even round-the-clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. it's happening. get started for $49 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. and fresh from the supreme court we begin with breaking news. the united states supreme court will hear donald trump's attempt to delay or end the trial

scheduled by the justice department and special counsel jack smith for his january 6th conduct. by shorthand you may have heard this called the immunity case. what we have new just in the last hour is the supreme court deciding to weigh in, to take the case to delay the trial. as we'll get into tonight it's not something they have to do but something they have the legal authority to do, and it's something they are doing. so the court is granting this cert, this review late today. and they're giving a calender which we'll get into because it has repercussions for the court, the country, potentially the election and on whether or not the fbi and justice department can patrol efforts to overthrow our democracy and stage coups. this means no matter what we know something tonight we didn't know last night that jack smith's scheduled coup trial and his victories because he's won not one but two basic hearings

about whether or not presidents have immunity when they leave office, both the trial judge and the appeals court unanimously said they don't. but having one of those earlier scuffles on this immunity issue, his trial of former president trump is now delayed if not potentially mooted because of his election. the concerned trial at the center of your screen is that hush money trial in new york, not as serious as everyone had their eye on, the doj coup trial. what you see to the right is now the updated information. the scotus appeal will take place as mentioned in april. so we have in march a criminal trial on what is an older and lesser set of events. and then in april a supreme court scotus appeal of whether or not there ever will be a federal trial for what donald trump stands accused of leading up to and including the day of january 6th. the issue here is that even if the court rejects donald trump's

claims of endless permanent immunity as many expect, this act of merely taking the case depending on the calender could delay it close to the election as some of our legal experts were discussing moment ago or potentially past it. so what happens next? i want to bring in the top guest we could have for this exact federal question. andrew weissman is former special counsel in the mueller probe and also served as general prosecutor. there's so much here and i want to get into it with you and our experts were making sense with nicolle moments ago. i want to get into that and what this means and says. but in the spirit of transparency and keeping it real with the viewers as i always do, i'll tell them i was both reading this, listening to you and others talk to nicolle and struck me and may have struck some viewers there was attention between many lawyers saying here's how it works and here's the calender and here's what still could happen. and nicolle, who is as seasoned

and wise as a washington power player and observer as anyone i've gotten to work with, saying sure, sure, sure, but bottom line isn't this the supreme court rewarding the delay tactics and really legitimizing and affirming a schedule that ultimately could mean donald trump doesn't face trial by november and thus got a kind of immunity in practice if not in precedent? >> i would say the same thing, which is what i'm very concerned about is the supreme court where there are at least five votes that say there is no presidential immunity, but they take so long in making that decision that they are giving de facto immunity so that they write some opinion for the ages with beautiful language about the presidency is not above the law and this is what the role of the supreme court is, et cetera,

et cetera. but the effect of that decision is with respect to the one and only instance of a president, you know, committing -- alleged to have committed criminal acts to -- >> we may have lost a bit of andrew's audio. andrew, i was telling the viewers i think they may have seen what i saw which we lost a little bit. just make your final three sentences again, please. >> sure. that i'm concerned about them essentially giving a de facto immunity, that they say there is no immunity but because your point is and nicolle is making the delay itself de facto gives immunity to this former president. and that, i think, was really what undermined the system of law. it's the point nicolle was making is can it really hold somebody who plays and games the

system? and that's why i do think the point year making, a lot of this comes down to math, calculating timing, you know, and what can jack smith do at this point. because remember there were -- >> so let me -- you said it, so i'm only slowing you down to say let's get into that calender math. i have all the trials up on the screen because we've been updating this for viewers. and some of them, the ones in yellow aren't even currently likely to happen soon. the green is new york next month. that is on, but the red scotus appeal now set for april is the big headline tonight. and so, andrew, i'd love to go through this with you both the fast version and the slow. and here we are in the 6:00 hour on the east coast, this news broke about an hour ago. people may just be joining us. the headline is the supreme court is taking jack smith's january 6th trial.

