nfl and roger goodell. he was accusing them of leaking the private e-mails for a soviet-style character assass assassination. he resigned after it was found that he wrote e-mails with misogynistic and racist language. gr gruden's attorney questions why his were the only e-mails that were made public. the nfl denies the allegations. the news continues. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo crime time." >> i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." now, we know what the dodg.o.j.s up to for week. a case for the grand jury that just indicted trumpette steve bannon. now, will the others cooperate?

bannon may be happy about this. why? it makes him a martyr for his trumpy cause of fighting to bring down america. he could go to jail for up to two years. why? yeah, you're looking at about a year max, for account of contempt. he has two. that's doubtful. one thing he likely will do, is surrender. monday, he will have his day in court. he will be arraigned on two contempt counts, one related to his refusal to appear before the january 6th committee because of the deposition, the other over his refusal to produce documents to the same committee. as they say, this shizzle just got real. contempt now has teeth, for congress. this is a clear message sent by the d.o.j. to others planning to follow in bannon's footsteps. if you defy subpoenas from congress, you will be criminally

prosecuted. attorney general merrick garland made that crystal today. since my first day in office, i have promised justice department employees that together, we would show the american people, by word and deed, that the apartment adheres to the rule of law. no trump pardons this time. who and what is next? my guess is trump's former chief of staff. why? he was a no-show for his deposition in front of the january 6th committee. and the panel says it defiance will force it to pursue contempt proceedings. listen to this line in their statement. mr. meadows has failed to anxious even the most basic questions, including if he was using a private cell phone to communicate on january 6th and where his text messages from that day are.

where is the phone? is he trashed it, are the texts recoverable? the answer to that is likely yes. the value, of meadows and the rest of them, the value of them to the probe is obvious. they were the ones around the president. they were the ones doing the planning, before, during and after the insurrection. they know who did what and refused to do what. does any have a legitimate reason not to cooperate? let's take that to the better minds tonight. we have a former whitewater independent counsel. good to see you both. >> nice to see you, chris.

what is the answer the question? do any of these have a colorable claim not to cooperate on the basis of privilege or otherwise? they can try, but they do it at risk of prosecution. steve bannon is the most probable. it's an uphill climb. he was not in the executive braj. and i would say it doesn't apply to this type of communication. it's meant to apply to discussions about policy, not discussions about wrongdoing, which is january 6th, in a n nutshell. there's reason for concern among the witnesses. and those would be righteous and necessary prosecutions.

>> counselor wray, how do you see it? >> there's not a lot of law in this area. it's from the nixon era. you're trying to figure out and navigate the contours of presidential privilege. traditionally, the justice department, since the nixon era, has taken a broad view of the sanctity of executive branch communications and has sought to protect even those against former employees, which would obviously encompass somebody like steve bannon. whether it applies here, elie is collect. but he has a defense. we'll see it play out. he's been indicted. i would imagine it would be an assertion of privilege as a bar a contempt proceeding. that will take some time to sort that out. with record to mark meadows, we

can all agree, that's an easier case. mark meadows was the former president's chief of staff. it's the indication of privilege, to a former president, and the current president, that is one in the best position to decide whether to assert or waive the privilege. we have addis agreement between a former president and a current president, whether executive privilege can cover this. the congress can take that step and try to hold mark meadows in contempt. but if presidential privilege doesn't protect the president and his chief of staff, i don't know what use that privilege would be. if the whole purpose of a privilege is to encourage free and open communications, without risk that the conversations would be discoverable, it could

seem that privileged is designed to encompass the chief of staff to the president. >> understood. elie, back to you. robert ray saying that biden is in the best position to is a good turn of phrase. the privilege runs with the office, not the person. he is the only person in a position to exercise the privilege. another assumes is being made here. that meadows or bannon can refuse to do something on the basis of a privilege that's not theirs to exercise. what do you believe the legalities here are guiding what can and cannot be done? >> it's not just bob ray that says that the current president is in the best position. the supreme court said it in 1977, in the other nixon case. they said it in passing.

