we have joyce vance back with us. joyce, you know what, let me give you a little bit more.on says if i let you speak for five minutes, will you focus on the facts and not go outside? trump says the financial statements are perfect. the banks got all their money. the banks are happy as they can be. they were not defrauded, and there was -- i got to wait for this document to update. it sounds like engoron might be leaning toward a yes depending on trump's answer here. >> you know, this is so unusual, katy. it seems like there are no rules when donald trump is involved. the reason that people hire lawyers to represent them in court is because lawyers understand what the issues are. any litigant might want to be in the position donald trump's in and to focus the judge on what's important to them, but the judge has to make legal decisions based on the evidence that was put forth in court and what the law says, and it's very unlikely that donald trump can shed any light on any of those issues more capably than the three lawyers who the judge has permitted to argue for him today b

joyce, if you would stay with us for a moment. there's a new twist in the election interference case against donald trump in georgia. we see live pictures right there of a rainy tarmac in d.c. looks like the former president is about to emerge from one of the vehicles. i want to go back to the other case that we are talking about, the president's co-defendants, alleged seeking to dismiss charges that district attorney willis had engaged in a romantic relationship. the filing didn't provide evidence to support that. with us more to talk about this is blayne alexander in atlanta, joyce vance back with us. what can you tell us about this filing? >> reporter: this was a filing that came out just last night within the last 24 hours or so. this was filed on behalf of michael romain, one of the lesser known co-defendants. they are alleging the d.a. and special prosecutor wade who we have seen are involved in what they are calling a clandestine, romantic relationship. they don't bring any direct evidence to support these claims. instead,

joyce, can you explain this to us from a legal perspective?think crazy does really well to characterize what is going on, here. this is a personal tragedy. this is not something that should be played out in a police station after a woman has been failed by her doctors not because they wanted to fail her, but because they are now operating in this legal environment where they are personally at risk if they provide the care that she needed. two kavita's point, there are very now discouraged distinctions happening here. she is 21 weeks pregnant when this happens. she is 22 weeks -- 22 weeks as viability in ohio. she should have been able to obtain this procedure, but she wasn't. they convened a medical ethics board, they failed to act. yet again, this is a situation where, had she miscarried in the hospital, the fetus would not have been treated as a human body. that, of course, is the distinction, here. she would not have been subjected to the charges the grand jury has been asked to consider, which is, in essence, tampering with a corpse. all o

>> but joyce, i want to share trump's lawyers.nk the right in their appeal -- it is a fundamental principle that the people should choose who their pleas to govern them. how ironic is that when you think about what this whole thing is about? >> yeah, the hubris of that line. it is the very first line in this petition for certiorari. you read that and it smacks the american people in the face. for someone who did so much to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election to now claim that he is the greatest defender of american voters, to ty cobb's point though, there are a lot of procedural off-ramps that the supreme court could take that would let trump stay on the ballot in colorado. koch is referring to the decision that was made by the trial court in colorado. it was that judge who first said that trump as president was not someone who was qualified under the 14th amendment, section 3:40 remove all. the colorado supreme court reversed her. that is one of many possible options. the supreme court has, if they don't want to

and host of the podcast, joyce vance. he has the right to spend the money he's raised on his legal fees. my question. are his supporters aware of just what it is he's doing? >> well, i don't know if they're explicitly aware, but in general if you look at the polling, i think there's a general sense that wherever he goes, they shall follow. wunl of the things i'd like to point out is there was some consternation among trump supporters when jack smith was announced and he's overseeing two investigations. the mar-a-lago investigation and obviously the january 6 investigation. over the same period of time roughly speaking prorated jack smith has spent between 12 and $13 million on legal fees. that's not including all the security that he's had to pay for because of the threats that he and his staff have been receiving but just in terms of the actual outlay and he's not participating in the georgia case or either of the two civil cases. just in terms of paying a very substantial number of prosecutors and investigators at doj,

joyce vance, stick around for a little longer.e to talk about coming up. >>> we're following breaking news out of new jersey, right now police are investigating after an imam was shot outside a mosque in newark. i want to bring in tom winter to talk more about this. this is happening in the last hour or so. what do we know, tom? >> you're looking at the mosque there, outside of it, according to the safety director, at approximately 6:16 this morning, the imam was near or at the mosque when he was shot. what we don't know right now is what the potential motive may have been for the shooting. that's something that law enforcement is eager to figure out themselves, why this could have happened, was this individual shot because of their faith, because they're a leader in that community, or were they shot because this was a robbery attempt or some other crime. that's what's trying to be determined at this point. the former lieutenant colonel of the new jersey state police, new jersey state police are headquartered not all that far from

