east coast on monday, july 1. i'm ashley webster in for stuart varney. the biggest news is the u.s. supreme court delivering the long awaited ruling on donald trump's immunity. chief john roberts delivered the 6-3 decision saying the president has absolute immunity on official acts as president, but does not have immunity on private acts. this will likely head back to the lower courts where prosecutors will have to prove donald trump's actions were not made in an official capacity. elliot is back with me. elliot, thanks for staying here. i mean, trump calls it a big win for democracy, could you agree? >> it's a big win for the election strategy pushing the case back and one thing in the dissent that justices said and we don't have kings and don't want presidents sending hit squads to kill political opponents and things we see in other countries.

that being said, the concept of presidential immunity is important because all presidents, republican, democrat, conservative and liberal, they make decisions that impact people's lives and make decisions that cause life and death in some cases and a president authorizes a drone strike or sends troops into war, all presidents make decisions that ultimately can cause people to not just lose their money but their lives. you do want to guard against them being prosecutedded a leaving political office and they'd be open to that without immunity. president authorizes a drone strike and people are killed and turns out the president was negligent in making that decision, overlooked certain intelligence he should have paid attention to. do we this that president subject to a criminally negligent homicide indictment? that's what you open the door to without any degree after presidential immunity. ashley: yeah, and that'd have a chilling effect and you

mentioned sotomayor saying it makes a mockery of the principle foundation to our constitution and system of government that no man is above the law. it's just as bad as it sounds and it's baseless. i mean, she really went off in her dissent. >> chief justice said there's certain acts outside of the scope of the presidency and nonofficial acts subject to prosecution and taking it back to determine what those acts within this indictment are and are not. ashley: yeah, and it'll be some time for courts to get back into the weeds and decide that trump was facing four separate charges and now they have to go think each one and decide if it was a special act or not. >> they're causing them to re-prioritize and say do we want to go forward with every count of the indictment and sling down and superseding indictment and bring a new case and bring it again in front of grand jury.

but it's all go gone have to be reconsidered and calibrated based on the decision. ashley: steve forbes is with us. what do you make from this decision? >> it's very, very important and also we've got to get away from not just donald trump that's at stake here, it's future presidents that you're talking about and tieing them into legal fights and things like that, not good. i think that giving the president broad powers is essential and we have a court system if he goes -- steps over the bounds and saw with richard nixon in the 1970s and trust the subpoena. not the department of justice or anything else. i think it was a good decision and see what the lower courts will do and acts like a good court instead of political one.

ashley: good point. there's many that say this whole thing reeks of politics. >> yeah, the whole slew of indictments and the indictment versus donald trump and i think if people want a cleansing of this politicization of using the law to go after your opponents, we don't shoot them thankfully, but it's the next best thing trying to throw them in jail and gut them that way whether in office or out of office. bad stuff. we need a more normal political process, which we had in times past. ashley: very good. lydia hu is still with us and you brought us the news in the last hour. look, presidents are limited with immunity and that's the headline and that's the bottom line. reporter: yeah, they're getting

an expedited time line in deciding this case. you know, this has been for all criticism that the supreme court has been acting slowly and this particular case, it's actually acted with a lot of speed. oral arguments were in april and tacked onto very end of the term and understanding it's an election year and it's an important issue being raised in the underlying case. and actually what chief justice roberts is outlining here in part of his opinion is that because of the expedited nature of this case, it appears some of the briefing on this issue of immunity is missing and he's explicitly remanding this case back to the lower courts addressing they're being more of a briefing of immunity and context of official actions and the trial courts can more fully decide and analyze whether the conduct in this indictment

should qualify as official or unofficial. that's now the big question being laid at the doorstep of the trial court. when former president donald trump was making statements to then vice president mike pence in connection to the january 6 was the acting in official capacity or unofficial capacity and supreme court calling that out as what needs to have more briefing here. ash. ashley: very good, lid .y i was just reading chief justice john robert's opinion. he said a president inclined to take one cause of action based on public interest may set up for another criminal penalty made before him upon his departure from office and that's the crux of it and thank you, lydia. back to the markets on this. bring in jason katz who, look, are we going to see the dow off 16 points? what relevance will this have to