i think we agree with that. donald trump and his acolytes have blown the doors off of executive privilege. let's look at steve bannon. how is he going to possibly argue that his conversations are covered by executive privilege that he had with rudy giuliani, with bernard kerik, with john eastman? none were members of the executive granch on january 5th. he gets convicted on his defiance of those communications to congress alone. when we're talking about mark meadows, the chief of staff is the closest adviser to the president. but that's not the end of the question. we were asked, what were they talking about? if they were talking about covering up for january 6th or the president's pleasure, that's not covered by executive

privilege. >> robert ray, a couple of problems. the first, you don't get to exercise the privilege, you would exercise that the former president does. the second problem is, you say there's not a lot of law in this area. there really isn't any law. this is a privilege that's gone through executive action. why would we assume the supreme court would take up this matter. they've never taken it up before. >> the supreme court has taken up these questions when they got to this point in the nixon era is the only relevant example. and it's not like we're bereft on how to handle privilege claims. i would put it in part to

attorney/client privilege. i understand that in the political environment, that truth is an absolute and the committee is entitled to get after the truth. we have privileges that stand in the public interest to protect certain things. one would be attorney/client communications, notwithstanding that they may reveal what the truth is. >> that privilege runs with the client. >> it does. >> that's not an log of what happens to a president. it runs with the office. >> the executive branch has a claim here. whether joe biden has chosen to assert it. the former president has the ability to assert the privilege. whether it's enforceable, it's a facts and circumstances question. the former president has them both, that will be relied by bannon and a prosecution, and by

mark meadows, in contention with, you know, how he deals with congress in the future. >> how does trump have the privilege to stop bannon or others to stop testifying? >> he sent a letter. i would like you to give me a chance to play this out in the courts. bob's right that privileges are important. we shouldn't throw privileges out the window because we want to know everything. and that's why steve bannon is in a tricky spot. he would have been better situated to defend himself, if he was selected. communications that he had. >> isn't that something that trump would have to do? how does bannon invoke privilege? it was be him as an instrument.

>> he is trying to back in on trump's broad implication. it applies to trump and bannon. if they were selective, saying i want to invoke the privilege, they would be in a better situation. april 2019, he walks out on the white house lawn and says, we're fighting all of the subpoenas. he meant that literally. he's evoked executive privilege so broadly, he's hurting himself, and undermining the privilege itself. >> how does it wind up, probt? >> the preferred way, you would invoke, to say i can answer this question. but i can't answer this question. i think it raises information that i think is protected by a privilege that the former president has asserted. that's the preferred course. it would be helpful if the court would sort out this stuff first and have testimony. the committee hasn't been willing to wait for that.

they've brought up prosecution by the department of justice, while you have litigation depending before the circuit. >> they believe it's a righteous claim. you never had a former president exercise it. you only had it through a current president by suggestion. the fact on your side, if you don't protect communications between the president when he's sitting and his staff, if you can unpack it afterwards, is that what was intended? we'll see what the appellate court says on that. >> i think that's a dangerous position to be in, when you have litigation outstanding that hasn't been resolved, that raises what is probably going to be deemed a core issue here. the justice department may think there's no merit. >> i have to tell you, on a friday night this, was a gift to the audience. robert ray, you made your position explainable. elie, co-gjent, as always.

the kyle rittenhouse trial, getting more complicated. the jury could decide charges that weren't even offered up until now. why would the prosecution want more charges now? and the judge, is his demeanor an issue? would it be the basis for a legal challenge? ♪ feel stuck with credit card debt?

♪ move your high-interest debt to a sofi personal loan. earn $10 just for viewing your rate — and get your money right. ♪

kevin! kevin? kevin. oh nice. kevin, where are you? kevin?!?!? hey, what's going on? i'm right here! i was busy cashbacking for the holidays with chase freedom unlimited. i'm gonna cashback on a gingerbread house! oooh, it's got little people inside! and a snowglobe. oh, i wished i lived in there. you know i can't believe you lost another kevin. it's a holiday tradition! that it is! earn big time with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. your skin isn't just skin, it's a beautiful reflection of everything you've been through. that's why dove renews your skin's ceramides and strengthens it against dryness for softer, smoother skin you can lovingly embrace. renew the love for your skin with dove body wash.

