Truthful with State Prosecutors can be a problem anymore all the time. Is that cohen really appreciate it. Thanks so much. The news continues to source with Kaitlan Collins starts now and straight from the source tonight, hes on a roll hours from an expected Super Tuesday blow out. Donald trump is just one big the Supreme Court, but inside the unanimous decision, theres a blistering warning about the consequences that were just unleashed. Also, a shout across the bow and benjamin nets yahoo, the Vice President meeting Behind Closed Doors today, with a top member of israels war cabinet. Just so happens to be netanyahus biggest political rival in israel. And also, there was not a dry eye In The City Of Brotherly Love today, as jason kelce bid an emotional goodbye to philadelphia, with travis looking on in tears. Theres not a whole lot to cry out for these to our friend bob costas is here live on the business of being the brothers, kelsey, im Kaitlan Collins, and this is the Source Supreme Court has not played this direct of a role in a president ial election since bush v. Gore. And tonight the ruling is unanimous. Thats how history will record Donald Trumps 90 victory today. But inside that same ruling, it is exposing deep cracks and that united front on the Supreme Court the justices offered very different ways of explaining the same result, but they did in the end agree that donald trump will remain on the ballot and of course this came just 24 hours before the first Super Tuesday polls are about to open now, just about nine hours from where we are at this moment. The biggest primary night and donald trump is expected to rack up blowout wins in buckets of delegates from coasttocoast, putting him within reach of the republican nomination. The question of whether he engaged in insurrection. Remember the one that the colorado courts found . Well, that was left untouched entirely today, too hot for the high court put a pin in that because weve a lot to discuss and well get to that and just a moment. The other thing that stood out from this though, was held Justice Amy Coney barrett cited at one point with the courts liberals and their uneasiness about the potential consequences of the reach. Just how broad it was of this ruling. But she also chastise Sotomayor Kagan and jackson for their language morning about turning down the national temperature, not cranking it up. She wrote at one point, quote, this is not the time to amplify disagreement but we are hearing from our sources tonight that trumps bigger concern is not what happened today. Its of whats to come from the Supreme Court. His claim of absolute immunity, of course, looms on the horizon. Right now. Its really giving him what he wants from this court more time to delay his potential trials. Thats what was so surprising to hear him today hours after we found out what the Supreme Court had decided, praising them for moving so quickly they worked hard and frankly, they worked very quickly oh and something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now, extremely important. I have Great Respect for the Supreme Court. And i want to just thank them for working so quickly and diligently and so brilliantly well see if. Thats still how he feels when he hears from them again, on his immunity ruling. But for now, were digging into what this ruling means with cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams and nyu constitutional law professor kenji yoshino. But were going to begin with the conservative attorney who has argued in front of the Supreme Court and with people on this show about this very issue, George Conway is here and george, you initially said that you thought the Supreme Court would have a difficult time, your quote that i looked out today was avoiding the consequence of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. It was obviously a nine and okay. Call today. So i wonder what you made of this ruling. And if you feel differently now, i think i know i dont feel differently. I think they did have a very difficult time with it because i dont think any of the three opinions make any sense whatsoever. I think these opinions are fundamentally incoherent and theyre fundamentally arbitrary and i think that i think it just shows the difficulty the court had in trying to select an offramp here totally rejected the trump trumps principal arguments, which were that the president is somehow not an officer or the United States and the other argument which was that he did did not engage in an insurrection. And the latter i think is the most important takeaway from this. Notwithstanding donald trump declaring victory, he remains an adjudicated insurrectionist after this opinion because the Supreme Court did not, in, anyway, under cut or or contradict or suggest in any way there was any infirmity. And will fall in the factual findings made by the lower courts. Why do you think that was . Because because he is unquestionably an insurrection, is there really wasnt i mean, it would have been absurd for the court to try to redefine what it means to engage in an insurrection into engage and what an insurrection is to try to fit it to get donald trump off the hook. And thats what thats what the court was terrified about. They didnt want to go there. And you can see that sort of the terror in the opinions in the Concurring Opinions. I mean, Justice Barrett was just it just her opinion just exuded fear of the political consequences of the decision. And frankly, the does the Concurring Opinion. I know they theyre perceived as having attacked the Majority Opinion for going too far. But the problem was it wasnt overreach by the majority was under reached by all nine justices. And the Concurring Opinion, frankly, its criticisms of the Majority Opinion. Actually end up undermining the concurrence his own opinion as to s2, as to the result in the case which was to affirm well, thats interesting because wondering what you made this line because of what the liberal justices said about the majority that stood out to me where they said, quote, they decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and the petitioner from Future Controversy i dont honestly i cannot figure out exactly what they are talking about. There. And it may be a circumstance where the opinions were so quickly written that some of that language is held over from was held over from an earlier draft of the opinion. As far as i can see what the majority held was that states cannot enforce state whether restate officials or state courts cannot enforce section 14, Section Three of the 14th Amendment against any Person Running for federal office. And the basis for that without a congressional on ackman i dont think theres anything in that opinion that actually holds and that couldnt be because its not it wasnt presented by the case that there is somehow of insurrectionists are completely immunized from any kind of federal action to apply Section Three of the 14th Amendment i just dont see it in the Majority Opinion. And maybe it was there in a draft. I dont know, but i cant make Heads Or Tails, frankly, out of the Concurring Opinions anymore than i can make Heads Or Tails out of Majority Opinion and shati legal work all around by all the justices, the Concurring Opinions are definitely worth reading, but there was also this moment today where trump was scheduled to give remarks right after this came out, his team had a pretty good idea what was coming when the Supreme Court said they were going to announce an opinion today i think the idea was that he hes going