a no-knock search warrant. officers entering an apartment while locke was asleep. the 17-year-old is locke's cousin. the news continues. let's hand it over to laura coates, and cnn tonight. >> thank you, john. as you know, elections have consequences. we should all know that very well at this point. you hear it all the time. they can have an impact on who sits on the highest court in the land, who can go on to make very consequential decisions. that's exactly what just happened with a new controversial supreme court ruling. one that delivers yet another

and this time a major blow to the voting rights of minorities in alabama, and arguably elsewhere. we're going to take a deep dive into why that is the case tonight, and how it could impact the midterm elections that are exactly nine months from today. scotus has chosen to restore alabama's gerrymandered gop-drawn congressional map that a lower court blocked last month, saying it would hurt block voters. the vote was 5-4, with chief justice john roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent. why does this matter so much? why was it initially blocked, is the question. well, the court ruled that it likely violated section 2 of the voting rights act, with a map that only includes one map out of seven that would have black voters as a majority.

but black voters make up a fourth of alabama's population. there's an obvious imbalance. the lower court ordered that a new map with a second, at least, majority black district, would be drawn. which could have led to democrats gaining another seat in the house this fall. but that's not happening now because the conservative majority of the supreme court froze the ruling. why would they do that? justices kavanaugh and alito are ordering that it came too close to the 2022 election cycle. too close? how absurd. i mean, the idea of not correcting the area in the issue prior to elections, well, elena kagan, who argues there's plenty of time, is reiterating that stance. the primary in alabama, it's not

tomorrow or next week or even next month. it's not until late may. in her dissent, she argued that the court's decision does a disservice to the district court which meticulously applied the longstanding voting rights precedent. and most of you will, it does a disservice to black alabamians. the justice said the court shouldn't even be issuing such an order on the shadow document, an emergency document that doesn't have the benefit of getting full briefing and oral arguments. so since the merits of this case won't be taken up until now later this year, that means the

midterm elections in alabama, they'll be held on maps that could ultimately be ruled illegal. after the voting has already been done. and what is the expectation, that they'll somehow reverse the election based on the maps? no, what will be and will obviously stand, this isn't just an alabama issue, by the way. gerrymandering has been particularly rampant in states like texas, north carolina, and ohio. the doj is actually suing texas over its map. arguing republican lawmakers didn't draw enough majority latino and black districts there. and what about democrats, you ask? they've also drawn aggressive maps in states like illinois and new york. some are arguing that's maybe

partisan gerrymandering. problematic, but under a different standard for other areas. how do you figure out whether you should do any of the type of gerrymandering, as opposed to an approach to the one person, one vote standard we're supposed to have? what is happening in alabama is noted as being a type of racial gerrymandering, and that's unconstitutional under the standards we know, at least for now. 31 states have finished redrawing their lines in advance of the midterms. and 31 out of 50 is not the whole kit and caboodle t. due to population changes, this

is all taking place, the redrawing of maps to be more in line with the accurate data of the actual populations. and the concern is, the new supreme court ruling could actually greenlight other states to try to manipulate maps in ways to put voters of color at a disadvantage. how often have we seen this happen, in the course of recent history, and prior to and since 1965. what is the fix now that two voting rights bills are dead on arrival in the senate? is let's turn to rick haasen, the author of the new book, "cheap speech: how disinformation poisons our politics." also with me, derek johnson, president of the naacp.

gentlemen, i'm glad you're here. i was a voting attorney in the civil rights division of doj. and i can't believe we're finding ourselves time and time again in a world that feels a lot more like 1964 than 2022. i want to begin with you, rick. people have heard the news, they've heard about what gerrymandering is, with the alabama map. help us go deeper and contextualize why this is being looked at on a shadow document, for example. what do you say, rick? >> back in 2013, the supreme court killed a key part of the voting rights act, section 5, that would have required alabama to go to the department of justice and show that they wouldn't make minority voters worse off. but they said, don't worry, section 2 of the voting rights act, that was amended in 1982,