we are back with joyce, mary and lisa.what judge kaplan has to decide. >> alicia, as we discussed, the issue of whether or not e. jean carroll had to mitigate her damages was an essential them. their position was that donald trump didn't damage carroll at all. they argued she was more famous after the fact than she was before. if she was damaged, their argument amounts to it's your own darn fault because you didn't take it upon yourself to mitigate your damages by staying silent. instead you amplified your voice and told the whole world, you brought the death threats and all the egregiously ugly statements that people made about you upon yourself. in these briefs both sides are talking about a particular new york court case from 1919 that addresses this issue squarely. whether a victim of defamation or libel has to mitigate their own damages. alina habba's brief, while it contains a quote from that case, it misquotes the rest of the case which stands for the proposition that, a victim of defamation has the right to mitigat

joyce: i rise to address the house. ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. joyce: mr. speaker, this week marks 51 years since the roe v. wade decision was issued by the u.s. supreme court. since that time, americans have worked tirelessly to see that desion overturned. as a doctor i swore an oath to first do no harm and to protect the sanctity of human congress y and our citizens. and that means that we must stand for human life. this week we'll vote on legislation to block a proposed biden administration rule that would prohitng funding to pregny resource centers that support the lives of both mothers and their unborn children. weeks ofs begun to form facial features, fingernails, and toes. at 20 weeks a baby can hear their mother's voice. it is clear that these are children. and in congress it is our duty to protect the lives of the vulnerable. this week, let's join together children, all children both born and unborn. thank you. mr. speaker, this week the pennsylvania state police relea

joyce randolph's forever trixie and classic television's sitcom. >> always to face the camera. because when he turns profile, brother, he is the biggest thing on television. ♪ >> announcer: this is the cbs weekend news, from new york with jericka duncan. >> good evening and thanks for joining us on this sunday as we come on the air tonight, nearly 100 million of you are under windchill warnings or advisories as an arctic blast grips a wide swath of this country. the national weather service warns the extreme temperatures pose a risk of frostbite and hypothermia. this is buffalo, new york, where a blizzard is blasting the city with snow and howling winds. the snow is also piling up in utah as the avalanche threat increases. this video was captured in cottonwood canyons near salt lake. the state's avalanche center is warning of, quote, extreme extraordinarily dangerous avalanche conditions. and look at these frigid temperatures, brutal from the pacific northwest to the northeast. the extreme cold also putting electrical grids to the test. mike seidel of our partners at the weathe

joyce may be right that there are a bunch of technical ways for the supreme court to resolve this in a way that keeps trump on the ballot. that's possible, but i do think the original intent of the 14th amendment, everything about it's spirit is about preventing someone like this from holding office. and i'm hopeful that the challengers from colorado will make that point based on the way our founders, the writers of the 14th amendment, understood that text. >> and joyce, there was a five-day trial in the state of colorado, and the judge found that donald trump did commit insurrection. how much weight do you think that finding, that he was an insurrectionist, they found on a technical matter, they couldn't take him off the ballot and the supreme court overturned that. does the fabt there was a trial and he was found to be an insurrectionists, how much does that end up mattering to the supreme court? >> yeah, this is such an important point, joy. the supreme court is not a trial court. they don't hear evidence. they take the record from the lower courts and that's the factual basis for

joyce, thanks for being here. just got this motion a minute ago, so i haven't had a chance to review it, but it sounds like trump's lawyers want to greatly expand the number of people and the agencies that are deemed prosecution team in terms of the prosecution's office is that right? >> that's right. this is fantastical nar tf of trump is the victim done wrong by a weaponized executive branch that's out to get him. and so for starters what he's saying, and this is an argument that there's debate back and forth about in discovery, to be frank. but he's saying that the prosecution limited the scope of their search for material they had to turn over to trump far too narrowly. they want, for instance, the special counsel's office to go back to people in the justice department and the fbi. and perhaps that's warranted. you know, this is an 11th circuit case, and the law in the 11th circuit says that prosecutors have to talk to any agents who they worked closely with. that's the essence of the requirement. but then par

leading off our discussion tonight, is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. she is an msnbc legal analyst and co-host of the podcast hashtag sisters in law. also with us, harry litman, former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general and a senior legal affairs columnist for the los angeles times. and joyce, let's begin with you of the breaking news of the night. you know a great deal about the workings of the 11th circuit court of appeals. mark meadows petitioning the 11th circuit for what they call an en banc re-hearing which means all of the judges on the bench, all the 11th circuit would hear the case, not just the panel of three. how common is it to get the full appeals court once the panel has rejected it? >> it's very uncommon. the 11th circuit argues very few cases compared to the other circuits to begin with. en banc usually happens in this circuit in two weeks. just a handful of carrots cases will be in spring in the fall and so i suppose from one point of view it's a