donald trump has lost two rounds of he should have permanent immunity. that guy richard nixon, you know, he was president and then he took a pardon because he as a former president and then president ford all agreed of course he could be prosecuted and he needed the pardon. trump has lost his historical claims here on two court battles, and so now the supreme court's going to hear what is thus far losing arguments. so i want you to walk us through the fast and slow version of what could happen next. >> sure. the worst-case scenario is that the court takes its time. it says it's going to hear the case the week of abe 22nd. it takes its time to issue its decision. it presumably would issue it the end of the term, which is the end of june. it obviously could decide at that point that the president is immune or there should be fact finding, i mean things that would not even resolve the

issue. but let's take a sort of maybe best case scenario, is they say there are at least five justices that say there is no presidential immunity. you have to then consider the time frame once they give a green light to judge chutkan, she had a lot of pretrial work she needed to do. the government has said that the trial will take three months. if you add those factors in, the 88-days that she could give the defense to prepare, the fact that the trial could go three months, you're talking about a time frame where you are really pushing up against the general election. now, having said that, jack smith has things he can do. he could make an argument to the judge that 88 days should be shortened, that that time frame she had given before isn't

needed. it was too generous. they could also shorten their trial. they could say that we are not going to do -- >> let me jump in. i'm only jumping in because now it's feeling really tactical to me. and andrew, if it's tactical for me, how do other people feel? because these are two legal nerds. so i'm going to say putting tactics a little bit aside, what is the latest you think they could reasonably start this trial? >> i think if it doesn't start by some time in july, i think it is really hard to see the judge saying that they're going to go forward and have him -- i mean at some point there is going to be pressure on the district judge to say am i going to have the leading candidate for one of the parties on trial and not being able to -- you know, has to attend to a trial and should be running for office. at some point that tension, i think, is going to be something

that weighs on her mind. >> and that -- and i want to be clear with viewers, that is a reasonable consideration, a practical, a prudential consideration. plus i guess it's partly policy if you want to get into the doj rules about how close you do things to the election, but that's a reasonable consideration. we're not necessarily second guessing a judge having to think that through, but we are asking why the supreme court has acted to enter into this fairly narrow question that's been resolved. it's not been a big question prior, that of course the supreme court can do what it wants, but the lower courts have said, no, you don't have permanent immunity. so you're saying it's got to start july-ish. this is a permanent introduction to your partner in law, neil katyal, one of the foremost supreme court exerperts in the country who has hustled to join us here. welcome, neil. i'm sure you've heard some of this, and we can get your response on the trial time line, but i also want to reset the

deck and read to you what it says, and you'll give us your big picture as well. the special counsel's request the supreme court says to grant the petition is granted as to whether a former president enjoys, quote, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to have involved his official acts during his tenure in office. the court takes that question on this time line. neil, for our viewers please give us your thoughts on this big supreme court news tonight. >> ari, in general i'm such a believer in the united states supreme court in general as an institution. i was there this morning arguing a different case with my partner, and i have to say i'm gravely concerned about what has happened today. the idea that the u.s. supreme court could potentially delay this trial until after an election when the american people deserve to know what donald trump did on january 6th

and the different actions he took and the how a jury of his peers decided, i'm very concerned that may not happen. what the supreme court did hear they could have expedited more, but to hear this case on april 22nd. and i think now two things should be happening. one is the court and everyone needs to hear from the american public about how the court needs to decide this case quickly after april 22nd. this is not a hard case, ari. you and i have talked about this before. andrew's made the point donald trump's arguments here i think the technical legal word is absurd, and the court shouldn't take much time in deciding it. if they can decide it quickly by the first or second week of may, this trial can take place. the other thing is that i do think this picks up on something andrew said a moment ago, jack smith should be going to the trial judge here and saying, look, i know you were going to

give donald trump 88 days to prepare for trial, but now he's filed all of these delay motions, and he can certainly begin some of that preparation now. and so the judge could effectively announce a smaller amount of time than 88 days so that trial could happen. indeed, i think for the judge to do that while themotor is considering this case is a wise move. it'll tell the supreme court exactly what the time is. >> sure. and both of you are talking like very experienced litigators who operate at the highest levels about how to do this. as a journalist, that's my primary role, the jd is not active, i'm listening to you talking about the fact changing calenders, speeding the process, andrew earlier spoke about having a narrow case, this is public evidence right here on msnbc that the current time line probably doesn't work for what jack smith wants. both of you are sort of already alluding to that here as we make