that gives voters the same right to participate in the political process. what chief justice roberts said in his opinion yesterday, in his partial dissent, if you apply the existing standards, alabama has to get that second district. he agreed with the other five conservatives, let's rethink this whole thing. that's the most ominous thing. the court may fundamentally rework what section 2 means, and weaken it. you're right, it's kind of a return back to the period before the voting rights act in 1982 was amended, almost back to 1965, when there was significant protection for minority voters put in place. >> and derek, i want you to weigh in. it's so important to think about the dynamic, why the voting rights act of 1965 was put into place, let alone the gutting of

section 5, and section 2, being able to challenge laws on the back end. the supreme court is saying, we're not going to really deal with this issue. we'll deal it with later, after whatever takes place already transpires. what do you say about the idea of having that delay, and not realizing the necessity to weigh in prior to that map going into effect, derek? >> i think it's disingenuous of the supreme court to take that posture. in effect, they said we're going to turn a blind eye to voter suppression in alabama, particularly against african american voters. it's well documented that alabama has a long history of racial black voting, seeking to suppress the black vote, and eliminate the ability of african americans in that state to elect candidates of their chose. and the supreme court is turning a blind eye.

we must pass voting rights protection in the senate. the senate must do their job. we're going to see this happen over and over, if in fact members of the senate don't develop courage and stand up and protect our constitution and protect the right to vote. >> you know, on that notion, you mentioned the idea of almost this notion of a post-racial world that was alluded when section 5 was gutted. and the idea of turning a blind eye. rick, republicans would argue, and let's play devil's advocate, we should have race-blind mapping here. you shouldn't be taking into consideration the race. certainly there is racial bloc voting, the idea of having enough concentration of power to elect a candidate of your choice, not having that voting strength diluted. and having the opportunity to vote for the winner. what do you say to the argument

that says, if you don't want race to infect our voting and election systems, why would you draw a majority black district in the first place? >> that's a great question. i would put it this way. you mentioned racially polarized voting, that means the white majority in alabama, if given the right to vote, will consistently defeat the voting choice of african americans in alabama. then you have an all-white delegation, we're almost there, but you would have that in the legislature, too. what congress did in 1982, when it amended section 2 of the voting rights act, they said, look, we want to make sure that when minority voters can have a candidate of their choice represent them, they should have that same opportunity. i would love for us to live in a race-blind society where alabama voters were not choosing their candidates on the basis of race.

but that's not the reality today. if we want to assure minority representation, and if the supreme court is going to follow what congress said, it has to continue to create these districts in order to assure that minority voters get a fair share of representation in places like alabama. >> and derrick, with the work you do, you recognize the reality and impact of race in every facet of our systems in america. when you think about this, are you concerned about the blueprint effect, something like this, now that other jurisdictions may say, the supreme court will not weigh in. maybe now we should crank out the less than 20 maps that need to be done, to eliminate competitive seats. is that something you think about? >> it's a huge concern, especially for the southern states. you can produce maps, multiple maps within a matter of hours.

i'm a demographer. the systems are so advanced, it doesn't take a long time. the supreme court could have said, the primary is coming up. we're going to tell you, alabama, to produce alternative maps in the next two weeks. they could have produced multiple maps that met the criteria to comply with section 2, and to protect our democracy. but they chose to use a false argument to say, it's too close to an election when it's not. finally, states like alabama, they have always participated in racial bloc voting. african americans will vote for white candidates. but white voters are rarely in that state willing to vote for african american candidates. i believe obama, when he ran in 2008, he only got 11% of the white vote. the least amount of white support of any state in the country. so that tells you the mindset of

alabamians when it comes to african american candidates. >> a very important point, the reality of technology. it's not like you need lewis and clark out there, as cartographers. and also, it does speak to the issue that you both point out, about the idea, this fallacy. doesn't sound a lot like the will of the people, the decisions are on a timeline that looks a lot like what mitch mcconnell did in relation to the supreme court nominee. thank you both for your time. i appreciate it. >> thank you. the gerrymandering fight

isn't the only battle for control. you can imagine there are a lot of different brawls, so to speak, happening. and the big lie is a fight that is still tearing the country apart. up next, where things stand for former president trump from the january 6th committee to accusations of destroying documents to boxes stashed at mar-a-lago to taping documents back together? that's in a moment. and the first month is free. join panera's unlimited sip club just $8.99 a montnth. panera. ththe familiar made fantasti. (music) who said you have to starve yourself to lose weight? who said you can't do dinner? who said only this is good? and this is bad?

