phmaarcist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

good morning and welcome back to msnbc live. i'm garrett haake in new york. with the start of his senate trial looming, president trump is waking up at his florida resort and later set to speak in texas and tomorrow the white house will deliver his legal trial brief to the senate. yesterday the house impeachment managers kicked off the senate trial proceedings filing their own lengthily legal brief outlining the quote overwhelming evidence that says trump abused the power of his office and obstructed congress. as for the senate's trial, the festivities on the floor begin on tuesday. senators will debate and then vote on the rules governing the trial. these are expected to include

how many hours a day the proceedings will last, how long the prosecution defense and senators will get for questioning and other details. the question whether or not witnesses will be called is expected to be addressed, but not definitively decided. joining me this morning is peter baker, chief white house correspondent for the "new york times" and barbara mcquaid. both are msnbc contributors. peter, you literally wrote the book on impeachment. will you take us through how you're expecting to see this week and the votes going forward. >> well, i think you've got two different audiences here. right. the audience the jury, if you will, in the senate chamber. they're not jurors really and a quasi-juror and those watching at home. we think we understand where this trial is going to go. we think what understand what the final vote is going to be but the ultimate verdict be passed at some point in november. that is the first time we'll see that in american history.

no other president has gone on trial for impeachment and ran. we'll see two different juries this week. they'll make their arguments that we heard before. the president abused his authority by pressuring a foreign country into helping him with his domestic political contest against the democrats. you'll hear at some point down the road probably maybe later this week that the white house will get up and start its arguments. they previewed it yesterday in their response to the summons in which they basically say that each of the articles fall short of a high crime misdemeanor. they're making the argument, there is no crime at all, therefore, can't be a high crime. and then we get to the point where the senators get involved themselves. the questions that they ask, i think, will be the most fascinating part of this trial. how do they perceive the evidence? how do they perceive the presentations by both sides and how do they debate this larger question of what is a high crime and misdemeanor anyway. >> peter, democratic aides working on the impeachment have

been briefing reporters and talking consistently about witnesses pushing for this, especially john bolton. while republicans are not necessarily unified on their strategy on witnesses, the president has kind of had it both ways as long as it suited him to do so. >> well, i'm going to leave it to the senate, but i'd like to hear the whistle-blower. i would like to hear shifty schiff and hunter biden and joe biden. if we do that, i would like to have those people and others testify. >> do you have a problem with john bolton testifying in the senate trial? >> we have to protect presidential privilege. when we start allowing national security advisors to go up and -- i think you have to for the sake of the office. i would love everybody to testify. i like mick to testify, i'd like mike pompeo to testify. i'd like rick perry to testify. i want everybody. but there are things that you can't do from the standpoint of

executive privilege. you have to maintain that. >> the president is always the x-factor on this. how likely do you think it is that the democrats will be able to peel off the four votes they need to get to witnesses? when i whip this, i can count to three. i have a hard time figuring out who the fourth would be. >> great question. a lot of people who could be the fourth. they haven't stepped forward and made themselves known. it is hard to imagine you go through a trial with witnesses who have, obviously, important information to be told and have never been heard without hearing them. that is the difference between this trial and the one 21 years ago with president clinton. by the time they got to the senate trial in 1999, every potential witness had already testified at some point or another in ken starr's dpragran jury. we knew what their evidence was. you have people now like john bolton and mick mulvaney who have never been heard from and never told us what they know and they were in the room. one of the criticism republicans had of the impeachment case made

by house democrats was the testimony they had in the house was largely second hand or hearsay. well, the people who would give you first-hand information are people like john bolton and mick mulvaney. we'll see how the debate plays out. i think it is probably the central suspense at this point of the trial. >> i agree. barbara, the trump team defense did agree we were privy to it and on the constitutional argument, this is not constitutionally valid and abuse of power is not actually an impeachable offense. here's some of that defense. take a listen. >> abuse of power, even if it's not an impeachable offense. that is exactly 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 teareason an bribery and other refers to crimes of the kind such as treason and bribery. >> the news you're making is as i understand it that, quote, abuse of power, in your