(man) go on, girl, go on and get help! [heartwarming music] (man) ah! (burke) smart dog. with farmers crashassist, our signal app can tell when you've been in a crash and can send help, if you want it. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

a sad sign of the times. tonight, 500 wisconsin national guard troops are on standby outside of kenosha, ahead of a verdict in the kyle rittenhouse trial next week. we're not at closings. that will be on monday. the judge gave three hours for each side. it was a very dramatic week of testimony. you don't see a defendant in a case on trial often. he was there and offered up an

affirmative defense. that means that he had to offer proof of the same. there's a burden in proving the defense. the prosecution has the ultimate burden. but the idea that rittenhouse doesn't have to prove anything to claim self-defense doesn't make any sense. i know people are saying that out there. they're lying. the judge was also an issue. he had a bad relationship with the prosecutor. how prejudicial was it. the jury was asked to consider several charges. after going through, this is the privilege of the prosecution, by the way, to add or amend charges.

watching them this week, gauging rittenhouse's effectiveness, they made this call. it shows they are confident they aren't going to get it on the harsher charges. while a judge will issue a decision tomorrow, let's break down what he is likely to decide, whether he has good grounds to deny that and what we saw this week. top legal mind, joey jackson. and new friend of the show, eli, justice correspondent, for "the nation," who followed this case from the start. in deference to our new friend of show, joey, let's give ellie a crack at this. in terms of your observations, do you believe that lesser charges are going to be allowed? and do you believe this judge's demeanor will be heard about again on the prosecution? >> the judge has been biased towards rittenhouse, from the beginning. not of the trial, of the entire case. i'm talking about his pretrial

motions and his refusal to force rittenhouse to adhere to his bail reverse terms. and that's carried through to the trial, where on the last day of the trial, rittenhouse's expert witness got a clapping from the jury pool because the judge ordered them to give a cheer for veterans on veterans day. it happened that the expert witness was a veteran. so, the judge's demeanor has been dbiased throughout. does that lead to an appeal? not if there's an acquittal. we have a system if you are acquitted of a crime, it becomes hard to retry you. it's double jeopardy. it's a great rule. we don't want to live in a world, where the prosecution gets to try again and again and again, to get people until they get it right. because of double jeopardy, any motion that didn't appealed up to the supreme court in real-time, which none of these

have been, means that whatever -- if rittenhouse walks, that's it. that's ball game, in terms of this case, this circumstance, t this. >> fair analysis. the comma is, what if it's hung? they want to retry. that's where misgivings about this judge's demeanor may come up. more imminently, do you believe the judge allows the prosecutor to present lesser degrees of the charges or additional charges? >> yeah. well, a couple of things. you can argue the judge is biased. i think you have a good argument, as elie suggested in that regard. he allowed for provocation to be argued by prosecutors. that's huge. that means that the jury will be instructed -- jurors are given specific instructions, on how to

evaluate the facts. if the jury concludes that rittenhouse provoked the attack, you lose the privilege of arguing self-defense. >> can you not argue it perfect or imperfect? not at all in wisconsin? totally gone? it's a higher burden. you have to say you have exhausted all and every avenue, until you engaged the act of self-defense. this was a big win for the prosecution. with respect to lesser included offenses. sometimes you go all or nothing if you're the prosecutor. you convict on the top counts, as they are delineuated, he was intended to kill, he recklessly killed, he killed with depravity

or nothing? maybe it's some degree less than that. maybe not a depraved heart but something else. and that gis ves the jurors mor bites at the apple to convict you. if the judge allows less included offenses, it may not get a conviction on the top counts but gets a conviction of another count. that's why the judge was saying, do you agree to that? do you realize, you can increase your probability of a conviction. instruction is given, if there's any view of the evidence that would support that charge. if you weigh the facts and there's any everyday, you give the instruction. it could be likely that the judge could do that, with respect to other included offenses. >> last word to you, elie.

do you believe that rittenhouse, against the prosecution, came out on top in victim versus vigilante analysis? he started this and can't claim defense. or this was done to him and he had to run for his life and he had to shoot. which do you think came out more cojently? >> i think rittenhouse did. the judge didn't allow them to put on the case. the prosecution was trying to make various claims of provocation arguments and the judge cut them off. how is the jury going to look at it? how do i look if you only photograph me above my first chin? i look thin. it's when you get the full picture that you understand how svelte i am. >> i'm here for all of it. i'm here for every piece. you look good.

the jury got what the judge allowed them to see. i think that's a tough case for the prosecution. that's why there's troops in wisconsin. not because we're a violent nation. it's because we don't trust the system. we see the judge. we hear his ring tones. we see his answers. we see the juror. 15-1 white people, versus one person of color. we see all that. and that's why you have troops on the ground. >> welcome to the show. don't beat yourself up like that. on hair alone, you win the contest. right? joey and i, you beat us because you have a signature look. the other big case with vigilante and racial undertones.