i'm doing it my way. meet plenity. an fda -cleared clinically proven weight management aid for adults with a bmi of 25-40 when combined with diet and exercise. plenity is not a drug - it's made from naturally derived building blocks and helps you feel fuller and eat less. it is a prescription only treatment and is not for pregnant women or people allergic to its ingredients. talk to your doctor or visit myplenity.com to learn more. [inspirational soul music]

[inspirational soul music] [inspirational soul music] and it's easy to get a quote at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? sorry, one sec. doug blows a whistle. [a vulture squawks.] oh boy. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪ we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair.

hi, i'm debra. i'm from colorado. i've been married to my high school sweetheart for 35 years. i'm a mother of four-- always busy. i was starting to feel a little foggy. just didn't feel like things were as sharp as i knew they once were. i heard about prevagen and then i started taking it about two years now. started noticing things a little sharper, a little clearer. i feel like it's kept me on my game. i'm able to remember things. i'd say give it a try. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. ♪ you can never have too much of a good thing. ♪ and power... ...is a very good thing. ♪ migraine attacks? qulipta™ can help prevent migraine attacks. it can't prevent triggers, like your next period or stress.

you can't prevent what's going on outside, that's why qulipta™ helps what's going on inside. qulipta™ is a pill. gets right to work to prevent migraine attacks and keeps them away over time. qulipta™ blocks cgrp a protein believed to be a cause of migraine attacks. qulipta is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie can help you save on qulipta. there are new questions tonight over whether former president trump violated the presidential records act. not just because of his well-known habit of ripping up documents, but there are new revelations, first reported by "the washington post," that the national archives had to retrieve 15 boxes' worth, 15

boxes of white house records from mar-a-lago last month. it should have been handed over at the end of trump's tenure, which i remind people, is over a year ago. we don't actually know if any of these records are damaged, and as we've reported, trump staffers had to regularly tape his documents back together. every time i think about that, the taping of documents back together, you think you're watching some sort of a comedy special or some spoof on what happens actually in the white house. and you ask the question, shouldn't trump have known better? after all, he did, if you remember, he went after smpeake nancy pelosi for this moment, ripping up his state of the

union speech. >> i thought it was a terrible thing. first of all, it's illegal what she did. she broke the law. >> broke the law. well, interesting point. and that might not have aged very well. who could forget all the diatribes against what hillary clinton was alleged to have done as well. remember this? >> after her private server was revealed, her staff deleted all the emails and wiped it clean. people who have nothing to hide don't bleach. nobody has ever heard of it, don't bleach their emails or destroy evidence to keep it from being publicly archived as required under federal law. >> that's interesting and it begs the question for what it could mean for the former president now. i want to bring in mary mccord.

great to see you, especially on a night like this. let me begin with this. part of what trump said was the idea of one bleaching or trying to shield evidence of wrongdoing in some respects. he would argue that he wasn't trying to shield wrongdoing, he was taking personal mementos. is that enough to go around the requirements of the presidential records act? >> i think as you indicated in your opening, it's up to the archivist to determine what is a presidential record and what is a personal record. the assumption is that what you receive or create at the white house during your term as president will be reviewed by the archivist, and those that are personal records will be released to you, and presidential records are actually the property of the united states, not your own personal property. so we don't know yet what is in

those 15 boxes. the archivist will be reviewing those. there may be things that are personal records, there are probably many things in there that are presidential records. the fact that they're sending them back suggests that his own attorneys believe they're presidential records, and there may be some things that are responsive to the house committee's request for evidence in regards to its investigation. >> a part of me thinks to myself about this idea of what the american people must be thinking about of presidential records, the idea of, are you to suggest that every single piece of paper that the president of the united states touches, draft speeches, maybe a post-it note, maybe a printout of any kind, that's something that is obviously and always retained, like it's a library of congress document? or is there some discretion on

the part of the president of the united states on what is significant enough to be included in a potential archive? >> the act is quite broad. it's not just documents. it does include works of art and things like that are received or produced in the course of the president carrying out his f functions. it could be his constitutional functions or his ceremonial functions. there can be things like personal diaries about personal things that aren't related to the president's constitutional responsibilities or ceremonial responsibilities that would be personal records. and there are some exceptions for thing that have no value. but that should be for the archivist to determine. and part of the reason that the law is so broad, it really is important for historical purposes and for accountability purposes to have the record of

