joyce vance joining me, msnbc legal analyst and former u.s. attorney. this. so, i want to clear things up because i think there's some confusion over what they're actually going to be hearing here when it comes to the supreme court. is this going to be over the constitutionality of sb-8? will they be weighing the constitutionality of sb-8 or will they be weighing as to whether or not the doj has the right, really, or the authority to sue the state of texas over sb-8 or is it both? >> it's a subtle distinction, and it may end up ultimately being a distinction without a difference, but there are two lawsuits challenging sb8, the doj lawsuit and the suit by private abortion providers and advocates, and there are two questions that the court has agreed to look at. one is whether or not doj can sue the state of texas and its functionaries and the second question that they'll take up on behalf of both lawsuits is whether or not the texas scheme that uses private vigilante justice purportedly in place of state enforcement is a legitimate statutory scheme. do t

joyce vance is still here. egal move and then we'll get into sort of the politics and the ramifications. >> sure. so what's being litigated here is still not the substantive merits of whether sb 8 is constitutional. this is still preliminary skirmishing over whether or not the law should be enjoined. the first time it reached the supreme court late at night on their shadow docket, they said we're going to permit this law to stay in effect because texas is using this perplexing situation involving vigilante justice to enforce the law and there's no one that we, the supreme court, have the power to enjoin. that's a silly, disingeneral would you say argument, but doj comes back and this is what's different about this new request. doj says okay, supreme court, we'll spot you the first education, but we have the ability unlike the private plaintiffs in that first case to directly sue the state of texas. texas has no legal immunity like they might have in some other cases. we're asking you to enjoin the state of texas

back with me is fancy northrup and joyce vance a former u.s. attorney and contributor for msnbc. at trumpism. they are set to hear the abortion case in december. the ruling won't be out until next year, a mid-term year, how do you see it affecting the elections next year? >> it's a very interesting question as to whether or not the abortion issue could flip the traditional mid-term election dynamic where the party that holds the white house often suffers tremendous losses. theoretically, the supreme court hears the case in december. perhaps the texas case gets aligned with it. there is a decision by the end of the supreme court's term in spring of next year. that means going into the polls in november. the real question is whether the apportion issue will galvanize women in 2022, like it did in the 1960s and '70s ahead of the decision in roe versus waitd and whether the prospect of losing 50 years of abortion rights could be a game changer in the political theater. >> nancy, these restrictive abortion laws are not popular, according to a monmouth university poll from late septembe

judge vance, was the father in law, of our next guest, joyce vance, joyce vance is a former federal prosecutorthe university of alabama school of, law also joining our discussion is matt miller, a spokesperson for attorney general eric holder, both are msnbc contributors. joyce, i just want to begin by saying, that i am sorry for your loss, i will never forget the news of that, day it was so shocking. that that could happen to a federal judge, and tonight, it's, seems as likely as ever, if not more so. >> you know, the distinction between just a very small number of federal judges who were tragically killed in the last century, and the attack this century on a judge's family, is that those stems primarily from people who were upset about their individual cases, or family members cases, what is so troubling about the air that we are in right now, and judge walton's comments, is that this is about people with the political agenda. and those are the sort of risks that judges face, in countries where cartels have influence, or in the philippines. or even in afghanistan were two women judges were k

joyce vance, try to answer the question that jonathan lemire just put out there, which is, what couldminal contempt actually look like? what could that feasibly lead to and what other tools do they have in their legal belt here when it comes to steve bannon and others that choose to defy these subpoenas? >> the real problem here, and jonathan points it out, is that congress doesn't have a tool that's perfectly edged to permit it to get bannon's testimony so what they'll do is try to use the coercive power that they have in order to get as close to that as they can. everyone seems to expect at this point that on tuesday, there will be a vote from congress to refer bannon to the u.s. attorney and the district of columbia for criminal contempt proceedings. and although those charges are in the discretion of the u.s. attorney, it's up to them as to whether or not they wish to bring them and think that they have sufficient evidence and that it's in the national interest to bring those charges. it is a misdemeanor but it's an unusual one, yasmin. it carries a 30-day mandatory minimum senten