argument, does not constitute as a high crime under the constitution? >> that's exactly right. >> so, barbara, putting aside the evidence in play here. does that argument pass constitutional muster? >> no, in fact, all four of the constitutional scholars who came and testified at the impeachment inquiry had the completely opposite view which is that the framers intended abuse of power to be the kind of things that is an impeachable offense. came from the english tradition that meant exactly abuse of power. even jonathan turley the republican own expert that came and testified there if these allegations can be proved, they absolutely would be impeachable offenses. they just thought the record had not been developed and it makes perfect sense. imagine if that were the case. for one, we didn't have a criminal code at the time the constitution was passed. so, they weren't thinking of bribery statutes. but it could mean that things like imagine a president who appointed only family members to

the federal judiciary or he sat home all day doing nothing except watching television. none of those things is a crime. but they would amount to an abductia abdication of his job and to say we couldn't remove him from office is absurd. >> the white house generated in response to this, a summons sent to the house and doesn't read like a legal document at all. more like an extended op-ed piece. i wonder if you get the sense that the white house is treating this defense as a serious legal matter or a political argument. is this the equivalent of like the prevent defense in football where they know they have the numbers to win and they just to keep making this political argument over and over again? >> yeah, i think that's right, garrett. they don't want to do anything that would change the status quo. i believe they are winning and they don't want to do anything to change that. it reads very much like a tweet like president trump and all the same arguments that were there and somebody has cleaned up the

language and the punctuation. >> peter baker and barbara mcquaid, thank you for joining us this morning. now, coming up a member of the house judiciary committee hank johnson of georgia joins us now. congressman, you actually were an impeachment manager back in 2010 during the impeachment trial of a federal judge down in louisiana. my ntunderstanding you worked wh andrew schiff of that impeachment. what it means to be a manager and the roles and responsibilities behind the scenes of just how that works. >> well, i worked with adam schiff and also zo was part of that impeachment management team. so, you have two experienced impeachment managers who will be leading the effort along with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee. a man who is steeped in the constituti constitution, a lawyer. so, what it entails is basically

everyone being in full command of the facts of the case. in the case it was similar to the trump case because there were no criminal charges filed against judge and he argued the offenses that he was alleged to have or that he was convicted of committing which had to do with financial improprieties as a judge, financial misconduct, he argued that those issues did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. so, pretty similar to the same argument that mr. trump is making. and his attorneys. >> one thing to remove the president of the united states, though. >> well, the senate has already seem fit to remove, to convict and remove a sitting judge for offenses that were not crimes.

he was not charged with crime. the precedent is there. also the fact is that judge por ti tius argued he went to trial to protect the judiciary and president trump is going to try to say that you cannot hear from important witnesses because of executive privilege which means that his communications with him are confidential. no reason other than confidentiality overts that claim so i'm expecting if the senate does have a trial, john bolton's testimony will be front and center as it should be. and executive privilege and it will be interesting to see how chief justice roberts handles it. >> so, i find it interesting

thatt the president chose not to include any of your house colleagues on the republican side on his defense team. obviously, you saw the way that house republicans defended the president, your hearings. you tangled with matt gates and a fairly memorable exchange there. do you expect a more serious legal defense in the senate trial than what we saw in the house? >> i think his announcement the other day of his lawyers added to his team all-star fox news contributors, they will entertain his base. they are there to present his side of the case basically to his base. so that his base can then lean on the senators to do what trump wants them to do as opposed to being fair and impartial, doing fair and impartial justice to the facts that come about. and i'm hopeful that the american people, particularly those who reside in states that

