♪♪ 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 criminal election

interference charges. now, i will remind you, the court could have just affirmed the u.s. district court's ruling that, no, a presidential does not have absolute immunity. but that was not the decision tonight. and while hearing the case does not mean that ultimately they will rule in trump's favor, the highest court in the land just gave trump something that he has been aggressively fighting for, time. the oral arguments in the case have been set for the week of april 22nd, nearly two months from now. why so much time? and after that, even in a best case scenario, it will be a few weeks before a decision comes down. that is the best case considering we know that there are at least some of the supreme court justices who don't agree with the earlier rulings. otherwise, they would not be hearing the case. and if the court does decide to affirm the earlier ruling, as they should, and hand the case back to district court judge

tanya chutkan, she would need a few months to get the case back on track and a trial. that would take us past july when donald trump is expected to become the party's nominee. and at that point, what will the doj and attorney general merrick garland decide to do. will they move forward with the trial that would have to get under way during the heat of the general election? or would they allow trump to yet again evade accountability before the presidential election? joining me now is a power house legal panel andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe. melissa murray, law professor at new york university and msnbc legal analyst. maya wily, former u.s. assistant attorney and president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights and paul butler, former federal prosecutor, and msnbc legal

analyst. a power house panel indeed. i'm going to go to those who are at a disadvantage because they're not here at the table with me, andrew. i'm going to start with you. and i am -- to be honest with you, a bit dejected by this ruling because i'm not a lawyer. i'm a non-lawyer on this panel. but i read the district court ruling. and it seemed very thorough. i had you on. i had all of you all on. and i think we've all agreed that it was thorough and that it didn't necessarily need the supreme court to jump in. but now they have. can you explain to me why they need until april to actually hear oral arguments and what that means for us? >> i think there are two ways to think about it. one is the substance of the decision about presidential immunity. and the other is the clock, the timeline. as you pointed out, with respect to the substance, it is hard to

find somebody other than one of trump's defense counsel who is actually with a straight face making the argument that you can kill somebody by ordering s.e.a.l. team 6 to kill a political adversary and that is official acts of the president that are immune. and so, there's very little substance. and you have two really spectacular decisions of the district court and the court of appeals. so then you deal with the timeline and this issue of does the supreme court somehow think it needs to give sort of the stamp of approval, that shows the highest court of the land, it should weigh in on this issue. there is a lot tonight to be pessimistic about. if the supreme court thought that they had the opportunity to hear this case directly from the district court, if you remember, jack smith had asked the court to take the case directly, to jump over the court of appeals. and they said, no. it should go in the normal

order. the other thing they did is they could have said -- they could have ruled on this quicker. i mean, it took them two weeks to decide just this. and then joy, to your note, is that they have scheduled this in a certain way, in an expedited fashion but not all that expedited compared to bush v. gore. this is two months. i want everyone to understand, this case has been fully briefed. there are -- it was briefed at the district court level. it was briefed at the court of appeals level. and it's not like this is a case where the supreme court is thinking, oh, you know i hadn't really been following the news. i hadn't really read all these cases. this is one where there is nothing that would have prevented the court from saying, you know what, we're going to hear this next week or two weeks from now. so, there's just a lot of reasons to be very pessimistic. not maybe so much about the ultimate decision, but the

ultimate decision is almost irrelevant because even if they were to say that a president is not immune by delaying it so much, they are de facto saying that this former president is immune. and they're essentially having a sort of de facto veto on the grand jury process and the rule of law by just sitting on the case in the way they have. but i think i've now monopolized this really stellar panel too much. >> no, you have not. i think your points were very well made and important to make. melissa, you did clerk for the great sonia sotomayor. michael ludic was on with nicole wallace earlier and he said something i think seems true and chilling. he said that for them to have taken this case at all means that it is likely that there are members of that body, of those nine, who actually think that donald trump does have absolute immunity, that there's a question. it is not a unanimous, you know,

