the u.s. governmentu. and there was great concern about obstructing the process. could this leak be interpreted to be the attempt to obstruct the process, the deliberative action of the court or is this too much of a reach here? i thinkre it s too much of i a reach and i even think although i agree with chris, t that the two statutes he referenced 18 usc 641 in 1995 are enough to get thei fbi in the door and to provide jurisdiction to look into it. they re not by any means even if they find out who didns if they find out who didns means a slam dunksl. there are a lot of questions involved as to whether or notoet this would be a thing of value,. certainly enough to get started. i think the chief wants to start in-house and he wants to h start, you know, in a measured kind of way. s and i don t think there s o a separation of powers legal
be running around within be running around within clerks and staff and justices themselves if it s not appropriate for congress to exercise its legislative powers with regard to those standards. okay, now it s ironic that senator whitehouse, one of the loudest voices advocating the fbi look lic to every ridiculous kavanaugh accusation is suddenly saying, oh, no, that s not appropriate. fbi involvement in the court now here now is sol wisenberg, former deputy independent counseleirm for fox news contributor and chris swecker, a former assistant director at the fbi. chris , i ll start with you. why might the fbi have jurisdiction here? er well,e laura , there s at least two federal laws that i thinkra mayl have been violated. one is the 18 usc 641, which is theft of government property, which includes records. and these are these i presume41u