. tonight ecuador's president declares an internal conflict in the country. there was a stunning incident in which gunman took over a live television broadcast, incredibly violent. the men forcing the station staff on to the floor, hearing shots in the background. it is the latest in a string of violent incidents unfolding after a national state of emergency was declared after the escape of a notorious gang leader from prison. since then another gang leader has escaped from a different president. different criminal organizations battling to control drug trafficking routes. ecuador is a central part of a massive underground operation that is smuggling immigrants illegally into the united states of america along that southern border. thanks so much for joining us.

ac 360 starts now. tonight on 360, can a president get away with murder? that question and the chilling answer in court today as the former president makes a case for presidential immunity and raises the spector of criminal impunity. also tonight the grandmother that bought the election lie. does she still believe it going into her first night? and the man that found an airliner's missing door plug in his own backyard. his find could help investigators find out what severely damaged the flight. thanks for joining us. we begin with the former president's striking claim in court today that nothing a president does in office can be criminally prosecuted unless he or she is first impeached by the house and convicted by the senate. that's what his attorney said to the d.c. court of appeals today. the judge conceded that the principal would apply even if a president ordered a hit on a

political opponent. >> yes or no question, could a president that ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival be subject to prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> the answer is no. >> that's the kind of thought experiment judge's pose. rarely do they get such a breathtaking answer. the exchange prompted james pierce, the attorney representing special counsel jack smith to say what kind of world are we living in if that holds true. the former president losing his case would promote bedlam in the country. what he would not do is answer the question about any violence that might come with it. >> you just used the word "be "bedlam." would you tell your supporters now, no matter what, no

violence? >> in a moment, we will talk about where this goes next and how it could shape not just the presidential race but the power of the presidency for years to come. >> reporter: president trump traveled to washington tuesday to watch arguments in a federal appeals court hearing over whether he should be shielded from criminal prosecution. >> i appeal that as a president you have to have immunity. >> trump was not required to be in attendance but was in court to watch the panel express skepticism of the legal claims. >> can a president order seal team six to assassinate a political rival? that's an official act. >> he would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal

prosecution. >> i asked a yes or no question. >> there is a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our constitution, which would require impeachment and prosecution by the senate in these exceptional cases. >> trump's lawyers argued that when trying to overturn the 2020 election trump was acting in his official capacity. >> to authorization the prosecution of a president would open a pandora's box for which this nation may never recover. >> trump's lawyer also warned that if this mere absolute immunity is not recognized, there could be a possibility of vindictive prosecutions against political rivals. >> it would authorize, for example, the indictment of president biden and the western district of texas for mismanaging the border allegedly. >> the special counsel rejected these arguments, noting that charges were brought in this case because of what they describe as extraordinary conduct. >> never before has there been allegations that a sitting

president has, with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system. >> and argued that impeachment and conviction through a political process should not be required through a criminal prosecution. >> i think it would be awfully scary if there weren't a mechanism by which to reach that criminally. >> so what happens next? >> well, anderson, it appears unlikely that trump is going to prevail here. but even if he loses, he can still ask the entire circuit to hear his case. now, that would require a majority of the judges in this circuit to agree to hear the case. unclear if they will do that. this strategy is as much about delay as it is about the constitutional questions. if that doesn't work, he can still appeal to the supreme court. but it is unclear if they're going to want to weigh in here. remember, they're already weighing his other question related to trump about valid

eligibility. but the longer the trump can draw this out and the longer it takes to get the final answer on this question of immunity, the less likely it is that jack smith will be able to bring his election subversion case to trial. even if trump loses on the merits here, anderson, he still may win on the tactics. >> paul reed, thank you very much. david urban, also kaitlyn collins at the top of the next hour. with us as well, jessica roth. she's a former federal prosecutor. what were you big take-aways? >> any time you are a lawyer and you find yourself vouching for a preposterous, ridiculous outcome, it is a good sign you are in trouble. trump's team landed them in the spot where they were arguing that it could be that the president orders murder and cannot be prosecuted. they sort of invented this argument that first you have to be impeached by the house, then convicted by the senate. and only then can you be prosecuted. i want people to understand,