sense of the news. i want to get into what the immunity case is a little bit, but before i do that bottom line what i'm hearing from both of you it sounds like i'll go to andrew and then to neil, based on what we learned in the last hour from the supreme court, it sounds like, andrew, you're of the view now it is more likely than not this case will not go to trial by november. is that true, andrew? and then same question to neil. >> i think that overstates my view. i'd say i am extremely concerned that that's the case, that there will not be a verdict before the general election. and just remember with early voting that there will not be a verdict before there actually are votes that need to be made. and so the public will nut have a benefit -- >> so you're not 51% but 40, 41%. you're significantly concerned what the supreme court is doing given the calender and what

judge chutkan has said makes a sizable risk of no verdict in november. >> the result of this is the deep worry, deep concern that the time line that the supreme court has played into is -- is really giving donald trump a huge win just based on the clock here. >> ari, i'm gravely concerned as andrew is. i would say, however, the supreme court does hold most of the cards here. if they want to have this trial happen, they can certainly do it. they can hear this case on april 22nd, decide the case very quickly thereafter and allow judge chutkan the ability to start her trial, and then judge chutkan has some cards as well by shortening that 88-day current calender into something else. so either of those actors can make this trial happen. i think the american public deserve that. >> and then since neil raises it, andrew, i mean the court could do that.

but what we're learning is they're not. they took roughly 16 days just to grant cers. they put this down for april. they could rule into the beginning of summer, right? >> that's absolutely right. and remember this was is a supreme court that was asked by the special counsel to decide this before the d.c. circuit. remember the whole motion jumping over the d.c. circuit to decide the issue, well they said no to tat. and now they're taking the case? i mean this is really slowing down that appellate process both by not taking it then, not deciding even on this decision today that quickly, and then not hearing it. yes, it is expedited but not that expedited. it's not like bush v. gore. they still as neil said they have the ability to do it, but if you look at the data of what they've been doing, it's not a good time line. and so i think, you know, it remains to be seen what the supreme court will do. but i do think if you're judge

chutkan and if you are jack smith, you're thinking long and hard about in judge chutkan's case how do you adhere to due process for donald trump and get the case to trial? and if jack you're thinking about all the options you have to slim down this case in order to get it to trial. >> fascinating, really fascinating. i really appreciate both of you crunching this for us. and i want to turn your attention to another aspect of this so i want to tell our viewers you'll continue to have time to hear from both of these gentleman on all of the above. but i do want to be very clear about what we're learning because this is legal matter. our guests are standing by. i'm going to tell you the implications, walk through an important piece of this case, and we're going to bring them back. if you're watching tonight to wait and see when the supreme court weighs in we're talking about an obama solicitor-general and the implication is this was a very rough day for jack smith's coup case, probably

legally the worst day jack smith has had on this front because the entire case he's been building, the evidence he's gathered, the progress he made in some early victories on issues of whether he can bring the case and whether the president has post-presidential immunity, all of that compared to today, this is the worst day he's had because it's a huge road map interruption. a roadblock and potentially a delay that could go all the way to november as we just heard. the second point is the flip side of that. donald trump has had some of the worst legal months of news over the past few months of his entire life, which is saying something because he's lost a lot of cases. he's been sued a lot of times and he's had to fork over a lot of money. donald trump had that punishing fraud ruling. he's had his allies and even former lawyers convicted in georgia. tonight donald trump is having the best legal day he's had versus the doj and jack smith since this case originated. the supreme court is rewarding and affirming donald trump's delay tactics.