have republican senators will actually get out on the phones, get out into the streets in front of their offices, e-mails and demand that those senators adhere to the oath that they took to render impartial justice to the facts of this case and they can't do that unless they get some more facts. >> sure. congressman, i want to turn from the trial to the trail here a little bit. you have not announced an endorsement in the presidential race. perhaps you'd like to make some news on our broadcast this morning. but what are you looking for in the democratic nominee to be president? >> well, first, i'm looking forward to the attention of the nation shifting to georgia and super tuesday, the rest of the super tuesday states. i'm looking forward to the candidates who remain in the race visiting the fourth district of georgia. talking to the citizens who are

democrats and who they seek support from. and i'm looking forward to the citizens of the fourth district making a great decision. >> a very political answer. let me ask you this. the former vice president joe biden has, i think, 11 endorsements from congressional black caucus members ever since harris and booker dropped out, i don't think there is another candidate in the field that has more than one. why is the former vice president so strong in the african-american community? >> well, first of all, people don't have to worry about where joe biden is coming from. they know that he is a kind, honest and decent individual. they know that he's a public servant who serves the people. they know that he understands the niceties of domestic affairs. they understand that he is well steeped in foreign affairs and national security and they understand that the nation does

need a steady hand to come in and pick up the pieces from the debacle that is the donald trump presidency. >> congressman hank johnson tipping your endorsement cards ever so slightly this morning. thank you for coming on with us. >> thank you. and coming up, the start of the senate impeachment trial this week will sideline some top 2020 contenders like bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. is this an opportunity forother ers on the trail. deval patrick will join us next. rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb;

don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪ without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women.

all with great taste. or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.

tomorrow americans all around the country will participate in events and community service to celebrate the legacy of the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. among them many of the 2020 hopefuls that will draw contrast with the man they're all looking to defeat, president trump. new polling from ipsos and "washington post" 83% say that president trump is a racist and he has made racism a bigger problem in this country. looking at the current 2020 race the same poll shows former vice president joe biden with a significant lead. 48% nationally over the other candidates among black voters. joining me now former massachusetts governor and 2020 presidential candidate deval patrick. governor, can you put into perspective the legacy of martin luther king at a time when black voters say they see this country

becoming increasingly more racist? >> well, garrett, first of all thank you for having me and good morning to you and your viewers. look, i remember listening to dr. king speak. i think i was 6 or 7 years old in a park on the south side on chicago where i grew up. and i don't remember a single thing he said, but i remember how it made me feel. i think how it made us all feel. it made us feel hopeful about tomorrow. i think of the fact that having grown up poor and had the opportunities i had to go to college and law school to serve as a civil rights lawyer for the legal defense fund or as head of the civil rights division that i have lived the american dream and i had faith in that dream given to me by the poor black people on the south side of chicago who frankly had every reason not to have faith in the american dream. so, to have this occasion at a

time when we have a president who seems to wake up every day thinking of new ways to divide us is a very stark contrast and it's why i keep saying more than the character of the candidates is at issue right now, today, the question is the character of the country. >> interesting. you're in south carolina this morning and have an event in columbia later today. talk to me about strategy. how important is south carolina to the campaign you're trying to run? >> everybody everywhere is important to us and to me. we are spending a lot of time in new hampshire and south carolina in the next several weeks because these primarilies are very, very important in our own path to the nomination. and by the way, here black and brown voters critically important and often feeling marginalized and overlooked, unseen and unheard. attention paid, you know, during times like this during elections

and then the issues that people feel, the ways in which the cherry economic indicators don't speak to their lived experience kind of drop off in between elections. and my own record, my own style of leadership, fraleadership, f focus as a human being is about seeing and responding to those kind of needs in between elections and not just when i need that vote. >> senators kamala harris and cory booker thought they would get traction for the same reasons with black voters in south carolina. you are now the only african-american candidate left in this field. why do you think you can connect with those voters in a way they failed to do? >> well, first of all, i'm not taking anybody for granted and not black voters in south carolina. i'm here because i think folks are owed the respect of asking that, you know, you can't rely on a reputation or fame or

celebrity in order to make a claim on that vote. and the difference between me and the other very good candidates in the race is that they have plans, i have results. i delivered health care to 99% of the people in massachusetts with the help of a great team. we have modeled response to climate change in massachusetts. the top of the nation student achievement and achievement gaps that have been closing. those aren't abstractions, those are actual results and you get those results, i believe, by having ambitious goals but being humble enough to bring in others who may have contributions to make and, frankly, different ideas about how to accomplish those goals. a record of results ought to matter right now. >> you talk about not taking anyone for granted. but because you got in the race so late, you are not on the ballot in some of the early states in michigan and alabama. what is the path to victory if you physically cannot get votes in these places.