to be touting this victory, but he ended up spending more time defending his Immunity Case. Heres part of what he said today another thing that will be coming up very soon will be immunity for president and not immunity for me, but for any president if a president doesnt have full immunity you really dont have a president because nobody that is serving in that office will have the courage to make. In many cases, what would be the right decision or it could be the wrong decision you heard between that and what he said earlier, praising the court for its brilliant and diligent work. I mean, how much do you expect that would change from today . What he said to what we could hear as soon as maybe june angel, i dont think i dont think hes going to be a happy camper in may or june whenever the Immunity Case comes down because i think this court, which was clearly motivated by fear of applying the law is going to be fearful of not applying the law and the Immunity Case because it would be such a horrible and terrible decision. I think theres no legal expert fuels otherwise that suggest that the president has the kind of absolute immunity from criminal, from criminal prosecution that trump asks more. And it may be true that there are some circumstances but that alkyl ones where congress could pass a law thats designed to infringe upon the upon the president s ability to carry out his offices and use a criminal sanction to do that. But thats just not this case. This is a case where the president tried to extend his term of office and violate the very clause of the constitution. The Executive Vesting Clause that says he has the Executive Power and nobody only has it for four years. And its just if, if the president cant be prosecuted here, then he can never be prosecuted. And its got nothing to do as trump suggests, with the president s having courage to do the right thing on the behalf of the country because he wasnt trying to do the right thing on behalf of the country. He was trying to do the wrong thing for the country, but for his own personal benefit. Yeah, he claimed today that the presidency would become a ceremonial position without that immunity, well see what they decide. George conway, we will bring you back certainly when that decision shan happens. Thank you. Thank you for that and for more on this and looking at what these Concurring Opinion said, i want to bring in elliott and kenji back into the conversation. Elliot, let me start with you because you said this five this was a 54 decision. You believe in unanimous decisions, clothing tell me what you mean by that every the takeaway is certainly the court was nine nothing and it was an unsigned unanimous opinion, but there was such difference between the four justices that wrote concurrences in how far the opinion went here. And yes, they are nominal, nominally, an agreement on the underlying why in question here. But theyre not and particularly in the backandforth between Justice Barrett and the other three justices, it was clear that there were some differences and maybe even some hard feelings over how this opinion came out. Well and can do when you look at these Concurring Opinions. I mean, if you read them closely, they kinda look more like dissents sharply the worded ones at that and there was one point where george was referencing there sotomayor, kagan and jackson were basically saying the court has gone way further than what they needed to do. All they needed to answer was who can enforce Section Three of the 14th Amendment. And then instead, they went way further than that, saying only an Act Of Congress can bar someone from being on the ballot of federal officeholder. Thats exactly right. And in fact, they jabbed that chief Justice Roberts by quoting the Dobbs Concurrence back at him when dobbs, he said we have to be minimalist here. We cant go as far as done this is the selena gomez and his Majority Opinion. And they quoted his concurrence back to him and their concurrence and they said you said youre supposed to be a minimalist and look what youve done today. That is fascinating. I mean, what do you think . How do you think chief Justice John Roberts reads that . I think he definitely reads it as a jab and its really hard for me not to look at the language that you quoted earlier, kaitlan, which it looks like the court is trying to insulate itself and the petitioner, meaning trump from further controversy. Thats really telling language and that liberal justices can occurrence because what theyre really saying is youre trying to protect trump. And i think its a look ahead to this executive Immunity Case to say, dont try to protect this individual too much. In the Oral Argument, justice sotomayor, and i suspect it was she who wrote the joint concurrence because march as a star and has done some leg work looking at metadata to suggest that she wrote the dissent as a partial dissent before she flipped into cooccurrence. So i think youre reading it exactly right . But i think that what shes saying and the Oral Argument or what you did say in the Oral Argument is isnt this rule kind of gerrymander to protect one person . Again, saying to the argument of trumps lawyers arent you just trying to create a rule that will protect trump and George Washington because theyre the only two individuals is for the relevant. I think shes bringing back that argument and leveling it on a difference frank claim against chief Justice Roberts to say, dont just try to protect this president , like dont create rules that are only going to protect this president Above And Beyond what you strictly have to do to decide a case. Well, and elie elliot, can we talk about the other part of this . It really stood out was Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberals . It parts in here, but also should this short but really interesting concurrence were in another part, she was urging the public to look past the fact that four of the Courts Members herself included, disagreed with how broadly that this decision was made. It and she wrote, in my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with Strident See O lord kaitlan, Save Us The Sanctimony has Justice Barrett read any of any frankly, any opinion written by Justice Thomas or Justice Alito over the last frankly, several decades, has she read Justice Alitos opinion in dobbs . The case that overturned roe v. Wade, Justice Alitos opinion in the mifepristone case, were the Abortion Pill case where he all but accused President Biden of seeking to violate the law by not following the Supreme Court. The idea of Supreme Court justices using sharp language to express their views with opinions they disagree with is nothing new the idea that all of a sudden now were going to wag our fingers at three dissenting or concurring justices over and over the tone of their opinion, just silly. And i guess well use the word again. Its just, its a little bit sanctimonious and the more ive thought about it over the course of the daytoday as weve been talking about, just realized, wow, what a Head Scratching Line that wasnt that opinion well, she is the second newest justice on the court. Maybe shes trying to change these opinions down. Elliot williams can do is, you know, great to have you both here. Thank you. And as i noted with hours to go before the biggest primary day this election season, President Biden is now using one of Donald Trumps favorite insults against him in a rare new interview. Well tell you what he said. Also in trumps Rally Playlist is shrinking. Again, the strongly worded demand fr