that they have sort of already conferred and thought about it, yeah, he does, he does have absolute immunity. >> there are a lot of different ways to read this joy. i want to emphasize something that andrew said. this case has been fully briefed. both at the district court level, d.c. circuit court level and fully believed since february 15th, two weeks ago. they had ample time to consider this and the decision below at the d.c. court, was very careful, very methodical and went through all of trump's arguments many were specious to the point of being stupid. and they dealt with them fairly. and gave them more attention and frankly they deserve. but here we are. the supreme court is going to hear this case on april 22nd. again, months from now. this is as andrew says, a victory for donald trump, because it is a delay, a significant delay that will make it much harder for this case to go to trial. what does it mean? and what does it say about the internal workings of the court? i think that's harder to say. but, surely we know that there are some members of the court

who are perhaps more sympathetic to the position that a former office, once he is out of office, enjoys absolute immunity acts he took during the presidency and they want to hear that question. what andrew said about the d.c. court, judge florence pan could a president order s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate a political rival and enjoy absolute immunity and the lawyer hedged. i wonder if that was a kind of poison pill that galvanized both the right and left flanks of this court that the right, yes, we will definitely answer that question. and the left, we must answer that question and make clear that is absolutely impermissible and in that way that really devastating hypothetical may have set the stage for making sure the court took this up. i said that when the case was first briefed and decided by the d.c. circuit that i thought that hypothetical meant that this

could would have to take it if only to confirm that was not the case and here we are. >> and here we are. let me come to the table. i'll start with you, paul. the judge tonya chutkan laid out the amount of time that would be needed to put this case through, to give donald trump and jack smith both enough time to prepare. so we're talking about maybe 88 days of preparation for a trial that could last four months, three months. we're now talking about a timeline that takes us way past the july convention, right up to the election. something like october. that's where we stand. >> if it is october, the trial could start then. it would run through the election. but not through inauguration day. that's our best hope, joy. our nation has to turn its afraid eyes to judge chutkan. she said that she doesn't care about a defendant's day job. she says that a criminal trial

must take precedent. and so, however late it is, i'm hoping based on her belief in the system, the rule of law, and that no person should be above the law, that if the court actually allows this case to go to trial, then it will happen, at least begin before the election. >> let me come to you, maya. i'm making maya be my anger translator today. >> i volunteered. >> i'm not making her do it. she volunteered. she'll be my anger translator. if there's not -- if this is not adjudicated before the election, can you imagine merrick garland -- think about merrick garland. put him in your mind for a moment. allowing the not potential nominee, but the actual nominee of the republican party to go to trial before the election? >> well, i will not say what merrick garland will or will not do. i will say this, it will be

very, very, very, very difficult for anyone in any position of power to not feel some heat from a whole lot of americans that are going to say, i want the ability to see, know and understand what a jury of donald trump's peers think about the evidence that he actually engaged in probably one of the most devastating things we have seen in our democracy, certainly in our life times. and so the pressure on that alone would be quite significant. i can just imagine the level of protesting that we might see on the capitol. but we have -- paul and i were talking in the green room. we have to worry about that in both ways because we have seen the violence and the threats and the danger and the dread that has been created by the way in which donald trump and others weaponize legitimate criminal process -- >> including threats against judge chutkan. >> against judges, against

jurors, against anyone who engages in the process in any way. and that we can't take for granted that we are going to continue to have peaceful processes, whether it's the counting of electoral counts, or, or even the proceedings we have in courts because we have already seen that -- that is one of the reasons i will be your anger translator, joy, is because -- just think about what melissa murray said to us and melissa is incredibly wise and thoughtful, is that it means that we're -- we are such the down under, the deep, dark side that we have to have a conversation and a supreme court decision that says you can't call up s.e.a.l. team 6? what world do we ever think we need to have a supreme court say that. >> i can't help thinking, andrew, i'm sorry -- you and i had this conversation before, that we would not be here were it not for merrick garland. merrick garland took almost

three years to adjudicate the case against donald trump, to the point where he allowed him to dance around the system, to create delay after delay after delay, to the point where it appears that the only sanction against him will be in the hush money case where he paid off a porn star and the fact that he now owes $455 million to the state of new york, which he likely will now be able to order the rnc to pay in full because he will be the nominee and because the whole point of the campaign at that point will be to fight a case that begins a month before the election. i cannot help but think about merrick garland in a different world prosecuting him right away for the attempted coup. >> i couldn't agree with you more. the issue of the clock, the timeline, is something that a lot of us who have done long-term criminal investigations were sort of screaming, please pay attention.

