He is bad-mouthing Victoria Toensing's take on this...but from what I understand, Toesning helped WRITE the law, so she should know what it is...
and Larry Johnson is a Scott Ritter wannabe.
The divergence is on the facts. He provides a different set of facts, reaches the opposite conclusion.
Toensings point of view was expressed in the amicus brief filed on behalf of 39 media outlets - that brief argued "no crime"
IIRC, John Dean (?) some weasel anyway, had a theory that a different statue could be violated to get an underlying cause of action.
I don't even bother following this because I think it's pure media fudge.
Just because a person WRITES the law doesn't mean they UNDERSTAND it!