the market, jason it >> returns are significantly harder to come by and not insurmountable and it's decision time for voters vs and decision time for the fed and, yes, there's other things that play that will shape the direction of the market. it of course will be the direction of earnings. it'll be whether inflation continues to abate. it'll be the outcome of the election. but above all, i think it's going to be the fed and what the fed will do versus what it should do are likely to be two very different things. ashley: very interesting and start the second have of the year and we're expecting ai and big tech names and nvidias to continue to move higher. is that right? >> i expect them to hold their gains and not necessarily take us home for the party and the second half of the year are places that the market have

frankly been unloved and healthcare, industrials, small cap, look, if we don't have recession or soft landing and disparity between growth and value and large and small and tech and everything else, it's such a wide, you know, kavanagh nows difference in valuation that i think you're going to see a big catch up trade in the latter part of the year. ashley: very interesting. bottom line. last question for you, jason. dot markets want a donald trump victory? >> i think the markets want a red sweep. whether they get it or not are two different things and if we get that red sweep agriculture, financials, healthcare and all places where we've had onerous regulation could see a big lift. ashley: jason, thank you very much on a very big day when it comes to the law and supreme

court ruling on immunity. bring back in guy lewis. guy, i'm trying to capture the headlines of reactions to all this when it cops in. apparently justice amy coney barrett said look, she expressed frustration sending the case back down for more proceedings. she says because of trump's wholesale challenge to the indictment had failed, at least some of the case could and should go forward. that's interesting. >> yeah, these elections are crucially important and the judges and who gets to pick the judges. it matters immensely. when you take this case though, i can't see it as anything other than a home run with the bases loaded for president trump. and throwing out obstruction and

conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and it's adding these two together and i'm telling you right now, dc indicate: life support. georgia rico case on life support, and the classified document is on life support as well. these cases are, i think, going to go away. ashley: you know, i'm looking at quotes coming down, guy. presidential historian said today's decision would make it "much harder for the american people to protect themselves from a corrupt president". little over the top, do you think? >> yeah, i think it's again a little hyperbole. vote him out of office and impeach him. there's a lot of ways to deal with this. if it's truly credible like the whole nixon deal where he's back in the room saying okay, let's destroy evidence and let's do all this illegal stuff. then you're going to be prosecuted. but i don't think that's very helpful at all.

i think this is a good decision, a thoughtful decision and frankly a careful decision, and i think it's good for america, good for the constitution. ashley: that's a good place to leave it. we'll leave it right there. guy lewis, terrific stuff, sir. thank you very much. meanwhile house judiciary committee chair jim jordan posted a statement reacting to the trump immunity ruling on platform x. he said "hyper-partisan prosecutors like jack smith cannot weaponnize the rule of law to go after the administration's chief political rival, and we hope that the left will stop its attacks on president trump and uphold democratic norm. the judiciary committee will continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system". that's jim jordan, house judiciary chair. we're following the very latest on the supreme court ruling of issue immunity and fresh reaction from capitol hill and more varney right after this.

♪ starting a business is never easy, but starting it eight months pregnant, that's a different story. with the chase ink card, we got up and running in no time. earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase with the chase ink business unlimited card from chase for business. choose advil liqui-gels for faster, stronger and longer-lasting relief than tylenol rapid release gels because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. so for faster pain relief, advil the pain away.

what will you do when the power goes out? power outages can be unpredictable and inconvenient, but with a generac home standby generator, your life goes on uninterrupted. because when your generac detects a power outage, it automatically powers up, giving your family the security and peace of mind they deserve. we don't have to worry about whether we lose power or not. if the utility company does not come through, our generac does. after the hurricane happened, we just want to be prepared for anything. 8 out of 10 home generators are generac, with thousands of satisfied customers. number one thing to prepare for is extended power outages. don't make it so hard on yourself, have a generac home standby generator. and owning a generator is easier than ever. special financing and low monthly payment options are available, and if you call now, you will also receive a free 5 year warranty valued at over $500. call or go online now to request your free quote.

want to save on some of the biggest names in streaming on the network made for streaming? x marks the spot. now you can add the new xfinity streamsaver™ that includes netflix, peacock, and apple tv+. that's xfinity streamsaver™ for just $15 a month.

all your favorites. all in one place. only from xfinity. for more watching and less spending... x marks the spot. do it all on the network made for streaming, and bring on the good stuff.