not saying he will ultimately win the legal arguments on immunity, but his sometimes far-fetched legal arguments to create delay are being rewarded by this supreme court, which is stocked with several appointees picked by donald trump himself. that's the bottom line tonight. like it or not, spin it or not as people may do in washington, i want to give you that bottom line. now, before i bring back our experts, i want to walk through just why this was such a far-fetched case and it's now headed to the supreme court. because trump's lawyers need to somehow prove or create new law. they need to argue that all former presidents including donald trump if it's going to be precedent, basically have permanent immunity after they leave office. some call it absolute immunity, some call it a legal right to do anything, and you've heard about this reference to official acts. you may remember the discussion of ceil team 6. this is the most controversial part. it sounds bad, but it's bad because of what trump's lawyers said, not any criticism. there's a brief clarifying moment where the judge presses

trump's lawyer on the implication of their immunity that basically you have a license to kill. >> could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate a political rival he was not impeached, could he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no? >> your answer is no. that was a key moment in the case of the supreme court tonight has decided to take. in other words, on a unanimous basis those judges one of them you just heard quoted said it cannot be that there's license to kill. it cannot be that there's no post-presidential prosecution. that cannot be. they rejected trump's arguments there in part of that shocking response and total lack of precedent. jack smith also filed a pretty scathing refly to this supreme court appeal the court is taking

tonight that the nation has an interest in the prompt resolution of this case and that delay would be fatal to achieving that resolution of a criminal case, a case that attempts to put the former president on trial for acts that include the violent storming of the capitol and his lengths to that strategy. as promised our legal experts return. we go from the calender to the substance. neil, you and i have discussed close cases of the supreme court, complicated ones, and ones where the trump side of the argument might do very well. i told viewers early on that he would likely win the colorado ballot ban appeal because of the law. this case i want to remind everyone and get your views on it tonight is the opposite. this is nothing like colorado and nothing like a closed case. it is in supreme court jurisprudence somewhere in the ballpark of someone saying you can't put me on trial because

i'm a banana, i'm not a human. and then the court has to decide, oh, well they say they're a banana, that's a case of first impression. we've never dealt with fruit prosecution, do we have to hear that case. i don't believe, neil, you're the supreme court expert so you'll tell us. but i don't believe if a different person filed this kind of far-fetched argument of immunity i'm not sure the court would hear the case, i'm not sure wed we'd get this delay. i turn from the calender to substance because they are linked. explain to us where those claims come down and why that is part of what's important tonight. >> yeah, ari, this is like your banana example. i mean this is pretty preposterous what donald trump is saying. if you think about the essence of our constitution maybe the most critical principle why we fought an american revolution, it was the idea that no person is above the law. that simple phrase is what the complaint was against king george iii was and the like. and what donald trump is doing

in this case is saying to the supreme court i'm above the law. and just remember all of trump's, you know, cockamamie claims, when andrew and others were seeking to prosecute him under the mueller report he said you can't indict me because i'm a sitting president and you can't indict a sitting president. he then gets voted out of office, and he commits crimes to try to stay in office on january 6th, and he then says i can't be prosecuted for crimes while i'm president. so then congress tried to impeach him, and he says -- his lawyers go to the senate and say you can't convict him of impeachment because the remedy for a president who does this is to go after him with criminal sanctions, the criminal law after he leaves office. so that's what is now happening. jack smith has done exactly what donald trump's lawyers said he should do or said we should do which is have him prosecuted after he leaves office. and now he's saying, oh, no,

forget about what i said before. i'm absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. these claims don't add up. they certainly don't add up in a constitutional structure like ours. this is a very easy case. i suspect any lawyer could win it blind folded, and, you know, and half asleep. so it is frustrating to me that the idea the u.s. supreme court is going to be delaying this trial for a couple of months to hear what is a very, very easy case legally. >> yeah, easy case, thin argument. your thoughts on the license to kill it all, andrew. >> so add into what neil said, which i completely agree with that this case has been briefed twice. why am i raising that? it's because the courts at the district court level and at the d.c. circuit level have gotten briefs from both sides.

