we want to finish the broadcast where we begin, and congratulate again anderson and benjamin and new big brother wyatt and welcome sebastian luke maisani-cooper to the world. what a bright light and the best way to say good night. look at that face. the news continues. let's hand it over to laura coates and "cnn tonight." >> hey, john. my husband told me i can't look at any more babies. we're done. that baby so cute. congratulations, anderson. now go to bed, john. you're tired. i know you are. you work so hard. thank you. everyone, i am laura coates, and this is "cnn tonight." and well, people who have nothing to hide don't destroy evidence that must be archived under the law. says who? donald trump. >> people who have nothing to hide don't smash phones with

hammers, don't bleach their emails or destroy evidence to keep it from being publicly archived as required under federal law. >> hmm. remember all those cries of crooked hillary or lock her up and throw away the key? well, you remember. >> crooked hillary. hillary was a criminal. she deleted her emails. people go to jail for that. >> lock her up! lock her up! >> her emails, which put america's entire national security at risk. >> lock her up! >> so crooked hillary, wait, crooked -- you should lock her up, i'll tell you. >> doesn't age well, does it? his relentless attacks actually worked, though, right? that infamous private server controversy may very well have

cost hillary clinton the presidency. now, look, in no way would i ever endeavor to excuse any mishandling of government information, particularly if it's classified materials, and especially if you're secretary of state. but let's talk about what actually happened in reaction to those allegations. the fbi did open a criminal investigation, and the justice department closed it without bringing any charges against clinton or anyone else within the scope of that investigation. there were no findings of any intentional violation of law in that case. and let's not forget there were hearings and hearings launched by house republicans in congress over those emails. so if consistency is what you should go for and having sort of the knowledge of what happens in one instance must happen in another, you would expect those same republicans who led the charge for investigations then to be vocal now. but they seem to be awfully quiet now about all we're

learning about trump's handling of government information. maybe amnesia selectively? how quickly some people forget. or maybe want the electorate to forget. will there now be "lock him up" chants? of course they wouldn't be warranted. we don't actually know if trump broke any laws or violated the presidential records act by taking more than a dozen boxes of federal documents with him when he left office, which by the way could contain top secret classified material according to a new report from "the washington post" tonight. now obviously the president is able to declassify things. but at mar-a-lago, he was now the former president. and top secret, well, the post cited sources saying some of the boxes clearly marked classified. to investigate just how those documents and boxes made their way to mar-a-lago. something tells me they're not asking whether it was the postal

service or fed ex, but why they're actually there instead of where they're supposed to be. and we also know that trump had a bad habit of ripping up documents while he was in the white house. archive staff actually had to tape some documents back together that were then handed over to the january 6 committee. and by the way, republicans have been -- well, they've been noticeably quiet about that. but you know who hasn't been quiet about that? hillary clinton. she's trolling trump now about it on twitter, posting a resounding uh-huh. and now there is this new reporting that trump also had a habit of apparently flushing papers down the toilet at the white house. this according to cnn analysts and "new york times" reporter maggie haberman, who has an upcoming book on trump called "confidence man." according to her staff in the white house, residents would frequently find -- i can't believe i'm getting ready to say this, but they would find the

toilet clogged in donald trump's bathroom with wads of clumped up paper that wasn't toilet paper, by the way. so much clogging in the pipes that an engineer would have to come and fix it. i wonder if that partially explains his odd obsession with toilets. i remember all those rants about not having enough water pressure to flush everything down. do you? >> we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms. people are flushing toilets ten times, 15 times as opposed to once. >> i won't talk about the fact that people have to flush their toilet 15 times. >> i have to tell you, that kind of makes you listen to that in a whole new light, doesn't it? i mean even it was odd then 15 times, and not one to talk about it. but i want you to know he calls this another fake story. he calls it, quote, categorically untrue.

