His new comments outside maralago as he pushes ahead to a big Super Tuesday. Also breaking, trumps money man in handcuffs, and pleading guilty, what hes accused of lying about under oath. And the man behind one of the biggest pentagon leaks in years back in court. The sentence for Jack Teixeira has part of a plea deal with prosecutors. Our nbc News Reporters are following all of the latest developments. We begin with nbcs ryan reilly who is covering this unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court. Ryan, what stands out in this decision by the court . I think really that the court wanted to come to a united decision on this that left no doubt here in terms of 90 for the main part of this ruling here. Essentially what it means is that on the day of what was supposed to be the first trial for donald trump in the judge chutkan case in d. C. , originally as it was scheduled, we have this decision from the Supreme Court. The idea of states taking the ballot off the table. It would have been a mess had states been able to individually pull donald trump off the ballot in these various places whether it be in the primary or the general election. It would have led to quite a mess for the country to deal with, so i think the Supreme Court made clear that they wanted to sort of send a message, a 90 decision here that this wasnt the way to go about this question and deciding what the legal questions are around Donald Trumps comments in the lead up to the january 6th attack. There are still major issues before the court, including the Immunity Case, which will affect both the case in florida and the case in d. C. That jack smith has brought, and then theres the question of whether two of the charges that donald trump is facing here in d. C. In terms of the obstruction of an official Proceeding Charge will go forward. Theres a case pending before the Supreme Court about how thats applied to january 6th cases. A lot will be coming down from the highest court in the land over the course of 2024 here, certainly, chris. Ryan, thank you for that. Nbcs Garrett Haake is in florida where trump just spoke. What did he have to say, garrett . Reporter well, chris, his remarks were kind of all over the map. What we did hear from trump was acknowledgment and gratitude from the Supreme Court for deciding this particular case both in his favor and quickly. As he so often does, trying to lump together all of the various court cases against him, attacking the Biden Administration and the various d. A. S and attorney generals around the country who have been trying to prosecute him as essentially trying to knock him off the ballot in a way that voters wont. He was heavily focused on the Immunity Case, urging the Supreme Court to defend not just him but as he argues the presidency itself by ruling in his favor there. Lets hear what he has to say about the next bing big thing on the docket for trump. I hope the justices, president s have to be given total immunity. They have to be allowed to do their job. If theyre not allowed to do their job, its not what the founders wanted. But perhaps even more importantly, it will be terrible for our country. Reporter mr. Trump has tried to make this broad argument that the Immunity Case is not about him but about the powers of the presidency. Thats what his lawyers argued in court. They argued the president could order the assassination of a rival, so long as he was not impeached for it. You see donald trump clearing the ground ahead of the late april argument on immunity. Unlocking the trials for both federal cases against donald trump and perhaps the biggest challenge by far as we head into the fall election season, chris. Garrett haake, thank you for that. Coming up in just a few moments, our legal experts weigh in on this historical decision. First weve got a couple more Breaking News Stories for you. Included a guilty plea from Donald Trumps long time financial gate keeper, Allen Weisselberg. Msnbc Legal Correspondent lisa rubin is following that story for us. What happened in court . Allen weisselberg pleaded guilty to two counts of perjuring himself in connection with the recently concluded Civil Fraud Case that the new York Attorney general prosecuted. His guilty plea came in connection with statements he made during a 2020 deposition, but he also admitted in court today that he perjured himself in 2023, during a civil deposition and his trial testimony. All of the testimony considered Perjury Deals with the value and size of Donald TrumpsTrump Tower Apartment which was erroneously reported on his Financial Statements as having 33,000 plus square feet. The actual size of the apartment is about 10,000 square feet. Weisselberg said he wasnt aware of that at the time that he was involved in reporting that. That was found to be not credible, not only by judge arthur engoron, the civil judge who oversaw that trial, but based on his perjury plea, Allen Weisselberg knew it wasnt true when he said as much. Lisa rubin, thank you. Now to msnbcs tom winter whos covering the guilty plea from pentagon leaker, Jack Teixeira. What kind of sentence did he get . A lot less than the 60 years he potentially faced if he was convicted on all six counts of willfully withholding and getting classified information. Basically here he came to an agreement with