the supreme court for a data point about what they are doing, this is a case they could have said we're going to hear it next week. they have a decision from the d.c. circuit. they have the trial court decision. the parties have written about this over and over again. this isn't some new issue that the court's thinking, gee, i never really thought about this, i wasn't following the news. everything is ripe. i think a very bad sign here is not just that they didn't take the case earlier when they could have, they could have decided the petition a lot quicker than 13 days, and the schedule is one that could be a whole lot tighter understanding the stakes here. and all of that, i think, is a very bad sign because there's no reason that this couldn't have been decided along the time frame of bush v. gore. and then just to give you one

example when i was a prosecutor and there were issues in a criminal case involving the statute of limitations, meaning when you could bring a case and if you needed to have a decision and go quickly or the case would be lost because the time frame to bring it would have been gone. there the courts at the district court level and the court of appeals level all acted within one week because they understood the time frame. they understood the governmental interests. so that is just not a good sign that they're giving so much time. >> such a striking development late here in the day. neil katyal, andrew weissman, my thanks to both of you. we turn to a different aspect of this. i want to bring in michael steele, host of msnbc the weekend, and the justice correspondent for the nation magazine. welcome to both of you. elie, you know the saying it's

time to put away childish things. 25 minutes into the hour it might be time to put away the legalistic things, which is part of our job. we've reported it out, and i explained what the cert is and i read it, and we talked about the calender. but we invited you on tonight as someone who knows the law but is not necessarily limited by some of the shall we say b.s. and so i was curious what you think the supreme court is actually doing, not what it's saying it's doing, not might feature elegant prose at the end of the day in the ruling, but what do you think it's actually doing? >> they're trying to make trump win. the whole point of this ruling is for trump to win. ari, remember how let's say all of 2022 i came on your program and i screamed and i tore my hair out how merrick garland was moving too slowly to hold trump accountable before the next election?

this is why. because you have to understand what the supreme court is really about. i know you like to give your viewers context, so add this on for some context about what the supreme court is really up to. trump was kicked off of the colorado ballot, right? and around december 20th last year. the supreme court spooled up that case and heard that hearing within 45 days on february 8th, all right? trump was appealed his immunity -- judge chutkan's immunity ruling also the middle of december. andrew weissman just pointed out jack smith asked the supreme court to hear the case on december 14th. by the time we get to april 22nd, it would be 130 days since they were asked to hear the appeal. so it's 45 days when a ruling could hurt trump, but 130 days when a ruling -- when the delay can help trump. that is the essence of this supreme court. and every single democrat who is

not onboard for expanding the supreme court and reducing the power of these republican theocrats in robes is in some way complicit in today's failure. >> excellent numerical factual context. michael, your thoughts. >> i want to pick up on -- on something that both neil and andrew pointed out, and it really goes to the heart of what my friend elie just laid out, and that is donald trump has basically said as president you can't come after me. now that i'm done with my presidency, you can't come after me. and the court is now in the position to say, yeah, let's sort of stretch this out a little bit longer. and the reason why the time line is very problematic is the court

knows that election voting begins immediately after labor day. in some states as early as the last two weeks of august. so the idea that you're going to delay even addressing this issue possibly to the end of the term, june, tells you that there is no way in hell you're going to get this case before the process of being adjudicated before then, before this election is over. so the idea becomes it falls back on the lower court judge, all right, in this case judge chutkan to basically chuck it until after the election because there's no way she's going to be in a position to have donald trump hauled into court to sit during trial in the middle of a presidential campaign in

september, october, and november. >> so let me take that -- let me take that alley-oop logically to elli, which is these are smart lawyers who become judges who understand all this. and we are not talking about some random debatable offense that occurred while someone was in office. that does happen, right? we are talking about whether there will be any adjudication of an effort to overthrow the election result before that person comes back into power, elie. >> yeah, and they don't want that adjudication to happen. remember, we haven't talked about this, but remember even while granting the case, even while granting cert, the supreme court didn't have to grant the stay. they could have allowed chutkan's opinion with her trial preparation and her trial calender while -- while they were deliberating the issue, right? they didn't have to bring it to stay. it was a choice to bring it to 130 days, just like it was a

choice when they finally hear the case on how long it's going to take them to release their opinion. all these choices as you say are to help trump explicitly because who benefits? who benefits from this delay? americans, american democracy, knowing who is allowed to run and who we can vote for? no, no, no. the only person who benefits from the supreme court's slow walking of this case is donald trump himself personally because it gives him a chance to win re-election before accountability comes reckoning upon his head, and that is what the supreme court is complicit in doing. they might as well haul themselves on his defense team. it's not like they're not going to get paid anyway, they might have well put themselves on his defense team roster. >> i appreciate the rhetoric. it's also important to understand how bad things might look. the supreme court doesn't hold press conferences. they say they're different than