says it's, quote, made up for publicity for a, quote, mostly fictitious book. now that, what he calls a mostly fictitious book, that's one he agreed to be interviewed for. and in a new statement, he also claims that, look, he had no legal obligation to return any records to the national archives, which we'll talk about in just a moment. but he also says he worked collaboratively to do so nonetheless. and meanwhile, there is also the mystery of the gaps in white house phone logs on january 6. gaps as to what transpired that day, records the house-led committee has obtained apparently don't contain entries of phone calls between the former president and lawmakers, the same calls that have already been widely reported in the press. now, look, perhaps that's for a benign reason. it could be trump sometimes used his aides' phones or his own personal phones. we actually don't know yet. it is something the january 6

committee is trying to get to the bottom of. and with good reason. so the question is, did trump violate the presidential records act with all of those boxes that found their way to mar-a-lago? i mean, especially if there were top secret documents in there, according to "the washington post." and if so, could there actually be criminal consequences to this? let's turn now to two experts on this. cnn legal analyst norm eisen, a former white house ethics czar, who was once responsible, by the way, enforcing presidential records. and tim naftali, the former director of the nixon presidential library. what an embarrassment of riches to have you both on today. norm, i want to begin with you here on this, because i'm trying in my mind, as most of america is probably doing to figure out this process of how these documents are supposed to be preserved. i mean, is it every document that a president touches or does he have some discretion as being, as we have called them, the loader of the free world, to

decide what gets handed over? >> laura, thanks for having me. he's the leader of the free world, but he's not the world of free shredding. every scrap of paper has to be preserved. that was when i met with incoming president obama and incoming vice president joe biden. that was what i explained to them about the law. and that's why we know that white house staff would sometimes run around trying to piece together the scraps that were torn. obviously, we now learn that some things were beyond redemption. we know why that extremely strong water pressure was needed, laura, to flush away the evidence. so the saying in washington, often the cover-up is worse than the crime. we need to see where it goes. but it looks awfully suspicious.

>> it does. i oftentimes can't believe the things we have to report. and truth is stranger than fiction. but i'm talking to a man now, tim naftali, you know the so-called plumbers telephone world had a role in nixon's own experience, right, when it comes to evaluating what he did or did not do in these instances. i'm wondering from your perspective, give us a little history here. really, until nixon, as you well know, the idea of presidents being able to take their documents, their mementos, whatever their records were, that was pretty standard practice at that point. >> it was, yes. i think donald trump has certainly given a new meaning to the term white house plumbers. and it certainly has a new significance for him. remember in the nixon case, the plumbers were supposed to prevent leaks. in trump's case, they were supposed to help get rid of documents, i suppose. our -- once again, this is a presidential norm. our first president george

washington decided that his records belonged to him. so from george washington to richard nixon, presidents owned their documents. they could sell them. they could destroy them. presidential families often sold presidential documents after a term had ended. so there was really no control over presidential records. that changes because of watergate, because of plumbers, nixon's plumbers. and as a result of watergate, richard nixon's papers were seized. it was like a crime scene. everything was seized, including the famous tapes. after the negatives experience, congress decided to act, and decided to renegotiate the relationship between presidential records and presidents. now remember, all of our three branchs are coequal. it wasn't -- congress was able to seize nixon's documents because nixon had been such a bad actor.

he by the way would later sue and got some of them back. >> but on that point, congress realized, of course, the transparency notion, the idea of why the american people deal with the c documents and also the idea of potential criminality involved here. and i appreciate the history, because it gives us the context we need on this as to why the norm was changed. and let me go back to norm. the norm in this conversation other than the norms that are often broken here, norm, let pe ask you. first of all, it's one thing to have it changed. but we're talking about some things reportedly as top secret documents? yeah, sure. the president of the united states, as you know, can declassify whatever the president wants. it's sort of the prerogative, it's good to be the king in that respect, even though we don't have one. but now he's the former president. what does it mean when there might be top secret or classified documents contained in the possessions of even a former president? is the same prerogative still available? >> well, it's not good, laura.

the -- you know, there is questions about who else might have handled them, whether he went through the proper procedures to declassify them, whether any procedures were followed at all. i think in terms of the presid president's criminal liability, and you know this well as a former prosecutor, because of his classification authority, the case for prosecuting him possibly as the january 6 committee looks at criminal referrals, doj and inspectors general are looking at this, the case on the classified documents has some complexities because of the declassification authority. it is also a crime to destroy government documents. seldom prosecuted. laura, the most important question here i think was the president destroying, flushing,

