Good day. Im Chris Jansing live from msnbc headquarters in New York City. One case down and one potentially even bigger Supreme Court case to go. Were reading the tea leaves of the unanimous decision today as we look ahead to whether the former president can claim immunity. Plus, are we seeing the Biden Administration adjust its approach to israel in real time . The big meetings at the white house today with one of Prime Minister netanyahus biggest political rivals. And Super Tuesday now just hours away. We are live covering a critical race for governor in North Carolina. And former President Trump just elevated a controversial candidate, saying hes like Martin Luther king jr. On steroids. A lot to get to but we start with donald trump heading into the biggest day on the political calendar Super Tuesday on the heels of what pears to be his most sweeping and significant legal win to date. Todays Supreme Court ruling not only ends colorados attempt to kick trump off the ballot but stops efforts in maine, illinois and at least 14 other states. The courts reasoning essentially that colorado had overstepped its bounds. The justices saying, we conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office but states have no power under the constitution to enforce section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. It is a big win for donald trump. I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs and they worked long, they worked hard and frankly they worked quickly on something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now. Extremely important. Essentially, you cannot take somebody out of a race because an opponent would like to have it that way. Although the top line decision on colorado was unanimous, four of the nine justices, three liberals along with Justice Amy Coney barrett, wrote separate opinions expressing concern that through its ruling the court itself may have overstepped. I want to bring in nbcs ken dilanian whos been digging through the decision. Nbcs Garrett Haake is in palm beach, florida. Gerard mogliaca is a law professor. And Charles Coalition sman a brooklyn law professor and msnbc legal analyst. We just heard from President Trump. One of the things he seemed to praise the Supreme Court for was ruling quickly. So does that mean if logic follows that they should in his mind rule quickly on president ial immunity . No, chris. Certainly not. In every other criminal case and i believe the civil cases against donald trump his strategy here has been to delay, to push off these cases as long as possible. And thats been his legal and political strategy as relates to the president ial immunity decision, which he would like to see take as long as humanly possible if it prevents him going on trial or prevents him potentially being convicted before voters have their say in november. What we just saw from donald trump was kind of a lengthy rambling statement in which he took some questions and largely tried to do in front of a Television Audience what he does at his rallies, which is link all of these cases against him together as one over over conspiratorial effort. Dont expect any consistency here between wanting to clear up these Ballot Access questions, which matter a great deal since both colorado and maine are on the Super Tuesday slate tomorrow, and his criminal issues, which he would much rather see be delayed indefinitely if not dismissed entirely should the Immunity Ruling go his way, chris. All right, ken, lets go back to what happened today. Give us the nuts and bolts of this unanimous part of the ruling. What did the justices say . What they agreed on, chris, was that the states have no power to disqualify donald trump or any other candidate from the federal ballot. They said that nothing in the constitution requires that we endure such chaos. The chaos that they said would ensue if individual states could decide. And so youd have him on the ballot in some states but not in other states. And there would be different timetables. It just would have been a big mess. And they all agreed from conservative to liberal that that was not tenable. Where they disagreed was in how far the majority went. The majority concluded that and i say majority. It was a unanimous decision. But the people who wrote the 13page unsigned opinion concluded that the only way to enforce this provision of the 14th Amendment, written after the civil war, was for congress to enact a statute. But the three liberal justices in their Concurring Opinion said that they thought that went too far because it foreclosed other potential avenues of enforcing it. For example, a federal lawsuit where a judge ruled that someone had committed insurrection and therefore was ineligible for ballot. As of right now, though, thats not the law of the land. This Majority Written Opinion holds and is a 90 decision, and what it says is that this 14th Amendment provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot cannot be enforced by the states, chris. So charles, you had said you wanted to understand the courts rationale for its decision. Did they give you one . What can you tell us about that . They did, chris. I was surprised but ultimately it did make sense. If you look at it from the reasoning they provided in the majority with the main opinion, one of the things that they said was that a state could not remove a federal officer from office and so by that logic you cant necessarily regulate who is on a ballot or you cant put in place or deny someone access to