the better question would be where do i not listen to it. while i'm eating my breakfast... on the edges of cliffs... on a ski lift... everywhere. for a limited time, go to audible.com to save $50 on your first year of membership. looking to get your business off to a fast start in the new year? it's go time! switch to comcast business and get fast internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. plus, complete reliability with 4g lte backup. and, cloud-based security to help protect the devices on your network. greenlight your business in 2020 with fast internet and voice for $64.90 per month. switch now and get a $100 prepaid card when you add comcast business securityedge. call today. comcast business. beyond fast.

good day, everyone from msnbc world headquarters in new york. welcome to "weekends with alex witt" three days to history. on january 21st, the impeachment trial begins and there are new and explosive elements that could steer what we see in the days and weeks to come, including new questions surrounding bombshell documents about indicted rudy giuliani society lev parnas.

inside text messages tying parnas to devin nunes' top aide. they appear to show the possible surveillance of marie yovanovitch, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. also in the trove of documents, pictures that fly in the face of president trump's denials about knowing parnas. they show him multiple times with the president, his children and close supporters and allies. all this as the president's legal team is revealed, reflecting what the associated press describes as a made for tv defense. there is a lot to sort through. for that we, as always, have a number of considrrespondents an analysts to steer us through it all. more lev parnas revelations, he says his interactions with, quote, trump world went way beyond the ukraine influence effort. it follows documents released overnight by house democrats, including more photos of parnas with the president and his

family. here's what the trump legal team said on that today. >> i can tell you, as a former florida attorney general we took pictures constantly with thousands of people, can and clearly lev parnas liked to take pictures with a lot of people. >> joining me now, betsy swan, betsy welcome. you wrote about the piece we referred to at the top. we'll get to that in a moment. but first i want to get your reaction on this mountain of new material provided by to the house by lev parnas. here's a reminder, parnas has been indicted, accused of breaking campaign finance law, he was arrested at washington airport, he had a one way ticket out of the country. what strikes you the most about the response you heard there from pam bondi?

>> if there's one thing you can say about parnas, it's that this guy was a total pack rat. when he got to know people, went to dinners, he took lots of photos. and his life may be one of the most photographly documented lives in trump's orbit. as a result even as people don't see him as a reliable narrater, he has tons of receipts backing up some of the claims he's been making publically. in the most recent documents that he and his lawyer gave to the house intelligence committee, which that committee made public last evening, without question the most surprising new information shows the extent to which parnas was working with derek harvey, an aide to congressman devin nunes and appears to have been helping harvey investigate the ukraine matter. that's important because devin nunes is still the top

republican on the house intelligence committee as the committee has been doing its investigation of potentially impeachable behavior regarding ukraine. so they say this is evidence, using it to make the case that devin nunes isn't remotely neutral when it comes to this activity. >> as we follow what parnas has provided to investigators, how much are his revelations and the impeachment time line corroborating one another? does this material also put more pressure on senate republicans to go for witnesses? to go for documents, for example? >> what the material shows is that there is likely an immense amount of content out there that the public just doesn't know about. because the congressional impeachment investigation was happening under such a tight time line. i spoke with parnas at length in his lawyer's office in manhattan on thursday afternoon. we talked about a ton of different topics. it was clear from my conversation with him, many of

the assertions he made to me i was able to corroborate with my sources, involving a dinner with cannabis entrepreneurs that he was at with jared kushner and ivanka trump and a phone call where he listened in on a conversation between rudy giuliani and nicholas me doro, the president of venezuelan. ve. >> i want to expand on that. the quote is he had an inside view on all sorts of eyebrow raising interactions and conversations. what strikes you that you remember from this? >> one thing i found especially notable is the fact he told me the president of venezuela, who trump has been trying essentially to depose, had a phone call with a group of trump allies, who met in trump hotel,

at a private room at one of the restaurants there. and congressman pete sessions put me doro on speaker phone so the venezuela president could say high to rudy giuliani, lev parnas and anyone else in the room. the fact there is this back channel diplomacy happening over what appears to be an unsecure phone line in a quasi public place, explains how trump and his allies deal with foreign leaders is outside the historical norm and the kind of communication channels, especially people in the national security space would want to be used. >> what's with the guys and putting people on speaker phone? we heard from gordon sondland, the beat. this brings me to the second big headline, the time line for

