of the annual white house correspondents dinner. live, saturday, april 20 seven, with saturday night life weekend update cohost c as the featuredolin jost entertainer. then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday, april 27, on the c-span networks. >> still ahead on c-span, a look at today's supreme court oral argument in a case challenging the criminal statute used to charge the january 6 defendant with obstructing a congressional proceeding. it has the potential to impact hundreds of january 6 cases, including special counsel jack

smith's election interference case against former president donald trump. we will hear from the former president speaking to reporters about his ongoing new york city trial, while visiting a local convenience store in upper manhattan. later, president biden making a campaign stop in his hometown of scranton, pennsylvania. before this up in court and its implications, kimberly robinson with bloomberg law. she covers the supreme court. thanks for giving us your time. guest: thanks for having me on. host: can you set up who this case is being brought by and those locations regarding january 6? guest: this case was brought by a former who breached the capitol on january 6, 2021, or at least is alleged to have done that. he is one of many january 6 defendants who are challenging a specific charge that prosecutors brought against about 1 in 4 defendants.

this particle or charge is one of the more serious charges the doj has used and carries a pretty hefty sentence of 20 years in jail. many of the january 6 defendants who have this charge brought against them are saying that prosecutors overreached when they brought it, and that is the issue. host: they center on the topic of federal obstruction and the statute being used to prosecute some of those. can you describe what that is and how it is usually applied? guest: so this was a broad law passed in the wake of the 2007 financial scandals. it was really passed in order to have it evidenced instruction by companies -- prohibit evidence destruction by companies. the broad point of the law was to stop evidence destruction. but prosecutors have used these here, because it does prohibit

impeding an official investigation. host: has the statute ever been applied in a similar way to other cases, as far as past law, and coded the applied -- is that something the justices will consider? guest: it is one of the tools prosecutors have in their toolbox. this law has come before the justices before, at least a different provision of it, when this up in court considered prosecution brought against a fisherman who had been charged under this law because he threw back fish. the government theory of the case was he destroyed fish that was evidence. it's a law prosecutors will use but has not been used in these particular circumstances. of course, january 6 was an unusual circumstance itself, so it is not surprised -- a surprise prosecutors have gotten a little creative. host: talk about the sites that will be before the court today

and what are the arguments either side will make. guest: we really see this case pulling the justices in two very different directions, particular from the conservative justices. the roberts court in article has been very concerned with prosecutors discretion, and prosecutors using these broad laws to bring creative prosecutions. famously, that fish case i mentioned, they reined in prosecutorial discretion. on the flipside, this is a really broadly written law, so it is a hard case for a conservative justice to have fidelity to the words of the statute, because it is written so broadly, and congress seemed to want to gather so much of the activity here, that it really seems like this actually would fit within the law, at least the words of them. host: the court hearing this

today, the decision aid later. talk about what it could mean not only for those prosecuted for the act of generally six itself but for the former president. guest: this is one of the charges brought against former president trump, and like many other defendants, it is not the only charge being brought against him, so it is not as if anybody will be getting out of jail if these charges are dismissed by the supreme court. but it does make the situation a bit harder for the doj. one interesting thing is special counsel jack smith seems to have already anticipated this. he dropped a footnote in a brief related to former president trump's immunity case that says, even if the court were to pull back on the statute, they think they do have the kind of evidence that would be necessary to bring a chart under this particular statute, and they have others as well. host: that court case being

heard today. other supreme court news, kimberly robinson -- news being made yesterday because of clarence thomas. can you describe what happened and is there an explanation yet? guest: sometimes it happens that all -- not all 9 justices are at oral arguments. it is pretty rare. typically what happens, particularly post-pandemic, justice will feed into the oral arguments through an audio stream. that did not happen yesterday with clarence thomas. shortly before oral argument, he we heard -- we heard he was not going to be sitting here there was no explanation, as we usually get, as to whether he was ill or suffered from travel plans. we do not know. this up in court is not always the epitome of transparency, but it has told us in the past why a justice would not be in oral arguments, and that did