>>> I WAS BORN A REPUBLICAN. MY FAMILY WAS A REPUBLICAN. RAISED A REPUBLICAN. I'M ONE OF THOSE WEIRD PEOPLE. I READ THE CONSTITUTION. QUITE OFTEN. IF SOMETHING COMES UP AND I'M CURIOUS, I HAVE ONE I KEEP NEXT TO WHERE I SIT AND WATCH TV. ALSO, I HAVE ONE IN MY PURSE. >> A LOT OF CONSTITUTIONS. HI, EVERYONE. IT'S ALI VELSHI. IT'S 5:00 IN NEW YORK. I'M IN FOR NICOLLE WALLACE. THAT WOMAN WHO YOU JUST HEARD FROM IS 91-YEAR-OLD NORMA ANDERSON. SHE'S A FORMER FIXTURE IN THE COLORADO STATE LEGISLATURE AND A WOMAN WHO COULD POSSIBLY TAKE DOWN DONALD TRUMP'S 2024 CANDIDACY. ANDERSON IS AMONG THE COLORADO VOTERS WHO ARE CHALLENGING TRUMP'S ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD OFFICE AGAIN, SAYING THAT HE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF BY ENGAGING IN INSURRECTION ON AND AROUND JANUARY THE 6th. COLORADO'S SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF ANDERSON AND THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS BACK IN DECEMBER, BUT TRUMP APPEALED THAT DECISION, AND IT WILL NOW BE IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THIS THURSDAY ARGUMENTS BEGIN BEFORE THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURT, WHOSE RULING COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON ALL 50 STATES, NOT JUST COLORADO. BUT AS THE "WASHINGTON POST" NOTES, THE COURT MAY NOT PROVIDE A DEFINITIVE RULING. QUOTE, THE JUSTICES, THREE OF WHOM WERE NOMINATED BY TRUMP, CEMENTING A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY, COULD RULE IN HIS FAVOR WITHOUT EVER ANSWERING WHETHER THE ATTACK WAS AN INSURRECTION OR WHETHER TRUMP IS AN INSURRECTIONIST. THE COURT COULD AVOID THOSE QUESTIONS BY DETERMINING THAT TRUMP NEVER TOOK AN OATH THAT SUBJECTS HIM TO THE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION BARRING INSURRECTIONISTS FROM OFFICE, FINDING THAT THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT COVERED BY THAT PROVISION OR RULING THAT CONGRESS RATHER THAN THE JUDICIARY GETS TO DECIDE WHO IS BARRED FROM OFFICE. HOWEVER, TO ANDERSON THE FACTS ARE CLEAR. >> HE PROVED THE CASE. HE COMMITTED INSURRECTION. >> YOU TRUST THIS COURT TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION? >> I'VE ALWAYS TRUSTED THE COURTS BEFORE. I DON'T THINK THE YOUNGER GENERATION TRULY UNDERSTAND HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO LOSING THEIR DEMOCRACY. >> AND THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, ANDERSON SAYS, PROTECTING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. SHE TOLD THE "POST", QUOTE, THE VERY FIRST TIME I EVER RAN I DIDN'T WIN. I DIDN'T GO OUT AND TRY TO CHAIT ELECTION. I SAID WHOOPS, WORK HARDER NEXT TIME, LADY, END QUOTE. JUST A FEW HOURS AGO TRUMP'S TEAM FILED ITS LAST REPLY BRIEF, A FINAL WORD BEFORE ARGUMENTS BEGIN. THE 30-PAGE BRIEF WAS FILLED WITH CLAIMS THAT HE'S ALREADY MADE SUCH AS THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE STATE, WHICH IS THE TERMINOLOGY USED IN SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT, AND THAT JANUARY 6th WAS NOT AN INSURRECTION SO HE COULDN'T HAVE ENGAGED IN ONE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE START THIS HOUR WITH MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST LISA RUBIN AND "NEW YORK TIMES" EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER MARA GAY, BOTH WITH ME ON SET. PLUS MSNBC COLUMNIST AND CONTRIBUTOR CHARLIE SYKES WITH US AS WELL. CHARLIE, YOU'VE GOT TO COME JOIN THE PARTY ONE OF THESE DAYS. WE'RE HAVING A NICE TIME HERE. LISA, LET'S START WITH YOU. THE TWO QUESTIONS AT HAND. THE LEGAL QUESTIONS AT HAND. WHETHER OR NOT DONALD TRUMP IS AN OFFICER OR WHETHER OR NOT HE ENGAGED IN AN INSURRECTION. LET'S DEAL WITH THE INSURRECTION PART. FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE THEY'RE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT NO ONE HAS EVER TRIED THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN INSURRECTION. THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT REALLY DID EXAMINE THIS IN REMARKABLE DETAIL. THEY WENT THROUGH A LOT OF OPTIONS AND CONCLUDED THAT WAS AN INSURRECTION ON JANUARY 6th. WHY DOESN'T THAT HOLD? >> WELL, IT COULD HOLD. RIGHT? IT IS WHAT WE CALL A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT. BUT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN DEFERENCE BY AN APPELLATE COURT, INCLUDING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, UNLESS