joining me now is julia ainsley and joyce vance. of the ban, women in texas were forced to go to neighboring states and because of the way the law is written in that 48 hours or so between when the federal judge ruled that ban was unconstitutional and then the 5th circuit ruled that it could be reinstated people could still be retro actively sued by the vigilantes. >> yes, they really did everything they could to try to make this challenge proof and to make sure it would stand even during temporary injunctions. so if women were able to get the procedures last week then now those people that provided those procedures, even if it was an uber driver that took them to a clinic, those suits could come up and it could trigger this coming in. the courts have only weighed in on the procedural notion of the law. they have not ruled on the constitutionality. so if someone does sue for an abortion, you could get an argument based on the merits of the law. >> and the move by the doj comes days after the very conservative fifth circuit court of

bench and put them into this florida investigation, i want to put our mutual friend your cohost joyce vance who was guest here last night. she said this on social media today, it's not an usual for doj's public integrity section to work with a u.s. attorney's office on a case involving a politician but, it suggests that someone thinks the case is going somewhere. >> barb do you concur? >> i do, brian, i mean this is asking for resources to come out of washington, the public integrity section is not large. and so, they have to be very selective about the cases that they're going to join and avoid those resources to. they get lots of requests, and lots of referrals all over the country. but they are the specialist we have the expertise to come in and assist of those local prosecutors, so the prosecutors in florida certainly know their court know their judges, know the process in their community, but having those specials from washington who have focused on these kind of cases in the past, can be very helpful. but i agree with joyce in not because of the scarcity of those lawyers, they are onl

joyce vance is a former federal prosecutor and a professor at the university of alabama school of lawssion, former spokesperson for erick holder. both are msnbc contributors. joyce, i want to begin by saying i am so sorry for your loss. i will never forget the news of that day. it was so shocking that could happen to a federal judge. and tonight it seems as likely as ever, if not more so. >> you know, the destingds between just the small number of judges tragically killed in the last century and the attack this century on a judge's family is that those stemmed primarily from people who were upset about their individual cases or family members' cases. what's so troubling about the era we're in right now in judge walton's comments is this is about people with a political agenda. and those are the sort of risks that judges face in countries where cartels have influence or the philippines or afghanistan, where two women judges were killed earlier this year. the -- and i'm not saying, for instance, that donald trump is directly responsible, but it's the rhetoric and the level of political

attorney, joyce vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. good reason she is a co-host of the podcast, sisters in law. good evening and welcome to you all. ashley, you get the tough one. the white house is to put it charitably, stalled, the democrats in the senate are to put it charitably paralyzed, so what political impact is there if the departments indeed do have the numbers for this vote against bannon tomorrow? >> well, the key thing still, i think, is the stalled domestic agenda and infrastructure and reconciliation. that's the key thing. but the vote against bannon does help forward the democratic on objectives in ways, but you are seeing what president biden came in to do which was sort of shoring up the democracy and going after the january 6th attacks. it's something that is incredibly important to this white house and it is again, and it does not detract from sort of being the intractable of nearing on a deal on the president's domestic agenda. but it's politically a problem for the republicans in that it reminds them of everythin

joyce vance is a former united states attorney and.ill to come, the importance of hispanic heritage month. velshi is available as a podcast. you can listen to the show any where, any time. listen and subscribe for free wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ oh! are you using liberty mutual's coverage customizer tool? sorry? well, since you asked. it finds discounts and policy recommendations, so you only pay for what you need. limu, you're an animal! who's got the bird legs now? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ subway®... has so much new it didn't fit it in their last ad. like this new and improved steak and cheese loaded with our new tender steak that's marinated and thicker sliced, on our new artisan italian bread. man, you covered up the footlong! the eat fresh refresh at subway®. it's too much new to fit in one commerc- (vo) unconventional thinking means we see things differently, so you can focus on what matters most. that's how we've become the leader in 5g. #1 in customer satisfact

joining me now, msnbc contributor joyce vance.professor at university of alabama skoofl law. it is one thing to say the attack on january 6th was premedicated. you heard bennie thompson saying everybody knows that, that seems obvious. does that have any legal consequences? >> you know, we're simultaneously investigating january 6th in two very separate systems. one is the political system in congress. the other is the criminal justice system and the justice department. and because those standards are different using the same language can be confusing. i think in the common sense of our understanding, premeditation is clear. this took a great deal of planning to bring this group of people together that ended up inside of congress. but in the legal sense, whether someone could be prosecuted for a specific crime, that's a very different sort of an investigation, always motivated by the context that doj has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the courtroom. the carryover between those two basically legal systems is not clear y