>> well, you know, we have a very, very contorted democracy here with varying rules and so on. but, listen, i'm on the ballot everywhere but those two places and other candidates are not on the ballot in other places because we have all these mixed up rules. we have a path to victory. and by the way, democrats and sometimes, if i may, garrett, the media, we focus on the how and not what voters care about which is the why. the why has to do with having to do a broader range of life and leadership experience than any other candidate in this race. in the private and the public sector solving problems domestically and abroad and building bridges so we get change that lasts. that ought to matter right now because we have a deeply tum

tumultuous le tumultuous, and going back to what we used to do is not enough. we have to be about tomorrow and what we do to heal the nation and get at that unfinished business of this country. growing opportunity out, bringing prosperity and justice to every corner of the country, not just those early states and not just those constituencies that add up to the vote. but representing and caring about and seeing both the folks who vote for you and the ones who don't. and i have that record, unlike anyone else in this race. >> former massachusetts governor and 2020 presidential candidate deval patrick, thank you for coming on and making your case this morning. >> thank you, garrett. still ahead. harry and meghan make it official. will the british crown ever be the same once this royal couple makes their exit? the most talked about story of the day, especially in this newsroom. coming up next.

but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium.

fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

prince harry and meghan markle will no longer be called his or her royal highness and that is part of an agreement released by buckingham palace saying the couple will no longer receive taxpayer funds. they are expected to pay $3.1

million in taxpayer money spent renovating the college. how the two will make money if they lose their sussex royal brand? what happens when harry met meghan turns into when harry left sussex. joining me the royalest tim teman. you say if they're forced to give up this sussex royal title, that is an enormous blow. why? >> it's what they have been marketing themselves with for the last few months. they built a website around it. they hope to keep that title. but it seems to us very odd that you would keep sussex royal as a title if you have just been -- >> if you don't want to be a royal any more. >> if you're not going to be a working royal any more. maybe the palace and harry and meghan will discuss this, but our understanding that this is a sticking point and we'll see if they get to keep it. it's, obviously, a big deal in terms of marketing to be able to keep that brand. >> kardashian didn't have a show any more, there's still a

kardashian. it's not like people will not suddenly know it's the artist formal formerly known as prince harry. >> it just comes down to the word royal how and important it is to them. they will pitch themivselves bad on their stardom and they have a global preancsence, they're not going to go poor. >> get voicedover work for meghn markle. is that possible for them to make some money for them in the private sector and is that getting into private sector overlap there to have a monarch, sort of, leaning on a private business to find work for his wife? >> that's a good point. the interesting point here is you noticed yesterday in that statement that they would continue to uphold the values of a royal family. the question then becomes how do they define and how does the royal family uphold the values of a royal family while going

out there into the marketplace and making money. then tabloid outrage and if video like that makes people upset. the british tabloids and all of harry and meghan's critics get what they wanted. so the public and i think the media will have to get used to them putting themselves out there and there will be a meeting in the middle somehow how people in the royal family see as acceptable meghan and harry saying, this is how we're going to make money. >> they're still going to be richer than sin and associated with the monarchy forever. i'm not sure what defeat that is for harry and meghan. you say this is the most important thing about this. they continue to uphold the values of the monarchy. what does that mean in 2020? >> it means what it meant years and years ago. as long as the queen is still alive, it means discretion. that is the baseline that the queen and the royal family will be looking for meghan and harry. all the rumors that they were going to come here to america