ashley: we're all over the trump immunity case. let's go back to palm beach and take us through the latest reaction ifs you can. reporter: yeah, so obviously we have the reaction from former president trump who said big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american, then we also had reaction from the former president's son, don jr. posting "solid scotus ruling today and i'm sure the corrupt prosecutors and dc judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare. it's all they have left". earlier today on fox news channel, one of former president

trump's attorneys spoke just moments after this decision came down, listen. we don't have that sound -- we don't have that sound, but basically ultimately they're viewing this decision as a win because it really get tots heart of jack smith's case and charging the former president with those four charges as it relates to january 7 and the fake elector scheme and the majority of opinions here from the supreme court said ultimately they believe that the trial court needs to go on a fact finding analysis here and to try and figure it out more about how this fake elector scheme was enlisted and how trump participated in it to determine whether or not it's an official or unofficial act by a president and thus could be protected under absolute

immunity. there's also a question here as to what i want to say, ashley, this court weighed in on the january 6 case and more detailed way in what many were anticipating including saying the former president's conversation withs his acting attorney general and others in doj as well didn't meet the threshold as -- did meet the threshold as being part of his official acts and this will be parsed over and the heart of this case was about the fake elector scheme in the six states and this court is saying we need to know more information and the trial court needs to do that and figure it out, ashley. ashley: very good. brian llenis in west palm beach. katie, i'm trying to get one sentence that says presidents have immunity for official acts but not all acts are official. it's up to the lower courts to decide which acts qualify for

each. >> that is absolutely correct, then i think the other piece of it is that once the lower courts make their determination, i think there's a very good chance this case will work it is way back through the appellate courts and maybe even back to the supreme court to determine if they made an appropriate and correct finding. ashley: so we could go through the whole psychoand will being changed depending on how the courts rule and could end up at even more final level and it would be even more dig right down into the nitty-gritty and could end up back at the supreme court. >> yeah and the court points out they're a court of verne view not first view and can't make factual determinations and the idea of whether somebody is immune from prosecution is something that is appealable pretrial so if a lower court determines that president trump is for instance not immune because they find the acts to be

unofficial, that is an appealable issue through the appellate courts before trial. so this is a long way from going to trial more than likely if it ever get there is and certainly a huge win for former president trump. ashley: now, the people upset with this on the other side and prosecutors arguing we're just giving someone a free pass for criminal conduct. i think sotomayor said donald trump is the king. is that a little exaggerated? >> it's very exaggerated and a very myopic view in light of people's personal feelings towards former president trump versus the idea of the presidency as an office and certainly when you start going down hypothetical paths of what could be used for the president against prosecution and it's a limitless list if you don't have immunity and it's a important decision and the right decision

by the court. ashley: is this what you were expecting? i read a lot of opinions before the announcement today and people thought this was pretty much where the court was headed. is that your fault? your thought? >> yeah, we had the civil standards and nixon case and it was delineated between official and unofficial acts and most had expected. ashley: now to lauren simonetti. what do you have? lauren: chief justice said further proceedings are needed in the lower courts that potentially trump can be prosecuted for and going with the vice president and mike pence and should this eventually ever go to trial and imagine that mike pence would be the prosecution star witness and did trump disrupt the counting the

elector rale votes and that communication an official act and therefore protected and i think that's something going forward with the tentacles and kick it back down to the lower courts and who else could be involved. ashley: yeah, it's an interesting point and, lydia, we just heard from katie saying you know what, this whole thing could go all the way back down to the lower courts and protect yourself. reporter: yeah this, is an issue of first impression and before this case, before moments ago it was unclear whether a president could be, could face prosecution and limited immunity for the official acts and the question now relating to former president trump is whether the acts alleged in this indictment are official or unofficial and in parsing through the majority

opinion, there's details now to share with you on what the supreme court is saying and the lower court needs to consider. and dividing official from unofficial interesting to note, scotus said courts may not inquire into the president's motives. they say don't ask about the president's motives. in other words they have to look at what happened and now they have to say they also say that lower courts cannot deem an act as unofficial and violates a generally applicable law. finally the supreme court acknowledges there can be occasions with a sitting president acting in a capacity and it's unofficial and the sitting president is not everything that's considered an official act and that would apply here to former president's case. what does the trial court need to then look at? the "content, form, and context

of the action". what they explicitly say is they need to consider the trial court needs to consider trump's tweets, his speech on january 6, and his other communications around the speech and his tweets that he was publishing. they want to know what else was said contemporaneous to the communications and to his speech. what else was he saying to perhaps members of his campaign or other elected officials if they can find out. i share all this to say this is going to be an incredibly nuanced, dee tailed and pain staking share and this is going to be a long and drawn out process to answer the question and was president trump acting in a official capacity or unofficial capacity such that he will receive qualified early intervention program municipality here.

