to demonstrate that if you defy an act of the congress that there are serious consequences. something along this line could lead to a fine, even a year in jail. it will be up to the department
deputy attorney general should become the acting attorney general. they would now say that this later law overrides this department of justice act. but if it was intended to override the law of the department of justice, it would have specifically said so. and let me say the act as written is a mess. it is a messy act. i will say i ve dug into this for a couple of days, and there is a plausible argument that just based on the text of this messy act you could read it this is the vacancy. the vacancy, yes.
and they call it a cross-reference. and because the broader whitaker act cross-references the doj, it means the congress meant it to supercede or apply to the doj act. the doj act was passed long before the vacancies reforms act. there s no way the doj act could cross refer to something that wasn t passed until 20 years later. in the original law the department of justice outlined a line of succession in an attorney general vacancy. that s right. and it would specify the deputy attorney general should become the acting attorney general. they would now say that this later law overrides this department of justice act. but if it was intended to override the law of the department of justice, it would have specifically said so. and let me say the act as written is a mess. it is a messy act. i will say i ve dug into this for a couple of days, and there is a plausible argument that just based on the text of this messy act you could read it this is the vacancy. the vacancy, yes.