the ballot if you are unable to remove them. And so they sort of used that lodgic and laid that out pretty plainly. What i was very interested to see was whether they were going to up it the other potential questions that i had, the due process question, which was an issue. I was surprised that they went with the jurisdiction issue the way that they did, but the decision was short. It was tight. And it was very definitive in terms of how it left the questions that needed to be answered. I do think, however, it does put a challenge in front of congress in terms of how congress decides to move forward and if congress ever decides to move forward around creating laws around how to trigger this section of the 14th Amendment. All right, lets remind people. Its worth going back, i think. Of some of the arguments they initially heard when this case went before and was argued before the court. Here it is. Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation . Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. If colorados position is upheld, surely there will be Disqualification Proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the president ial election. Thats a pretty daunting consequence. So gerard, give us the big picket, what you think the significance is, not just of the ruling itself but of the arguments they laid out. Well, i think that the trouble that im having with the opinion, having read it a couple of times, is its unclear whats going to happen after the election if donald trump wins. That is to say, the opinion is clear that the states cannot exclude him from the ballot before the election for the reasons that you laid out and that were raised in the argument a few weeks ago. However, after the election the court could have said definitively either that donald trump is eligible to be president or that you cannot bring a challenge under the federal statute that governs the counting of the electoral votes. But they didnt do that. And so its people are going to be looking again at these challenges if he wins, and the courts opinion didnt answer the question of whether those challenges could go forward or not. So i want to talk a little more about the second part of this as well. And again, we said the vote was unanimous but then there were the four women who wrote in part this. The court today needed to resolve only a single question, whether an individual state may keep a president ial candidate found to have engaged in industry rex off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before us in a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint it abandons that course. Did it, charles . I think so. I mean, there are so many different other issues to be touched upon where the judiciary decided that for whatever reason they werent going to touch it. I also think that they understand quite clearly the implications of this decision on a number of different levels, whether youre talking about the timing, whether youre talking about the references to weighing in on an election in such a way that could potentially damage or threaten the appearance of the courts impartiality. All of these things clearly were a factor in the decision. But the ultimate opinion was relatively limited in terms of what it tacked about, what it chose to touch, and i dont necessarily know that it has answered many of the questions that could potentially be before it or that it could have chosen to address. In some respects thats not a surprise. When it comes to this particular Supreme Court and what weve seen from them more recently, visavis The Power Grab that theyve taken in some of the cases theyve taken on and the authority theyve chosen to u i was a little bit surprise thered wasnt additional commentary in certain areas. In many respects i would have to agree. Im also interested, gerard, when you consider two things, that on the main issue there was unanimity of opinion as we said, but then they diverged and Amy Coney Barrett sides with the liberal justices. Should we read anything into that . Could it be a signal we should take into account as we think about how the court might rule on other trumprelated cases . No, i dont think so. I think shes a more cautious jurist than some of the others and is more likely to take a narrow view, at least so far, in cases that come before them. I think what if may show a little bit is theyre not working together as well as they could be, that as you could easily have imagined they could have ironed out some of these issues, maybe taking another week or two, and gotten to a single unanimous opinion rather than this fractured opinion where Justice Barrett then sort of says about the liberal justices, oh, why are you making such strident commentary, shouldnt we be turning the temperature down here . They have some issues to work out, especially as they get to the criminal cases that are going to be harder. Well, thats my question. So why i dont want to say fasttrack. But do this relatively quickly. Right . And to the point where donald trump said yes, they did this quickly. Where they seem to be in some peoples minds slowwalking the immunity case. Well, i dont without knowing exactly what theyre talking about behind the marble columns its hard to know how that plays out. I mean, they clearly thought they had to decide this case before Super Tuesday, even though i dont know that that was really true, if they had decided it next week it wouldnt have made that much of a difference. On the slowwalking i suspect actually that