joining me now is joyce vance, former u.s. t the university of alabama school of law. welcome, joyce. are you surprised by the arbitrator's decision, and what do you think it means for other former trump aides who signed similar ndas? >> this is not a particularly surprising decision. the nondisclosure agreement in this case was very broad, and as the arbitrator noted, ultimately it was far too broad and too vague to be enforceable. the interesting question that you flag, alex, is what does this mean for other people who entered into nondisclosure agreements with the former president? this is a decision rendered by an arbitrator. under the terms of the nda, it went to private arbitration as opposed to into the court system for a decision. so, this is an arbitrator who concluded the president could not enforce the nondisclosure agreement in this case. that will not be binding in future cases, but it will be highly persuasive. this is a major loss in trump world. >> and it's something that certainly donald trump's niece, mary tru

attorney joyce vance and here in the studio, news justice correspondent pete williams. for governor cuomo? we understand the albany sheriff will have a news conference or appearance this afternoon. what could he be facing, if that's down the road? >> this is an unusual interpretation, andrea, because everyone seems surprised the charges have been filed. the prosecutor, county district attorney was caught off guard, even the sheriff's office were surprised to see them become public so quickly, although they filed them and the victim, too, was caught off guard, although her attorney said she would continue to be a cooperative victim. although cuomo has an order to appear in court on the 17th to be arraigned, when the charges against him are formally read to him in court, and he enters a plea, it's not really clear at this point how this case will move forward. >> and, pete, let's talk abe the supreme court and texas abortion law. these are constitutional arguments, procedural arguments on monday, not the substance of it? >> the monday cases are not about abortion. it's rea

joining me now is michelle goldberg, columnist for the "new york times" and joyce vance.ng to start with you. the appeal is in. can you walk us through what the appeal in theory could be based on and how successful you think that appeal might be given how conservative the fifth circuit is where they are taking this appeal? >> so there are a lot of moving parts in that question, joy, but essentially the state of texas has gone to the fifth circuit court of appeals and they'll ask a three-judge panel in that court to rule a different way. they'll ask that court to go ahead and put the statute back in operation to remove judge pittman's stay. either they'll win or they'll lose there. it's worth noting that only the supreme court can overrule roe versus wade, excuse me, and the fifth circuit panel is obligated to follow roe versus wade, which suggests that they should keep judge pittman's stay in place if they follow the law, but either way we're likely to end back up in front of the supreme court where this case could easily be joined with the mississippi case that the court

joyce vance, thank you as well. great to see you, ladies.ge next. p our coverage next. and there you have it- woah. wireless on the most reliable network nationwide. wow. -big deal! ...we get unlimited for just 30 bucks. sweet, i get that too and mine has 5g included. that's cool, but ours save us serious clam-aroonies. relax people, my wireless is crushing it. that's because you all have xfinity mobile with your internet. it's wireless so good, it keeps one upping itself. johnson & johnson is the world's largest healthcare company. building a future where cancers can be cured. strokes can be reversed. joints can be 3-d printed. and there isn't one definition of what well feels like. there are millions. we're using our world to make your world a world of well. >>> there are new signs this afternoon that democrats are closer than ever before to a deal on that massive social spending bill. they're now targeting a vote for next week. speaker pelosi emerging from a white house meeting with president biden saying she's very optimistic, but is a v

joyce vance joins us. former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama law school. also, pulitzer prize-winning reporter who dominates covering the justice department for "the new york times." and all-time favorite jarrett -- garrett haake, senior capitol hill reporter, here with me. >> this is going to be a process. the house will vote hopefully later this week. they'll find bannon in criminal contempt. then it goes to the justice department, who still have to decide whether this is the kind of thing they want to pursue criminally. democrats in the house are arguing that they have to do this not just for their investigation, but to prove that congressional subpoenas even mean anything. listen to this that adam schiff told me last night. >> i think it is enormously important, and i view this as an early test of our democracy, whether it is recovering. an early test of whether in the new administration no one will be above the law. i can tell you that if you or i or anyone else refused to show up when they were subpoenaed, they would be arrested. it should be no diff

