Mitch McConnell threw Washington for a loop this week, but his decision shouldn't have surprised anyone.

For several years, he's fought to contain the influence of Donald Trump over the party he loves.

For a moment after January 6th, it seemed like McConnell would win.

But Trump has clawed his way back, and in so doing, he made it untenable for McConnell to stay.

We'll talk about this, and we'll look at Trump's electoral chances and President Joe Biden's as well with our expert panel.

Leigh Ann Caldwell is a co-author of The Washington Post's early 202 Newsletter and an anchor for Washington Post Live, Adam Harris is my colleague and a staff writer at The Atlantic, Ed O'Keefe is the senior White House correspondent for CBS News, and Nancy Youssef is a national security correspondent at The Wall Street Journal.

Thank you all.

Mitch McConnell, first subject, Leigh Ann, what happened?

What does it mean?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, Co-Author, The Washington Post's Early 202: Well, the shot that surprised everyone in Washington, that on a random Wednesday, February 28th, Mitch McConnell announced that he was not going to run again for Republican leader.

So, what it means is that McConnell was the final backstop against the complete Trumpification of the Senate, kind of like the last man standing, which is odd considering during when Donald Trump was president, they were very close and worked closely together.

But what this means is that Donald Trump's grip on the party is very strong.

This is a pivotal moment for the Senate.

And if the Trump wing of the party is going to grab hold, and its next leader that it chooses.

And so now the people who are running to replace McConnell, you can see them either subtly or not so subtly trying to hug Trump, knowing that he's extremely important in the party right now, but a lot is going to matter on what happens in the election.

Because if Donald Trump does not win the election, then it won't matter, but until then, Trump is very critical in this.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Ed, what's McConnell's legacy?

ED O'KEEFE, Senior White House Correspondent, CBS News: The Supreme Court, in three words.

You know, we had the Rehnquist Court, we've had other courts, but we are living in the era of the McConnell Court.

We probably will be for at least the next ten years or so.

His decision back in February of 2016 to hold this up, hold the Scalia seat open until after the election, changed the course of American history in so many different ways.

And at the time, it was a really snap and tough decision to make and to fathom, but it's paid off dividend certainly for the conservative judicial movement.

We'll see, they may suffer politically for it this year given that it led to the repeal of Roe versus Wade.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: But it's a sort of a 30-year investment.

ED O'KEEFE: It is, it is.

By installing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and watching what's happened and what will continue to happen, plus the hundreds of other federal judges that have been put on the court under his watch, it leaves an enormous legacy.

That plus him and Harry Reid in their prime really centralized everything in the Senate.

The days of committee chairman having that much influence are gone.

And, essentially, the floor leader decides what's up with their partisan contemporary.

And that may change in the coming years, in addition to the politics of the place.

It may not.

But those two things certainly will be what he's remembered for.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Nancy, how does this affect the big fight over Ukraine funding?

NANCY YOUSSEF, National Security Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal: Well remember, despite Trump's objections, Senator McConnell forcefully pushed for Ukraine funding.

And he was a key reason why we saw the package, aid package passed earlier this year.

And so while he'll still be in the Senate, he will not have that level of influence to really shape a policy at a time when there're real questions about what kind of funding Ukraine will get and whether it'll be in time for some of the challenges they're facing on the battlefield.

Now, two of the senators who have been named as potential successors to him also voted for that.

But I think it will be an interesting metric for those who succeed him in terms of how much they're willing to push against Trump when it comes to Ukraine.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: So, if you're President Zelenskyy, you see this is a bad sign?

NANCY YOUSSEF: I mean, Zelenskyy thanked McConnell when the funding came through, so I think that signaled how much he thought that Senator McConnell was key to the funding, so I think so.

It's a very precarious situation for Ukraine on the battlefield and here in Washington when it comes to the funding going forward for Ukraine.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: All right.

So, Adam, the Supreme Court obviously this week cut Donald Trump a pretty good break by taking on the immunity case and they're going to hear it in April and probably not rule until June.

This is a legacy of McConnell.

What does it mean for the many different criminal charges, many different criminal cases that Donald Trump could be facing before the election?

ADAM SMITH, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Yes.

Well, there's still -- of course, there are the multiple cases that are working their way through.

But, effectively, what the court has done here is just delay this process as long as it practically could.

And for the former president, you know, like you said, it's a gift.

People have consistently told pollsters that they would be more willing to vote for the former president if it was just an indictment rather than a full-on conviction.

And so by delaying this process, there is the real chance that none of these cases are decided by the time we get to November.

And if he's on the ballot and he's not a convicted former president, but rather just an indicted former president, you know -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I think that used to be called the soft bigotry of low expectations or something.

I know there's something related.