one school of thought was that some of the justices wanted to put off the case on his criminal immunity until october because they would have said, well, thats when the normal course of things would go and the compromise was to have it be heard in april. So actually, thats probably as fast as it could go given how they may have thought about it. But who knows . More to come. Gerard magliocca, ken dilanian, charles coleman, thanks to you will of you. Coming up trumps other legal entanglements, the shifting Calendar Timelines and what impact theyll have if any on trumps bid to retake the white house. Were back in just 60 seconds. E. Were back in just 60 seconds. A mystery jessie loves playing detective. But the real mystery was her irritated skin. So, we switched to tide pods free gentle. It cleans better, and doesnt leave behind irritating residues. And its gentle on her skin. Tide free gentle is epa safer choice certified. Its got to be tide. Introducing, neds plaque psoriasis. He thinks his flaky red patches are all people see. Otezla is the 1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. Otezla can help you get clearer skin. Dont use otezla if youre allergic to it. Serious allergic reactions can happen. Otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. Upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. Live in the moment. Ask your doctor about otezla. Zyrtec allergy relief works fast and lasts a full 24 hours so dave can be the. Deliverer of dance. Ok, dave lets be more than our allergies. Zeize the day with zyrtec. The Supreme Courts decision on the colorado ballot today did provide some clarity and finality to one of Donald Trumps legal battles. Something still sorely lacking in others. The florida classified Documents Case, the Georgia Election interference case, and the January 6th Case in d. C. All on hold right now as the judges or the Supreme Court decide whats next. Joining me now, former Republican Pennsylvania congressman charlie dent and msnbc Legal Correspondent lisa rubin with me here on set, as you often are. Lets go one by one. There was a time, right . When the d. C. Interference case was supposed to start today. So where are we . The d. C. Interference case, chris, we are still on hold. There is no case more directly affected by the president ial Immunity Question that the Supreme Court is going to decide than the d. C. Federal election interference case. Thats where the president ial immunity issue arose. That case is on hold until that issue is resolved. In georgia judge mcafee says hell make a decision within two weeks on whats going to happen with fani willis. I know you listened to the arguments, as i did. We heard the closing arguments just at the end of the week. Whats your gut . My gut is first judge mcafee has to determine two things that i think are hard to predict. One is what is the correct Legal Standard to apply . Is it just that theres a financial Conflict Of Interest or the appearance of impropriety or does it have to be as some believe, and i do, that it is a financial Conflict Of Interest that actually disadvantages the defendants, that it has some connection to their ability to defend themselves fairly in the case . If thats the Legal Standard that governs, i predict judge mcafee will not disqualify fani willis. But that doesnt mean that fani willis and nathan wade are off the hook entirely. He could find that their testimony was not credible and refer them, for example, to the state bar for disciplinary hearings. That could also be true, for example, of terrence bradley, who himself is an attorney as well as a witness whose credibility was questioned by many of us watching those hearings. And could even that delay things . I dont think that that would delay things. I think that would be separate and apart from judge mcafees ruling. And he also has to consider whether or not he needs additional evidence. Youll remember that stave sadow, President Trumps lawyer, wants to put in some Cell Phone Records that he thinks further corroborates the existence of a relationship between willis and wade before the point in time theyre willing to admit they had a personal relationship. That is another variable here for judge mcafee to consider as he weighs his opinion. Lets talk about judge cannon, who we thought maybe on friday would set a Trial Schedule for the classified Documents Case in florida, did not happen. Do we know anything now about that . We dont. And i personally didnt think judge coop was going to set a trial date. I actually thought there would be a very overt request from trumps lawyers and indeed there was, not to schedule the trial date until after the election, if at all, because they have a president ial Immunity Motion to dismiss pending in that case as well. And they may say their clients right to be immune not only extends to his ultimate liability in the case, chris, but also his right to be free from the burdens of trial. And if thats the case they may convince judge cannon that she shouldnt go forward with that case until they can resolve whether or not donald trump has to stand trial at all. So congressman, purely from a political standpoint, short of a conviction that could send him to prison do you think any of these cases will matter donald trump . Because it seems like win lose or draw his poll numbers just keep going up. Well, we have to be really careful with all these poll numbers. I ienlds them too, and i see that Donald Joe Biden clearly has a problem theres a lack of enthus