the clock is everything here. it took too long for the department to get off the stick. jack smith, to his undying and unyielding credit. >> yes. >> has really taken up the mantle and acted quickly upon his appointment so it is not on him or judge chutkan. >> amen. >> and i do think that it's important now -- i mean that is sort of -- there's a lot to talk about there. but in terms of where we are, you know, thinking about if you are jack smith and he has this incredible team, including michael dremin who argued so many cases before the supreme court, they have to be thinking about what are our various options now. they have to be thinking about a phrase that i know maya is going to be familiar with which is slim to win. they have got to be thinking about what can they do to cut down the case. they had said it might be three months. they got to be thinking, what do we do to get this case to trial if and when they get a green

light from the supreme court. and with that slimmed down case, you can be sure they're also going to be thinking about going back to judge chutkan and saying i know you're thinking a one to one, but you had thought seven months was the right amount of time, but we're telling you this case is going to be shorter and narrower. so they have to be thinking about, what leverage do they have, all of that, though, is contingent on a supreme court that's actually not going to sit on this case. and there are many, many ways they could -- there could be a decision that either comes too late or a decision that sort of sends it back for fact finding that basically takes those levers that jack myth has and takes it out of his hands. >> andrew weissmann, you have been so kind. you've been trapped on television for hours and hours and hours. i'm going to allow you to have your evening. thank you so much for staying a little bit later so you could talk with us. thank you. i appreciate you, my friend.

>> of course. of course. >> i'll let you go and keep the rest of the panel. i'll talk about this potential slim down case. i'll have you hold that thought for one moment. i want to go back to melissa and very quickly ask you, once they get this back and there are oral arguments, how long does that take? >> it really depends on the court, joy. i mean, we have seen in bush v gore this court move very expeditiously -- >> because they wanted george w. bush to be president. let's just be honest. they moved quickly because they wanted to very quickly install the five of them, including some that are working on this court now that were working for the bush side, they wanted bush to be president. they're like we have to do this fast. go on. sorry. >> i think another consideration, though, is this court doesn't necessarily want to be in the middle of the election. right? so that's definitely something that has to be weighing on at least some faction of the court. and it reminds me of what we saw in the trump versus vance and trump versus mazar cases the congressional subpoena, new york

grand jury subpoena cases that were heard in the middle of the pandemic. again, in those cases, really hot button issues, could have had a real influence on the 2020 election if the subpoenas had actually resulted in the production of the evidence that was requested from both congress and from the new york grand jury. and instead what the court did was remand both cases back to the lower courts to adjudicate using in the case of the congressional subpoena a new standard that the court had determined, which was really a very similar standard to what likely was used by the lower courts any way and allowed it to go forward in vance. again, it was such a long and extended timeline that it really had no bearing on the election at all, which i think was by design. this court did not want its fingerprints on the election. and i think that's going to be a consideration here as well. so, i don't know how the court is going to move or how quickly. it could have moved very quickly on february 15th by simply affirming the decision below.

>> okay. we'll go really quick. you seem to have thoughts on this, paul. >> the court decided bush versus gore in less than a month, u.s. versus nixon in a month. bush versus gore is four days. i don't think the fix is all the way in. the conservative justices will have a difficult time buying trump's claim of absolute immunity for anything he has ever done. to slow drag the case, sounds like the conservative justices are doing what they can to help the former president out. the president who appointed three of those justices. >> to help them out, you have the judge in florida, who seems to be slow walking that case to help him out. you have these supreme court justices. i can imagine alito just thinking of all the wonderful trips he could take if it works out for him the right way. clarence, he love a trip, too. i don't think these people are not -- i don't think they're neutral. i think that some of them have feelings that they would like him to be president again. so i don't trust them. but i wanted you to go ahead and answer that question about let's just say this drops on judge