prosecutors saying that up to 16 or perhaps even a little bit more than 16 years in jail is the sentence that prosecutors will recommend. The lowest that a judge could go is 11 years on this. Ultimately it will be up to a judge to decide. He does save that long prison sentence, not that 16 years plus is short. One of the conditions or a couple of the conditions of his plea agreement here today, chris, is going to have to debrief the intelligence community, the Department Of Defense or the Justice Department on exactly what he did, exactly what he took, and also provide them any materials he might still have. You might remember from our discussion last week, there were a number of things that he actually destroyed that fbi agents found when they went to execute a search warrant. So i think they want to know just the totality of what he took, the totality of what he may have disseminated and make sure there are no classified documents under proverbial rocks. But this case, as far as the government is concerned, is over sentencing. Ahead in the next couple of weeks, and then the judge will ultimately determine what that penalty will be, and obviously there remains ongoing questions as to exactly who hes been in contact with, and we know from the air National Guards department of inspector general, looking at this, that a number of people have also been reprimanded for their role or lax oversight of teixeiras activities. Chris. What was their key argument in terms, tom, of the damage they say that this leak did . Its extensive. Its one thing for foreign adversaries to know this is what the u. S. Knows about. Sometimes its more helpful for foreign adversaries to understand how does the u. S. Know that. You look at the type of information that may have been included in these documents. If you were a foreign country like russia, and we know that russia and ukraine and that war has been part of the things he took and disseminated. When you look at that, you look at the types of things that were taken. You might try to figure out how the u. S. Knew about it, and might come to some conclusions. That can be damaging as to the u. S. s Technological Capabilities and can be damaging if the u. S. Has sources or people spying on behalf of this country in foreign governments. So those are the types of things that can be just so damaging about these types of leaks, and i think its why prosecutors really wanted to get to the bottom of exactly what did you take, and what are on those damaged hard drives and computers that we may not be able to recover at this point. Tom winter, thank you. In just 60 seconds, we dive back into the major Premium Court decision, and the issues that had one Supreme Court justice breaking from the past. Does it signal that the court can still surprise us. Can still. And prevent my Migraine Attacks all in one. Dont take if allergic to nurtec. Allergic reactions can occur even days after using. Most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. Talk to your doctor about nurtec today. Feeling claritin clear is like. Is she . Playing with the confidence of a pro and getting all up in that grass as if she doesnt have allergies . Yeah. Nice. The Supreme Court decision to keep donald trump on State Ballots goes down in history as unanimous, but there is a split. 54, over whether the court should have brought congress into the ruling. Conservative Justice Amy Coney barrett siding with the three liberal justices against her conservative colleagues saying they went too far by ruling the only way for the 14th Amendments Insurrection Ban to be enforced is if Congress Passes legislation first. I want to bring in former Senior Investigative counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate january 6th. Also with us, president and ceo of the National Constitution center, jeffrey rosen. He is author of the new book The Pursuit Of Happiness how classical writers on virtue inspired the lives of the founders and defined america. Jeffrey, help us understand the importance of this split. This split is significant, and the most important thing is that the liberals feel that the court went so far that they quoted bush v. Gore and the majoritys decision in dobbs, the abortion case. They say they quoted Justice Briar as saying what was done should have been left undone. They quoted dobbs saying if its not necessary to decide, its necessary to not decide. Its right to kick him off the ballot for states but for courts to go beyond that and say no federal court could ever decide hes guilty of insurrection violates the original understanding and text of the constitution, and thats why its significant that Justice Barrett joined. Shes an originalist and textualists, and she feels her conservative colleagues were violating those principles. At risk of overanalyzing this, do we look at this split as saying, you know what, the justices can look at cases dispassionately. They can come to a unanimous decision on something that is politically charged. They can also disagree and in an era where we think the left is so far from the left, and the right is so far from the left, you can have a conservative justice who sides with progressives. Yeah, i think if youre looking at the narrow point of judge barrett. How do you look at the five men and write that i mean came down upon