THEY ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. DONALD TRUMP'S FOLKS SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE SORT OF ENMESHED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION THIS COURT SHOULD FEEL FREE TO THROW THEM OUT AND REVISIT THE WHOLE THING ENTIRELY. FOLKS LIKE NORMA ANDERSON, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE SAYING NO, NO, NO, A COURT HAS ALREADY FOUND ALL THESE FACTS AFTER A WEEK-LONG TRUMP, THEY FOUND THAT TRUMP -- THAT IT WAS AN INSURRECTION AND THAT TRUMP ENGAGED IN IT, WHICH IS ALSO CRUCIAL TO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT. >> BUT THE COURT'S NOT STRUGGLING WITH THE ENGAGED IN PART. THEY'RE STLUGLING -- OR WHAT I THINK THE COURT'S GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH IS WAS IT AN INSURRECTION. >> I THINK THE COURT'S GOING TO TRY TO AVOID THAT ENTIRELY, ALI, BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE STRICTLY LEGAL INTERPRETIVE ISSUES AND THEY ALSO INCLUDE DID HE TAKE THE NECESSARY OATH IN SECTION 3. IT'S AN OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION. TRUMP'S PEOPLE SAY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH IS TO PROTECT AND DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION HE'S NOT COVERED BY SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT. THEY SAY HE'S NOT AN OFFICER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT. AND PERHAPS MY FAVORITE ARGUMENT OF THEIRS IS BECAUSE THE 14th AMENDMENT REFERS TO HOLDING OFFICE THAT IT IS EITHER PREMATURE OR JUST NOT EVEN A QUESTION RIGHT NOW AT ALL -- >> ABOUT BEING ON THE BALLOT. >> CORRECT. AND THEY SAY THAT IT'S REALLY A DISABILITY THAT CONGRESS CAN REMOVE UP TO AND INCLUDING THROUGH 2029, SO THAT IF HE IS ELECTED CONGRESS THEN HAS FOUR MORE YEARS DURING HIS -- WHAT WOULD BE HIS SECOND TERM TO DETERMINE IF HE IS PREVENTED FROM HOLDING OFFICE. >> WHICH IS A FINE IDEA, EXCEPT HE'S GOING TO BE DICTATOR JUST FOR A DAY, HE SAYS, JUST TO DRILL AND BUILD A WALL. BUT I THINK WE KNOW THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. SO IF NORMA ANDERSON AND PEOPLE LIKE HER, REPUBLICANS IN MANY CASES, ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE UPHOLDING OF DEMOCRACY, THAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT THE UPHOLDING OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, WE CAN'T BE ASSURED THAT OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN AMERICA, I.E. CONGRESS, WILL DO THEIR PART. WE'VE SEEN SINCE JANUARY 6th OF 2021 THAT THEY HAVEN'T. THERE'S NO INDICATION THEY WILL NOW. >> WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS CLEARLY TESTED EVERY AMERICAN INSTITUTION, EVERY AMERICAN TRADITION, EVERY NORM OF DEMOCRACY, AND BLOWN RIGHT PAST MANY OF THEM. NOW, FORTUNATELY, OTHERS HELD. OF COURSE ON JANUARY 6th, ULTIMATELY THOSE VOTES WERE COUNTED AND JOE BIDEN WAS SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT. SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS THIS IS HAPPENING AGAIN. THE IRONY FOR ME IS REALLY THAT YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO APPOINTED SOMEONE TO THE SUPREME COURT WHO IS SUPPOSEDLY AN ORIGINALIST AND SO WE HAVE A SITUATION NOW WHERE YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE INTENT OF THAT AMENDMENT. I THINK IF YOU GO BACK TO RECONSTRUCTION I KNOW THAT FOR MOST AMERICANS THAT SEEMS REALLY NERDY BUT ACTUALLY IT'S QUITE RELEVANT HERE. >> IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THIS AMENDMENT CAME OUT OF. >> THAT'S WHERE THIS AMENDMENT CAME OUT OF BECAUSE ACTUALLY THE CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT BY PEOPLE WHO BETRAYED THE UNION. AND SO THIS AMENDMENT IS AN ATTEMPT TO SAY WE DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN, WE WANT TO PRESERVE NOT JUST THE UNION BUT DEMOCRACY FROM TRAITORS AND THREATS TO IT. AND SO THE SPIRIT OF THAT AMENDMENT IS OBVIOUS. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A LAWYER. I'M GLAD WE HAVE ONE HERE. BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A LAWYER TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THAT. AND TO SAY THAT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT IS ALSO LAUGHABLE BECAUSE HERE WE HAVE A FORMER PRESIDENT WHO IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES. SO I THINK IT'S -- THE LAW, THE LEGAL CASE OF IT WILL PLAY OUT. THE SUPREME COURT IS CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, A WILD CARD. AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THAT THIS IS A CLEAR AND SHUT CASE OF A FORMER PRESIDENT WHO'S A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. AND SO IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND AS A LAYMAN HOW HE DOESN'T FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF SOMEONE WHO SHOULD BE BARRED FROM THAT BALLOT. >> SO CHARLIE, WHEN THE COURT LOOKS AT THESE THINGS, YOU KNOW, NON-LAWYERS LIKE ME SIT THERE AND SAY ALL RIGHT, THERE ARE ORIGINALISTS AND TEXTUALISTS WHO SAY THIS IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN AND WHAT WAS INTENDED. AND THERE ARE OTHERS WHO SAY THE WORLD CHANGED, SO IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT THIS IS HOW IT WOULD APPLY TODAY. I THINK MARA MAKES A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT. WHETHER YOU READ THE WORDS AS THEY WERE MEANT -- AS THEY WERE WRITTEN OR WHETHER YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WAS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT THAT, YOU WOULD COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. THIS ISN'T SOME WEIRD THING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE AMENDMENT WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT. IT'S KIND OF EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT. >> NO, I AGREE COMPLETELY, BUT WHAT THE COURT SHOULD DO IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING AS WHAT IT WILL DO. WHAT ARE THE JUSTICES THINKING? THEY'RE THINKING THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS. THIS IS JOHN ROBERTS' WORST NIGHTMARE. YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED AS THE ROBERTS COURT, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DON'T REALLY LIKE TO DO. SO EVEN THOUGH THE ARGUMENTS THAT LISA LAID OUT VERY, VERY CLEARLY ARE I THINK AS A LAYMAN COMPLETELY LUDICROUS, THE IDEA THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO SERVING IN OFFICE, THESE ARE LAUGHABLE ARGUMENTS. BUT THESE ARE THE KINDS OF OFF-RAMPS THAT JUSTICES WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ARE LIKELY TO TAKE. I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR. I THINK THE APPLICATION IS CLEAR. THE COURT SHOULD APPLY THE 14th AMENDMENT. I THINK IT'S HIGHLY LIGHTNINGLY THEY WILL BECAUSE DESPITE ALL THE PROTESTATIONS ABOUT BEING ORIGINALISTS ULTIMATELY THE COURT IS A POLITICAL BODY AS WELL AS A LEGAL BODY AND I JUST DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS. WHICH MEANS THAT ULTIMATELY THE FINAL GUARDRAIL IS STILL GOING TO BE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN NOVEMBER. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THIS AND ANYONE WHO EXPECTS THE SUPREME COURT WILL SAVE US FROM THIS IS ENGAGED IN WISH CASTING. >> LET'S SAY THE SUPREME COURT DOES WHAT SOME VERY SMART LAWYERS ARE SUGGESTING THEY WILL DO, THEY'LL PUNT ON THIS ONE. ARE WE WORSE OFF OR BETTER OFF THAN IF THIS CASE HAD NEVER BEEN BROUGHT? >> I THINK WE'RE STILL BETTER OFF BECAUSE I THINK THESE ISSUES NEED TO BE AIRED OUT HERE. AND YOU MADE A POINT IN THE LAST HOUR THAT I HOPE WE DON'T GLOSS OVER. AND I HOPE THE JUSTICES KEEP IT IN MIND. BECAUSE AS MARA MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO DONALD TRUMP HAS VIOLATED OR CHALLENGED EVERY SINGLE NORM IN OUR CULTURE. AND IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS WE'VE SEEN SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS LIKE J.D. VANCE FLOATING THE IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT COULD IGNORE THE RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, INVOKING ANDREW JACKSON'S ALLEGED COMMENT, JUSTICE MARSHALL HAS MADE HIS RULING, NOW LET HIM ENFORCE IT. SO I THINK THAT AGAIN, WE NEED TO BE AT THIS MOMENT OF SAYING WHERE ARE THEGUARDRAILS? DO WE HAVE A PRESIDENT AND A COURT THAT WILL IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION? MIGHT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD IGNORE NOT JUST THE CONSTITUTION, NOT JUST THE LAW BUT ALSO RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT? WE ARE HEADED INTO REALLY FRAUGHT AND DANGEROUS TERRITORY HERE. I DON'T THINK THIS WILL CHANGE THE JUSTICES' MIND. BUT THEY NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT TRUMP AND HIS CIRCLE ARE ALREADY BEGINNING TO