with me justice corespondent and joyce vance and msnbc legal analyst.om the january 6th committee. here he is. >> what are the chances that you'll get this opportunity to question steve bannon do you think? >> i think the chances are actually very good and the fact that if the justice department prosecutes steve bannon, other witnesses will see they'll face real consequences including jail time and potentially stiff fines. that is a way of getting people's attention. >> joyce vance, how many different ways can steve bannon be told your executive privilege claim is denied. you don't get to claim it. how is it possible he and donald trump seem not to understand that? >> i think the problem is that they do understand it, joy, but they've learned over the years that playing a delay game with the courts serves their purposes when they're trying to avoid doing something here. that's why congressmen schiff is dead on the money here and why it will be so important if the committee makes a request to the justice department to bring a criminal contempt proceeding

attorney joyce vance. jon, is he seeing this executive privilege as a way to keep stalling things?i think there are a few things at play here. first of all, let's remember that when president trump was in office and the democrats took control of the house, the administration stonewalled every attempt to investigate. the motto here was just say no, the trump official would not cooperate with subpoenas and other congressional inquiries. bannon now, who had fallen out of grace with the president and is now back in, is certainly the one carrying trump's message of electoral fraud, suggesting that he would be returned to office some day. and he is not going to cooperate. he could be punished here. there are fines, essentially even a year in jail. but even if that were to happen to him, and it's unclear that this committee will go down that road, but they still wouldn't necessarily get his testimony. there's no way to force him to actually testify. but he is setting a tone here. other officials, former chief of staff mark meadows, are cooperating at least to a degree with investigators,

joining our coverage, joyce vance, msnbc legal analyst. m the justice department's filing. this is something i've been asking about for weeks. they write, quote, a state might ban the possession of all handguns in the home, prohibit independent corporate campaign advertising and deputize citizens to seek bounties for each firearm. partisans of one stripe or another might cheer these outcomes, but they should horrify anyone committed to the principle this that diverse nation is bound by one institution. what do you think of that? >> doj is taking a strong stand here in giving the supreme court who will ultimately decide this case every possible opportunity to reconsider their earlier decision to permit the law to go into effect. the point they're making here is that we're not a country with one set of rules that apply to every kind of case except abortion and a separate form of juris prudent in abortion cases. we are not a country that's meant to permit village lan. doj throws down the gauntlet with this filing saying you might like what hap

joyce vance, former u.s.st, is here. lucky for us, clint watts is also back. clint, i got to start with this. to me, this sort of rise in violence that we're seeing in schools, it's just a reflection of a rise in violence that we're seeing all over the country. we're seeing it in schools. we're seeing it in grocery stores. we're seeing it on airplanes. to me, is this really about people being upset about mask mandates or are there sort of underlying disruptive forces, white nationalists, anarchists, whatever, in this country, that are using mask mandates and a public health crisis to sort of wage chaos? >> jason, a year ago, i think we started talking about mobilizations to polling places and primarily we were worried about local polling locations, and we did see sort of vigilante poll monitoring, you know, surface after the election. we saw people show up at election recounts, and that's only continued for about ten months now, and it really encapsulates every single issue. it is masks. it is vaccines. it's

attorney from the northern district of alabama, joyce vance, let me begin with you, joyce with all the questions. is the select committee handling this right by saying steve bannon, we'll put you in jail if you don't come testify. is that the right direction to go or is that a good signal to send to other witnesses. >> dong has a limited hands to play here. one of the things we have learned when you have leaders who are breaking the systems and not abiding by its norms they can do a lot of damage. here congress is playing the part it has as best as it can. its got two options. one would be going to court and pursue a civil contempt. we saw how that played out with don mcgahn. this mechanism is imperfect but it may be the best option here. what it requires for congress to send a referral to the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia. that u.s. attorney will make a charging decision about whether to bring criminal contempt charges. it's a strong signal to people who are respectful of the rule of law in this country. there is an interesting provision, there is a 30-day mandato