other washington actors. they say they don't care about optics. i think you have made a strong case tonight not only are they doing these things, but they reward the delay tactic, issue the stay, interfere with the case, and their reasons and calculus, they know that looks so bad they have to simultaneous deny it, hide it, obfuscate it, and we may get a ruling that talks about how no person is above the law while you and others have pointed out prevents someone from being subject to the law. that's where we are in america tonight. i just call it as it happens. elie and michael, thank you. we fit in our first quick break of our rolling coverage. and a lot more on mitch mcconnell stepping down tonight. we'll explain that story next. l. we'll explain that story next. (vo) once-weekly mounjaro could help. mounjaro helps your body regulate blood sugar and can help you eat less food. 3 out of 4 people reached an a1c of less than 7%.

plus people lost up to 25 pounds. mounjaro is not for people with type 1 diabetes or children. don't take mounjaro if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop mounjaro and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, vision changes, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. taking mounjaro with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. tell your doctor if you're nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can cause dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. (man) i can do diabetes differently with mounjaro. (vo) ask your doctor about once-weekly mounjaro.

rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis held me back... now with skyrizi, i'm all in with clearer skin. ♪ things are getting clearer...♪ ( ♪♪ ) ♪ i feel free... ♪ ♪ to bear my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪

( ♪♪) with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and most people were clearer even at 5 years. skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions... ...and an increased risk of infections... ...or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms,... ...had a vaccine, or plan to. ♪ nothing and me go hand-in-hand, ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ now's the time,... ...ask your doctor about skyrizi,... ...the number one... ...dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save. can neuriva support your brain health? mary, janet, hey!! (thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge. an alternative to pills, voltaren is

a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. whoa, how did you defeat them? directly at the source. with a little kung fu strength and by connecting my devices to the most powerful force of all. skadoosh. hah, huh? cool right? amazing. harness the power of xfinity internet and stay connected to the things you love. ah, they'll be like this for hours. hello dad, hello dad, hello da. uh-oh. good bunnies. ahh!

it is a major news news night. we have been following this piece of paper consequential with the supreme court making a review of trump's january 6th case. we'll be discussing that in the hour. and that is potentially a once in a generation development. there was another once in a generation development tonight literally. mitch mcconnell, the longest serving leader of any party in the history of the united states senate announced today that he will be stepping down from that long serving leadership post effective in november. >> i stand before you today, mr. president and my colleagues, to say this will be my last term as republican leader of the senate.

you're on life's journey to re-prioritize the impact -- >> mitch mcconnell had kept that close to the vest. he's been a leading figure throughout republican party's evolution and became for many a symbol of how he could use and abuse the many powers of the senate including for gridlock and partisanship. should note he won an election in a 1984 landslide along with reagan and became senate leader all the way back in 2007. and that set the stage for something worth noting tonight love him or hate him controversial or consequential it was quite an active 17-year run as the most important republican in the senate. >> actually the people of kentucky elected me for one simple reason, they wanted me to come to washington and cut out wasteful spending. over the last 100 years or so in some areas of my state, people

are attempting to buy votes, sell votes, intimidate voters, and in general distort the election process. >> i was shocked there were only five democrats who thought that lying under oath before a grand jury was a very important matter. we know the war on terror is different. we leave iraq without finishing the job. they'll be back here in the streets of the united states. our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny president obama a second term. my party does really good with white people, and i'm proud of that. our view is this. give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. the senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president

nominates. we'd fill it. there's no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, didn't get away with anything yet. yet. i'm not a fan of government shutdowns. i've seen a few of them over the years. they never have produced a policy change, and they've always been a loser for republicans. >> senator thune came out to you of course, the trump and the other lieutenants had endorsed trump. why are you holding out endorsing the likely nominee? >> i don't have any announcement about that today. >> no announcement that day. mitch mcconnell has had a huge impact. we've been discussing this supreme court, which tilts so heavily to the right in ways that are not aligned with elections.