what took place in the white house, you know, involving the president of the united states and those who act on his behalf in his carrying out his duties under the constitution and his other responsibilities as president. >> you mentioned the accountability factor. i wanted to have the connective tissue here. you have the january 6th committee, the reason the national archives are handing documents over is in part because of the requests of that committee. and what is happening in fulton county, the discussions around the big lie and the anatomy of the big lie as regards january 6th. are they looking towards these documents with accountability or understanding the role that these documents may have played on january 6th or even the big lie? >> so, you know, i think it sounds like the archivist has been dealing with the

president's lawyers for many months now. maybe even before the house select committee resolution even started the committee's investigation. so i think they were doing it originally because they realized 15 boxes of presidential records had gone to mar-a-lago and shouldn't have gone there. now, it's possible that there are documents that are part of what the -- is relevant and requested by the house select committee. it could be documents that would be eventually of use and subpoenaed by the fulton county prosecutor or other governmental entities. so i think to go back to your first question about violating the presidential records act, i think one of the things that the archivist will be doing when they go through these materials is see if there are things responsive to the committee's

request. and then it will be up to investigators to determine, we don't know, and i don't want to speculate. but if there weren't a lot of responsive documents relevant either to the attack on the capitol, or the effort to overturn the results of the election, or to pressure secretary of state raffensperger in georgia, investigators will want to look into the question, were they willfully concealed by taking them to mar-a-lago? then you get into questions about whether there were violations. but we're far away from that at this point. >> it seems to always come back to intent. mary mccord, thank you so much. >> thank you for having me, laura. important new information tonight after the police killing of another black man in minneapolis. this time, it happened as a result of a no-knock warrant.

omar jiminez is closely following the case, and updates us. that's next.

ready to style in just one step? introducing new tresemme one step stylers. five professional benefits. one simple step. totally effortless. styling has never been easier. tresemme. do it with style.

so tonight, we know who the minneapolis police s.w.a.t. team were looking for when they killed a black man in his own home who had committed no crime. amir locke's family say it shouldn't take the focus off of their loss. omar jiminez with the new revelations. and a warning, you will see body cam footage in this story this

is disturbing. >> reporter: they were looking in the right apartment, but they found the wrong person, when amir locke was shot by police. they were looking for his cousin, a 17-year-old charged tuesday in the murder of a man in nearby st. paul about a month earlier. court documents show investigators tracked the allegedly stolen car to a minneapolis apartment complex. search warrants had been authorized for three apartments. in one of them, locke was asleep on the couch. as he appeared to wake up, he's seen with a gun, and they shoot. locke was killed. >> everyone from top to bottom has blame there. the decision not to actually implement a ban on no-knock warrants, the decisions of the minneapolis police officials and

officers involved in continuing to seek no-knock warrants. >> reporter: in 2020, minneapolis police were executing roughly 139 no-knock warrants per year. in november of that year, they updated their requires, saying officers will be required to announce their presence in the absence of imminent threats. and the mayor was criticized for the impression of saying he had banned the practice. >> there's more and more people and outside groups weighing in, language became more casual. including my own, which did not reflect the necessary precision and nuance. and i own that. the language, and what we're seeing, in longer form, honored the spirit of this policy change. but there were instances where it did not.

>> reporter: recently, the city instituted a temporary ban on no-knock warrants. locke's family say they want a permanent ban, they say that's the only thing that will solve this. what do you feel needs to be implemented? >> we need a flat-out moratorium and ban on no-knock warrants. the concept of a no-knock warrant under emergency situations still seems ridiculous. >> reporter: the policy also has some gun advocacy groups concerned, including the minnesota gun advocates. shortly after the shooting, the caucus called his death completely preventable. he reached for a legal means of

self defense, while he sought to understand what happened. protests are calling for the familiar chants of justice in the twin cities. for more than just the prosecution of an officer, but a change in policy. the mayor said they're currently looking into their no-knock policy, potentially to take it further. and state investigators are looking at whether proper procedure was taken. officers must announce their entry unless there's an imminent risk. that's being looked at, along with whether officers properly announced themselves before entering the apartment. >> omar, excellent reporting as always. thank you. we're going to take this

revived debate on no-knock warrants to two people with very valuable perspectives. one of them was mentioned in omar's report, the vice president of the gun owner's caucus in minnesota, calling for an independent investigation of the tragedy. and also, former philly police commissioner charles ramsay, on whether police officers can do their jobs effectively without no-k-knock warrants in play. that's next.