this. I think its encouraging that you had the four women saying Show Restraint here. Thats not what the court has done. The court in one way should some restraint by not commenting on the issue thats most important, which is to me, whether or not the former president was in fact an oath breaking insurrectionist, which our committee demonstrated to the american people. And then the court decided to go really far and more aggressive and basically limiting the potential relief that anyone can get to get President Trump or anyone else off a ballot and saying only congress can do this. If jack smith charged the president with seditious conspiracy, and he was convicted, that wouldnt be enough. If a federal judge held a trial or hearing and found the same things the Supreme Court did, that wouldnt be enough. Its only congress, and frankly in the Political Climate we have, that effectively means the court has said that the former president will be on the ballot no matter what he, in fact, did. Let me ask you, then, because you are somebody who has pored over so many details of what happened on january 6th. You yourself have spoken to dozens of witnesses, right, who were involved with the january 6th committee. And im wondering when you heard this decision today, wasnt a surprise, right . We expected this. But if you think that there are farther reaching implications, then a lot of people will look at and say, you know what, these ballots, donald trump is going to be on them. Okay. Lets move on with the election. I think we shouldnt be doing that, right . I think this opinion does not get to the substance and core, and what i think really matters to voters. And what should matter to those who care about democracy, which is whether there was an attack, a Rebellion Led by a former president against the constitution, all in violation of his oath. The evidence unquestionably supports that. Thats exactly what he did. And it is telling that you had a court here over the five male justices who were willing to be aggressive on his behalf. What they couldnt do is get to the substance of the question. You see no opinion where they defend him, and frankly, in his underlying briefing, the former president said he did not engage in insurrection. The only answer the evidence supports is he didnt engage in insurrection. I want to bring in Politico White House bureau chief, jonathan lemire. You know, Justice Barrett made a point about what she hopes the country will take away from teeds ruling and im going to quote that. The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a president ial election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the National Temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity. All nine justices agree on the outcome of the case. That is the message americans should take home. Do you think that will be the take away . No i would say the odds of this turning the temperature down are pretty slim. This is such a partisan issue. There were a number of democrats who had reservations about the idea of a single state removing donald trump from the ballot. They felt perhaps this was a matter for the Supreme Court, and i think others are waiting for the courts decision on president ial immunity. We know that donald trump believes it should apply as well. Bringing in seal team 6 to go after a political opponent. Most legal scholars dont think the justice will agree with that. The fact that they agreed to take the decision and run the clock is seen as a political move, one helping donald trump. The highest court in the land has become more politicized. The Biden Campaigns perspective here, we know the trump side, victory lap. They think this is exactly what happened. The Biden Campaign was never counting on this. Not this matter, not any of the legal cases facing donald trump, the criminal cases, and right now, we believe only the one in new york will happen before the election. Theyve never thought that the criminal cases would swing this election. They feel like theyre going to have to beat trump on the campaign field. Does it offer us any clues . Do you see anything here that would suggest anything about the Immunity Decision that we know theyre going to have to do . The fact that theyre going to go so far in immunizing President Trump from any kind of accountability, even as we were discussing, if he were convicted of insurrection. Far from being sensitive to the timing of the Immunity Decision, they might well, not ruling for him on immunity. Legal scholars dont expect that, but slowing walking it, saying the lower court should engage in further fact finding, making any possibility of a trial before election day impossible. The liberal justices felt the court was bending over backwards to protect President Trump. No Immunity Case before the november election, you dont think . I mean, it could. Its dependent on the courts schedule. And, again, hes not going to be found to be immune, but actually Completing A Trial By November will be tough. Agree, i think its very unlikely. And on that note, unanimity of opinion, thanks, guys. Its great having both of you here. Appreciate it. Is the Biden Coalition fracturing. Some 2020 supporters of his are jumping to trump. Aware going to speak to South Carolina congressman James Clyburn about how the campaign is workin