there is no magic to these formulations. we're in new ground here legally. it is not like there is some code hidden in the constitutions. what the judges and maybe some day the justices will be asking is is this workable? does this lead to an outrageous outcome? if it does, i think you are out of luck. i don't think trump lawyers are going to win this off this argument. >> after this immune argument, if the president committed crimes while in office and wasn't impeached, there would be no mechanism for accountability. >> exactly. think of the worst outcome possible. and their position is unless he's not only impeached but impeached and convicted by the senate, he's scot-free. the better answer would be of course he could be prosecuted. >> could the president kill his vailly and if it wasn't done on the white house lawn and there was some question about who did it. >> exactly. by the argument that donald trump's team made today, he would be scot-free. but the better argument would be

of course he could be prosecuted because it is outside the scope of the presidency. but they made this bizarre turn and it left him in a bad spot. >> i'm not a prosecutor, but as a recovered lawyer, i was thinking to myself, stick to the official acts argument. it is a much tighter argument and you have much more to argue there saying, listen, he was investigating this election because it was part of his official duties as president to make sure there is free and fair elections and it is all part of this giant scope, as opposed to coming up with this construct which is clearly just whacky. >> jessica, do you think there is any validity to the argument here? >> not if he could order seal team six to kill his political rival. but the larger question, when we take a step back, is there anything that's troubling about the idea of potentially prosecutions. his argument is they would be political of a former president. i do think that's a question

courts want to think about seriously. the special counsel said, look, you don't have to agree with the judge that there is no such thing as presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in all circumstances, full stop. you could just say that in the circumstances presented here, it is very clear there is no immunity. and we will leave open for another day the possibility there is a narrow set of exceptional circumstances. he gave the example of a president on short notice has to decide whether to order a drone strike. he said that might be a situation where it is a national military interest at stake and there is very little time where a court would say we are reluctant to say there could never be presidential immunity. if you are inclined to reach this, just leave it open for another day and decide here there is just no question. >> there were attorneys for trump that argued something different during the second impeachment after the instruction. i want to play some of what was

said in court. >> there is a quote in the congressional record in which your counsel -- your client said through counsel no former office holder is immune from investigation and prosecution. >> investigation is no issue. that may be true of subordinate officers, but as to the president, he is immune unless he is impeached. >> he was president at the time, and his position was that no former office holder is immune. and, in fact, the argument was there is no need to vote for impeachment because we have this backstop, which is criminal prosecution. and it seems that many senators relied on that, voting to acquit. >> don't. >> yeah, look. so when i was arnold inspector's chief of staff 100 years ago. during the clinton impeachment, my former boss had an op-ed that said we don't need to impeach him. he could be tried when he's out of office.

that's been the line, you don't have to have impeachment. obviously the trump people argued that as well. we don't need to impeach him. there is a backstop here, the court system here. you're on the record, you're on the record. >> what are you hearing from trump's team? >> i don't think today went the way they expected it to go. they went into this thinking a lot of the arguments would be what trump is arguing, what they articulated in their written brief, which is the actions he took after the election between then and january 6th were duties as president, that he was doing this to make sure that the laws of the land, the election laws, were faithfully carried out. that is their argument. obviously people disagree with that, but that is the argument they had been making, that it wasn't election nearing, that he had said, which he is not saying at the time, he knew the election was over and he was doing his official duties. they ran into a brick wall with these arguments, not only with bruce's quote. the judge, i think, providing a difficult time for trump's attorneys. and i don't also think it went the way trump thought it was