well, that's partly because of the way that mitch mcconnell took and many critics say stole one of the supreme court seats during the obama era. you saw him talking about that in that reel. he also had a lot of controversy in his dealings with what the supreme court ruled on again tonight, slowing down the potential trial of trump for the jan 6 operations. mcconnell did condemn trump initially but then didn't convict an impeachment. mcconnell has always put power first, party first. and heading into the biden era, well, mcconnell had this to say today. >> but father time remains undefeated. i'm no longer the young man sitting in the back hoping colleagues would remember my name. it's time for the next generation of leadership. >> that's about as potettic as you'll hear mitch mcconnell get, and we have seen his health take

some hits over the years. he invokes father time as undefeated, which seems to echo on purpose or not the writer nos who said the only thing undefeated is time, the second the internet, the number three is his rhyme. we didn't know mitch mcconnell would leave today. he kept it close to the vest, but we didn't know he would echo that other new york poet, but we all know time is something we live through, not control. three republican committee chairs have now announced their retirements in one week. one explaining leaving such a powerful post that they've spent years pursuing by saying simply under republicans this place has become broken. mcconal now heading for the exits and we're watching a republican party that says a lot of things that aren't true but lies about past election losses and says they're optimistic about the next election while some of their most powerful people are heading for the exits. we'll be right back. are headine

exits. we'll be right back. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients. your brain is an amazing thing. but as you get older, it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve memory. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time.

think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

keep living. we'll keep repairing. new dove bond strength. with peptide complex. help reverses the signs of 3 years of damage. hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat help revtreat?the signs de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat.

this is patrick's look of pure bliss. and this is his john deere 3 series tractor. it easily connects to every tool he needs, to clear the way, ♪♪ lift heavy loads, ♪♪ and as he puts it, add the strength of 10 extra people to his family's land. ♪♪ every 3 series tractor built to deliver confidence. you just have to get in the seat. learn more at johndeere.com/getintheseat

if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect. new parodontax active gum repair breath freshener. clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease. a new toothpaste from parodontax, the gum experts. now tonight we turn to some sad news. comedian and actor richard lewis has passed away from a heart attack at his los angeles home. he was 76. richard had revealed last year he'd been living with parkinson's disease. he's been acting and leading stand up comedian for decades. >> i have bad posture, low

self-esteem. i could blame my parents, i want to blame my parents for practically everything. after high school i said what should i do, i have no idea what i should do. and they said, well, we think you should run away with the circus and that wasn't good for me. >> richard was at one point a kind of irascible young rebel figure in comedy. he aged gracefully and wonderfully and is known to see many people in the last decade or so for his fictionalized version of himself an hbo's "curb your enthusiasm." >> i've never shown you my paintings at home because i knew you would mock me and destroy me. >> congratulations. >> we're here for support. do you understand any of it? >> no, it's very confusing. >> i don't think you do either. >> tonight larry david released a statement saying richard and i were born three days apart in the same hospital, and for most of my life heel has been like a brother to me. he had that rare combination of being the funniest person and

also the sweetest. and today he made me sob, and for that i'll never forgive him. richard is someone that we got to know from the very early days when we first started this show and talked to different people in culture, and he was on this program many times. >> hello, do some reading. these are my anti-trump depression glasses. it just helps me forget about all the problems. >> how do they do that? when they pull you up in new york and they say forget the "today" show, there's a typhoon, take a cab to to india. [ laughter ]. >> are you scared? >> richard was funny. he was authentic. he was always personally and professionally and comedically himself. that just came through no matter what you were doing and whether you were hanging out with him one on one off camera, which i should mention i got to do many times or in those times he would come by here and make us all

laugh. we are joined tonight as we mark his life by the comedian actress and co-star on "curb your enthusiasm" suesie. you agreed to call in at this hard time which we appreciate to help remember richard. how are you doing? >> oh, i miss him already. god, he was one of a kind. he was a complete original. you can't replace those voices, you know, that were like richard's. he was just a complete original. and he was also -- you knew him. he was not just hilarious. he was just the sweetest, most loving person. and just a joy to be around. i sound so sappy now. i can't stand myself. >> well, he was always very sharp wit in that way. i know what you mean. if you imagine him perhaps listening into this. but tell us about how he nurtured other people, because i will tell you this, susie, in