while the police shooting death of amir locke has one gun rights organization weighing in. no, it's not the nra. the minnesota gun owners' caucus

released this statement. the tragic circumstances of mr. locke's death were completely unavoidable. joining me now, the vice president of that organization, and charles ramsey, former philadelphia police commissioner. i'm glad to have you both. it's valuable to have both of your perspectives. i'm from minnesota, and one of the things that has always bothered me is the obvious t tragedies. but it's also the silence that claim to speak on behalf of lawful gun owners. your organization released a statement in support of the idea about lawful gun ownership with philando castile. but why do the other organizations that proclaim similar view points, why does

silence result? >> i think it's difficult for organizations to take a bold stance, especially if it's something that may cause division among their membership. i can't speak for other organizations. but i think our -- we've built a culture around our organizations, our members and supporters expect us to do the right thing and always speak on behalf of lawful gun ownership and the second amendment. >> i'm speaking about the nra, and they said they did not speak out about philando castile because of the presence of marijuana. that's what they said, but i do wonder about this issue. do you support a ban on no-knock warrants? it seems quite clear, you've an advocating that it was avoidable. do you support a ban on no-knock warrants? >> we need to take a hard look

at it. the city of st. paul has not used a single no-knock warrant in five years. they face the same dangers, the same population types, the same crimes. they don't use any, and minneapolis uses between 100 and 200 a year. but if we have to choose between no-knock warrants eliminated and having citizens killed in the execution of a search warrant, citizens. >> we'll go to you, you have experience, some say banning no-knock warrants is naive, but i wonder if that assessment is

accurate. do you think officers can do their jobs and not have no-knock warrants as a viable option? >> i don't think there should be an outright ban. but i do think there needs to be a very high bar set. and those kinds of warrants ought to be approved by the court beforehand. so i haven't always been a police chief. i spent a lot of time working in narcotics in chicago, and i participated in the execution of hundreds of search warrants. very rarely did we go the no-knock route. so when i heard the number of 139 in minneapolis, i thought that was very high in terms of the number of no-knock warrants. but there are some high-risk warrants where perhaps no-knock would be the best approach in trying to execute the warrants safely, and be able to apprehend the individual without them being harmed, either. so i do not think i would be in

favor of a ban, but there should be some re-evaluation. >> looking at the footage, does it appear that police are following the correct protocol? if not, do you think if they had followed the protocol precisely, there's just the callous view of collateral damage being the result? i hate to phrase it that way, because of a human life being lost. but is a proper protocol following officer at risk for having the same result? >> well, i watched the execution of the warrant a couple of times. they used a key to get in. they probably had a landlord give them a key. as soon as they came in, they introduced themselves as

individuals. but mr. locke was asleep, and he was armed, he did have a gun. what i saw in the video. i didn't see anything that violated training or anything like that. this is unfortunate, it is a tragedy. there's absolutely no question about it. i wish it had never happened, i'm sure everybody wishes it never happened. but i didn't see any direct violation, not based on what i could see. we don't have all the angles from all the different body cam cameras, especially the individual that fired a shot, to see the position of mr. locke at the time with the gun in his hand, to know whether or not the threat was immediate or not. not seeing that, it's very difficult to judge. but that will all be part of the investigation, and my understanding, the state a.g. will be involved in the investigation. >> i do note, rob, the idea of being consistent. and the idea of what you stand for in terms of the second amen

amendment, and having it apply to instances like this will go a long way to evaluating no-knock warrants. thank you both for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll turn to a first amendment fight in just a moment. i'm talking about sarah palin and her defamation suit against "the new york times." why are some of her supporters hoping she doesn't win? i'll tell you why, next. cozy, a. with 465 fresh, clean, craveable pairings, find a you pick 2 for any mood. enjoy a $0 delivery fee for a limited time only.y. imagine getting $150,000 dollars... for one year of epic adventures... in a new dodge hellcat... and you don't even have to quit ur day job. you just need to show you've got real drive. are you our new chief donut maker? ♪ life can be a lot to handle. ♪ this magic moment ♪

but heinz knows there's plenty of magic in all that chaos. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪ your plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. try vazalore. aspirin made amazing!