going to go from the optics perspective either because instead of it being a big showcase moment of him going to court again, which was a purely political decision, i was told, you didn't see him going into court. instead you saw his attorney getting browbeaten by the judges with these deeply skeptical questions. and then trump's brief comments after the hotel where he continued to repeat his election lies which have been debunct. >> i think we will see a ruling within two weeks w. ve to watch for two things. first of all, trump, assuming he loses, i think it is quite clear he will, he will try to take this up to the supreme court. he has a long time to do that. you have 90 days to ask the supreme court to take the case. there was a bit at the end where jack smith's team asked the court of appeals to issue the mandate. what that means is send this back down to the district court, the trial court and let them get back on track because, remember,

they have been on pause ever since this appeal started. to jack smith's team wants to let the district court resume its pretrial preparations. >> and the appeals court can do that? >> yes. you could have two things happening parallel. you have litigation going in the supreme court and the district court carrying on. but trump's team is going to ask the supreme court to stop the trial. >> it does seem like an important question to answer. >> it is an incredibly important question. i think that's the strongest reason for the court to take the case. this is an important legal question. it's never been decided before. on the other hand, i'm sure they wouldn't relish having to get into the middle of this, if they think the d.c. circuit doesn't cry out for it being over turned. i think a lot of this will depend on how this is written, now broad it is in its scope. if it's really broad that there is no such thing as presidential immunity in any circumstances from criminal prosecution, that might be something the court thinks it has to do address.

if it's more limited, there might be in some circumstances, but not in the circumstances presented here. or we're going to reach the question of whether these were official acts or not. maybe the court leaves that day. >> the former president will be in court again thursday on the civil fraud trial. you have the iowa caucuses coming up. he's choosing to be here in these -- at these court cases. he clearly thinks from a fund-raising standpoint and from a political standpoint, that's where the cameras are, that there is a benefit of him being there. >> eric trump was sending out an e-mail saying my father is in court right now. he's not able to be in iowa. he was choosing to be in the courthouse today. he's choosing to be here in new york on thursday for those closing arguments in the civil fraud case as he's chosen the many other times. if this does happen, if this trial does go forward, there will be days he does not get to choose, where he does have to be there in court. right now think think this helps him. what we keep hearing from

republicans, governor ron desantis, mainly, is this is helpful in the primary, not the general election. that could be the time when he doesn't have the choice. he has to go to court. >> the tactic on delay, remember, we're up against september 5th is the magic date where you are 90 days out. >> yes. >> the doj guidelines of when you start this. so delay, delay, delay. that's a friend for the president here. >> thanks very much. coming up next, one woman, a grandmother, who believed the former president's voter claims and stormed the capitol. as she reports to prison, does she still believe those lies? and the former president may have a race on the line with nick kay haley. what former polling reveals.

the former president again referred to a document he's been promoting lately that he says proves his allegations of voter fraud. it doesn't. the claims are unproven or debunked. it is clear that three years ago millions of people believed such lies. thousands acted violently on it. a 42-year-old grandmother reported to prison to serve a

long sentence. we asked whether she still believes in the lies that turned her into a capitol rioter. >> how do you feel when you watch this? >> you know, i'm more numb when i look at this stuff. it's like surreal to me. i mean, look at how angry i look. >> you'd admit this is a bad look. >> totally. >> yeah. >> you know how dumb i feel when i look at this picture, like oh, my goodness. >> rachel powell, also known as the pink hat lady is about to begin a five-year prison sentence for her role in the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. she's a mom of eight and grandmother of six, and she spent most of the last three years under home detention in rural pennsylvania. >> is this what you expected from an insurrectionist, a terrorist. how did i have time to plan an insurrection when my life is busy like this. making pies, raising babies. >> why did you decide to go to

d.c. on january 6th? >> well, how often does a president ask you to come to a rally? it doesn't happen. >> at some point this goes from peaceful protest to you having an ice axe in your hand, breaking a window, trying to get into the capitol. how did that happen? >> it got violent, and it was violent for a while. and i'm completely in pain. >> because you had been hit? >> oh, man. i had been hit with a baton. i had been grabbed and thrown. i had been sprayed. i mean, my whole body was on fire. i don't think there was rational thinking in my head at that point. i didn't have an ice axe. that passed through the crowds. it was only in my hand long enough to take that window pane. yet, i had been charged with a deadly weapon. >> did somebody give you the axe? >> yeah. >> who? >> i don't remember. i don't know where it went. >> i grew up, i guess you