the publicity stunt, joyce.nald trump doesn't have to be in court for tomorrow's hearing. it's lawyers versus lawyers. so, does that tell us that he is these charges as a political win for him? >> you know, he probably is this whole situation as a fundraising opportunity. because let against our very rarely, particularly criminal defendants, are very rarely in appellate court. their presence is even less really, in fact, i can only think of monheim where it happened in 25 years, acknowledged by the three judge panel. these are arguments of the legal rulings. they are technical. they don't get into the nitty-gritty of who the defendant's. it's not a situation where it will be introduced in open court. all of that to say what he will hope to do is to hold a press conference on the courthouse steps. appellate judges less so than trial judges have tolerance for that sort of a stunt. >> backtrack, when he tells people, joe biden is keeping him in these trials to keep him off the campaign trail, donald trump is choosi

leading off our discussion tonight, is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. she is an msnbc legal analyst and co-host of the podcast hashtag sisters in law. also with us, harry litman, former u.s. attorney and former deputy city attorney general. a senior legal affairs columnist for the los angeles times. and joyce, let's begin with you of the breaking news of the night. you know a great deal about the workings of the 11th circuit court of appeals. mark meadows petitioning the 11th circuit for what they call a re-hearing which means all of the judges on the bench, on the 11th circuit panel three. how common is it to get the full appeals court once the panel has rejected it? >> it's very uncommon. the 11th has very few cases compared to the other circuits to begin with. on magufuli happens in this circuit in two weeks. just a handful of carrots cases will be in spring in the fall and so i suppose from one point of view it's advantageous. it would be delay involved, but the judges on the court w

joyce, i kept thinking today, what are other judges thinking? donald trump has several other trials on the horizon. and what must judges be thinking if they're watching him throw a tantrum in this courtroom? they've got to be thinking, what's going to be in this for me next? >> i think that's right, steph, because this case that we are seeing today is a short trial. this is two, three, four days, and then it's done. the incentive is for judge kaplan to get it across the finish line. there is no suggestion that donald trump would be better behaved if there was a mistrial here and a new trial. he just wants to bring it to a conclusion and let e. jean carroll get her verdict. but in the criminal cases, the judges are looking at longer trials and the incentives are very different. unfortunately for those judges there is a federal rule of criminal procedure, rule 43, that authorizes them to remove a disruptive defendant from the courtroom. they'll take steps to protect his rights. they will warn donald trump before they do it. they will continue to a

also with, us joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. she is co-host of the podcast sisters in law. they're both msnbc legal analysts. and andrew weissmann, i want to take a wide view here and on the point that nikki haley just said, we won't survive it. she's talking about another four years, another presidential term for donald trump, we won't survive it. what are the ways we might not survive it? >> that is a great question, because we've been looking very much at the legal issues about whether the court will grant this strange and bizarre and unique view that donald trump has of presidential immunity. the court won't do that, it won't come in the d.c. circuit, when the supreme court hears it, that won't happen. but that does not mean donald trump as president is not going to be able to sort of fashion his own type of immunity. because one provision in the constitution that donald trump really demonstrates was a flaw that the framers put into the constitution but they

joining me now is joyce vance, former u.s.in alabama, professor at the university of alabama school of law. embassy legal analyst, and the co-host of the hashtag sisters in law podcast. and her free time, she helps us out to break it all down when it comes to trump's legal. joyce, my friend, it's good to see you. let's start with tuesday. tuesday is right around the corner. it is the oral arguments that are slated for january 9th. i want to ask you about the speed by which the d.c. court of appeals has moved, the fact the supreme court declined to take up the presidential immunity issue before the dc circuit court of appeals role. and how that works in terms of your case and msnbc.com. i agree, having cases like you, judges can control the speed by which this case is go to trial. why is it that we haven't seen more speed from the supreme court, yet we just did over the colorado supreme court decision to take trump off the ballot. >> so i think this is the key question because trump's overall strategy is one of delay, get every

also with us, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. she is co-host of the podcast sisters in law. they're both msnbc legal analysts. and, andrew weissmann, i want to take a wide view here and on the point that nikki haley just said, we won't survive it. she's talking about another four years, another presidential term for donald trump, we won't survive it. what are the ways we might not survive it? >> that is a great question, because we've been looking very much at the legal issues about whether the court will grant this strange and bizarre and unique view that donald trump has of presidential immunity. the court won't do that, it won't come in the d. c. circuit, when the supreme court hears it, that won't happen. but that does not mean donald trump as president is not going to be able to sort of fashion his own type of immunity. because one provision in the constitution that donald trump really demonstrates was a flaw that the framers put into the constitution but the