joining us now is joyce vance.e refers to bannon has is respected with all republicans going against, is the attorney general going to go ahead and charge him? what do you think the justice department will do? >> it is hard to predict what this justice department right now. what merrick garland has done is committed that doj will use the same principals of federal prosecution that they have used to decide in any other situation whether or not there should be an indictment. whether or not that is evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. if it the prost kus is a matter of national interest, and and i suppose it is possible that he could, the civil remedy is sufficient. in a case like this where there is just a raw effort for the oversight abilities, this would be the case. >>. >> what about the prosecution? is it contempt? >> thee ratically congress can file a lawsuit and we saw them do that with don mcgann and it was 750 days from the time he was subpoenaed to when he appeared for closed door testimony. so that

i want to quote our mutual friend, joyce vance, she said this. "it's not unusual for doj's public integrity section to work with a u.s. attorney's office on a case involving a politician but it suggests that,". >> the public integrity section is not large. they have to be selective of the cases they are going to join and devote those resources to. they get a lot of requests and referrals all over the country. they have the specialists who have the expertise to come in and assist the prosecutors. prosecutors in florida know near courts and judges and the process and their community but having those specialists from washington who have focused on these kinds of cases in the past can be very helpful but i agree with joyce in that because of the scarcity of those lawyers, they're only going to go where they are needed when there appears to be something that's about to happen. they're looking seriously about filing charges in this case and staying in for the long hall. >> how long is bannon's allegiance to trump and vice versa? >> bannon is doing what

with joyce vance, and barbara mcquade. good evening and welcome to you all. sam it was your news organization, that broke this story. about trump influence on the one six committee. how if at all, does this bring us into new territory? given the players? >> well i, mean this is what we're building up to. right we knew that trump was has an urge to find participation from former aides in this committee investigation. we knew that he was going to pressure them not to cooperate, whether it was in respect for the committee or hand documents over to the committee. now we have it ordered, the question, is what you these four people do? with that request? do they honor, and defy the committee? defy the subpoena. and risk all the legal consequences that come with. do they fight it out? do they comply? and, everything that we know from the past, is that they will, confiscate, they will dig their heels in, and they will basically dare the committee to actually flex its muscles that it has. democrats seem to be talking much more aggressive game. we saw a couple clip say

attorney for the northern district of alabama, joyce vance. she's an msnbc legal analyst. joyce, good morning. what's the significance of this ruling and what does it mean for the future of this law? >> well, this ruling blocks sba, in effect ever since the supreme court previously declined to enjoin it. so as of this morning, texas women, people in texas, are free to receive the abortion procedure up until the previous designated time in texas, up until viability. but the problem here, willie, is that the state of texas took about, a little over an hour to file an appeal after judge pittman entered his very meticulous order. texas will ask the fifth secretary to rehear his decision. they will undoubtedly ask the fifth circuit to enjoin, to reblock the statute, to, again, prohibit abortion in texas. it is a confusing and complicated situation for people on the ground in texas, and part of what texas calculated when it passed this law was that that level of confusion about the rick of getting an abortion would lead to a drag on people's ability to exercise this fundamental r

joining us now, joyce vance and eugene robinson. e in august 2017 if memory serves after a power struggle with jared kushner. and there is this other question about whether a former president canexert executive privilege. is that not the prerogative of the sitting president? >> bannon is the weakist case and he doesn't have a case at all. as you've pointed out, executive privilege is meant to cover deliberations between white house officials to ensure that the president can get good open advice. and bannon loses on all counts. not a member of the executive branch and even if he was, trump is now a former president. and the person who can assert executive privilege is joe biden. otherwise imagine what it would look like. you would have every living president with the ability to exert executive privilege in any situation and that would be unworkable. but of course the strategy is classic trump. throw everything into the court, hope for delays, slow down procedures in front of the house committee. and so the same old strategy from trump

also one of the cohost of the podcast sisters in law, with joyce vance joe why banks and barbara mcquade. and we welcome to the broadcast, evan osnos, staff writer for the new yorker. his new's book is wild lands, the making of america's fury. and it's generating a lot of attention, will get into that in just a few minutes, good evening and welcome to you all. peter i like to begin with you. and your be, i'm told it's the first time this president, has paid an in-person visit to the democratic caucus, in the house, the majority caucus. presidential power is a funny thing. you have to spend it wisely. when and how will we know, if his trip down to the capital today, was worth it? >> it's a great question, obviously as you said in the, opening it was not what they would've liked. when nancy pelosi said there's gonna be a vote of money, there was not a vote on monday. then she said there be a vote on, thursday there was not a vote on thursday. they're supposed to be a vote on friday. there is not a vote on friday. because in fact they don't have the votes, and this is the fundamental tensio

