Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show podcast.

Kicking off the third hour of Clay Ann Buck right now and we're joined by Andy McCarthy.

He was just with us earlier this week. He is of Fox News and National Review and formerly of the Southern District of New York where he was a prosecutor for, I think it was 23 years, if I get that right right I'm close to it.

Andy, thank you for being back with us.

The Supreme Court has made a move and it could be big for Trump among other individuals.

What can you tell us about, first first of all what's the court doing

and what does it mean? Andy? In uh... I want to say about uh... probably less than a year ago, maybe around a year ago.

The DC Circuit got three of these, maybe it was more than three, capital riot cases where what the defendants

claimed was that the statute, the obstruction statute, did not apply to their behavior and that it was in any event unconstitutionally vague.

And this claim, and I will get to why if you want me to but I think Trump has a better one than they had

This claim so bolloxed the DC circuit the three judge panel issued each judge issued an opinion and it was hard to tell at the

end of it for which opinion was the majority opinion that's how split they were on the statute. And one of the judges was a very good

judge, Greg Katz, a Trump appointee who's a solid conservative lawyer I think worked in the Bush

Justice Department but he pointed out that the way the statute is written the nub of it is the word corruptly which is such a vague term that if you don't have some

objective limitations on it, it invites all kinds of prosecutorial mischief.

So their claim was that the obstruction statute is essentially about things that you would do to destroy or tamper with evidence at a proceeding like witness tampering or fiddling with

documents and that sort of thing and there's a very broad provision in it that

that says you know otherwise corruptly obstructs and what they were arguing was the

only way you can read otherwise there is in conjunction with the things that go to evidence tampering.

And it doesn't apply in a case where the claim is that basically the riot prevented the congressional proceeding from

happening at all that it's not really an evidence tampering claim now I didn't

think they get far with that but they got pretty far and the problem with it is the statute is very

...