president trump's impeachment trial. house briefs due tomorrow, senate briefs due monday and the try starts tuesday. i would say this is a working weekend on the hill, wouldn't you? >> reporter: it absolutely is a working weekend, a lot of work to do before tuesday. even rearranging the furniture, they were on the floor yesterday bringing in the tables for the defense and the prosecution remaking the floor like a courtroom. as far as the seven impeachment managers, the prosecutors in this case, they are absolutely working through the weekend. they're working remotely today but they'll be back meeting on the capitol tomorrow. monday they'll do a walk through of the senate floor to see what their configuration is going to be. and they have a big task before them. they have to make a case complete with reams of testimony and evidence. they have to make this case

clearly and concisely before the senate within these 24 hours they're to be given. because this might be the only chance they have, especially if republicans don't agree on bringing in more witnesses and more documents. so it's really high stakes when they start next week. alex. >> let's go now to the white house. hans nichols is standing by for us. he's been following the president in palm beach, florida as well. what is the white house doing in preparation of tuesday's trial? do we have any better sense of what the president's defense strategy is going to be, hans? >> we know the defense strategy is going to be divided. when you look at the sheer number of attorneys they have, when you count them all up, you're close to ten. some of the attorneys will be taking more of an administrative role. others will be presenting the oral arguments in the senate. some will be dealing with the constitutional issues, other with the threshold matter. but they all seem to understand

the gravity of what they're about to go through. and pam bondi was on our air earlier can today. here's how she's putting it. >> this team has been ready to go. the white house counsel, working with jay, we've been ready. we were ready last month. we're ready now, we'll be ready next week. impeaching a president is one of the most mon men tow things you can do in our country. >> it's what the framers rejected. they didn't want to give congress the authority to remove a president because he abused his power. they have to prove treason, bribery or other crimes and misdemeanors. >> reporter: now alex that last bit, of course, was from alan dershowitz, the retired harvard law professor who also represented controversial clients like richard epstein. epstein's also seeming and appearing to distance himself

from the president saying he would be making these constitutional arguments regardless who the president is, he'd do the same thing for a democrat. he's clear that he is a democrat and saying he wants to convince democratic senators to come to the same conclusions that he has. we'll see to what extent the rest of trump's legal team balances that and what they have to say about alan dershowitz appearing to distance himself and what the president of the united states has to say about that because we know they have been in frequent contact and we know the president appreciates him on television. whether or not he appreciates the slight distancing, i think that's a different matter. alex? >> i want to make a note, i'm going to have aed alan dershowitz on the show tomorrow at 12:30 eastern. thank you, hans nichols. joining me tessa barrenson. i know you've been reporting on the president's legal team. what do you make of the latest addition that includes alan dershowitz and kenneth starr. how much is it about tv minds

and performances? >> both of those men are celebrated lawyers but it is clear that president trump wanted to add star power to his team, wanted to adds people he thinks are good on television. it's led by white house counsel pat cipollone who he trusts as a lawyer, partnering with jay sekulow. but president trump admires alan dershowitz tv appearances. he wanted to add a little bit of celebrity to his legal team. we know how much president trump cares about optics and the ability of his lawyers and defenders to go on television as they represent him. >> we heard alan dershowitz there talk about how abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. is this how the white house plans to lead its defense? >> the white house has been pretty tight lipped about the particular strategy they're going to take. i think that is the argument

that alan dershowitz will make. he's going to be making a broad constitutional argument in his statement but he's less involved in the actual defense strategy of president trump. one thing the white house has signalled is they had a couple senior administration officials talk to reporters earlier this week and they previewed a little bit what the strategy is going to be. they seem to be hinting they're going to hammer the point that in their view there was no crime here. there was no violation of any statute. now some people would argue that you don't need to have an actual crime for something to be an impeachable offense, but that is going to be part of their strategy. and on obstruction of congress, one of the impeachment articles, they're going to argue it was not obstruction of congress because any people that the white house declined to make available for interviews or things like that fell around a broad reading of executive privilege. >> i'd like to play for you what republican senator susan collins said yesterday to our affiliate