probably did, too, of being told if a police officer tells you to do something, you should probably do it. that didn't happen that day. of course, the police were telling you guys to go away. >> they never actually told us to go away. i never had an officer look at me and say, you need to leave or i'm going to arrest you. >> footage like this of rachel seen here in the fur hooded coat pushing against a police line and messages she posted on social media condoning violence ahead of january 6th were used by prosecutors to argue that rachel wasn't just a peaceful protester who got caught up in the chaos of the day. >> do you regret that day? >> i regret and have a lot of remorse for ruining my family's life. i mean, in one day, i destroyed everything. really for nothing. i don't have remorse for attending protests. i don't have remorse for speaking out and saying that i

believe the election is stolen. i do have remorse for breaking a window and destroying my whole family's life and for thinking irrationally and not realizing like why don't you just sit down at this protest? >> a federal judge convicted april on nine counts, including destruction of government property, obstruction of an official proceeding and engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds. >> i'm sorry. it is like my last weekend before i go in. but like i love my children so much, and it feels like the last thing that they can take from me. that will be the hard part. and i don't deserve this. my kids don't deserve it. like have we not been through enough? the last thing we have to lose is each other. >> prosecutors said rachel showed nothing but contempt for the court and legal system. you said, you know, that --

that -- that you feel dumb, set up. >> yep. >> duped. >> yeah. >> why do you feel duped? >> with january 6th? i cannot prove it was a setup, but i feel like what if it was? >> rachel isn't alone. a quarter of americans believe the conspiracy theory that january 6th attack was instigated by the fbi. people watching this might say, well, you were duped by trump and everybody around him, and the election wasn't really stolen, and you buying into this has kind of ruined your life. do you ever feel a bit pissed off with trump? >> no, absolutely not. i don't. i've had a problem with the election process for years and years. 15 years ago, if there would have been protests about election fraud, i would have gone to those because our whole country and everything about our lives is determined by voting.

>> surely in the last three years, being locked in here, have you ever had a moment where you're like, you know, maybe i'm wrong? maybe biden won the election. maybe i'm the conspiracy theorist? >> no, not at all. >> she's due to spend the next few years behind bars, but she believes one man could change that. >> so this hat says rachel, we love you. tr trump. three of my sons, they met trump. you can see them one of the times here. trump was very encouraging to them. he's made it clear he is going to pardon us. >> there is a lot riding on this election. >> totally. >> for the country, but also personally for you. >> oh, man. for me it's huge. for me it is like life or death. yeah, it's huge. >> if trump wins, you could get out of prison.

>> correct, i will get out of prison. >> it's amazing to me, although it shouldn't be, that, you know, she spent three years locked up in her room and she could have done some research and she still believes things that are demonstrably false and lies. it's pathetic. it is amazing she's teaching her children this as well. >> what makes rachel's story so incredible is she didn't even vote for trump in 2016. she wasn't politically active. it was covid. the lockdown, she said, that she started to go to anti-lockdown protests. that led to stop the steal. and that brought her to january 6th where, look, she claims that the axe was placed into her hand and everything else and she doesn't view this as an insurrection. clearly a court disagrees. but i think a lot of our viewers and i certainly know from some of our viewers who commented

online ask why are we speaking to somebody like rachel powell? the reality is that she's not alone. >> i find it informative to hear from her. >> yeah. >> it's telling about a mentality and psychology of some people that are supporting the former president and why. >> yeah. and the falsehoods about the election are believed by tens of millions of americans. and now, of course, you see the conspiracy theories about the day itself. >> her whole being duped thing, i mean, it is fascinating. thank you. just ahead, can nikki haley close the gap in new hampshire with the former president. and john king at the magic wall with all the details next. your stories need to be told.

at contra costa college, you can become a leader in journalism and help shape world views with hands-on experience at the advocate, contra costa college's award-winning, student-run news publication. learn to use digital media to tell stories and gain the research skills needed to uncover truths while exploring careers in media. so what are you waiting for? the world needs you. start your career in journalism today at contracosta.edu

one night before the last republican presidential debate before monday's iowa caucuses, nikki haley telling a crowd today that, quote, everything has come to this moment. new polls suggest she's cut the former president's daunting lead to single digits. that primary comes eight days, of course, after iowa. john king joins us now with the numbers. how much has she gained?