the defense attorney at the ah ahmaud arbery murder trial is apologizing for his involvement of black pastors. this was code. so was it apology enough? or should he be removed from the case? as a rep for the defendants? arbery's family wants that. should they get it? next. y for what i need. how about a throwback? you got it. ♪ liberty, liberty - liberty, liberty ♪ uh, i'll settle for something i can dance to. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

are you a christian author with a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today!

one of the defense attorneys in the ahmaud arbery murder trial, and you've seen him on this show. he tried to do his own p.r. in court today. listen. >> i will let the court know that if my statements yesterday were overly broad, i will follow up with a more specific motion on monday, putting those concerns in the proper context. and my apologies to any who might inadvertently get offended. >> number one, you don't apologize for anyone who may have inadvertently been offended. that's not apologizing. that's putting it on them. if you think you said something that you shouldn't have said, you heard me say that before.

i am sorry. i did not mean how that came out. i shouldn't have said it. that would have been the right thing to apologize for this. >> i don't want any more black pastors in here, or jesse jackson, sitting with the victim's family, trying to influence the jury in this case. i'm not saying that i was aware that mr. sharpton was in this courtroom. i think the court can understand my concern. >> yeah. your concern is that you don't want people there that project the outrage and the pain in this situation. you want the people watching to be as friendly to your client as possible. the judge said he had no objection to the reverend al

sharpton. not jesse jackson. this guy doesn't know the difference between these two men? sharpton was there. jesse jackson wasn't there before. but now, he's coming. so are 100 other pastors. we don't have black and white pastors. you don't say black police and white police, right? we have to get away from that. we don't want to play to it. if you loic this show, you likely know the level of -- practiced by kevin guff. he came on and failed to explain what his client was doing recording arbery's death in the first place. he embarrassed his own client. listen to this. in the police report, the mcmichaels referred to a roddey. i'm assuming that was you, yes? >> hold on, chris. >> mr. bryant, how did you come to be in the car videotaping

that day? >> okay. we're not going there. >> you don't want to talk about that, either? all right. >> he didn't play the part where he was saying his client's too stupid to answer questions for himself. that's who you're dealing with. the reason this lawyer speaking to black pastors resonates is because it's what this trial speaks about. the fear of defendants. why else did they chase this guy jogging? you don't think it had anything to do with the fact he was black? it's not a bias-specific crime. it doesn't have to be. and it's not just what happens in the courtroom. i tell you all the time. we only know what we show. but we have to keep it real. at trial, today's testimony

focused on some black person checking out a construction site. it's why the defendants thought something was wrong. it's why the judge called out the defense team for keeping black people out of the jury box. now, it's a concern of black pastors in the courtroom. now, to a different courtroom and a different result. britney spears, finally freed today. not just from daddy, but from the conservatorship entirely. fans are going wild. what britney is saying to them tonight and why her legal fights could be far from over. got somebody who was outside that courtroom, along with many others. she's co-creator of a documentary that shined light on the free britney movement. was a huge catalyst. next. dissolves quickly. instantly ready to start working. so you can bounce back fast with alka-seltzer plus.

now available for fast sinus relief. ok, let's talk about those changes to your financial plan. bill, mary? hey... it's our former broker carl. carl, say hi to nina, our schwab financial consultant. hm... i know how difficult these calls can be. not with schwab. nina made it easier to set up our financial plan. we can check in on it anytime. it changes when our goals change. planning can't be that easy. actually, it can be, carl. look forward to planning with schwab. schwab! ♪

when i heard about the science behind the new sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair i was super excited about it. it shows that the toothpaste goes deep inside the exposed dentin to help repair sensitive teeth. life is just too short to miss out on simple things like drinking that cold cup of water or having a sip of hot coffee. i have the science to prove it, i can see that it works and i feel confident recommending it to my patients. i'm really excited to recommend new sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair.

your skin isn't just skin, it's a beautiful reflection of everything you've been through. that's why dove renews your skin's ceramides and strengthens it against dryness for softer, smoother skin you can lovingly embrace. renew the love for your skin with dove body wash.