wcsh talking about how she will likely vote to allow witnesses and documents in the president's impeachment trial. >> i'm very likely to vote for additional information. but first i want to hear, as i did last time, each side present its case. >> what's your take away from this, tessa? >> that's one of the most key questions right now. they're still figuring out how the trial is going to run, but the vote on whether there will be additional witnesses and documents could make a huge difference in how this plays out. the white house is still saying they don't see any need for additional witnesses, and a senior administration official said a couple days ago they think it was, quote, extraordinarily unlikely this trial will run beyond two weeks because they don't think witnesses are necessary. but collins is one republican who could be waivering on this as you saw, and they need four

republicans to vote with democrats to make witnesses available. so that's another effect of the new lev parnas interviews and documents which you've been talking about on the show is that is really increasing pressure on senators like collins to vote for more witnesses. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. breaking news, women's marches are taking place in cities around the world. our correspondents are on the ground in new york and washington with the latest. we'll start with dasha burns in d.c., the weather didn't look too helpful to today's outing. what are protesters telling you? >> i'll be honest, the weather is not kind to us we've seen rain, snow and all the mess in between. that hasn't tamped down the energy. the women i've talked to said this political moment in particular has them really fired up, its's such an important time. but crowd size is not as big as

the energy from some of the individuals. we don't have exact numbers yet but it's looking like the smallest of the four years this march has gone on. when i ask participants why that is, they tell me people are feeling discouraged, what they've asked for has not happened at the pace they would like. organizers point to impacts like the record number of women running for office and this movement they say has been part of that wave. lots of energy but dwindling crowds compared to other years at least. >> impeachment, how much is that affecting moods there? >> this is a movement that kicked off in response to the election of president donald trump. and now the senate trial is taking off this week. a lot of chants here about getting donald trump out of office. people say this has them fired up and might be a little bit encouraging to get more people out and get more people involved

in this movement. >> thank you for that from d.c. here's a footnote of sorts from the nation's capital. "the washington post" says the u.s. national archives altered an imagine from the 2017 march in which it showed at least four signs that were critical of the president were blurred. the national archives said we blurred reference to the president's name so as not to engage in current political controversy. meantime, kathy park is following today's march for us in new york city. i thought i saw a glimpse of significant snow as we took to you earlier. oh, wow. what a difference an hour makes. >> yeah. >> where's the crowd, has everyone said i'm out of here? >> reporter: we are here along sixth and 45th. you can see clearly behind me the crowd has dissolved very quickly. the weather probably had a huge factor in that. it was hovering just below 32

degrees, and the snow has really started to come down. we're noticing the barricades are being lifted and things are slowly coming back to normal. but we anticipate thousands of people were out here earlier today. it started off at central park, there was a round of speakers, a lot of them from the new york area. we heard from activists as well as lawmakers and journalists from the new york area who are fighting this lawsuit against new york one for age discrimination and gender discrimination. i had a chance to talk to people on the ground. a lot of them mentioned they'd been at the rally for years. the one in 2017 felt passionate and heated. today felt a little more celebration and, of course, though, they said a lot of them are tired of having to come out to these rallies year after year. so they hope that this movement today will bring about change from potentially the next administration, but that is kind of what we have been hearing.

but once again, alex, it looks like the crowd has decided to leave a little bit early. the weather probably had a huge part of it. >> you're at 45th and 6th, you're four short blocks away from the mother ship here. get inside, come home. thank you for that. the controversial decision in virginia about a rally that has one city bracing for the worst. has one city bracing for e worst. memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant.