shredding, taking a away documents because they incriminated him. that gets us into stuff that is investigate and prosecuted all the time, obstruction. >> also on that point, though. you're right, norm, i want to give you the last word, tim. on that point of destruction, i can't help draw the analogy from 18:30 and gaps gone from nixon tapes and what we're seeing here. obviously it comes down to if it's willful or not. how there may have been gapped? >> the big difference here whereas in the case of nixon, the shredding was generally done by his lieutenants, and the 18:30 gap was an exception. i suspect someone did it, but not nixon. in trump's case, it's him. and that's what is different. the systemic destruction. not just from maggie's book, we've been hearing about this for years. the systemic destruction came

from the top, which means the president himself had nothing but contempt for the idea of recordkeeping, which means he had nothing but contempt for accountability and consistency. we don't keep records to allow people like me to write books. that's good. we keep records so the president knows exactly what their president did and the presidents themselves feel a little bit of restraint because they know some day they will be judged in the court of history if they abuse the power. >> you both wrote excellent books. norm eisen and tim naftali. >> thank you. tonight cnn is obtaining bob saget's autopsy report. we'll dig into what it says about the actor's tragic death from blunt head force trauma, next.

hey businesses! you all deserve something epic! so we're giving every business, our best deals on every iphone - including the iphone 13 pro with 5g. that's the one with the amazing camera? yep! every business deserves it... like one's that re-opened! hi, we have an appointment. and every new business that just opened! like aromatherapy rugs! i'll take one in blue please! it's not complicated. at&t is giving new and existing business customers our best deals on every iphone. ♪ ♪ certified turbocharger, suspension and fuel injection.

translation: certified goosebumps. certified from headlamp to tailpipe. that's certified head turns. and it's all backed by our unlimited mileage warranty. that means unlimited peace of mind. mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. translation: the mercedes of your dreams is closer than you think.

as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we now have new details in the circumstances surrounding the death of 65-year-old actor bob saget in a florida hotel room just last month.

the autopsy report released today revealing that saget had covid-19 at the time of his death, but he died, however, as a result of blunt head trauma. the report saying, quote, it is the most probable that the decedent suffered an unwitnessed fall backwards and stuck the posterior aspect of his head. the manner of death is accident. joining me now to discuss, dr. priya bannerjee, one of the top forensic experts in the country. doctor, i'm really glad you're here to help us understand that. forgive me. the prosecutor within sees a report like this, and obviously my mind begins to churn. but from your perspective, you don't look at this as being something that is suspicious, even though we see things like blunt force injuries. is that right? >> yes. i mean, i read the whole report, not just obviously the final diagnoses. when you put it all together, i think it is most consistent with some sort of accidental, whether

it be fall or impact that led to his death, sadly. >> now what makes you -- you read the report. walk us through your approach to doing it. you see the head injuries. you learn about the pooling of the blood. we hear about the different languages described. when you're looking at this and evaluating, and obviously you did not do this as your mormon or forensic report. when you're reviewing it, what are you looking for to determine that it was an accident? >> true. you know, i have to sort of -- i don't have the investigative reports given to me, right? that's what the original medical examiner would have. but taking it into consideration, first i started looking at the outside of the body. and i'm just going to point to my head sort of at the back of my head where my fingers are. basically, the mid back of the skull and the scalp, that's where he had what's called an abrasion. which if anyone skinned their knee, you know that's what an abrasion is, where the skin's

top layers are brushed off from some sort of trauma. and in this case, a blunt trauma. so that's where the impact was. and then there is bleeding underneath it and skull fractures and deeper injuries to the brain. you know, i think more nefarious issues, i would think there would be lacerations and multiple hits related to it, not just a single impact. i think when i looked at it, i can say this is all consistent with one event. >> to be clear, obviously, we don't have all the information. you were talking about from your perspective and your experience, which i really do very much appreciate. but one thing i think shocked people, this idea of the injuries. you said the word "fractures, lowe plural. and what was apparent in the orbital area, around the eye area there. when i look at this and say to myself, i'm not a doctor, obviously. but if somebody is hit in the back of their head, why would there exhibit some injury to the

front of the face? does that lead somebody to think maybe he was hurt in the front as well, or the impact would actually resound in that way? >> and that's exactly a great question. you have to understand the underlying mechanisms. and if i can just explain it as simply as possible, he fell to the back of his head where i'm pointing. that's a lot of force, okay. fell or had an impact, whatever it may be. there was a lot of force generated. it rubbed away the surface of the skin. but that force now goes through the skull. it radiates around. and the brain is also within a fixed box, which is a hard box. now the impact goes from the back to the front. and so if you think about sort of like an eggshell in a way, there is thinner parts of the skull that cracked which are towards the front, and the brain is actually pushed from the back to the front and pushed back again. and so that movement is injuring