ashley: that is fascinating stuff, lydia. let me bring elliot back in. context, form and content must be considered but you cannot consider motive. i mean, this is very nuanced to say the least, is it not? >> it's extremely nua nuanced ad only adds to the economy indication that will stand in the -- complication of this being adjudicated quickly and efficiently and it's really going to cause the prosecutors to go through a complete up and down reassessment of every piece of evidence that they plan to bring in a trial and the more i dig into the decision, the more helpful it appears for donald trump for two reasons and first, the court not only ruled that official acts are immune from prosecution and said official acts cannot be used as evidence and that means the jury can't hear about any official acts that get this immunity shield and this can destroy the whole narrative and prosecutors bring a narrative and tell the story in a trial and that makes telling that story immensely more complicated and also

another thing to factor in is that the immunity question also applies to the georgia case and if it's immunicipal and going to be immune in a georgia courtroom and that's further down the line. and to the extent that this trump in the dc court helps him in this georgia case. ashley: definitely a win for the trump camp. no doubt about it. elliot, thank you very much. back to the markets and pretty much flat today and take a look at djt, donald j trump up four and a third percept that they ruled trump has immunity for official acts and there you have it. djt gaining 4%. we'll very much more on varney right after this.

sed

ashley: we got reaction from chuck schumer on the immunity case and he says "this is a sad day for america and a sad day for our democracy. the very basis of our judicial system is no one is above the law. treason or incitement of insurrection should 23409 be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president. that's from chuck schumer. getting back to lydia hu kind of summarizing what we've learned today. lydia. reporter: yeah, hey this, ash. we've been pouring over this opinion for a little over an hour and it's the divided supreme court that gives us the new law telling us presidents and former presidents are entitled to limited immunity for

official actions while held in office. this opinion was authored by chief justice john roberts and joined by the conservative and three dissenting and going to share a couple of quotes to give you a flavor of their takes and the majority opinion written by john roberts said the president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and it's going onto say at a minimum and it's presumptive immunity and all official acts and that applies equal to all occupants of the oval office regardless of politics, policy, or party. that getting to the heart of what the supreme court is doing here and not really deciding in issue as it relates to donald trump all though it'll impact donald trump no doubt. they're deciding this case for every president that will ever hold office of our great nation.

from the dissenting opinion, another perspective and sotomayor and making mockery of the principle and foundation of constitutional and system of government that no man is above the law. and from here, ash, what happens is we take this case and the supreme court remanded to the lower trial court and parsing through them and the supreme court deciding what actions are indicted to qualify for them in such and they received immunity what if any actions are unofficial and they can make potentially prosecuted and all that to say it lengthens the process a lot. it'll be an incredibly fact intensive detailed process and a trial within a trial pushing this very likely well beyond the

election for former president donald trump. a yes, indeed. lydia hu. we have reaction from the biden campaign saying "today's ruling doesn't change the facts so let's be very clear about what happened on january 6. donald trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. trump is running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by and the mob attacked the capitol and he thinks he's above the law and willing to do anything and gain and hold onto power for himself. the trial attorney roger sevino and from the supreme court and is this what you expected. >> yes, it was a massive victory

for president trump and in fact the rule of law and a victory for the constitution and a president has to be able to be energetic in exercising the constitutional duties and looking over the shoulders for every single decision he does and some future president going after him with lawfare to try and prosecute him and benefits president biden as well ironically and he's trying to prosecute tram and he's immune from. now if a new president trump comes in place he can't sick the doj after president biden for going after president trump and this cuts both ways and this decision that stands for the test of time, which means the constitution and every future president and rule of law starts with the constitution, the separation of powers and energetic president which we're going to hopefully have that protection for going forward. ashley: the comments made by the

dissenting justices very strong and given a free pass for criminal action on donald trump could now be the king. i mean, these were all very dramatic statements and are you surprised by that? >> no, not by the backlash from the left and they'll be mad because their entire strategy was lawfare and can't win at the ballot box and they're going to be used and abused with court cases to try and derail president trump and this is a huge victory for him and this is not going to be decided to try and divert the election and jail president trump by any means necessary and for core constitutional functions of a president and that president is immune and people were scoffing at very idea and that is part of the rule of law. you cannot have the courts trying to undo the results of elections and presidents are elected by the people by after

the fact going after the president and having a new doj or new judge try to jail him for official duties and what's official and what's unofficial and this is not ruling by king and some unofficial things that a president can get in trouble for even if he does it while being president. ashley: very good. we'll leave it there, roger. thank you very much. guy lewis, the thing that comes to my mind isn't everything that the president does while in office kind of an official act? i have a hard time understanding what is official and what isn't. >> that's a great point, ashley. i'll go back to original example and if he huddles with some of his people and some of the others and says, hey, let's conspire to obstruct justice. let's destroy evidence and present perjure testimony to a community of congress.