common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

in just 16 days iowa heads to

the caucuses and gets the first say in the 2020 presidential campaign and the candidates are making rounds across the country today and through the weekend. most of them focussing on iowa. senator elizabeth warren took questions in newton on friday. >> i don't have anything else to say on this. i have said what i'm going to say on this. i don't have any additional comment on it. i have said all i'm going to say on this. you can keep asking the question, but i'm not going to make an additional comment. i'm here to talk about why i'm running for president. >> tom steyer travelled to north carolina to kick off a bus tour there. when asked about his status as a billionaire he touted his status as an activist. >> for the last seven years i have travelled around the united states as an activist going door-to-door, registering people to vote on campuses, doing town halls, sitting around a table with activists. i am not spending my time doing

whatever people think rich people do. i don't play golf. >> meanwhile, mike bloomberg focussed on voters in california. he got applause when he said tweeting is a problem for the white house. >> i believe we need less talk and less partisanship, and less tweeting. i make a commitment, if i'm in the white house, no tweeting ever again. >> amen to that. >> and pete buttigieg took questions in illinois at an event in chicago. he was asked about his campaign's work with black small business owners. >> we have a long way to go for the purchasing done by the federal government to reflect the economic -- the diversity of the economic opportunity being created especially by entrepreneurs of color. and mike is joining in me

iowa and shaquille bruster in new hampshire. shaq you're with the bernie sanders campaign. a lot happening behind you. some kind of march, looks like it's part of the women's march, will bernie sanders be marching as well? >> that's right. it's one of the many marches we've been seeing across the country. there's several going on in this key state of new hampshire and the candidates jumping in and marching along as well. you had senator bennett in concord, new hampshire today joining a march and in a couple minutes you'll have senator bernie sanders joining the march as well. this will be the first campaign event for senator bernie sanders since the public disagreement between him and elizabeth warren over comments that he made -- or that warren says he made in a private 2018 dinner. i got to talk to a lot of people here who connect what's happening with women to the 2020 campaign about that spat. listen to what they had to tell

me. >> it made me sad because i feel like unity is more important than anything. i think they both stand for progressive values. >> do you think they'll work through this? >> i hope so. >> do you believe her when she says he said a woman couldn't win? >> i do. but, you know, it may have been more nuanced than that. there's really a set black and white. >> reporter: folkings here have been talking about the impeachment batting, issues like climate change, a spectrum of issues people are discussing here. one other thing i want to point out for senator sanders and warren, and many of the senators in this race, this is a crucial weekend for them the impeachment battle means they're coming off the campaign trail and right back to washington so these interactions with voters are important. >> shaq, thank you for that. let's bring in mike menially now who's in iowa where joe biden will be speaking later today. what kind of message will joe

biden have for the voters who have 16 days to decide on a candidate? >> reporter: alex, of course joe biden had to cancel some of his events yesterday because of the blizzard that blab blanketed iowa here. we since sent the snow your way, hope you're enjoying it. we've been having fun on the roads driving through it. the closing argument we've been hearing from joe biden in the last days and weeks boils down to two arguments one with the situation in iran and middle east more broadly he argues the president needs to step in on day one and command the respect of world leaders, and the second involves electability, not just his ability to beat donald trump but also be strong enough democratic at the top of the ticket to carry along other democrats, winning back house and senate seats they need to hold as well in the election. biden joined a number of other candidates, shaq is with bernie sanders in iowa. he was with three of the other candidates, among those tightly

bunched with him at the top of the polls here in iowa, amy klobuchar, elizabeth warren and pete buttigieg. what's interesting, alex, is, of course, biden and buttigieg have the advantage that they don't have to spend their time in the next few weeks in washington because of the impeachment trial. but biden's name is in those articles of impeachment, there's speculation whether the senate will bring joe biden or his son, hunter, as a witness. but democrats saying the focus should be focussed on the president's crime. >> thank you for that. check out these new numbers today from advertising analytics on campaign ad spending showing the power of big money. you see mike bloomberg having spent $190 million, tom steyer with $106 million. bernie sanders and pete buttigieg spending around 12

million, andrew yang, 7.9 million, and then notice joe biden spending just 3.2 million. trump dynasty, the scenario my next guest says sets up donald trump jr. for the ballot in 2020. up donald trump jr. for the ballot in 2020 it's red lobster's new three-course shrimp feast for $14.99. choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! at the end of a long day, it's the last thing i want to do. well i switched to swiffer wet jet and its awesome. it's an all-in-one so it's ready to go when i am. the cleaning solution actually breaks down dirt and grime.