this line of work. we talk to a lot of people on air and we frankly don't usually talk to a majority of them off air all that often, but from the moment i came in contact with richard, he was in touch with me and other people and i noticed him always being generous with anyone he was around. >> he was incredibly generous. he was a giver, you know. he just -- he couldn't help himself. it was almost compulsive with him to be in contact. and i think larry did an intervention with him once. stop the emails, you know. he was constantly in contact. he would leave me messages on my machine, on my phone answering machine that lasted 40 minutes. just on and on. rambling. he just was so funny. and so genuine and so loving. god, it's just like there's a huge hole in the universe without him. >> yeah. he took me to a deli in l.a., which is fitting, i think. and he had several books with

him. and he said i want to give you these books. this is my out biography, this is a comedy book, this is a book that mentions me. and he goes, but you have to promise me -- i didn't know if it was a bit, susie. you have to promise me if you run into my wife you won't tell me that her that i gave you the books. this isn't a bit, ari. not everything is a bit. you don't need to know the reason but the reason is she saw me putting this together and she said you're not giving ari a starter pack are you? and i said, of course not. and he had these starter packs of -- you know, i'm so needy and this and that. so it was not a bit, susie but also kind of was. >> that was how his brain worked. and joyce -- she's the greatest. she was the greatest wife to him and just, you know, he's been failing for the past few years. he had so many surgeries and the parkinson's. she's been there like a rock for

him the whole time. they were a great couple. just an amazing couple. it's just so sad. it's just so sad. he died peacefully, though, my richie. >> good. i appreciate you letting us know that tonight. we celebrate him -- and i will say this, i have no mixed feelings about playing clips of him because i know he loved that and he was authentic in that. sometimes we played a clip for some other reason. he would text me, that's right. i'm back on. so i want to play him -- >> my first impulse was, no, i don't want to talk about it. i was too emotional and crying all day. then i thought, oh, he would have really wanted me to. he loved the attention and the accolades. and he made no bones about it. you know, it was pleasurable and joyful to him. >> exactly. so with that in mind, one more "curb" clip. here we go. >> please welcome the next mayor

of santa monica, jimmy mayhue. [ applause ]. >> thank you for that very nice introduction, susie. >> you know, you can sit here, but you can't go to broadway when i'm selling out show after show for ten weeks. >> we have an obligation imbalance, okay. because i don't do anything to invite you to, but you do things to invite me to. >> what was it like working with him as we just saw there in these recent periods where he was open? he announced some of the health stuff he was dealing with but you guys had him on set in some capacity. >> well, he was beloved on set. you know, everybody -- the crew, everybody loved him. but really the thing that was most fun to work with was watching him and larry. because they had a relationship that was not like any other relationship i've seen larry have. i mean, they were truly brothers. and the thing that larry loved the most about richard is that he could say anything to him. that he would never get insulted. he could say anything -- i

believe like later on in that clip, he even says to him, when are you going to die or something like that, you know, something so rude. and they just could take it from each other. they could give it to each other and take it from each other. and it was so much fun to watch them together. >> yeah. and that really came through. susie, i appreciate you spending a little time with us so that people around the country could also reflect and remember this great, great man, this great comedian. susie essman, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thanks, ari. >> thank you. that's our show. "the reidout" is up next. "the rt

sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta. find savings and support at caplyta.com progressive makes it easy to save with a quick commercial auto quote online. so you can get back to your monster to-do list.

-really? -get a quote at progresivecommercial.com.

hi, i'm janice, -really? -get a quote and i lost 172 pounds on golo. when i was a teenager i had some severe trauma in my life and i turned to food for comfort. a friend told me that i was the only one holding me back from being as beautiful on the outside as i am the inside. once i saw golo was working, i felt this rush, i just had to keep going. a lot of people think no pain no gain, but with golo it is so easy. when i look in the mirror, i don't even recognize myself. golo really works.

♪♪ good evening, everyone. we begin tonight with the breaking news from the supreme court. the 6-3 conservative majority has decided to hear the case of trump versus the united states on whether donald trump can claim presidential immunity over his crina