you can be indicted and prosecuted and it's really not that hard and if you're making decisions day after day and they're going to be broad based because a will the of what the president does clearly is political. wanting to make sure our election system is legitimate and is honest and when he calls down to georgia and says, hey, listen, i need to make sure you guys, this is fair and square. that's all subject to i think based on this opinion to immunity. and maybe absolute immunity which kind of reverses it. you made reference to it earlier, ashley, he begins with the presumption, his decisions are presumptively immune and so the burdens on the government, the prosecutors to prove otherwise.

ashley: very good. thank you, guy lewis. coming up, there's a supreme court ruling that trump has immunity for official acts. shannon bream deals with it all right after this. daughter: hey, dad. dad: hey, sweetheart. daughter: what are you doing? dad: i'm gonna clean the fence. daughter: it's a lot of fence. dad: you wanna help me? dad: aim at the wall, but get closer. daughter: (gasps) what the?! daughter: alright. dad: side to side. when you work with someone who knows a lot and cares even more... you can do this. ...you're unstoppable. (♪) wow... are you kidding me? you can do this. at truist, we believe the same is true for banking.

ashley: we have shannon bream outside the courthouse for the ruling to the supreme court. what's the reaction been like to the ruling? reporter: you know, ashley, i think even the trump campaign is pleasantly surprised and feels like it went further in their favor than it was expected to. democrats obviously very upset about this, chuck schumer, top democrat majority leader in the senate basically saying that it undermines the court's credibility he says. they shouldn't allow something like treason to be viewed as a core principle but that's not what the core did. they said we can't even make a

factual determination about this case because it was so expedited by special council and jack smith, there wasn't time for us to have the facts or briefing or evidence. reading you a opinion can't prosecute for exercising the core constitutional powers and entitled at a minimum for presumptive immunity for official acts and that applies equally for politicians and policy or party and not just a decision about president trump and it obviously is one for presidents going forward. this is a first question, first impression question about whether or not there is presidential immunity from criminal liability and now the dissent and numbers of dissents not happy and justice jackson writing in hers that they'll evade punishment for criminal acts while in office and the

power for presidents planted and without a doubt, power constructs and they think there's way too much doom and gloom coming from the dissent and not saying that criminal law doesn't apply to the president and that these are core acts and official acts and it's a different story and there is no blanket immunity and the white house as president and can just wreak havoc and do what they want. that's not what the court is saying and the lower court will have to take time to weed through all this and that'll take place indefinitely. ashley: shannon bream outside of the u.s. courthouse. thank you for your time on what's been a very busy day. senate candidate bernie moreno today. what's your reaction? >> proud to be a american and seeing our system of government working and we you a great debt to our founders that built a

system of checks and balances and right now there's a president hijacked by the far left and senate hijacked by a far left and the supreme court made the right decision. this is common sense. this is a ruling that most americans understand now we can move forward and have the presidential election determined by voters and not by judges and not by bureaucrats and not by lawmakers but by voters. that's what the supreme court is saying and very good day for america. >> they know they have a terrible president in joe biden and the world saw that on thursday, and not only is he a senile, de-crepted sad man, if

you had a young vibrant person debating trump, you can't debate there's dangerous borders and high prices crushing working americans and seniors and what we're seeing now is having an election in november that the voters decide and i'm very very confident it's president donald j. trump. ashley: thank you, bernie. elliot, coming back to you quickly. the reaction from the dissenters in this case and justices using pretty forceful ways of dissenting and they let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizens and any future president who has the will to flout congress' established boundaries. this is not blanket immunity, is

it? >> that language trump got everything he wanted and the court clearly said private conduct or nonofficial conduct is subject to prosecution and they also said they didn't give trump what he wanted for impeachment and going for potential substitution and the chief justice track that had and said you can be a prosecutor even if you're not impeached. ashley: there you have it. thank you very much, elliot. let's get to the break and coming up, fresh reaction on the supreme court's ruling on the presidential immunity and big day and lots to talk about coming up next.