the publicity stunt, joyce.e to be in court for tomorrow's hearing. it's lawyers versus lawyers. so, does that tell us that he is these charges as a political win for him? >> you know, he probably is this whole situation as a fundraising opportunity. because let against our very rarely, particularly criminal defendants, are very rarely in appellate court. their presence is even less really, in fact, i can only think of monheim where it happened in 25 years, acknowledged by the three judge panel. these are arguments of the legal rulings. they are technical. they don't get into the nitty-gritty of who the defendant's. it's not a situation where it will be introduced in open court. all of that to say what he will hope to do is to hold a press conference on the courthouse steps. appellate judges less so than trial judges have tolerance for that sort of a stunt. >> backtrack, when he tells people, joe biden is keeping him in these trials to keep him off the campaign trail, donald trump is choosing to be in court. mar

joyce, we've talked.e hosts have talked since tuesday about the novel nature of john sour's claims at the third circuit court, and how they mix the political and legal. but let's take this one about looking over once shoulder. donald trump is making the argument, or his lawyers are making the argument there will be a floodgate of things that will happen to presidents based on all the decisions that they make, while in office, if you do not hold the president immune. we're talking about criminal behavior. at least that's what we should be, presidents, i don't know that there's anything wrong with the idea that the president might look over their shoulder if they're going to commit a crime. we would kind of like them not to commit crimes as well. >> yeah, i think that's fair. and the remarkable thing of sours argument is that, he had a far more modest sort of attacked. he could've conceded that some of judge porn's hypotheticals or beyond the scope of the president. no president should ever order seal team

legal analyst joyce vance, thank you.soon. >>> up next on "way too early," donald trump is racking up endorsements from congressional republicans. what his continued grip on the party could mean ahead of new hampshire. >>> and then coming up on "morning joe," a new deal to secure the release of hostages held by hamas may be taking shape. nbc news chief international correspondent keir simmons will bring us the details. >>> plus, after months of defiance, hunter biden agrees to a closed door deposition with republican lawmakers. what that development might mean for the gop-led impeachment inquiry into his father, president biden. "morning joe" just a few moments away. i am accomplishing. so i'm doing all i can to help lower my risk of breaking a bone. for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture taking calcium and vitamin d may not be enough. adding prolia® is proven to help strengthen bones and reduce spine fracture risk by 68% with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood c

joyce, thanks for being here.minute ago but so i haven't had a chance to review, but it sounds like trump's lawyers want to expand the number of people in the agencies that are deemed prosecution team in terms of the special counsel's office. is that right? >> that's right. this is a story of fantastical narrative of trump as the victim, done wrong by a weaponized executive branch without to get him. and so for starters what he is saying, and this is an argument that there is debate back and forth about in discovery, to be frank, but he is saying that the prosecution limited the scope of their search for material they had to turn over to trump far too narrowly. they want, for instance, the special counsel's office to go back to people in the justice department and the fbi, and perhaps that's warranted. this is an 11th circuit case, and a lot in the 11th circuit says prosecutors have to talk to any agents who they worked closely with. that's the essence of the requirement. but then parts of this, other parts are ju

i want to ask you, joyce. when it comes to the new hampshire primaries and his victory there, we have a victory in iowa. how does that factor into trump's arguments going forward on the legal front? does that make a difference in terms of him being closer to the nomination on your mind? >> it's fascinating. and i wonder if you of the same sense that i do. much of trump's arguments seem better suited for the political arena than for the legal one. his defenses have been pretty slender in this most recent case involving e. jean carroll. he really did not have a defense. so i think most of what we're hearing him argue is gearing more towards voters than towards juries. >> reporter: i agree with you. i think one of the things that people of missed is that at this point, donald trump the candidate is almost inseparable from donald trump the campaign, i'm sorry, the defending. because it is one and the same. his campaign stops are being treated as a way to argue the court of public opinion and that his court stops a

joyce, why does jack smith have to stop filing motions? when an appeal is underway like this, a pretrial appeal, it divests jurisdiction from the district court, which means no further proceedings can be held there. so technically jack smith is probably out of order in continuing to file, but this isn't the sort of issue that gives rise to contempt proceedings. the judge can simply tell him to knock it off until jurisdiction is returned to her court. >> so why would he do it though is this he presumably knows this. >> it's political showsmanship. this is sort of a pr stunt on trump's part trying to say that jack smith isn't playing by the rules. it's a little bit like an offsides call in football -- >> wait, hold on, let me rephrase. why would jack smith be doing it if he knows he's not supposed to be doing it right now? >> i'm sorry. i mistook the question. >> that's okay. >> i think smith had an argument to offer for why he was entitled to do this. he is frustrated by all of the delays that the trump camp is engaging in. he wants to make

joyce, for five minutes. mr. joyce: thank you, mr. speaker. mr., i rise today to share the story of mr. cooper. mr. cooper is a loving grandfather of nine. he's a poet and composer. his friends and family describe him as someone who sprieives for peace in every -- strives for peace in everyone corner of the world. on october 7, mr. cooper was one of the 240 men, women and children and elderly who were brutally kidnapped by hamas terrorists. he and 135 hostages are still held captive in gaza and during unthinkable suffering and traumg unthinkable suffering and trauma. i stand here today that hamas immediately release mr. cooper along with all the other remaining hostages. those who have been released have shared horror stories about the inhumane conditions. we must stand with israel as it works to free its citizens wrongfully held captive. it's time to bring mr. cooper home. it's time to bring them all home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