the brain, causing bleeding in or around it as well as the force when it radiates from back to front. that's where you're getting those orbital skull fractures. >> wow. >> when there is bleeding especially over the eyes, what you're getting is that blood sort of seeps down. and it looks like someone could have a black eye, like they were punched in the face. but that's not what we know. it's consistent with bleeding from the inside tracking down. >> it's shocking to think about. obviously how fragile life is. this could come from one impact, just how faraj typical brain. thank you, doctor, for all of your expertise. and of course i can't help but what his children, his wife and loved ones are thinking about this. we're talking in a very clinical way, but not out of disrespect. we all want to understand what happened and understand the loss of life. thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> you know, there are also new developments tonight in the trial of sarah palin versus, well, the "new york times."

palin took to the stand again today in her suit against the paper for defamation, and she reportedly shouted "objection." she did it. we're going weigh in on the arguments on both sides, next. 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. with panera's you pick 2, every meal is made fantastic. you can be fresh, and fun.

bold, and classic. cozy, and precocious. with 465 fresh, clean, craveable pairings, find a you pick 2 for any mood. enjoy a $0 delivery fee for a limited time only. it's beautiful out here. it sure is. and i earn 5% cash back on travel purchased through chase with chase freedom unlimited. that means that i earn 5% on our rental car, i earn 5% on our cabin. i mean, c'mon! hello cashback! hello, kevin hart! i'm scared. in a good way.

i'm lying. let's get inside. earn big time with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. (music) ♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪

so sarah palin took the stand today for the second day in a row in her defamation case against "the new york times." palin telling the jury that she believes the "new york times" acted with malicious intent, causing her emotional damage and saying, quote, it's hard to lay your head on a pillow and have a restful night when you know that lies are told about you. a specific lie that was not going to be fixed. that causes some stress anyone would feel. back with us is ted boutrous, a constitutional law and media attorney who has previously

represented cnn in legal matters. ted, i'm glad you're back, because i have a lot of questions about what people are asking about here. first of all, this idea of her testimony, you know, part of the standard here is the actual malice, which is why she probably mentioned that notion, which is a higher degree because she is a public figure. and because you're thrust into the limelight, you outout to take a couple of hits on the chin. did she have a compelling case for herself about how actual malice was actually established here? >> she did not make a compelling case at all, laura. she bears a heavy burden under the first amendment to prove actual malice. it was a very, very week presentation, very palinesque. weird use of words, tried to be folksy, evasive. made a number of false statements herself from the stand. it did not work. >> and in terms of evasive, was she actually asked about well, how did this actually impact?

that's part of the burden they have to prove, right. you can't say theoretically, this might have happened. you have to be concrete about how it actually did, right? >> exactly. you just zeroed in on one of the biggest gaps in her case. she could not point to a single specific conversation with anybody, her family members, her close friends where they said we saw that article. it's terrible, or she called them and said this article is terrible. she couldn't point to anyone who shunned her or thought differently about her. she couldn't point to any financial harm or lost opportunities. it was a glaring, glaring gap in her case, and she was very general and evasive. it was clear she was just trying to tap dance around the fact that she had no harm and no evidence. >> now earlier in my career, as you know, i did some defamation cases. i didn't want to let the media off the hook here in this respect because there are instances where there is actual malice, right? but it's a very hard sort of burden to reach here.

but if it hadn't been corrected as quickly by the norm times, right, if it hadn't been corrected, if it hadn't actually been corrected in that pace, would there have been a more substantial case that she could have made here? >> it would have helped her slightly. but the fact that there was no correction doesn't really help on actual malice as long as the proof shows that the journalist and the news organization at the time of publication did not believe the information was false and published it any way, wreck lili ignored their own knowledge that it was face. "the new york times," including james bennett, the editor, who testified were acting in good faith. they made a mistake. famously people talk about journalism as the first rough draft of history. and the supreme court has built in to this first amendment test the notion that there has to be breathing space for the occasional good faith mistake. that's what happened here.