among my patients, i often see them have teeth sensitivity as well as gum issues. does it worry me? absolutely. sensodyne sensitivity & gum gives us the dual action effect that really takes care of both our teeth sensitivity as well as our gum issues. there's no question it's something that i would recommend. . there's new testimony in the defamation trial of sarah palin versus "the new york times," the times's formal editorial page editor today taking partial blame for the 2017 editorial at issue that falsely linked her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of congresswoman gabby giffords. quote, this is my fault. right, i wrote those sentences and i'm not looking to shift the blame to anyone else so i just

want to say that, but yeah, i mean, this is why we send playback to writers because they're the ones who reported the story. constitutional law and media attorney theodore butrose joins me now, who headed cnn on legal matters before. good to see you. if particular, i wonder, first of all, this is the first libel case against the times to go to trial in, what, 20 years? usually it's resolved before a injury. here we are in a full blown trial. what makes this case so different? >> these cases do, laura, usually get dismissed, based on first amendment grounds. i think it's been, maybe even 50 years since "the new york times" has gone to trial. and so it really is unusual. there are a couple twists and turns in this case but you are absolutely right that mr. bennett was a very good witness today, very contrite, very straightforward. they made a mistake. and the first amendment protects that. it only imposes liability where

a public figure sues where there's actual malice and there's no way ms. palin is going to prove that. >> on that notion of actual malice, it really makes you assume that the person has a higher standing than say the average person, if you're a public figure, there has to be actual malice shown because the assumption is you have thrust yourself into the public limelight and you don't have the same benefits of the everyday person. in terms of the malice standard, though, might this case present an opportunity for this to be revisited. we've got supreme court justices who've wanted to reassess that standard in the past, is this the vehicle now? >> sarah palin is arguing that the "new york times" versus sullivan, the famous case that established the actual malice principle should be overturned, other parties are making the same argument, it's a very dangerous time for freedom of the press and for the american people who want to get information about powerful figures like sarah palin, and others, with justices, at least

two, saying they'd be willing to reconsider it. that's in play in this case and in other cases. it's very dangerous for journalists across the ideological spectrum. >> now, of course it means it's a higher standard, but ted, let me ask you this, it's dangerous for journalists but it's also dangerous for those who are the subject of their actual reporting, right, is there something that can be done for those who say, look, maybe the bar is high, but maybe it's too high? i am wronged as a person, and why should journalists have sort of a free pass, what do you say to that? >> well, the actual malice standard and the first amendment doesn't just protect journalists, it protects everyone and the supreme court and the "new york times" versus sullivan case in 1964 said, in a democracy, we want open, costed, vehement, sometimes nasty debate to flourish, to be a check on the government, to be a check on the figures. it doesn't borrow libel suits so a private person can bring a

case and doesn't have to prove actual malice. a public figure like ms. palin, if she could prove if the "new york times" intentionally made a false statement, if she can't prove it here, they corrected it quickly. it's extremely important to our democracy and it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. i think ms. palin is going to lose. >> we'll soon see. ted, thank you so much, good hearing from you, we'll be right back. (vo) what makes my heart beat? having everything i want in the place i love. jamaica. heartbeat of the world. let's go! people with moderate to severe psoriasis, are rethinking the choices they make like the splash they create the entrance they make, the surprises they initiate.

otezla. it's a choice you can make. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. for rob, it took years to find out why his constipation with belly pain just wouldn't go away. despite all he did to manage his symptoms... day after day. still came the belly pain, discomfort, and bloating, awful feelings he tried not showing. finally with the help of his doctor it came to be, that his symptoms were all signs of ibs-c. and that's why he 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 two. 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. learn how abbvie and ironwood could help you save on linzess. we gotta tell people that liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need, and we gotta do it fast. [limu emu squawks] woo! new personal record, limu! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪

thanks for watching, i'll be back tomorrow night. don lemon tonight starts right now. so tomorrow i understand here in new york we won't have to do that as we walk around businesses. >> really? >> yes. that's what the announcement is supposed to be. no masks indoors. >> how you feel about that? >> i h