do it for less, at harbor freight. ♪

want to save on some of the biggest names in streaming on the network made for streaming? x marks the spot. now you can add the new xfinity streamsaver™ that includes netflix, peacock, and apple tv+. that's xfinity streamsaver™ for just $15 a month.

all your favorites. all in one place. only from xfinity. for more watching and less spending... x marks the spot. do it all on the network made for streaming, and bring on the good stuff. achier the u.s. supreme court rule that had donald trump has presidential immunity for official acts. lydia, this is what classifies at official. reporter: the trial court will take up that issue and the supreme court is offering guidan ato what this trial court should consider making this analysis. they're saying the trial court needs to consider "content, form and context around actions and conducts and statements that were made by president trump in connection to this january 6

riot". what the trial court -- the supreme court is telling the trial court to consider, they want to know more about "what else was said contemporaneous to communications or who was involved in transmitting electronic communications and in organizing the rally and relevant to classification of each communication". i say that and explain that because this is going to be a pain staking and detailed time consuming effort to really pull apart and some sense really re-litigate the issues around the january 6 events, but short term seems like a victory for the former president donald trump because that means this big issue is going to push this case well beyond the election. ash. ashley: thank you very much, lydia. one minute to you, guy lewis. there are those saying, hey, the courts decided with donald trump more than expected. would you agree with that? >> i don't necessarily because, listen, ash, i was a prosecutor, a federal prosecutor for a long

time, and i had the same immunity. i can make the kind of decisions that mattered in te terms of federal prosecution, and i was immune from being prosecuted. shouldn't the president of the united states who has so much on her or his plate, shouldn't they be entitled to the same immunity? i think so. ashley: very good, guy. last word to you, elliot. what do you say? >> this case has such a massive impact on jack smith. every charge and not just charge but piece of evidence they plan to introduce at trial has to be reconsider in light of the court's decision, it may no longer be admissible and almost like back to care one for the prosecutors and took the doj two and a half years to bring the case. i don't know how long it'll take to recalibrate and reconsider in light of this situation. ashley: funny you should say that, elliot. we got this from senator jd vance saying this ruling may

destroy all of jack smith's case against, if we can move up, the president. you said exactly what jd vance has said. i just want to thank elliot and guy and lydia for terrific job on wading our way through the decision on the supreme court of donald trump's immunity case. thank you very much. by the way, not going to forgot this, it's time for the monday trivia question. we'll take a break from all the action. here's the question: how many miles of blood vessels are in the brain? 70, 80, 90 or 100,000 miles? i'd be lucky if i have one mile left in my head right now, but we'll have the answer for you when we return. hi, i'm greg. i live in bloomington, illinois. i'm not an actor. i'm just a regular person. some people say, "why should i take prevagen?

i don't have a problem with my memory." memory loss is, is not something that occurs overnight. i started noticing subtle lapses in memory. i want people to know that prevagen has worked for me. it's helped my memory. it's helped my cognitive qualities. give it a try. i want it to help you just like it has helped me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. ♪ i wanna hold you forever ♪ hey little bear bear. ♪ ♪

♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ ya know, if you were cashbacking you could earn on everything with just one card. chase freedom unlimited. so, if you're off the racking... ...or crab cracking, you're cashbacking. cashback on flapjacks, baby backs, or tacos at the taco shack. nah, i'm working on my six pack. switch to a king suite- or book a silent retreat. silent retreat? hold up - yeeerp? i can't talk right now, i'm at a silent retreat. cashback on everything you buy with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours.

>> a breather from all the breaking news, how many miles of blood vessels in the brain, anyone of these is remarkable, 70000, 80000, 90000 or a hundred thousand, lauren and lydia are playing. >> go big or go home is a hundred thousand, number four. >> i was thinking a brain require a lot of oxygen i'm

going to be more conservative and say 80000. >> i went with 90000, let's get the answer please, you're right, go big or go home, 100,000 miles of all the blood vessels in your brain and was laid out in a strong line it would be disgusting and wrap around the earth more than four times i'm not so sure i have that much of my head, thank you lord and lydia for today, i have headaches, let's check the market before we say goodbye, we've been talking about the supreme court today, the market is modest growth, the dow, the s&p and the nasdaq all slightly higher as we look at a picture of the supreme court in today's ruling of immunity that's it for "varney & company", "coast to coast" starts now. neil: lawyers still cannot decide whether the supreme court handed donal