>> it is stunning, anderson. new hampshire, you mentioned iowa is first. next monday we count the votes in iowa. two weeks from tonight we count the votes here in new hampshire. remember back in 2016, this was trump's first win. this was the beginning of the path to the nomination for donald trump. new hampshire was kind to donald trump. look at the new numbers in this poll. it is quite striking when you see it. nikki haley, 32% for the former south car rye that governor. ron desantis in low single digits in fifth. but think about that. she's within 7 points in this poll. so iowa will send her on to new hampshire. the question is with how much momentum. we say this all the time. but in new hampshire, especially, the composition of the electorate will be absolutely critical. in new hampshire, democrats, independents can vote in a

republican primary. if it is a conservative electorate, trump will win. among registered republicans, he beats haley by 37 points. among voters with no college degrees, he's up by 17 points. but look at this. among moderates, haley beats trump by 42 points. among independents by 26 points. among those with a college degree 12 points. so who shows up? the full composition will go a long way to say whether she could come close and conceivably even beat donald trump. >> iowa caucuses are six days away. what is the play there? >> let's come back to that and come back to 2024 and bring iowa back on the map. monday night we start doing this. the candidates are listed in alphabetical order. this is where trump has had in the polling a formidable lead for some time. excuse me for turning my back, but i want to stretch this out. the last iowa poll was a month

ago. trump was at 59%. donald trump pretty straight line, strong support, above 50% in the iowa poll. i have been on the ground in iowa. some people don't question this. but nikki haley a distant third. desantis there. at the moment, if the data is correct, trump gets the big first win. there are people on the ground in iowa who say they think they can get him under 50%. >> is there a path forward without a strong showing in iowa? >> remember, joe biden lost the first three contests in 2020. he's president of the united states, so we should never say no. but in the context, ron desantis, what was his calling card? i'm trump without the chaos. if trump is beating him and nikki haley is beating him coming out of iowa, it gets hard. he says he's in this. but if haley can beat desantis in iowa, then there will be a lot of pressure on desantis, christy and others to get out and give trump a clear shot in new hampshire.

>> james, at this point do you think anyone has a clear shot of defeating the president in the primaries? >> not much. john is exactly right about new hampshire. remember, independents, it is hard to sample it. it is eight days before new hampshire. that will have some effect on the new hampshire numbers. how much? i don't know. he's right. never say no. when it comes to ron desantis, i will just say no. >> is desantis at play still in your mind? the latest polling has him behind christy ain new hampshir. >> i said trump will not be the nominee, so be careful. john has been around. he's got it exactly right. remember, and john will tell you this, when they go to south carolina, independents can't vote. that's nikki haley's state, and it is pretty clear that trump will beat her here. then she will have to make a

case beyond that, which is going to be very difficult. >> john, ambassador haley has not only been making gains in new hampshire, also we had a full crowd in her commit to caucus event in iowa, despite a pretty big snowstorm. does that indicate anything to you? >> well, it indicates that people are at least interested. james knows this well. it is good to see my old friend. it's been a long time. sometimes people show up for events that just want to see the candidates. i just highlights the suburban counties. the lighter gray are suburban counties in iowa. we know the suburbs are donald trump's kryptonite. they have been. he beat hillary clinton in 2016. but since then that's been his kryptonite. in new hampshire, independents, moderates, do they show up? if so, it probably helps haley. more than 60,000 moved to the des moines suburbs since the 2016 race. right? they're not all republicans. but to those that are republicans show up? you see the suburbs around cedar