as joyce knows well, for a civil jury, we only need six. that's rye carroll's lawyer said she comfortable going forward. she was simply noting there's no impediment to going forward without that juror because they don't need him. >> joyce, this is really kind of the first example we've had of such a direct clash between a big moment in a presidential campaign and a big moment in one of trump's trials. trump's attorney is asking the judge to let him do both, as we just pointed out, be in new hampshire tomorrow, delay his testimony to wednesday. he says he's going to look at that, but how do you imagine that factors in? again, here we are in uncharted territory. this kind of decision before. >> yeah. this is thest of many times we'll see this issue crop up. look, the path of least resistance, quite frankly, would be to suspend the trial for an additional day. i think judge kaplan will probably do that. it's not unusual for judges to deal with issues involving illness on juries. as lisa points out, this case could absolutely go forward without

joyce, you have been following this trial closely. donald trump wants to turn this into a campaign event. but just how much is someone like judge kaplan going to tolerate? i mean, is kaplan going to be up for this? >> so judge kaplan's reputation is as a zealous legal advocate. he doesn't lean plaintive, he doesn't lean defended. he follows the rule of law. he keeps control of his courtroom. and that's exactly what we've seen so far. i think to the point, steph, that's exactly what we'll see if donald trump testifies. i think we'll see judge kaplan make an effort to vet his testimony before he takes the stand to ensure there won't be any prejudice done to the jury. judge kaplan will be very focused on making sure donald trump does not create a mistrial. >> katie,'tis james wants donald trump from being barred in any real estate business in new york for life. what's the argument that she's making? >> so what she's done if she's decided to -- one of her lawyers sent a letter to the court comparing the donald trump leads to the mark -- t

thank you for your time, joyce. that is our silver tonight. now it is time for the last word with my friend and colleague lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, law alex. >>> lawrence >> i just got my hands on this filing while you've been working here. we'll very much on the fly going into live coverage of it. you will not be surprised to know that on the first page of this filing the second paragraph mentions the historic landslide victory in the iowa caucuses yesterday. that is considered a of legal import in this case by the trump lawyers in their filing tonight. >> i wonder if there's something about his inauguration crowd size on page 67. we'll see. >> i haven't read the whole thing, but so far i have not found that. >> your crackerjack team of producers is on it. >> thank you, alex. we are about to be joined by andrew weizmann and bradley moss, who have this document that joyce vance has just been discussing with alex wagner and it is a filing clearly to delay this case. it makes the argument that house no foundati

also with us is msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor joyce vance.ing arguments yesterday. take us through what happened. >> reporter: ana, his business future is on the line in the state of new york. you just said it there, the potential that he would be barred from ever doing real estate in the state of new york again. so you know, after 2024, if his political future doesn't go well, you know, it's the trump organization that he has to fall back on, let alone that $370 million fine, which takes us to the reason why he was inside of that lower manhattan courtroom in which he was granted the opportunity to speak for about five minutes, though the judge ordered him to only stick to the evidence in the case at hand, donald trump did the exact opposite, you could say as expected. instead he took a shot at letitia james, the attorney general who was sitting just feet away from him saying that she hated him, and then took a shot directly at the judge arguing that he had an agenda. now donald trump has already appealed the original claim in which he has be

up >> joyce? your reaction?ially when we have been talking about the supreme court the legitimacy of the supreme court, the reputation. are becoming more and more politicized? and then you hear something like this. >> that was a really appalling statement for any lawyer to make. and particularly, a lawyer involved in a contest like this. all federal judges are appointed by a president from one party or another. and we expect all of them to leave that political origin story at the door when they take the bench. they decide cases based on the law and the facts. and not on the president who got them there. so, i think that this is, in many ways, imputing the character of some of the supreme court justices. i hope they're deeply offended by her comments. they should be. in the real problem here is that trump and those around him continue to cast into disrepute all of our important democratic institutions. trump has attacked the fbi. he's attacked his successor, joe biden. he's attacked members of congress. he's atta

joyce, that phone call to jennifer crumbley coming hours before the shooting concerned. crucial about the fact that the school is calling saying we'd like you to come in, and that timing, if they want to prove that she should have done more? >> right, chris. that's the issue here because she's charged with involuntary manslaughter. that means prosecutors have to show that she acted with gross negligence, more than just mere carelessness, that she was actually aware that there was a risk of injury to other people, if she used ordinary care, xi could have prevented it and failed to do so. this testimony sets the stage to show she was aware that her son posed a danger to either himself or the others. >> earlier today the owner of the barn where they stored their horses laid out how much money, how much time they spent there. a key part of the prosecutor's argument is that she was neglecting her child, focusing on the horses instead. legally can that help them establish their case? >> the same form of argument, establishing she was aware a risk existed but she ignored it. je