along with joyce vance and join joy wine-banks. >> good evening and welcome to you all. counselor, welcome indeed -- i didn't bring a cup bucket of cold water to this conversation intentionally, but i heard this business of a criminal contempt complaint. explain today. last time it happened in the house was in 1983. it's gotta be voted on by the attorney in the district of columbia. then maybe to a grand jury, then maybe to a ju trial, the house with select a trial lawyer to represent them at trial. then maybe, to a series of appeals. and barb, it sure sounds like we're talking about years and not months, are we close to right on that? >> i agree with you brian, it seems to be that strategically, if what the committee really wanted to hear was complain at compliance with the subpoena, the better course maybe to go the civil route. to get the judge to order compliance. and then bannon could be held in contempt of the court order and jailed civilly as a method of enticing his compliance, for up to 18 months. that could all have been pretty quickly. instead he by going the

. >> joyce vance, i think this moment calls for the following, as a southerner, as they -- . what's at stake, what will happen to voting rights in this country, what we are watching happen any absent movement that the federal level? >> we are watching an absolute erosion of the right to vote. that erosion is not equal across the board, it is often targeted at people who are republican and conservative state legislators believe will vote democratic. that means it is targeting communities of color, people who have lesser financial means. so we have a lot of new laws coming out of state legislatures, and they all restrict the right to vote. they do it in the name of preventing fraud by in large, but that fraud has never been proven to exist. in fact the evidence is to the contrary, and it's really just a bogeyman others legislators are using in order to annapolis that the press the right to vote. him you may need to give an identification that is difficult or expensive to get, you may no longer be able to drop off your ballot in hr box or use drive up voting a for instance you a

joyce vance. an msnbc contributor. thanks. >>> coming up, we're about to be one step closer to ending the covid pandemic with news breaking yesterday about vaccinating kids against the deadly disease. against the deadly disease their only friend? the open road. i have friends. [ chuckles ] well, he may have friends, but he rides alone. that's jeremy, right there! we're literally riding together. he gets touchy when you talk about his lack of friends. can you help me out here? no matter why you ride, progressive has you covered with protection starting at $79 a year. well, we're new friends. to be fair. eh, still. i'll also be needing some nail polish, a bottle of champagne, and a box of chocolates. ( doorbell ) boom! because i'm keeping it casual. ( blowing ) i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... ...me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there for her. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for people with crohn's

joining our conversation, msnbc legal analyst joyce vance, former u.s.versity of alabama, claire still here. claire, absolutely ghoulish to hear a person paid by the taxpayers of this country say he would be proud of someone who planned the events that led to law enforcement officers dying by suicide, being maimed in that event, many of them still suffering from their injuries and ptsd. >> yeah, and by the way, i know my friend, joyce, will back me up on this. when you know there's a problem is when someone obviously is lying when they talk. when he says he doesn't know whether his staff participated, that's a lie. that's just a big fat lie. he knows if his staff participated. he knows exactly what his staff was doing. and frankly, i think electronic phone records and other records could show what he was doing. i mean, we've got to get all of the information, all of the documentary evidence, the electronic evidence around the willard war room. who was there, who was talking to the people who were there, who had talked to them within days, clearly they pl

i want to bring in julia who is covering this for the justice department and joyce vance is a formerrney. welcome to you both. julia talk us through this first what this new ruling means for clinics and women, quite frankly in the state of texas and what comes next? >> well, it means that effectively abortions are nearly completely banned again in the state of texas. last week the district judge and the district court in texas said he would put a temporary injunction on that allowing the through be prohibited. now we have this appeals court which is arguably the most conservative in the country saying no, in fact the law can go forward. it's actually rare that any woman would have been able to gate proceeded did your in the meantime because the way the law was written anybody who performed a abortion while the law was on hold could be liable. it tees it up to go to the supreme court. now we can expect the justice department have to respond by october 12h. very likely they will appeal to the supreme court which means this case, a mississippi case and a kentucky case will all be on the