got to change the hash tag. #freebritney has to be flipped. britt britney is free. spears is no longer under

confinement of her conse conserv conservatorship. legally returning her power to oversee her own affairs, financial and otherwise, to her. estimated $60 million estate. i have to say, it really sounds low, for somebody who has made so much money, for so long. we never really saw that pursued. some outside of the courthouse, some felt vindicated. this was the pop star's message to fans shortly after the news. quote, good god, i love my fans so much, it's crazy. i think i'm going to cry the rest of the day. best day ever. praise the lord. can i get an amen. #freedbritney. but her battles are not over. her lawyer has pushed for her father -- this is a very savvy move, by the way. her lawyer is pushing for the father to be investigated for his alleged abuse and misconduct. a lot of people run away once

they get what they want. and they forget to pursue the full claim. here, they're not doing that. i'm telling you, the amount of the estate, may come out in that. britney spears, has so much money, so such success, $60 million may be a fortune to anybody else, but to somebody like that. liz day knows this saga in and out as the co-creator of "the new york times" documentary, "framing britney spears." how do you feel about today? >> i'm really, really shocked how quickly we got to this place. you know, britney spoke out in june. a month later, she gets her own lawyer. a few months after that, we're looking at the end of the con conservatorship completely. you think how quickly this happened. >> why do you think this happened so quickly as it did? >> she got to choose her own lawyer. she selected someone really

aggressive. and he started to file to depose her father and really do a full investigation, which no one had ever really talked about before. >> savvy take. people point to, well, judges were keeping this going for a long time. obviously, there was some reason. or there was never any side other side to the case presented. it was the father going before a tribunal who figured, it's his daughter, he might be telling the truth. which do you think it was? >> i think the latter is probably more likely. no one had filed to terminate the conservatoconservatorship, . >> good point. not over yet. pushing for an investigation of the father. what do you make -- you understand the situation so well. i know $60 million is a lot of money. if that is the real number, it sounds low for somebody who has been successful for almost 20 years. she's been killing it. at the top of the charts,

touring all over. the gig in vegas. is that part of any future questions? >> absolutely. that is the central question that will be looked at. a lot of experts point out that she should be worth a lot more. she's had a billion dollar perfume business, the successful vegas residency. huge royalties. where is that money? >> one of the obstacles of this litigation going forward, is the stomach for going after her own father. what do you think happens there? >> when she spoke out in june, she said she wanted her father and everyone else in the conservatorship to go to jail. it sounds like she wants a full investigation. it could take a really long time. it could be extensive.

we don't know. >> listen to britney's attorney. polished practitioner in this area. listen to what he said. if britney instructs, we will pursue the discovery that we served on him, in the form of interrogatories and document requests, and information we're seeking, in regard to financial information, alleged financial misconduct and the alleged surveillance issue. >> you touched on that in your documentary, the alleged abuses, including hidden surveillance. that first phrase from the lawyer, if britney instructs. do you think that there may be a little tension for her about going after her father? and what do you think about the proof? >> i think the proof is quite strong. >> we vetted our story tho

thoroughly. we listened to the recording. we went to great lengths the make sure the story was accurate and we could corroborate it independently. the stomach to go after her father, i don't know. but what she said in june, it sounds like she wants to see him go to jail for what he's done to her. >> we see a big tbc here, to be continued. i know you will be on it. you're welcome here to give us the latest on this. there should be a source of pride. i don't cover entertainment. conservatorships are rare. and it endured so long. liz day, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> good luck going forward. we just marked veterans day. we dican't just move on. that's what we do. love the troops.

you have to shine a light on what they face. service takes a toll, physically and mentally, if you're fighting the bad guys or not. they're still human beings. all human beings struggle. but in the military, there's often a culture, a stigma, against dealing with it. an air force sergeant just took his life at the lincoln memorial this week. ken santiago. i want to bring in his long-time friend. you see him sitting with him in the same spot last year. he's a veteran himself. what does he want to tell us about his friend? and what this situation screams out about the needs for service members in society. next.

why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis under control? hide our skin? not us. because dupixent targets a root cause of eczema, it helps heal your skin from within,

keeping you one step ahead of it. and for kids ages 6 and up, that means clearer skin, and noticeably less itch. hide my skin? not me. by helping to control eczema with dupixent, you can change how their skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. hide my skin? not me. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within, you can show more with less eczema. talk to your child's eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment.