joyce, thanks. joyce vance is a former attorney for the northern district of alabama.ll. lawrence, i think i've eaten up half a minute of your show every night for the last tonight. so i think tomorrow night i will give you back a pile of it. >> according to my clock it's 25 seconds. i wasn't ready toun

joyce randolph was 99. >>> the 2024 critics choice awards were handed out last night in santa monica.ce award goes to "oppenheimer." >> "oppenheimer" led the pack in the big screen categories with eight wins including best picture. on the tv side, "the bear" and "beef" each had four wins followed by "succession" with three. >>> denmark has a new king. frederik x took over the throne after his mother, queen margrethe, siged her abdication. it mains the queen the first danish monarch to voluntarily relinquish the throne in nearly 900 years. the queen cited health issues when she announced that she would be stepping down. >>> coming up on "cbs mornings," actor tina fey talks about bringing the "mean girls" musical back to the big screen after 20 years following the original movie. more on this coming up. h when dry eye symptoms keep... coming... back... inflammation might be to blame. over-the-counter eye drops can provide temporary relief. xiidra can provide lasting relief. it targets inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no-o-o! xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dr

democracy. annual in the the main agenda and my political party is trying to change as well from a joyce state estate which is built on race and the rest of separation into a normal democracy. we call it this depth of all its citizens because we are struggling in the state of this right. for equality and justice for all we ought to consider it takes 3 and then imagine this irony, those who are struggling for peace justice under equality, 4 or arkansas of the day, 3 months during war, the rest, your reward is being arrested. not just the end of all of the other voices that that supports up to patient that wants to give gusta on the seat. that wants to give joyce a pretty empty that wants to keep precious a patient, of course, or their budget them a and it is. so going to this did the, any in this that you are just so full of contradiction that we are not allowed to express our views against the law. you know, all the senior leadership, what 20 percent of the population inside the system for sure. we have been trying to organize in march or a serious demonstration against the war since the

that wants to keep joyce a pretty empty that wants to keep precious a patient. of course, other than just a minute. and it is so contradicted that any in this that you are just so full of contradiction that we are not allowed to express our views against the war. you know, all the senior leadership, what 20 percent of the population instead this the for sure. we have been trying to organize in march or a serious demonstration against the war since the 1st week of the war. we are being threatened by this that the police in every time that we go to bring the lessons for the most station that the or those in the police station is do use live bullets to prevent us from demonstrating as i was this day 4 hours me and another few colleagues, that's where for my member of the can, has it been part of the senior leadership? we were in a legally did the there's any and that's the only station. and then we did that on the police station for hours because we wanted to and you have a small wrought this less than 50 people. get in one sign in, out of the gabriel english, aske

and my political party is trying to change is ro, from a joyce state estate which is built on race and the racial separation into a normal democracy. we call it this depth of all its citizens because we are struggling in the state of this right for equality and justice for all we are concerned that it takes 3 and then imagine this irony, those who are struggling for peace, justice under equality for all our consider day 3 months, your war, the rest, your reward is being arrested. i just the end of all of the other boys is that that supports a few patients that wants to give gusta on the seat. that wants to give joyce a pretty empty that wants to keep precious the patient, of course, other than just a minute. and it is so contradicted that any in this that you are just so full of contradiction. now we are not allowed to express our views against the war. you know, all the senior leadership, what 20 percent of the population inside the setup wizard. as we have been trying to organize in march or is it is the most efficient against the war. since the 1st week of the war, we are being thre

joining me now to understand this now is joyce vance. joyce, i want you to help me with this one. this one i'm troubled by it but i don't understand it. judge chutkan stayed the case because it had been appealed to higher courts, and i guess that's what she had to do. so now they're saying because it was stayed he's -- he's manipulating stuff, is that what's going on here? >> right. so trump's team is saying that jack smith violated the rules that the game is supposed to be played by. this isn't a motion that will have any impact on trump's ultimate guilt or the failure to convict him. this isn't about that. this is about whether the court is divested of jurisdiction to do anything else while the immunity appeal is ongoing. and frankly, there's a good argument that the judge does lack that jurisdiction and that smith should not have filed these motions while that appeal was ongoing. >> okay, so what happens then? let's say the judge agrees with him. does he just sort of put it on hold and bring it up when the trial's back in motion? >> yeah, i think that's right. i don't think tha