and the pad absorbs it deep inside. so, it prevents streaks and haze better than my old mop. plus, it's safe to use on all my floors, even wood. glad i got that off my chest and the day off my floor. try wet jet with a moneyback guarantee i wanted more from my copd medicine that's why i've got the power of 1, 2, 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved once-daily 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy ♪ the power of 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy ♪ 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy man: with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works three ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation, for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes,

or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3. ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 man: save at trelegy.com. we're back early from commercials. there's breaking news from london. queen elizabeth the second has released a statement on her son harry and his wife meghan's future. let's go to molly hunter who's monitoring the latest for us in the london bureau. apparently there was a conference call and we've gotten word how things are going to go moving forward. >> moments ago we got the statement. i'm reading it for the first time with you. the bullet points from a conference call and our kier simmons was on that conference call. i'm going to run you through what we know, so meghan and

harry no longer represent the queen, will no longer use their titles. they'll keep their hrh titles but will not use them, apparently. they'll continue to be known as the duke and duchess of sussex. they'll pay for the refurbishment on the cottages on the queen's windsor estate. no more state money will be used on their behalf. they'll keep their private patronages and spend the majority of their time in north ameri america. give me a second, i'm looking at the statement just now. >> i'm looking at it, too. it is extraordinary, again, that they -- there was a lot of question whether they would be able to keep the hrh, you're saying they can keep them, just can't use them. they'll always be known as the duke and duchess of sussex but

anything regarding where they live. there's been speculation north america, it's been zeroing in on canada. was that outlined in this conference call? >> i'm just looking. i don't see an actual location. of course, meghan and archie are in vancouver right now. she lived in toronto before. they spent christmas in vancouver, apparently in a lovely house they've been renting. it doesn't say. it says harry, meghan and archie will always be much loved members of the family, alex. it says these were many months of conversations and, of course, the recent discussions in the last week. there are two statements, alex, we should say. there's the statement from her majesty the queen and then a statement from buckingham palace. we haven't heard from the sussexes. but aassume they were well aware this was coming out and we'll hear separately from them.

and, alex, this is one of the things that was being talked about when they released the bombshell announcement about the fact they were stepping back as senior members. that's what this statement says as well. they are no longer working members of the royal family. they're still members of the royal family, loved members of the royal family but they're not going to go out and represent the queen in her name. >> there's been a lot of points of contention from the public, about who would pay for things going forward, this seems to outline it. there were public moneys used for the renovation of their frogmore cottage, it had been a cottage on castle grounds that was used by several employees of queen elizabeth in windsor but then they renovated it, expanded it, made it child friendly for baby archie, now about 8 months old, born in may of last year. but the question was, going

forward would they receive money from the queen. and it would appear not any more state moneys. there has been questions as to whether they will get money from the dutch of cornwall, that is what prince charles runs, a trust that he has that's worth many, many millions. i believe it was 20 million, either dollars or pounds, that that generates each year and he had been funding approximately 95% of their livelihood for the last few years. he can continue to do that, if he wants. it's my my understanding that is not public moneys. i'm joined by cam macamilla, wh royal expert here with msnbc news. i'm sure you're trying to digest this statement that's been released from the queen in the last five minutes or so. have you been able to look it

over and what's your big observation here? >> i have, alex. and they were talking about this crisis in terms of it being like brexit but megxit and everyone was waiting to hear if it was hard or soft. i suggest this is a hard megxit. this is the queen saying the best of luck to you. we understand why you don't want to be members of the royal family but you aren't able to have your cake and eat it. if you want to be independently financial abroad. they're not stripped of their hrh status but they won't be able to use the titles over seas. she's saying they'll no longer formally represent the queen in any capacity at home and abroad, which represents a completion separation of powers. the news they are not only stepping back from royal duties but for prince harry particularly, a former army captain who served two tours in

afghanistan to not hold any official military opponents that's a complete separation. he's the captain of the royal marines in the uk and has a lot of military ties. i think this is effectively them reluctantly -- i think the queen hinted at this earlier in the week with her original statement saying she wished they could remain fully fledged members of the royal family but they're not going to be, at least in a title way, remain members of the formal royal family at all. >> we're joined right now by my colleague kier simmons. i know that you were on that conference call. before we get to the details you might be able to expand on, give me the tone of the conference call. camilla just suggested this is a hard megxit if you will, as opposed to a soft megxit, what are your thoughts on that. >> reporter: she's right. it's historic moments for the

