I'm John Bessie with Andrew McCarthy at a National Review online.

That is McCottie of American Greatness.

It comes to a law that was passed called Sarbanes-Oxley that has to do with financial irregularities.

And it reads thusly,

Whoever corruptly alters, destroys mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object,

or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding or

to otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall

be fined or imprisoned.

Andy, you're keen with the word otherwise,

otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes

any official proceeding. The common sense version of Sarbanes-Oxley that had

nothing to do with January 6th, didn't even imagine a January 6th, but certainly

not somebody going in through a door without being invited.

And yet now the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments that obstruction is a false charge

when it comes to the January 6th events and that will extend to Mr.

Mr. Trump's risk before the federal court, Mr. Smith's federal court,

because two of his charges I believe are obstruction.

How did you hear the oral arguments before the

Supreme Court in these last hours?

Well, John, I think otherwise is the word that we need to home in on because beginning with Justice Clarence Thomas

who asked the first questions in the oral argument he was riveted to the word

otherwise because really the case what the decision in the case here depends

...