and possibly expose racism and classism and expose things in the royal family, i'm not sure we'll see that given that phrasing. we'll see them making money, but i would think, twinned with social and cultural activism and michelle obama and barack obama sort of making money through causes that mean something to them that extend their brand and extend their political and cultural reach. >> tim, thank you for coming in. >> thank you. still ahead, the debate over calling witnesses of the senate impeachment trial of president trump. we'll hear from congressman adam schiff before house managers present their case before the president. this as the legal team says the intelligence committee chairman could still be called as a witness himself. >> we very well may call him as a witness, if he ultimately have witnesses. so, don't discount that yet.

♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ what's going on? it's the 3pm slump. should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked...

the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. unlimited carryover data! $20 bucks.

what are you doing? i want to ask you about your data. oh, i thought you said dating. this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control. the new tracfone wireless. when a nasty cold won't let you sleep, try nyquil severe with vicks vapocool whoa! and vaporize it. ahhhhh! shhhhh! nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing nighttime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.

moments ago house intelligence committee chairman joined adam schiff over a fair trial in the senate warning that senator mcconnell's proposals could make a mockery of the trial. >> will there be a fair trial? will the senators allow the house to call witnesses to introduce documents? that is the foundational issue on which everything else rests and one thing that the public is

overwhelmingly in support of is a fair trial. imagine that you're a juror and the judge comes into the courtroom and says, look, i've been in consultation with the defendant and working hand in hand with the defendant and we agreed i'm not going to allow the prosecution to call any witnesses and i'm not going to allow the prosecution to show you any documents. i will only allow the prosecution to read the full transcripts from the grand jury. no juror has ever heard that kind of a thing from a judge because it could be absurd. it would be a mockery of a trial, not a trial. that's what senator mcconnell to date is proposal. >> earlier this week, congress and the public were faced with even more new evidence and insight into the president and ukraine. giuliani associate lev parnas spoke to rachel maddow directly implicating the president and expressing messages between giuliani and himself and along with the allegations came a report from the government accountability office saying the trump administration did, in fact, break the law by wi

withholding that money. faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law. in fact, congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholding and later the impoundment control act. where do these new revelations leave president trump and impeachment? we're joined by rina shah and bas basil. >> put on your senate whip hat and tell me how democrats get to four votes here. >> you know, i think it's quite high at this point because the public pressure has been quite intense. 15 impeempmeachment trials that included witnesses. so what if leader mcconnell allows his members to say, yeah, i want witnesses. we are looking at names like romney and collins, murkowski even.

let's look at vulnerable republicans who will have to take a leap of faith, so to speak. but the reality is this. they know that when they get in line later down the line, they will be protected by the party. they are concerned with their re-elections and that is what makes this whole thing very, very murky. i think, in essence, we know what is going to happen already and i realize that great many pundits do this and what we know by these senators revealing themselves in the publish sphere as being partisans is that they are concerned with their own re-elections and not putting country before party. >> rina, a few minutes ago on fox news sunday lindsey graham was on the chairman of the senate judiciary committee and a big defender of president trump and he made the argument that the house blew it. that they should have had this fight in the house in the courtroom before arguing about witnesses in the senate. i want you to listen to what lindsey graham had to say. >> as to obstruction of justice, the president tried to exercise executive privilege.

one of the reasons he's being impeached is that they had to do it in such a hurry he could not exercise executive privilege. they tried to put trump below the law. abuse of power is so poorly defined here. it's the first impeachment in history where there is no allegation of a crime by the president. >> so, what do you make of that? did the democrats miss their opportunity here on that obstruction argument by not pursuing this further in the house? >> you know, republicans want us to believe that democrats were of the duty and doing a slow drip drop and that's where they nailed schiff. they made a whole mockery of congressman schiff saying this guy is a partisan and he only wanted the public to know when he wanted them to know it. do not believe senate republicans when they say this. it's ludicrous to say articles of impeachment should not be recommended for trump when he

