." >> joining us, media founder and president, dan abrams. let's remind viewers of what williams said monday night that got him fired and his explanation last night. let's take a look. >> i'm not a bigot. the books i have written about the civil rights movement in this country but when i get on a plane, if i see people who are in muslim garb and i think they're identifying themselves first and foremost as muslims i get worried. i get nervous. they take it out of context and forget the fact i'm engaging you bill o'reilly, right? >> right. >> having an honest discussion. this is what america should be. having a real debate. you pointed out rightly. this is what i felt. >> dan, most people seem to agree with juan williams at this point think he shouldn't have been fired. why do you think he was fired? >> i don't think he should have been fired. it was the first comment he made. coming into the segment. all right? now, i don't think he should have been fired. not that big of a deal but not the strongest argument to say it was taken out of contest

chief legal an lift, dan abrams, the former congressman, j.d. hayworth "the washington post," jonathan capehart, strategic karen finney. should be a great morning. short of tell you stay home, the rare warning sfra ining state ds getting serious. countries in europe are seriously worried about a terror attack. if you're going to go there, you need to watch it. the trouble is, after nine years of various warnings, you know all of the color codes, is anyone going to pay attention? >> i'm very happy to be here in france, and i think that we're very safe, and i trust the french government to keep us safe. >> we're going to be a little bit cautious getting on the train. >> i'll keep my eyes open and hopefully things will work out. >> hopefully things will work out. nbc's jim maceda live in lon done with latest on the new terrorism concerns. i was reading local papers in london, jim, and it i was interested to see they were talking to a lot of americans who, frankly, were upset that they thought the warning were too vague. what's go on over there? >>

. >> dan abrams is nbc's chief legal analyst, dan, good morning to you, we already know that they have been charged with a couple of counts of invasion of privacy. but now we're hearing more about hate crime charges. are these charges coming from a solid legal place or are they coming from an emotional place? >> it's going to depend on the facts, there's two types of charges, there's the fourth-degree felony which is for filming the activity without the consent of the person. the more serious one, the third-degree is for distributing it. so now some are saying the prosecutors should add something on to that third-degree felony. if they can determine it was a hate crime, meaning intended to intimidate the person based on sexual orientation, they could up the possible sentence here from up to five years to up to ten years. >> but it's a big if and how do they go about connecting those dots. >> they're going to need more than just the text that we just read about him, quote, being a gay -- about making out. they're going to need to know that the reason that he did it, that his intent here

. >> dan abrams is nbc's chief legal analyst and author of "man down." ere, dan, about privacy issues, on what is the judge basing his decision? >> this is not a classic privacy case where a private individual is being asked for certain documents or if a company is being asked for documents about a private figure. what makes this case hard, and i think why the judge ruled the way he did against miller, is first of all, miller was working for the government. and there were ethics questions. and you heard miller there just confirm after the judge's ruling, which was going to release these documents, that, yes, he did have an ethics problem while he was a government attorney. so i don't think this was a particularly strong privacy argument that miller had. >> okay. let me ask you, if you're apply for a job and your new employer wants to check why you left the old job and they call up and say, hey, why did cones t tetes brewer leave her job, there are privacy issues there. old employers would be reluctant to give away too many private details of your employme

. >>> dan abrams is here. anything anybody can do about this? let's start with the guys. going to claim it is false? if they are going to say there are things in there and we don't need to go into the details of what could be false, if they were to say the details about me were false and it is private figures, there's no question that they could file a lawsuit if they chose to. now, there's a different analysis if maybe it's true or you don't want to litigate whether it's true and you simply want to say it's an invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress. >> is that a weaker case? i >> it's a tougher case to make when it's true. it would be much tougher to sue. people have done it in the past. there have been other cases where bloggers have talked about their sexual exploits and some of the quote/unquote victims have sued. it's not an easy lawsuit. >> and she did not intend it for a wider audience. so, is it possible, that she could go after the three, i think it was three people that she gave it to who then distribution went from there. >> probabl

. >> dan abrams nbc's legal analyst, star jones, former prosecutor, tv host and author. on a gut emotional level when you hear the father of a fallen service member saying they turned his son's funeral into a three-ring circus, case done, over with. but on a legal level, it's very different, isn't it, star? >> very much so. it's the balance of free speech versus good taste, and for in good taste these people fail miserably. and free speech, i think as long as they are adhering to the local ordinances, concerning where they're allowed to protest, where they're allowed to assemble -- >> aren't they close to the line at all, do you think? the first amendment was designed in part to protect unpopular speech. >> yes. >> people saying offensive things, that's part of what the first amendment is intended to do. what's specific to this case that makes it interesting is the fact you're not talking about protesting at the white house or at the pentagon, you're talking about private individuals here. you're not talking about protesting the government's policies. private individuals

i want to talk to dan abrams.me start with you, you were the first person i was hearing call it for it to be examined as a hate crime, why? >> it is a hate crime. new jersey's hate crimes law very specifically incompasses new jersey's separate law covering invasion of privacy. the law could not be clearer. and the hate crimes here law not only covers invasion of privacy, but invasion of privacy that might involve a victim's sexualorisexual orientati orientation. it was perfectly clear. >> dan s the law perfectly clear? >> it's perfectly clear that it's subject, that the hate crime law can be applicable in this kind of crime. meaning that you basically have two types of crimes that are being charged here. one, the lesser crime, which is the fourth degree felony, which is for filming. the more severe crime. >> which even at that could be five years in prison, isn't it? >> that one up to 18 months. but for the third degree felony which is the more severe of the crimes, that's for distributing it. that's the one where