royal family. the conference call, you can describe it, was the best they could manage to do given the enormity of the announcement and the speed with which they were trying to make the announcement, i think to ensure that none of the news leaked. but what it -- well, we've just finished the call, so it's overwhelming, to be perfectly honest but my understanding, for example, from royal officials is that harry and meghan will spend the majority of their time in north america. that's not what was suggested just a few days ago, just a short time ago where they would split their time between the two countries. the majority of their time in north america. that if they want to do commercial deals with any corporate entity anywhere in the world, they are able to do that. they are free to do that. that they will not do that -- they are assuring the queen -- in any way that would be an

embarrassment for her, they will uphold her values. but that is pretty stunning in and of itself. those two pieces of news give you a picture of the new life that harry and meghan are about to embark on. and it is effectively, a life -- i want to say, it's a -- it's a non-royal life in all but name. in other words, they keep their title, albeit they won't use the his royal high nice her royal hyun nice title. they'll be living not in the uk, free to do deals. >> i had read a report that suggested this was something that was in the making the moment their son archie was born in may of last year. and while that may not be able

to be corroborated or confirmed, the fact that they are relin qui -- relinquishing any state funds, the fact they did trade mark sussex royal for a multitude of entities, would it seem to you this was not something they decided over their christmas break in the western part of canada, they've been working on this for a while? >> i think and i've said many times, harry has considered the possibility of walking away from the royal family for a very long time. well before he met meghan. i think that this has been something that they have been talking about privately for a long time because -- not least because of the way that they feel they have been treated. as we know, it's well documented, they do not feel they've been treated well. so in that sense, i think you're right. on the other hand, i think there are lots of aspects of this that aren't figured out.

to give you an example, you mentioned sussex royal -- by the way, i think their trademarking of that name doesn't necessarily mean they're going to, you know, sell fashion and books and all these things as sussex royal, it could be a protecting of that brand. but just in terms of that name, sussex royal, it's still unclear how they can be called sussex royal if effectively they are no longer going to be working members of the royal family. so there are lots of issues, i think, that haven't been worked out, while at the same time this is -- this is a kind of long story arc of particularly prince harry's struggle to find a role for himself, unhappiness in the public eye many times, right back to prince harry walking behind his mother's coffin. this is something that has been in the making, if you like. i think meghan has empowered and

enabled him to do this. but again, how this happens and whether it works is really an open question, i think, this weekend. >> absolutely. it is something, it's very heart felt the statements that harry has made over the years about how ever flashbulb, camera shutter he hears brings him back to how his mother was tormented by the paparazzi. camilla, you may have heard me mention the dutch of cornwall, the prince charles fund. it is quite expansive. he makes a lot of money every year for that. it's been reported that he was responsible for about 95% of the income on which harry and meghan have lived. is that a specifically separate entity than the state funds? could prince charles continue to fund his son's lifestyle with

moneys from that? >> it is a distinct fund. so the grant is a direct grant that comes from government to fund royal duties and royals in their offices. it's kind of an archaic conference, it's the name to describe huge land holdings opened by the prince of wales, he derives his income from those. so although it is his dutch income, there's never really been that much clarity from the public's perspective, whether they consider that land held in trust for the nation and therefore theirs or prince charles' own bank account, they don't mention dutch funding. there are reports in the paper today, bankers dad is draining charles. a suggestion from a journalist called richard kay, suggesting that the cost charles is finding difficult not just of the

sussex's lifestyle, he gives them 2.5 million and 3 million in pounds to william and kate but was finding it quite difficult. i think equally there will be questioned asked by the british public as to why on earth such funding, which is derived from the uk would be used to fund a couple who will be operating in the u.s. or canada, or anywhere else, seemingly able to make their own money. there's been talk about the amount of money they can make. they're both independently wealthy anyway. so i don't think there'll be much of an appetite for them to receive anything, be it from the grant or the dutchy. >> kier, i want to ask you how folks over there across the bond are reacting to this. how they have felt about this in the last week plus since harry and meghan made their