tonya chutkan in october. how can she speed it up? or how could jack smith speed it up? >> it's really jack smith because any criminal case it's really the prosecutor that decides how many people am i bringing to trial and how many counts and what counts am i bringing. so really you're always looking at number of people but you're also looking at what am i going after them on. >> right. >> and so, you know, i think if you're a jack smith and paul will also have a lot of ideas with this seasoned prosecutor, i was on the civil side, you're thinking what's my strongest case that's my best case that i can get out there quickly so i can help the judge shorten the calendar on this. i want to go back to this last point that paul made and that you're making, look, clarence thomas should be recused. he should not be able to preside over this case. and if we had binding ethics rules. >> come on. >> not this stuff they have where they say we will self police and decide, he would not be sitting over this case at all.

>> yeah. very quickly, melissa, you have thoughts on the motives. >> these are motives but i think it is worth flagging here that the supreme court even if it doesn't want to be in this election is on the ballot in this election -- >> of course. >> because justice thomas and alito are there their 70s. they will retire and be replaced by a republican justice -- >> motive. >> who are teenagers and we will have this conservative super majority for the next two generations. so i don't know if those are motives or considerations but i think it has to be a factor here. >> well, i'm not a lawyer. and i am an opinion journalist and i'm telling you right now, you just described the motive. why they would want donald trump to win so that those two gentlemen can retire and take trips all the time and not just on down time for their court decisions that helped republicaned and rich people. melissa murray, maya wiley, paul butler. thank you all very mump. congressman jamie raskin joins me next as we continue with this breaking news from the

supreme court. stay with us. eaking news from te supreme court. stay with us

things have gotten better recently, but too many

businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e.

we're back with the breaking news that the supreme court has agreed to entertain donald trump's argument that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his attempt to undermine the 2020 election. the edition triggers a number of deeply-concerning constitutional questions, and more fundamentally, questions of timing. who better to discuss those weighty issues with than constitutional scholar and

maryland congressman jamie raskin, our friend. congressman raskin, i want to get your reaction to this decision. >> i mean to me it's disappointing. it's troubling just because of the delay it's going to occasion in the former president's criminal trial in d.c. i think that they set oral argument for april the 22nd, nearly two months away from now, which means there will be at least a two to three-month delay in terms of the ability of judge chutkan to proceed to trial. i think this is the perfect case for denial. and let the d.c. circuit court stand or a summary afir mans would have been better to say, of course, the three-judge panel unanimously finding that, no, there is no absolute presidential immunity to criminal prosecution for crimes undertaken allegedly within the

scope of his official duties. i think that that would have been a very easy thing for the court to do, but instead they have thrown a monkey wrench into the schedule. >> in discussing motive, the great melissa murray who clerked for sonia sotomayor previously, she said one cannot discount the possibility that they are -- that there is a motivation perhaps among some justices to help donald trump be re-elected because both samuel alito and clarence thomas are in their 70s and they would far prefer to retire under a republican president. now, that would be a bananas crazy thing to think, except that was the bush v gore motivation, too, was to have a republican president and the five in the majority wanted a republican president. one of whom did then retire. do you see that as a potential motive for trying to help donald trump win? >> well, out of some inter-branch comedy here, i'll

allow melissa to speculate on it and obviously that's not an irrational guess as to what's going on, but the key thing at this moment is for everyone to read the d.c. circuit decision and to reemphasize how flawed donald trump's argument is as a matter of text in the constitution, as a matter of structure of the constitution and as a matter of history. there's nothing to support it, in fact, the language that they're citing stands for the opposite proposition because the impeachment clause says if you're impeached and convicted you can still be arrested and tried and prosecuted in court and then they twist that around to say therefore you must be impeached and convicted before you are prosecuted which is not what it means and it's a basic logical fallacy and a complete corruption of the language of the constitution. but the same thing with the structure of the constitution because the legislature is the one that sets the laws.