and that's what the evidence showed over and over again. >> even at the time the supreme court made the statement about breathing space, i'm not sure anyone could have contemplated the 24/7 news cycle and the different iterations. we still have the standards to make sure we're complying with. it's interesting to think about the way she is framing this. but she says she may still appeal to the supreme court to test "the new york times" if she is unsuccessful here. is it likely to be changed in some significant way, do you think? >> i don't think so. there could be some refinement. i think the media landscape has changed. and you're right, there is a balance. people do have the right the protect their reputation. but the supreme court i don't think is going to overturn "new york times" versus sullivan. it's the cornerstone of our first amendment jurisprudence. it's important to democracy. so i think it's a long shot. but that's what's going on here. she is trying to get the courts to change the rules. others are too.

that would be bad for our democracy. bad for everyone who wants to have a free and open debate in our society. >> ted boutrous, you are a very, very smart man. but i also look at the supreme court and say they've been inclined to test precedent very recently. i hope perhaps you're right about the cornerstones actually being maintained. ted boutrous, thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> thanks, laura. and now to the ongoing standoff at our border with canada. protesters on the canadian side have been actually blocking one of north america's biggest commercial gateways for days now, and it's causing all kinds of disruptions. we have the mayor of windsor, ontario, a bridge away from detroit, the motor city. so what are the options to diffuse the tensions? and how this problem going to get fixed before it gets worse? that's next.

♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass. (vo) jamaica. (woman) best decision ever. (vo) feel the sand between your toes, and the gentle waves of the sea on your skin. feel the warm jamaican breeze lift your spirits and nourish your soul. escape to exactly what makes your heart beat. you will love every moment. jamaica. heartbeat of the world. let's go.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

canadians trying to feed their families, and american workers trying to earn a paycheck are the ones feeling the impact of scenes like these. for four days now, traffic on the ambassador bridge has been disrupted. now that bridge connects detroit and windsor and is the busiest international crossing in north america. that's in addition to the almost two-week-long siege of the capital city's downtown core and a blockade shutting down a crossing between manitoba and north dakota. now look, it's not accurate to call what's happening in places like windsor simply a trucker protest. cnn reporters on the scene tell us there are many more nontruckers that are there than are actually truckers. closing those bridges actually cut canadians off from food. you know, the u.s. exports $21 billion in food to canada every single year. and meanwhile, american automakers are sending home some

workers because their plants are now cut off from the part they actually need to keep the assembly lines moving. one economic group estimates lost wages from michigan auto workers just this week alone, mind you, could top $51 million. and this might actually spread. the dhs is preparing for a similar scene here in washington, d.c. next month. and they also issued a warning about similar plans to try to disrupt traffic even around the super bowl in l.a. windsor mayor drew dillkens is seeing the impact firsthand and he joins us right now. mayor, thank you for being here today. i got to say, for many people looking at, this this idea of calling it a protest involving just truckers or thinking they know precisely why everyone is protesting is actually not true, right? it's very amorphous. you called it sort of a leaderless group. that right? >> it is a leaderless group. in many ways it reminds me of

the occupy wall street movement where no one was quite clear what the end game was. and so that is in some ways what we have playing out on the streets here. and in addition, i would describe some of the protesters to be more like the ones you would find at a regular g7 or g20 meeting, where they're just angry at government and as they say, willing to die for the cause. that's problematic when you're on the ground trying to deal with this in a policing or a sensible type way. >> if someone is willing to die for a cause, there might be violence in the actual event. have you tried to take more policing actions to troy to disperse people from this area? are we there yet? >> so police have done a really good job trying to negotiate with the protesters. but there is no one leader and there is no one common theme. you can make an agreement with one person and easily have that overturned by a group that is just a few cars away. so it's been difficult for police to do that.

there have been incidents of violence where protesters have wrapped tire irons and they've had to disengage. it's an illegal blockade. it is a protest that we support the hallmark of our respected democracies all about understanding and being able to listen to people and communicate, express one's self. that's okay. what's not okay here is blocking the busiest international commercial corridor between the united states and canada that every single day carries $400 million of goods back and forth between our respective countries. >> and as you say, this idea of this international crossing in particular, obviously we're balancing the notions of people having the right the protest in a peaceful way that's not disruptive perhaps as well. but as you mention, the idea if the end game is not clear, if there is not the coordination, how does this end then? you're in a very precarious position, knowing that it hurts your community. it's hurting frankly north america as well. so how does it end?