. >> judith is a psychologist and dan abrams is nbc's chief legal analyst. you both. >> let's talk about the legal side, you are a duke alumni, 1988? >> yes. >> the athletes that karen owen writes about, she showed us the pictures of them, she named them. do they have any legal resource at all? >> possibly, are they going to say any of it is false? are they going to say they never had sex with her? assuming they don't do that, the next lawsuit would be an invasion of privacy case. sex is the sort of thing that leads people to file them. remember, they may not just be suing her, they may sue the people who distributed it because they may be more responsible legally than her because they're the ones who got it out there and the minute you send something out, you're responsible for that content that you're distributing. >> i wondered if she would be liable at all because when she sent to it her friends, she didn't have any expectation they would send out us. >> you could slander sm someone by saying something to one other person. the question is anybody actuall

. >> dan abrams said this is going to be a tough case to prove. you're charging citigroup with a recessionary discrimination. but they were part of a bigger layoff. do you have specific proof that they were laid off solely because of their gender? >> we're going to show that citigroup used the sluggish economy as a cover-up to discriminate against the women. each one of the women who was laid off back in november of 2008 were imminently more qualified than their male counter parts. in fact one of the women who's part of the lawsuit received much higher bonuses because her productivity was much higher than the man they kept. one of the former managers has already supplied us with an affidavit who will testify that each one of the women in his group that was chosen for lay yufs than the men who remain at citigroup to this day? >> you are part of this lawsuit because you feel you were unfairly demoted when you returned from a maternity leave in january? >> i'm an associate in the active finance group, i've been there for four years and a group that h

nbc news chief legal analyst dan abrams joins us with the answer. >> good morning, lelester. >> in these wherehe opposite true? >> i don't view it as giving her this amount of time in rehab is lenient on a probation violation. remember we' suggesting she was initially convicted of some incredibly massive crime. it wasn't. these are comparatively minor crimes, she was initially convicted of. she's seed time three times on probation violations. no i know everyone out there is saying, yeah, but what are you going to do to prevent her from doing it again? and if you really want to talk about what to do to prevent her from doing it again, this is probably the best solution. >> the judge said "you're an addict." >> and remember, she can't leave. this is now her being told you have to stay in the center until january 3rd. >> a form of incarceration and in this case she got ahead of the game. she pretty much went there on her own. >> yep. >> did that help her in the judge's view, was that a sense of, okay, she gets it? >> it was a very smart move strategically because a, she gives the impressi

. >> dan abrams, thank you so much. it's 7:20 an once again here is matt. >>> this morning we have learned that the federal trade commission is taking action against a company that it says bilked consumers out of millions by falsely claiming it could lower people's tax debt. kevin tibbles is in chicago with details on this. >> reporter: this morning the ftc is calling it an elaborate fraud that preyed on those desperate to get out from under a mountain of tax debt. >> if you owe over $15,000 in taxes -- >> reporter: you've probably heard the pitch. >> this is your one-second chance. use it well. >> reporter: ads promising to help people climb out from under tax debt. >> american tax relief got them to accept a fraction of what we owed. >> reporter: tim fullerton was desperate when he heard the ad. >> american tax relief. we can reduce your tax debt by up to 90%. >> reporter: and you said, whoa? >> it sounds like a plan. >> reporter: turns out fullerton wasn't the only one. some 20,000 people paid american tax relief fee

janet taylor is a psychiatrist, dan abrams is nbc's chief legal analyst.as a legal matter, if the prosecutors decide they want to prosecute, they have got all the evidence they need right there on the tape. because remember, what is battery, legally? it mean s touching someone in a angry way. >> he sat there and took this for a long period of time, does he have to press charges in order for an action to be brought. >> but when you've got the videotape, in a way you don't need the witness the way you might ordinarily in another case. >> not only could she face battery charges but child services is now involved in this. could she lose custody of her daughter who was in the room for one of these assaults? >> that's a pretty draconian measure to take the child away from a parent is kind of the ultimate punishment when it comes to child services. but when they examine the totality of the circumstances and come to the conclusion she's an unfit mother. >> there was a crew here shooting this, should they not have put the camera down and dragged these two apart? >>

dan abrams nbc's chief analyst, dr. julie holland a psychiatrist, drug expert and author of "weekends at bellevue." dan, it's reported that charlie sheen found in this room, trashed in this hotel room, naked or partially naked, drunk, there's an unidentified woman in the room who seem to be frightened and they believe that she is a member of an escort service. he doesn't get arrested for anything. instead allowed to go to the hospital. i guess he's given the choice and goes to the hospital. sounds like that he's getting special treatment. >> i'm not sure that's the case, meaning you're allows to be naked, you're allowed to be drunk and with a naked woman in your hotel room. the question becomes, what's the possible crime here? >> he trashed the hotel room. >> that's right. you need -- >> supposedly. >> what you'd need is the hotel or this woman saying, here's what he did that we believe is criminal and we're ready to testify about it. because without that, you simply don't have a case. meaning you have a civil action whi