♪ ♪ for deb, living with constipation with belly pain was the same old story for years. trying this. doing that. spending countless days right here. still came the belly pain, discomfort, and bloating. awful feelings she kept sugar-coating. finally, with the help of her doctor, it came to be. that her symptoms were all signs of ibs-c. and that's why she said yess to adding linzess. linzess is not a laxative. it helps you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. and is proven to help relieve overall abdominal symptoms belly pain,discomfort, and bloating. do not give linzess to children less than six and it should not be given to children six to less than 18, it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools.

the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. could your story also be about ibs-c? talk to your doctor and say yess to linzess. tragedy at the lien memorial

just days before veterans day. air force sergeant kenny santiago, just 31 years old, killed himself. he was found on the steps of the monument according to "the washington post." just moments earlier, he posted a heartbreaking message, especially because it was so clear-eyed on facebook. talking about how it can be hard to tell when someone is suffering and depressed. that nobody could help him. don't even try. his friends and loved ones saw the post, and begged him not to end his life. but it was too late. it's hard not to feel a lump in the throat when you hear this story. but the truth is, as of 2019, there are an average of 17 suicides a day among veterans. it's not including active-duty military. now, i want you to look at this picture. it's kenny, on the right, just in april. sitting on the same lincoln memorial steps with his childhood friend, edison, he is

a veteran. and edison joins me tonight. edison, i am so sorry for your loss, brother. i'm sorry to meet you under these circumstances, but i want people to hear your friend's story. >> i appreciate you having me. >> what do you want us to know about how your friend lived before we get to how his life ended? >> he -- he had an amazing life. he was self-driven. he was hardworking. he had a lot of goals, and he was very driven to make sure he reached those goals. um, he started the air force 12 years ago and he was just climbing high, high, until he got what he wanted. um, but his goals got cut short. >> this comes to you as a complete shock? did you know he was struggling? was it something that he felt he could be open about? >> um, i -- i was starting to have my suspicion, um, and we had a conversation about a week ago before it happened. but there was -- there was no

red flags. there was no -- the words weren't depressed in it. there was no -- there was no alarms for me to be concerned or say something. he -- he told me that he was going to see someone and there were improvements. he had moved so that way he is with more people and happier and stuff. some changes. and i thought that those were all good signs but i guess they weren't. >> well, it's an illness, brother. it's an illness. and it is so hard to control. but unlike so many, he was dealing with it, though, right? he was getting some help? >> i think he attempted. i don't know the details of whether he was getting help or not. >> was he resistant to it? did he feel like somehow it wasn't consistent with being the big, strong man that he was? the military man that he was? >> i think he was worried. um, i mean, he -- he had a high-security clearance. he was -- he was, as a flight attendant, whatever the air force calls a flight attendant.

so he was up there with the vips of washington and if they were to find out he had these kind of struggles, what would happen to his career he has tried so hard to work for? >> it's the stigma. he wouldn't have felt like that if he had diabetes, you know, or leukemia. he wouldn't worry about will people see me differently? what do you think it is about these types of struggles that people feel are going to make them less than? >> it's -- they just -- they feel like the vulnerable -- vulnerability is not allowed. um, and they think there is also not enough support. um, i mean, i think the military is saying that they are trying but not really the front lines leadership where they are supposed to. the people that actually see the airmen or soldiers every single day and interact with them. and so, when these people need help, they don't know where they are going to or who to talk to and there is no confidential so if he says something, there is going to be some consequences involved. >> edison, i am so sorry about your friend.

and i hope that telling people about his story, he had everything going for him. i hope it just reminds people that just because someone looks great, doesn't mean they are doing great. i appreciate you and i wish you the best and condolences to the family. >> thank you. for the santiago family, i am so sorry. and i hope that telling this story gives some purpose to kenny's legacy. if you need support, it's just like having a bad knee. it's just like having a bad arm. it's just like having something that's wrong with you -- cancer, anything. you go to somebody who can help. the national suicide prevention line -- 1-800-273-talk. 1-800-273-8255. i am going to tweet it out, and as we all have to know by now, it is not strong to resist what's wrong. we'll be right back with the handoff.

♪ ♪ ♪ easy tools on the chase mobile app. simplicity feels good. chase. make more of what's yours. woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi.

♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪

got a couple of bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. what do you say we see what this bird can do? woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. looks like we're walking, kid. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

that's right, i said it. the shizzle is rizzle now when it comes to messing with congress's subpoenas. now, people know that contempt has teeth. what will it mean for bannon? but more importantly, what will it mean for the others that the probe wants to talk to? that's the question. now, we take for the answer, to the big show. "don lemon tonight" and its big star -- >> the shizzle is for rizzle. that's the second time i have had to correct you today but that's okay. >> wait, what you did you just say that i said differently? >> you said rizzli. >> and what did you say? >> for rizzle. >> listen, you are no authority on anything, do you understand that? >> don't he get all huffy with me. listen. everyone has been saying -- you remember the old saying -- well, i shouldn't say