what does it take to actually get it to stop? do you have any idea of where to go next? >> hopefully it ends peacefully. that's the ultimate goal from all sides to make sure we're dealing with folks in a fair and reasonable way and this ends peacefully. no one wants to see anyone get injured or harmed. but at the end of the day, if they won't leave peacefully, there will have to be action that is taken to help move these people out. and if that involves bringing in tow trucks, if that involves bringing in additional police support from across ontario and across canada, so be it. we're already starting to arrive here. and we're going to have police support to be prepared for any eventuality. >> and what kind of support are you getting sort of nationwide about this issue? obviously north america, are you getting coordination on this side of the border? obviously a lot of americans might look at this and think this is a canadian problem, but really it's a north american issue at this point in time. what kind of coordination is

there? >> i've had conversations with the governor, michigan's office, the mayor in detroit and certainly everyone i've spoken with has offered to provide whatever assistance we need. so at this point, from a u.s. perspective, we appreciate all that is happening and all that is being offered. right now the situation is under control. tomorrow we go to court at noon to seek an injunction to help police have documentation in their back pocket that they can present to this group of protesters and say time to move on. and if they're unwilling to move on, we will bring in the tow trucks and the equipment that will help move the vehicles out of the way to reopen this border crossing. because it is too essential to both of our national economies and the livelihood of this border crossing puts orb or the importance of this border crossing puts a lot of bread on the table for families on both sides of the border. >> i echo your sentiment and hope that this will be peaceful. but, you know, if people are talking about their convictions and they're already enganged in

behavior that is disruptive, how much confidence can you put in a piece of paper that the cops will be able to show? what if they don't want to go? how are tow trucks navigating this blockade in some way. logistically, what can you do to change things if they don't want to leave and don't want to respect coming from the government and a piece of paper? >> yeah, i get that this junction would be a single piece of paper. but it gives police more weight in the actions they are prepared to make. and they will do what is operationally required to move people out. you can't have anarchty ki take over the community. you can't have anarchy shut down the busiest border crossing between our two nations there has to be resolve here. to the extent possible we want it to end peacefully. no one wants anyone to get hurt. but at the end of the day we're prepared to go in and move folks out if that's required to open the border crossing. >> you've got quite a job ahead of you, and of course everyone

is watching. thank you for taking the time and i wish you all the best of luck to resolve it. it's in our owl collective interests. so thank you. >> thank you very much. look, talking about logjams. i mean, senators have finally struck a deal to reauthorize the violence against women act. after three years of negotiations, by the way. angelina jolie got emotional advocating for it. and i'll tell you what is the most unconscionable thing about that delay, next. people with moderate to severe psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, are rethinking the choices they make like the splash they create the way they exaggerate the surprises they initiate. otezla. it's a choice you can make. otezla is not an injection or a cream it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable,

with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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.

(music) waiter: here's your salad. who said you have to starve yourself to lose weight? who said that only that style looks great? who said only this is good? and this is bad? who said you can't do dinner? yeah! who said you have to put your life on hold while losing weight? who said you can't wear color? who said you can't enjoy a night out? who said... who cares. 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. who says you have to wait until monday? talk to your doctor or visit myplenity.com to learn more. so, we got to talk about a headline that you may have missed this week. there is a deal that was reached on capitol hill to renew the violence against women act. and it came with the help of starpower, too. activists and actress angelina jolie, who has made several trips to washington, d.c. in just recent months to push for this very legislation. and it was notable, not just because her daughter shared in her advocacy, but for how

emotional she got as she shamed congress for its silence. >> the reason that many people struggle to leave abusive situations is that they have been made to feel worthless when there is silence from a congress, too busy to renew the violence against women act for a decade, it reinforces that sense of worthlessness. you think, i guess my abuser's right. i guess, i'm not worth very much. most of all, i want to acknowledge the children who are terrified, and suffering at this moment, and the many people for whom this legislation comes too late. the women who have suffered through this system with little or no support, who still carry the pain and trauma of their abuse, the young adults who have survived abuse and emerged stronger not because of the

child protective system, but despite it. and the women and children who have died, who could have been saved. >> let me take a step back for a moment because there is actually more to this headline that should bother all of us. it's, frankly, unbelievable that we even need to have a violence against women act. but we do. it's, also, unbelievable the violence against women act was allowed to expire in 2018 but it did. and even in a political climate, such as this, frankly, it's unbelievable that it took more than three years to negotiate a way to renew, let alone strengthen, that act. but it did. but, what is absolutely unconscionable is that it actually came down to the nra. and why? because they opposed a loophole known as the "boyfriend