.■ clyburn, my associate miss fudge and others in the room tonight, joyce beatty, we were into the househamber to observe and bear witness to the camping of the ballots, one of the most important moments in american democracy, you know what happened. i am sitting in the gallery 20 colleagues and start getting text messages my family. are you all right, dad? i knew nothing was going on and went outside the chamber and looked out the window and saw them coming, starting to fight with our police officers. when we got in the chambers, they slam the doors and put furniture against them. we were trapped. we had to take cover behind chairs and put on our gas masksd something to defend ourselves, and all we had was pens and pencils. my colleagues were in tears, calling home and saying goodbye to their loved ones. i yelled at my colleagues, all 20 of them, join me, let's run to the republican side of the house so we could blend in, so we could blend in, thinking that insurrectionists were coming for us with guns looking for democrats. and at that moment i looked at two my colleagues, black collea

joyce vance, what kind of action can the families take? >> let's turn to the discussion of criminal prosecutions. i think the attorney general addressed this. this is an after action report and as i heard frank say earlier, this will become standard reading in training for new law enforcement offices. it will be studied by leadership in federal, state and local agencies across the country. and sometimes the most powerful lesson is the lesson about how to not do something. and the failure here to take the most basic actions to establish a command center will be i think instructive going forward. but obviously it will not bring any of these children back. there will be no further criminal activity by the justice department. the shooter is dead. no criminal action is contemplated against law enforcement folks. >> frank, what surprises you most about the justice department's findings? >> if you were to sit down and try to draw up a table top exercise for a shooting, and i've done that throughout my career, you want to inject various failure po

i wonder how lisa and joyce feel about it? >> joyce?i think what harry is referencing is the possibility that any verdict that kaplan gets for e. jean carroll could be reversed on appeal. if a court was to find that it was unduly prejudicial to present this tape in evidence. harry makes a great argument. this happens years ago. i suspect where kaplan is headed with this is that she will argue that based on the date of the rape which preceded the "access hollywood" tape, the tape is a pretty good barometer of trump's attitudes towards women over a period of time and, of course, when you're looking at punitive damages, they are meant to punish, not to compensate. and so part of what kaplan has a duty of establishing for this jury is whether or not trump, in fact, was acting in a way that was out of bounds when he made these repeated comments. i agree with harry, it's a dicey evidentiary call. i'm not sure she needs to go this far. given the amount of evidence at her disposal. we'll see whether she actually offers it to this jury. she has

because when he turns profile, brother, he's the biggest thing on television. >> joyce randolph diedrk. she was 99. and that is the "overnight news" for this monday as we honor dr. martin luther king jr. reporting from the broadcast center in new york city, i'm jericka duncan. >>> this is "cbs news flash." i'm carissa lawson in new york. the senate is expected to vote tuesday on a resolution that will keep the government funded through early march. majority leader chuck schumer says the bills will give the appropriations committee time to finish a funding agreement for the rest of the year. >>> the department of homeland security has sent a cease and desist letter to texas auauthorities demanding its ages be allowed in a park that's on the border in eagle pass, texas. three migrants drowned on friday near the park, which has been under control of state authorities including the texas national guard. >>> and a fetch weekend for "mean girls" in its opening weekend. the remake led the way at the box office, taking in $28 million. for more download the cbs news app on your cell phone or

attorney joyce vance, who also described e. jean carroll as a dear friend.een following this trial closely. it is obvious donald trump wants to turn this into a campaign event. but just how much is someone like judge kaplan going to tolerate? is judge kaplan going to be up for this? >> so, judge kaplan's reputation is, as a zealous legal advocate. he doesn't lean plaintive, he doesn't lean defendant. he follows the rule of law. he keeps control of his courtroom. that's what we've seen so far. i think more to the point, stephanie, that's what we will see if donald trump testifies. we'll see judge kaplan make an effort to vet his testimony before he takes the stand, to ensure that there won't be any prejudice gun to the jury. judge kaplan will be very focused on making sure that donald trump does not create a mistrial. >> katie, tish james want donald trump barred from being in any real estate business in new york for life. what is the argument that she is making? >> what she has done is decide to, one of her lawyer sent a letter to the court comparing the don

thank you for your time, joyce. that is social for tonight. now it is time for the last word with my friend and colleague lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening alex. >> i just got my hands on this filing while you've been working here. we're very much on the fly going into live coverage of it. you will not be surprised to know that on the first page of this filing the second paragraph mentions the historic landslide victory in the iowa caucuses yesterday. that is considered of legal import in this case by the trump lawyers in their filing tonight. >> i wonder if there's something about his inauguration crowd size on page 67. we'll see. >> i haven't read the whole thing, but so far i have not found that. >> your crackerjack team of producers is on it. >> thank you, alex. we are about to be joined by andrew weissmann and bradley moss, who have this document that joyce vance has just been discussing with alex wagner and it is a filing clearly to delay this case. it makes the argument that house no foundation in law, that the

thank you for your time, joyce. that is social for tonight. my friend and colleague lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening alex. >> i just got my hands on this filing while you've been working here. we're very much on the fly going into live coverage of it. you will not be surpr t