announcement on instagram saying they were going to withdraw as being senior members of the family. how much do people care about this? how much are they talking about it? and how much are they blaming meghan for this? i read plenty of stories that would indicate that. >> reporter: it's always a difficult question to answer because the british have a fairly strange relationship with the royal family. i will say this, i think the large proportion of british people who very much support the royal family and those that enthusiastically support the royal people are not the people who are going to like an announcement like this and perhaps are not the type of people that warmed to meghan. the segment that are for that nonplussed about the royal family, they aren't really taking very much of an opinion. so when you go out and find those people on the streets, they'll say i don't care, there are more important things in the

world. that's one of the great challenges for meghan and i think going forward for harry and meghan, the people who are kind of staunch royalists are not going to like this much. i will pick up on the conversation you were just having about the finances. i really think that potentially we're turning a page where, actually -- listen, i could turn out to be wrong, but i suspect the amount of money that harry and meghan are able to make if they are allowed to do commercial deals in north america, particularly the u.s., is so substantial that the kinds of moneys we're talking about in relation to public funding from the uk are probably going to be not particularly significant. they're already saying they plan to pay back at least some of, it seems, we're not sure of the numbers of the refurbishment of the cottage, what will remain their home at windsor castle.

the real question right now is what kinds of deals will they do and how will that reflect on them, how will that reflect on the royal family, if they are -- well, you can just imagine i don't have to go through examples without any kind of knowledge of what particularly they're thinking of. you can just imagine the kinds of commercial deals that might be frowned upon and may be potentially -- potentially could do damage to their brands. i suppose by distancing themselves from the royal family they are going to be able to do that without damaging the royal brand, if you like. all of this is up in the air. it's such uncharted territory. >> absolutely. although there were reports that prince harry had spoken with disney ceo bob igor at the premier of the lion king on behalf of meghan, whether she could do voice over work.

but the moneys of that would be going to their foundation. one big concern is their security. clearly they are a global entity. people know them all around the world. so camilla, with regard to security, they would be leaving the royal protection offered to them. when they come here to north america, canada or the united states, that has to be pretty pricy to try to ensure their safety. >> yes. this statement, alex reads buckingham palace does not comment on the dy tails of the security arrangements. there are processes to determine the need of publically funded security. harry, there's a great public interest argument for him to maintain robust security because he did his two tours of afghanistan and has always been a high risk target but that needs to be balanced with the notion of it's not particularly

practical to send metropolitan police protection officers to north america. they have to work in rotational shifts so you don't have just a couple of them, they have to be accommoda accommodated, flown in and out. and i think the cost, although they never reveal it, is about a million pounds a year. i don't think there's going to be a public appetite to do that if they're in the states. and if they are no longer working members of the royal family, i know harry doesn't like this phrase but they are celebrities or high net worth individuals. then like anybody else, the brad pitts, angelina jolies, they may have to pay for their own body guards. kier, i want to talk to you about what's perceived as the demise of the relationship between diana's boys, the ones we saw in 1997 walking behind her coffin, grew up together,

the ones she called her boys. the closeness with which they grew up together, relying on each other in the face of such tragedy but now there seems to be distance, a growing chasm between them. how is that being perceived? what is the likelihood of where the truth lies in how their relationship is? >> well, i think you have to start with harry's own words. we'll always be brothers. we're on different paths, which everybody heard in that interview with the british broadcaster last year. i think that's not a bad place to start in terms of understanding, and i do think that everybody, anybody listening can only think of their own relationships within their families, with siblings and pretty quickly understand the kinds of emotions, tensions, challenges that are likely in that relationship. i think, of course, and anyone

who's any avid viewer of the crown and there are many, will know that the nature of the royal family puts huge punishes on those relationships, so just have to think back to those seasons of the crown documenting the relationship between the queen and her sister, margaret, and how margaret wanted to have more of a role and wasn't able to, how she wasn't able to marry the person that she wanted to. the issues around the fact that fundamentally a royal family is one monarch and then lot of supporting actors surrounding that monarch, and that can be an extraordinarily difficult role to have play, not least the duke himself who has found that -- found that challenging in the past because of all that he had to give up simply in order to walking behind the queen.