loophole." what is it? well, as it currently standings, the act ensure that anyone convicted -- not just accused but convicted -- as in, due process occurred here, convicted of misdemeanor-domestic violence would not be allowed to own or possess a gun. and for the last few years, senators have been trying to expand that prohibition to not just married partners but to those who live together or those who share a child but also those who are dating partners or stalkers and others covered by a protection order. but -- well, the nra didn't like it. they opposed a limitation on gun ownership in general, even in spite of the obvious truth that it made women and children more vulnerable to violence, more vulnerable to abuse, and more likely to be killed by their abuser, who would now have the means to kill. i saw this so many times as a prosecutor. look, we had domestic vie hence and the first thing we would ask, of course, is not to have a

gun be allowed to be in the possession. but you would think, in examining it, you wonder who should have been more powerful in these negotiations? women and children, who have every right to be protected from violence? or gun lobbying organization, like the nra? you know, we talk a good game in this country about how we want a government to be of the people, and by the people and for the people. but times like this remind us that it is increasingly becoming a government of the lobbyists, by the special interests. and frankly, for the love of money. and even when it means violence against women persists. i guess, just as long as you don't upset the apple cart of the nra, well apparently the little ladies can take a seat. look. maybe, altruism isn't your thing. maybe, you only see the bottom line. okay. well, how about this?

the air force was just forced to pay $230 million to survivors and families of those killed in the 2017 mass shooting at the first baptist church in sutherland springs. on monday, a federal judge found the military was mostly at fault for failing to report the shooter's domestic violence-related convictions to the fbi, which could have prevented him from purchasing the semiautomatic rifle that he used in that mass shooting. you realize, he fired more than 450 rounds into that church? he killed 26 people, including a pregnant woman. how did the nra respond? well, they doubled down on the myth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. when really, the bad guy with the gun shouldn't have had it, in the first place. it's a loophole, though, nonetheless, supported by the

nra. but what won't the nra support? well, lawful gun owners like, maybe, amir locke or philando castile killed by police officers in my home state of minnesota. apparently, those aren't the kinds of causes they prioritize. i mean, lawfully carrying a gun and alerting the police of its presence when the car you are driving in is pulled over? not sure this is the right case for us and the nra. a man sleeping under a blanket jolted awake by a no-knock warrant being executed even when it wasn't even intended for him? not sure we had the time or maybe the resources. a convicted stalker who wants to carry a gun for the next time he violates a restraining order? ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. now, that's in line with our mission statement. and the fact that congress's mission was thwarted for three years because of it? my, that is quite a statement, america. i rest my case.

trelegy for copd. [coughing] ♪ birds flyin' high, you know how i feel. ♪ ♪ breeze driftin' on by... ♪ if you've been playing down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day,... ♪ ...it's time to make a stand. start a new day with trelegy. ♪...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ no once-daily copd medicine... has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups.

trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, and save at trelegy.com. ♪ ♪ some people say if you want to see america, see it on the 4th of july. but america is just as beautiful on the 4th of january or february. stripped of its leaves but not drained of its color. no one experiences a true american winter the same way. but those with the confidence and capability of the all new 2022 grand wagoneer, will remember the adventure as long as they live. ♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪

[doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass. yep, it's go time on the most reliable network.

you get unlimited for just $30 bucks. nice! but mine has 5g included. yep, even these guys get it. and the icing on the cake? saving up to $400 bucks? exactly! xfinity mobile. it's wireless that does it all and saves a lot. get the new samsung galaxy s22 series on xfinity mobile. and right now, save big with up to $750 off a new samsung device. switch today.

well, that's it for us tonight. i will be back tomorrow. "don lemon tonight," of course, with don lemon, starts right now. >> how do you qualify this one? because remember, last time, it was lock her up! but her e-mail. so, is this one but his toilet? i mean -- >> do you know how many times i have been trying to avoid puns all day today? you really -- you cannot help but step right in it all day. i am challenging you to how many times you are going to have to step right in it, and go flushing down the drain and circle -- everything is going to be a problem, everything. >> yeah. well, how does the thing go? ♪ but away those troubles down the drain ♪ >> that wasn't draino, what was that? roto rooter. that was