falls, around da buick. the flip side is across the top up here, across the bottom down here, those are the evangelical rural counties that ted cruz beat donald trump in 2016. trump is expected to run it up there. if desantis will surprise us, that's where it will come. home schoolers, evangelicals. right now we're in the pregame. when we see who actually shows up monday in iowa and then two weeks from tonight in new hampshire, that will tell us about which republicans are deciding to come out, especially if the weather is bad because they want to make a statement about who leads their party. >> it makes it the centerpiece of his election campaign. is that a smart strategy in your mind? >> i mean, you know, democracy and now we're -- i mean, i don't

have a problem at all. but i'm going to take this opportunity to make a further fool of myself and predict that trump will underperform expectations in iowa. i think the opposition, i know very little about the republican primary voters in iowa, but they seem to be pretty well organized and pretty committed. it will be zero degrees. i will just go out there and say i think he'll -- i'm not going to say he's going to lose, but he might not win as much as expected. >> thanks very much. again, the last debate ahead of the iowa caucus is tomorrow night on cnn. a showdown between two candidates. jake tapper and dana bash will moderate tomorrow night's event. still ahead, this chunk of a boeing plane landed in our next guest's backyard. it is a piece that blew out mid flight, forced an entire line of boeing planes grounded.

today we spoke to staff about a mistake. the details when we come back.

boeing told cnn that the factory that produces its troubled 737 max 9, the ceo of the company acknowledged a mistake in the prlane's assembl process. it is unclear whether he identified a specific mistake. it comes four days after the max 9 flown by alaska airlines lost a chunk of the cabin midnight, leaving a door-size hole in the plane and forcing an emergency landing. 171 of the same models were soon grounded. since then united airlines says it found loose bolts of that same panel in the door plug in some of its own 737 max 9s. the ntsb said this weekend that the door plug was found in the backyard of a man named bob sour, a science teacher that lives in the suburbs of portland, oregon. and bob joins me now. thank you so much for being with us. as a science teacher, this is kind of right up your alley. it is fascinating and amazing you found it. and what a good citizen you are that you and all your neighbors

in your community went out looking for these pieces. what made you decide to go out and look in that spot? >> well, i had intended to. i knew the piece was somewhere. a friend of mine called me and said maybe i should check my yard because the search was focussing in my area. when i went out to look for it, in fact, there it was. >> and it was up in a tree? >> well, it had fallen through the tree. but the tree helped break its ground so when it got down, the fall didn't seem to damage it. >> did you know right away what you were looking at? >> i knew pretty quickly. it was night when i found it. it was pretty dark in my backyard. as you can see, there are big trees there. i had my flashlight out. it was the opposite side of the floor i could see with the exterior paint on it. so it was quite reflective in the dark. so i could see it right away.

and i very quickly figured out what it was. >> what was the reaction from the ntsb when you contacted them? >> well, the chair had just finished giving a press briefings. she was so excited she ran back in to tell the journalists who were still there about it. and she only announced me as bob from portland, the teacher from portland. but people very quickly figured out i was the bob. and they actually came. they're still here in portland. they came to talk to my class and some other students at my school today. so they were very outgoing and very friendly. >> what -- how old are your students? >> i teach high school level. >> that's so cool. what an incredible, i mean, just educational opportunity this is. bob, thank you so much. it is lovely to talk to you. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> wish you the best. coming up, for the new episode of my podcast "all there is," i had a remarkable

conversation with ashley judd, whose mother, country music superstar naomi judd died in 2002. she speaks about her mom and what she said to her at the end.

get over here kids. time for today's lesson. wow. -whoa. what are those? these are humans. they rely on something called the internet to survive. huh, powers out. [ gasp ] are they gonna to die? worse, they are gonna get bored. [ gasp ] wait look! they figured out a way to keep the internet on. yeah! -nature finds a way. [ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm ready wifi from xfinity. and see migration in theaters now.