>> yeah. >> so you know, harry is a very strong willed, determined man, and i think that as well as all of the issues that we have talked about, his relationship with the press and such like this, also been the simple tensions the royal life bring about. i will say this, though. we talked about this on nightly news this week, there was -- it does really -- it's a poignant moment to just stop and think about what diana would think about all this. >> yeah. >> how she would feel to see her boys, who she loves equally, going their separate ways, frankly, like this, how she would feel to see harry battling with the press the way that she described herself too, and you have to wonder whether she would

at the same time be cheering harry and meghan on a little bit. after all in the end, completely different circumstances, it was a divorce, she herself walked away from the royal family. >> she did. they stripped her of her royal highness and she remained princess diana. harry and meghan have not been stripped of the title. they just may no longer use it. i want to invite into our conversation, julie montague, and she is also the future countess of -- tell me your thoughts about this really bomb shell news, grant it we've had an inkling the last ten tumultuous days that something was percolated along these lines, but speak to the largess of all of this, what this does to the royal family, its

interpretation. >> being an american, i've been living in britain and mostly in london the past 20 years. for me it was quite refreshing having meghan come over here, marry into the royal family, but i also know being an american, you know, we are brought up with this wonderful work ethic. we don't like being told what we can and we can't do, and so i think for meghan, she tried it, and you can see that. she's quite -- very energetic and full of life in the first interview with harry when they're engaged and then it sort of turns. a year and a half later she's on this bbc or this itv documentary and she's sad and she's already stripped of her energy. i think that they've really just had enough of the scrutiny over here from the british tabloid press, and it can be quite harsh, and for them, you know, he's sixth in line. he suffered a great loss of his mother because of the british press.

it's happening to his wife right now. he's just had a baby, and the last thing i think he wants to do is to raise his child in a country that is quite scathing about his wife, you know, arc e archie's mother, and they together we saw that they're quite a strong team together, and again, they're both of them, you know, very strong-willed people. he doesn't like the press. we know that. we saw what it did to his mother, but also at the same time they're both very passionate about charity, just like princess diana, but at the same time i think this new independent way of life it gives them the freedom that they want, but you know, i suspect that they'll spend the majority of their time in canada. we can see them meeting at, you know, at the embassy with the ambassador and for them it's starting a whole new life in canada. i think it was an article recently came out saying, you know, the fourth best place to raise a child is actually in canada. that came out last week, so for

them, they're going to start a whole new life, and i'm champ n championing the both of them. i'm just sad as an american, i feel like i've lost one of my own living over here amongst the sort of, you know, british heiress tok psy. >> it's something we all as americans appreciate having a representative of america there joining the royal family. listen, guys, i want to thank you for weighing in on all of this. nbc's molly hunter started us off. we also had royals expert, and keir simmons, of course julie montague. there's a lot of breaking news on this. we've just gotten word from buckingham palace about 25 minutes ago, the announcement that the sussexes will no longer represent queen elizabeth, that they will no longer take state funds there, royal funds that have been provided to them. they will repay the refurbishment costs of frog mor cottage where they had been living, they will be referred to as the duke and duchess of sussex, no longer referred to as

his and her royal highness. though they will be allowed to keep those titles. there's a lot more to come on this coming up with david gura after a very short break here on msnbc. i'm alex witt, i'll see you guys tomorrow at noon eastern. - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. {tires screeching} {truck honking} [alarm beeping] (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. diarrhea? pepto diarrhea to the rescue.

it's 3x concentrated liquid formula coats and kills bacteria to relieve diarrhea. the leading competitor only treats symptoms it does nothing to kill the bacteria. treat diarrhea at its source with pepto diarrhea. text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know i gotta talk to mama, then on... this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control.

high protein low sugar tastes great! high protein low sugar so good! high protein low sugar mmmm, birthday cake! and try pure protein delicious protein shakes why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

good afternoon, i'm david gura. we're following breaking news out of london. queen elizabeth has