and the president's job is to take care that laws are faithfully executed. how could that somehow support the proposition, as the republican judge said, on the d.c. circuit, for the president being able to defeat the law and thwart the law when the president's job is to enforce the law. so basically there's nothing to support it. the court has to move as quickly as possible to justice can be done. >> they're also holding on to a case in which they are going to decide whether the state of colorado can remove donald trump from the ballot. the state of -- in the state of illinois, tonight, a judge in cook county, illinois, has ruled that donald trump must be removed from that ballot because of insurrection. that he has committed insurrection, there's a ban on doing so in the state of illinois. it is the third state to remove him. colorado, maine and now illinois. do you have any expectation that this supreme court will uphold the colorado removal of donald

trump from the ballot? because i think most people think they're going to keep him on the ballot in that one, too, and help him out there as well. >> yeah. no, i have no such expectation. i sat there during the oral arguments and it seems very clear to me that the court does not want to address the merits of the case in the colorado decision and the court does not want to pronounce upon whether donald trump is an insurrectionist who engaged in insurrection rather for these purposes and these purposes only defer to congressional power and say it's really up to congress to decide. but i will tell you this, i think it does support them getting behind the d.c. circuit's ruling on presidential immunity because you've got donald trump's team out there saying that the president can actually assassinate his political opponents and not be held criminally liable for that unless he's first impeached and fully convicted by the senate. >> right. >> something that has never

happened in the course of american history. >> you're a constitutional scholar, congressman. but is it not the case that at least has donald trump has played the game, donald trump himself is absolutely immune from punishment. he has faced almost no justice other than the justice meated out upon him by latitia james in new york and he is trying to get out of that by trying to get the rnc and his followers to pay that bill for him. in what sense have we erected a system, the great founders everyone is supposed to respect so much, erected a system that can prevent a dictatorship. feels like we're about to have one. >> well, he is like little richie rich of comic book fame who always got his dad to bail him out of trouble with his pappy's money, but on the other hand, justice is slow but it does eventually come around. we saw that in the e. jean

carroll case. we saw that in terms of his civil fraud verdicts in new york. he owes half a billion dollars to people who waited patiently and invested their time and money in seeing that justice is done. and the question is whether he and the supreme court are going to be able to throw enough monkey wrenches into the criminal justice process that he never faces the consequences for his criminal deeds, like his involvement in shutting down a federal proceeding and conspireing to do so right here in the halls of congress. but i have faith in the american system. i have faith in the american people. and i know that this is a country that wants to see a reckoning and wants to see justice done here. so i'm not willing to give up in any way, but everybody needs to read that d.c. circuit court opinion and everybody has to be resolved that there will be justice done and no, presidents are not dictators who are completely beyond the law, who have the right to assassinate their political opponents or judges or members of congress

who get in their way. >> i will note for our audience that donald trump apparently is going to soon welcome viktor orban, the hungarian autocrat to mar-a-lago to get tips. congressman jamie raskin, thank you very much. we hope to find out whether a president can kill a man before donald trump maybe gets elected or maybe not. coming up, today's other breaking news. the man who broke the senate and forever changed american politics and built the supreme court that is helping donald trump out so much, mitch mcconnell announces that he is stepping down as republican leader. i have a few thoughts on that. next.

- "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen.

bombas makes absurdly comfortable underwear. made to move with you, not on you. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order.

♪♪ it is arguable and in fact i will argue that there is no more consequential figure in republican politics in the modern era than kentucky senior senator addison mitchell mcconnell, better known as mitch. even better known as the longest-serving republican senate leader in the minority or in the majority in u.s. history. and also the man who more than anyone else broke the united states senate. and now that he's burnt the house down, today he announced his work is done. he is stepping down as the senate republican leader in november. but the fact remains, no