joyce vance -- or excuse me, barbara mcquade, good to have you with us. >>> next, new york's mayor ising the weekly testing alternative to covid-19 vaccine mandates off the table. >>> and the need for a few thousand more truck drivers. ore. but we lose control. ♪ ♪ ♪ should i stay or should i go? ♪ and we need insights across our data silos, but how? ♪ if i go there will be trouble ♪ ♪ ♪ wait, we can stay and go. hpe greenlake is the platform that brings the cloud to us. ♪ should i stay or should i go now? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ things you start ♪when you're 45. or should i go now? ♪ coaching. new workouts. and screening for colon cancer. yep. the american cancer society recommends screening starting at age 45, instead of 50, since colon cancer is increasing in younger adults. i'm cologuard®. i'm convenient and find 92% of colon cancers... ...even in early stages. i'm for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. johnson & johnson is the world's largest healthcare company. building

joyce vance is a teacher at the university of alabama, and is a law professor that learns a lot about what they contend with. >>> the director of the national institutes of health is set to leave his post by year's end. here's what he had to say about how the country handled covid and what he would do differently if he could do it all over. >>> straight ahead, congresswoman debbie dingell joins the situation. we have january 6 to cover and a whole lot more. "velshi" begins right now. >>> good morning to you. it is 9:00 a.m. in the east, 6:00 a.m. out west. in two days, steve bannon will find out if the insurrection of the former president might cost him his freedom. the ally of the twice impeached ex-president is facing criminal contempt charges for failure to supply with a subpoena by the committee investigating the attack. it battles with other stubborn loyalists to gain crucial information about one of the events with the most shocking results to our democracy. the committee investigates the deadly january 6 insurrection and the days leading up to it. as it continues to probe, pane

the boston globe editorial board, also one of the co-hosts of the podcast "sisters in law" with joyce vance and barbara mcquade. and we welcome evan osnos, his new book "wildland." and it's generating a lot of attention. welcome to you all. peter, i'd like to begin with you and your beat. i'm told it's the first time this president has paid an in-person visit to the democratic caucus in the house, the majority caucus. presidential power is a funny thing. you have to spend it wisely. when and how will we know if his trip down to the capitol today was worth it? >> yeah, that's a great question. obviously as you said in the opening it's not the victory lap they would have liked. there wasn't a vote on monday. she said there was going to be vote on thursday, there's not a vote on friday. because in fact they don't have the votes. and this is, you know, the fundamental tension here between the great aspirations of the democratic party and the constrained majorities they actually have to work with, right? president biden was quoted today as telling the democrats in that meeting that they have fdr

joining me is joyce vance, a columnist and contributor for msnbc and also joining us on what appearsmartin unfiltered digital show. i should say to our viewers we're not interrupting you for a regular round of golf on a saturday morning. you are there for a benefit so everybody knows. >> yes. yes. let me start with you. i want to understand this, the gutting of the voting rights act in 2013 has been gutted for a weil and this condition sent of pre-clearance, the state with a history of racially motivated gerrymandering would have to seek pre-clearance from the federal government. that doesn't have to happen anymore. so if you're a state of having a history of doing this badly or using race to determine electoral district, you can keep on doing it. >> yeah. every ten years after the census data is released states draw new maps and historically the goal of the maps was to create legislatures that in the words of founding father john adams were miniatures. the legislatures were supposed to be miniatures of the population at large. unfortunately, gerrymandering over time has reared its u

joyce vance is a teacher at the university of alabama, and is a law professor that learns a lot about

she and kimberly, by the way, make up 50% of the podcast "sisters in law," along with joyce vance and jill wine-banks. good evening and welcome to you all. and counselor, indeed i'd like to begin with you. barb, i didn't bring a bucket of cold water to this conversation intentionally. but i heard this business of a criminal contempt complaint explained today. last time it happened in the house was in 1983. it's got to be voted on by the house. then goes to doj, meaning the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. then maybe to a grand jury. then maybe to a jury trial. the house would select a trial lawyer to represent them at trial. then maybe to a series of appeals. and barb, it sure sounds like we're talking about years and not months. are we close to right on that? >> i agree with you, brian. in fact, it seems to me that strategically if what the committee really wanted here was compliance with the subpoena the better course may be to go the civil route, get a judge to order compliance, and then bannon could be held in contempt of the court's order and jailed civilly as a method