tomorrow morning a new episode of my podcast about grief called "all there is" is being released. it's a very moving and intimate conversation with actor, author and activist ashley judd about the death of her mom, naomi judd, by suicide in 2022. ashley found her mom and speaks to the ripple effects the suicide of a loved one can have on a person and a family. take a look. ♪ love can fill a breach ♪ >> on april 11, 2022 naomi judd and her daughter wynonna, one of the biggest country duos of all time, performed at the country music television awards. the song, co-written by naomi,

was "love can build a bridge." ♪ don't you think it's time ♪ >> this was naomi judd's last performance. she died 19 days later by suicide. her daughter ashley, actress, author and mental health advocate, first spoke about it in this interview just 12 days later. >> because we don't want it to be a part of the gossip economy, i will share with you that she used a weapon. mother used a firearm. >> ashley judd has never spoken publicly in depth about those final moments of her mother's life and the trauma and grief she's been living with until now. i sat down with her a few days ago for my podcast "all there is." >> my mother's death was traumatic and unexpected because it was death by suicide. and i found her.

my grief was in lock-step with trauma because of the manner of her death and the fact that i found her. i held my mother as she was dying and there was blood, and i just needed to like process the fact that i was with my mother's blood. i'm so glad i was there because even when i walked in that room and i saw that she had harmed herself the first thing out of my mouth was "mama, i see how much you've been suffering." >> you said that to her? >> and it's okay. it is okay to go. it's okay to go. i am here. it is okay to let go. i love you. go see your daddy. go see papa judd. go be with your people. >> and she heard you? >> oh, she heard me. and i just got in the bed with her and held her and talked to

her and said let it all go, be free, all was forgiven long ago. all was forgiven long ago. leave it all here. take nothing with you. just be free. >> that's an extraordinary blessing that you were able to do that. >> oh, it was -- i'm so thankful i was there. >> one of the reasons i wanted to talk with ashley for my podcast was that i still struggle with my brother carter's suicide 35 years ago. >> one of the things that -- sorry. >> i'm here, anderson. >> one of the things i have found so hard about -- one of

the things i've found so hard about losing my brother to suicide was, a, i get stuck in how his life ended and the violence of it. and he killed himself in front of my mom. and also the realization that -- and my shock over it and realization that i didn't really know him. and i'm wondering if the manner of your mom's death made you question how much you knew her. >> thank you so much for sharing that. all our stories are sacred. and i really honor the place in you that that's coming from. and i think we all deserve to be remembered for how we lived and how we died is simply part of a

bigger story. >> my conversation with ashley judd about grief, trauma and how her mother's spirit is still very much alive in her life is available wednesday wherever you get your podcasts. >> and if you or someone you love are struggling, help is available. please call or text the nationwide suicide and crisis lifeline at 988. the new episode of "all there is" featuring my full conversation with ashley judd comes out tomorrow morning. you can find it on apple podcasts or spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. just ahead, new information about why the secretary of defense checked into a hospital new year's day without telling the white house until days later.

a late update tonight on defense secretary lloyd austin. doctor at walter reed national medical center say that despite complications that landed him in the intensive care unit his prognosis after prostate cancer surgery is good. they say that secretary austin, who's 70, was readmitted to the hospital on new year's day after having minimally invasive

surgery december 22nd. doctors found a build-up of fluid that was impairing the function of his small int intestines. the fluid was drained and his doctors say he's on the mend. prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men in the united states. according to the national cancer institute about 13%, or 1 in 8 american men, will be diagnosed with it in their loif-time. about 2.5% will die of it. and the disease is riskier in black men. as to the question why no one in the white house was made aware of this, that is apparently still under investigation. that's it for us. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. in tonight, straight from the source, historic showdown over the central question in jack smith's case. does a president have sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution on anything they did while in office? a deeply skeptical court turned inkrej lois over a hypothetical question about whether they could order seal team 6 to assassinate a politica