recommended them for clinton. they try to say these were two separate things and additional witnesses should not be called because the house should have done their duty and presented everything at the trial for the senate. but the reality is, no trial really works like that. trials are supposed to include new information. they're supposed to include additional witnesses and, therefore, the republicans are gas lighting us. >> how should democrats use the new information that we do have, the lev parnas revelations and that gao report. how do you see them folding in those new arguments to their impeachment trial? >> well, i think clearly those arguments are going to carry a tremendous amount of weight and i think what they do, particularly the gao report is add an element of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship, i should say, to the democrats' argument. look, if you look at those house managers, they're not people that are prone to hyperbole, in my opinion. versus the team that the

president has put forward to defend him. so, when you add in the parnas revelation, when you add in that gao report, i think what you're doing is grounding in some ways the democrats argument against donald trump and putting pressure on republicans to, i think, tone down their rhetoric, which i don't think you're going to get. putting pressure on republicans to sort of tone down their rhetoric and get serious the way what they are attempting to do because there are folks outside the house that are now saying that this president not only acted appropriately, but potentially illegally. this is important to the american public. it's not just about the re-election campaigns of these well-known senators. >> i'm glad you mentioned the impeachment managers because i think republicans have a very different view, particularly adam schiff. pam bondy on the white house defense team was on one of the

shows this morning talking about schiff as a focus of the defense. take a listen to the way pam bondy described the strategy here. >> we very may well call him as a witness if we ultimately have witnesses. don't discount that yet. >> now, what that tells me is that she's not entirely familiar with the senate rules because any of the managers anyway. they don't have to call schiff, he will be there taking questions. i wonder how schiff plays. democrats very pleased with how he handled the trial in the house and they like him broadly speaking and do you worry about the idea that schiff is a polarizing figure on the right and you try to convince some republican senators to side with democrats? >> so, why we talk about schiff, i also want to shout out to the two new yorkers jeffries and nadler who i worked with very closely. these are incredible public

servants who are very smart, very talented and throughout this whole process has acted in a way very prudent, as well. i expect them to continue to behave in that way, but this also is part of the republican sort of strategy number one. not to sort of, not only to take away or to sort of leave what the president did in his behavior by the way side but trying to point fingers at individual members of congress. it's about a personal attack against these individual members of congress and a narrative where the president and his defenders are saying that democrats are trying to undermine the 2020 election because they don't like what happened in 2016 when he got elected. i think those two lines of attack are going to be very, very important for republicans. i don't think they work certainly as independents and not on democrats. but in terms of talking to his

base, they love that. they love the fact that the president will make these personal attacks against individual members of congress. >> all right. rina shah and basil smicsmickle thank you. you can watch both parts of the interview starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. richmond, virginia, on high alert. bracing for the gun rights rally and the potential there for violence. why authorities are so concerned after a series of threats. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer,

which is breast cancer that has spread 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.

virginia is under a state of emergency right now ahead of a pro gun protest tomorrow. advocates plan to rally against proposals in the virginia legislature that will require background checks on all firearm purchases, limit handgun purchases to one per month and allow local cities to ban guns in events and government buildings. the threat is real. so far the fbi has arrested seven men connected to a group called the base who officials say had malicious plans for tomorrow's rally. the president tweeted in saying the second amendment rights are

under serious attack in virginia. shannon watts, founder of the gun reform group moms demand action. shannon, there are fears that despite organizers saying tomorrow's events will be peaceful, people are worried about a charlottesville situation, the 2017 protests there. why has virginia become a physical and metaphorical battleground for these kind of issues? >> first of all, it's important to remember that there's a difference between activism and extremism. activism is what moms demand action does. extremism is people showing up with semi-automatic rifles trying to silence and intimidate lawmakers. we're working to pass stronger gun laws. now people from across the country are saying they're going to show up on monday and they're threatening and trying to intimidate and silence. lawmakers have made it clear