now the question is, how many so many set fast and joyce joyce me from brussel step, but it has been very divided in its response to the one casa, what do you expect from them today? well i show her to you also, but all of us are we much focusing on the sorry, dia, humanitarian situation, and gosh, i need to fish in deficiency within that you became immediately clear this morning when the 4 minutes before arriving. when the german following in minnesota, melina bab, okay. she mainly focused on how much on the, on the filing of, by how much and on the hostages they can accept his, they can a by how my so a very much clear division still on the situation at the moment in, gosh, i so that's why the you has invited a lot more administers from arab countries as well, but rattle called in an exceptional meeting. never before so many ministers were invited to this. foreign minister council soto will be administer for the, for a minister from this route. he will address the meeting this morning separately in the afternoon to 4 minutes to from palestine will be here and in a, during the lunch

attorney joyce vance.a school of law, and co-host of the hashtag sisters in law podcast. joyce, thank you for coming to the saturday show. so, could this allegation against d. a. fani willis endanger her case against trump? >> it really won't, jonathan. and this is perhaps a little bit difficult to explain, but there are two separate things going on here. one is the prosecution against michael roman, the defendant who has made these allegations, and his codefendants. and their guilt or innocence is not impacted in any way by these allegations, that case will go on regardless. the question that is posed by the ethics argument roman has raised is whether fani willis continue on the case. and under georgia law, she clearly can, although she might need to answer to the county commission, she might have some ethics issues to resolve. the only sort of a situation that would create a conflict of interest that would justify her recusal would be if there was a financial conflict of interest that impacted the fairne

we are glad to have you, joyce. when you look at this breakdown, look at, this 83 point million dollars -- that -- punitive damages. because the jury found this. that trump acted maliciously out of hatred, ill will or spy, vindictive lee or out of one reckless or willful disregard of miss carroll's rights. what does this tell you about how the jury approach this case? and their view on victims shaming? >> i think that is the important point here because this punitive damage is a word so much larger than the first trial. this is something that donald trump brought on himself, it was his behavior, his continuation of the defamation, his -- in reality, what we should think about this, alex, is that he is targeting e. jean carroll with his face on social media in his public comments. the jury didn't like that. >> reporter: hugo, trump says that he plans to appeal, of course. he has even evoke to the republican party in his claims that his lawsuit was a politically motivated attack. your sources? what are they telling yo

joyce. interesting. >> i think it's very important. as you know, i know e. jean carroll well, and she's doing something that sexual assault victims in this country have the power to do under the law. she's confronting the man who assaulted her, even if it's years after the fact. for cultural reasons, at the time this took place, many women remained silent. she was part of that culture. now she's reclaiming her voice and in the process, i think she's reclaiming all of our voices. >> joyce vance, symone sanders, thank you so much for joining us. and we will be watching at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, "the weekend" on msnbc. you did super well last week, and i expect it to continue. thanks for being with us, ladies. >>> still ahead, why some republican senators say they are appalled by what their party is doing to sink border negotiations, plus what led the state department halt funding for a u.n. agency. and if you're scheduled to fly out of seattle today at 2:20 pacific time. you might want to keep on watching. we're back in 60 seconds. high , complete nutrition you n

joyce, i kept thinking today, what are other judges thinking? donald trump has several other trials on the horizon. and what must judges be thinking if they're watching him throw a tantrum in this courtroom? they've got to be thinking, what's going to be in this for me next? >> i think that's right, staff, because this case that we are seeing today is a short trial. this is two, three, four days, and then it's done. the incentive is for judge kaplan to get it across the finish line. there is no suggestion that donald trump would be better behaved if there was a mistrial here and a new trial. he just wants to bring it to a conclusion and let e. jean carroll get her a verdict. but in the criminal cases, the judges are looking at longer trials and the incentives are very different. unfortunately for those judges there is a federal rule of criminal procedure, rule 43, that authorizes them to remove a disruptive defended from the courtroom. they'll take steps to protect his rights. they will warn donald trump before they do it. they will continue to

attorney joyce vance. of alabama school of law, and co-host of the hashtag sisters in law podcast. joyce, thank you for coming to the saturday show. so, could this allegation against d.a. fani willis endanger her case against trump? >> it really won't, jonathan. and this is perhaps a little bit difficult to explain, but there are two separate things going on here. one is the prosecution against michael roman, the defendant who has made these allegations, and his codefendants. and their guilt or innocence is not impacted in any way by these allegations, that case will go on regardless. the question that is posed by the ethics argument roman has raised is whether fani willis continue on the case. and under georgia law, she clearly can, although she might need to answer to the county commission, she might have some ethics issues to resolve. the only sort of a situation that would create a conflict of interest that would justify her recusal would be if there was a financial conflict of interest that impacted t