individual has done more damage to the senate than mitch mcconnell. no single individual has inflicted more harm on the reputation of the senate than mitch mcconnell. and no one in the modern era, republican or democrat, has wielded power in a way that is more destructive to the american people or more shameful than mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell could well be called the newt gingrich of the senate, in that he broke the senate in the same way gingrich broke the house during the clinton era. twisting its purpose from one of legislating for the country's good to one bent solely for the purpose of manipulating the rules for the purpose of seizing and holding on to absolute partisan power. mitch mcconnell led his party to use a single tactic more than any other to seize that power. the filibuster. and while mcconnell tried to deny that the filibuster has a racist historical taint, before

mitch mcconnell, it had been used for nothing more often than to stop racial progress. in fact, both the longest-single speaker filibuster and the longest-multiple speaker filibuster in civil rights history were launched to stop the civil rights act according to the senate historical office. but it was mitch mcconnell, not some segregationist senator from the 1950s or '60s presided over the largest number of filibusters during the obama administration, of course. mitch mcconnell bragged that the purpose of the constant obstruction was to try to kneecap the first black president of the united states. >> our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny president obama a second term. >> ha ha ha. well, he failed at that because president obama is and was a much better politician than he is. but mitch did manage to stop

president obama from fulfilling a number of campaign promises, which died as a result of the filibuster from bipartisan immigration reform, backed by the way by the late john mccain and even marco rubio of florida, to gun reform that could have prevented some of the hundreds of gun massacres that have occurred since mitch mcconnell gained control of the republican caucus in the senate to bills securing voting rights and women's right to control their own bodies. on that score, it was mitch mcconnell who boasted that he stopped president obama from fulfilling his constitutional role of filling a vacant senate seat. getting his caucus to refuse to even meet with obama's supreme court nominee, merrick garland, after the death of scalia. instead, mitch mcconnell stole the seat for the next president, reality show star donald trump. for whom mcconnell flipped the rules again to ensure that trump would fulfill his role as

leonard leo's ignorant bag man by appointing two more federalist society justices to the court. so that samuel alito could finally achieve his and his fellow far right christian nationalist's dream of overturning roe v. wade and clarence thomas could fulfill his sad, self-hating dream of killing affirmative action because it made him feel sad when he didn't get high-paying law firm job offering after yale law school and so clarence could debase himself by writing down, on paper, that the 14th amendment had nothing to do with black freed men. and so mitch mcconnell could retire, knowing that he and donald trump had together created a far right wing judiciary that would inflict pain on this country for generations and he even bragged about it. >> i was shocked that the former president obama left so many vacancies and didn't try to fill

those positions. >> i'll tell you why. i'll tell you why. i was in charge of what we did the last two years of the obama administration. >> i give you -- i will give you full credit for that and by the way, take a bow. >> ha ha ha ha. so today in alabama, women who will suffer because of mitch mcconnell and donald trump's woman-hating supreme court, rallied against a state court ruling that will cut off access to ivf for couples who want children. they can thank mitch mcconnell for that hell. as can every woman or little girl who will suffer and die because of the dobbs ruling. mitch mcconnell will complete his career as minority leader, thanks to the dobbs ruling. but he finished off his legacy by securing the acquittals of donald trump on impeachment charges he knew were true, that donald trump attempted to strong arm the government of ukraine, to cook up fake accusations against joe biden before the 2020 election, and that trump staged an attempted coup on january 6th, 2021.

>> trump's actions preceded the riot were a disgraceful disgraceful derl ix of duty. there's no question. done. that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. >> so mitch mcconnell will leave behind a shameful legacy. in fact, the most shameful legacy of any modern senator, but he's not leaving the senate entirely and there are still additional ways he can damage our democracy. and that is coming up. coming up.

believe me, i know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time. i have many faults. misunderstanding politics is not one of them. >> let me bring in former senator al franken, host of the al franken podcast and charlie sykes. senator franken, i want to start with you. you being that 60th vote to make sure we have obamacare. the filibuster could be broken with your vote after you were in court for months with the person who lost the seat who didn't accept the election. i want to get your thoughts given that that's become the

norm. everything has to have 60 votes because of him. your thoughts on his retiring from leadership. >> he filibustered more executive nominations than had been -- an equal amount to how the entire previous history of the united states. he held up everything that he could. he used any tactic he could. and i blame him, of course, for roe being overturned. died in february, like the middle of february. the colonel went, there has already been both casted in new hampshire. it was in the primaries. he blocked him, because they are in the majority.