they're going pass these laws. >> talk about this. virginia was electoral battleground on this issue. first it was the governorship, then winning control of the state legislatures to try to enact these kinds of reforms. how do you see gun control becoming more potent in the state? >> well, first of all, it's important to remember that the vast majority of americans, even gun owners support stronger laws like a background check on every gun sale or a strong red flag law. every country is home to misogyny, bigotry, racism. only america gives these people easy access to an arsenal and ammunition and allows this 'em to parade around the public square. that's what we're going to see on monday. is no longer about gun laws anymore than charlottesville was about statues. we're seeing armed extremism in this country and it's really dangerous. >> are states the laboratory for this kind of thing though? we've talked about this before in other contexts, the idea that the federal government tends to lag on these issues but states

are doing progressive things when it comes to gun control. where else can groups like yours, can activists, not extremists, make their presence felt legislatively? >> exactly. that's exactly right. we have passed stronger gun laws in many, many states. just this last year alone 18 states red, blue and purple, stronger gun laws. we have a 90% track record of stopping bad nra bills in statehouses. we're seeing republicans and democrats alike agree that these laws, after they see the research and data, save lives in their states. that's why constituents and leaders support these laws. obviously we need them at a federal level, but we have to have the right president and right congress in state. we'll continue to go state by state in places like virginia, we'll pass a strong red flag law there. this is the last gasp of extremists who are angry and they are armed. they will not subvert democracy.

constituents in virginia will have the last say. >> how do you respond to the law abiding gun owner, not the person who will be extreme about this, who does believe this curtails their rights, purchasing, carrying a weapon for personal protection. how do you make the argument that there are people on the other side of the issue open to having this discussion? >> about 80% of gun owners and even 74 brs of nra members support stronger laws like a background check on every gun sale. so we have many gun owners who are part of our coalition; this is not about reviewing the second amendment. responsible gun owners support what we're doing. this is about extremists. they won't support any law whatsoever that will stop the 100 deaths from gun violence

every day in this country. >> are you encouraging people to go out and make their voices heard in gave vor of these gun control restrictions or stay away from there entirely? >> this sounds like an incredibly dangerous situation. a state of emergency called by the governor. our volunteers are going to spend the day on monday phone banking, calling their lawmakers, thanking them for supporting gun safety and encouraging them to keep going on background checks and a red law. that's activism. that's the difference between what we do and extremists. >> shannon smith from moms demand action. thank you so much. >> thank you. coming up, lev parnas continue to link republican devon knew nez to the ukrainian scandal. house intelligence committee

member terri sewell is next. member terri sewell is next. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com to take care of yourself. but nature's bounty has innovative ways to help you maintain balance and help keep you active and well-rested. because hey, tomorrow's coming up fast. nature's bounty. because you're better off healthy.

- do that are degrading?ideo tapes, film reels, or photos, nature's bounty. legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off. 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.

that's it for me. thanks for watching. "am joy" with joy reid starts right now. what did you discuss with lev parnas? >> well, i don't even know because i've never met parnas. like i filed in federal court, so it's a great question. many people want to know including myself. i didn't know the name, this name parnas. so what i always like to remind people is we are dealing with people every day. we're an oversight committee. we have incoming calls that come to my office, to my cell phone, et cetera, et cetera.

you know now that he had called my cell phone, and i didn't know his name, didn't remember the name. >> good morning and welcome to "am joy." it turns out rudy giuliani associate lev parnas doesn't just have an interview, he also has receipts. because of it ranking member of the house intelligence committee devin nunes had to quickly change course this week after previously claiming he didn't know lev at all. documents released friday night by house democrats brought one of nunes' staffers, a guy named derek harvey deeper into the mix, showing he communicated extensively with lev parnas about ukraine aid. also in a newly released evidence, whatsapp messages suggesting congressional candidate robert hyde passed information about marie yovanovitch's whereabouts to lev parnas, information he received from a trump super fan named anthony decal