one connie barrett came up because of the death of ruth bader ginsburg, he rushed her through. that was in middle to late september. that is why we have roe v. wade overturned. both of those are completely illegitimate. the court should be 5-4 of liberal conservative. >> i have a sound bit, but i'm not going to play it. we are just going to leave it there. it is absolutely true. he is a hypocrite. he will do whatever it takes and he has been very clear that he wanted to build a 6-3 or 7-2 federal society court and he has done it. it cost him his leadership role and he is now a minority because of it, but he clearly doesn't care. >> mitch mcconnell is a man

that knows how to wield power and to thinks himself as a master of the senate, but one of the most consequential things he ever did was when he failed to use his power. i was thinking back on the hinge moments of our history. go back to february 2021 when he and his fellow republicans had a chance and decided to quit on that. let somebody else handle that. he knew who donald trump was and understand that he was responsible for all of that. had he voted in favor, he might have had a 67 -- 67 votes. we wouldn't be in this moment we are in right now. it is as a result of one position decision by mitch mcconnell. donald trump undermining the rule of law and repudiating everything that mitch mcconnell clings to care about in terms of american world leadership and has made mitch mcconnell politically irrelevant, so you go back to that one moment and

he is also the architect happening today. it was like the supreme court delaying the trial, which is mitch mcconnell's court, but also because of mitch mcconnell, the merrick garland is not only on the court, but his attorney general today . as you have been putting out earlier in the program, it is merrick garland who dragged his feet. think of everything happening. it does go back to how consequential mitch mcconnell is in politics. >> i will give you more. let me go to you. mitch mcconnell refused to sign a bipartisan statement of russian interference before the 2016 election allowing him to do it and president biden asked him to, but he said no. he turned around and said, we don't want to end invite trump. he claimed that trump was liable and could be conveyed in court. he also fixed his own succession and making sure that kentucky republicans put it in and that

a democrat could replace him, because of the democratic governor. there is nothing he won't do to hold onto power. he is a complete hypocrite. >> yep. i couldn't have put it better. everything that you talked about , again, on the filibuster, he ruined the senate. he ruined the senate used the filibuster every chance he got and broke the senate, i believe. >> they call him moscow mitch, because he lacked sanctions on a russian oligarchs and kentucky reaped a windfall from said oligarch. let's go back to you, charlie, because he will be replaced by others. the three people who believed to have had the lead on replacing him has leader. you

brought about one of them. he used to be a more me and even he has fallen into the faith. >> here is the bad news. as much as he made a slight mitch mcconnell , whoever is coming next is likely to be worse. mitch mcconnell has actually been some thing of a weak and unreliable guard rail against the worst abuses of trumpism and he is trying to fight for aid to ukraine. whatever comes next is likely to be a lapdog for donald trump and the united states senate is likely to become more like the house of representatives. we have seen what happened. the kind of chaos you have over in the house. the senate has held on to have a little bit of common sense on some of the legislation, but don't expect that to survive when mitch mcconnell leaves. mitch mcconnell has been the last standing old guard republican. if he had a rick scott, date

events or any of these other folks that come along, we what you are going to see is that the senate has no prospect of being a check on a come to presidency. >> it will be like saddam hussein's version of whatever he had when he was alive. thank you both very much. be right back. ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints. - "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home,

and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen.

why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. can i make my side softer?

i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. can it help us sleep better and better? please? sleep number does that. 94 percent of smart sleepers report better sleep. and now, the queen sleep number c4 smart bed is only $1,599, save $300. shop now at sleepnumber.com tonight's scaring is kingship is another demonstration of why you vote. not because you like the candidates or want to be their friend, but for harm reduction and control of the supreme court and united states senate. vote. that is tonight's need out. all in with chris hayes starts now. tonight on all in, a president of the united states has to have immunity and the supreme court is going to be rolling on that. >> the supreme court will take