welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. in moments we'll hear directly from the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. senator mcconnell telling cnn last hour he will address the president's targeted airstrike overnight which has so dramatically turned up the tensions with iran. tehran promising revenge, what its military force is calling a crushing response after the united states used a drone to take out iran's top general qasem soleimani. the president tweeting that soleimani killed thousands of americans and was responsible

for the death of millions of people in the middle east. a congressional source telling cnn that soleimani was in the middle of plotting specific attacks on u.s. interests, including u.s. personnel. the sources say those plans were maturing and described the concern as being beyond the normal chatter. here on cnn, the u.s. secretary of state without commenting on the specific intelligence said these strikes saved american lives. >> john, i can't talk too much about the nature of the threats, but the american people should know that president trump's decision to remove qasem soleimani from the battlefield saved american lives, there is no doubt about that. he was actively plotting in the region to take big action, as he described it, that would have put dozens, if not hundreds, of american lives at risk. it was imminent. this was an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process. it was enormous.

the president acted decisively last night. >> secretary mike pompeo speaking to cnn earlier today. congressional leaders, meanwhile, they are demanding answers. sources tell cnn that officials from the state department, the intelligence committee will review some key information on the airstrike. executives are examining every angle of the strike, the anticipated fallout, the political debate from around the globe. let's go to cnn's ryan browne. he's at the pentagon for us. first of all, ryan, what are you learning about the attacks that soleimani, according to u.s. officials, was planning? >> reporter: well, wolf, multiple sources are telling cnn that soleimani had been putting some final touches on some attacks planned on u.s. interests and personnel both in iraq and the wider region. these attacks were building on previous strikes that

iranian-backed forces had attempted to conduct in the u.s. region, some 11 rocket attacks in recent months, one which killed an american contractor. but there were additional plots being orchestrated by soleimani, according to recent intelligence, and those plots were maturing to the point where striking him with a drone became an imminent necessity and a strategic necessity to do that quickly so he could not continue plotting these attacks in the wake of the rocket attacks and the iranian-backed militia attempt to storm the embassy. there was concern enough to prompt this strike, even though u.s. officials were well aware of the potential fallout, given the potential for iranian retaliation. >> what does the pentagon say for how they're preparing about almost certain iranian retaliation? >> the pentagon has made zero comments since that statement last night. we haven't heard much of anything at all. but the defense has told me they have put all their troops in the

middle east and asia. that's 10,000 troops spreading in the middle east to pakistan -- >> hold on, ryan, the senate majority leader speaking on the senate floor. >> reporter: an active state man of terrorism has been removed from the battlefield at the hand of the united states military. no man alive was more directly responsible for the deaths of more american servicemembers than qasem soleimani. the leader of the quds force within iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. soleimani's schemes and his agents killed hundreds of american servicemembers in iraq and afghanistan. he personally oversaw the state-sponsored terrorism that iran used to kill our sons and our daughters.

and as we've seen in recent days and weeks, he and his terrorists posed an ongoing and growing threat to american lives and american interests. soleimani made it his life's work to take the iranian revolutionary call for death to america and death to israel and turned them into action. but this terrorist mastermind was not just a threat to the united states and israel, f. for more than a decade, he masterminded iran's malevolent and destabilizing work throughout the entire middle east. he created, sustained and directed terrorist proxies everywhere from yemen to iraq to syria to lebanon.

innocents were killed. desovereigned countries were destabilized. in syria, these leading agents andand accomplices to assad ande syrian people. in iraq, he expanded the iranian influence to the iraqis themselves. his dark centarian vision discounted thousands of sunni arabs and paved the way for isis. with isis largely defeated, soleimani and their agents turned their sights on controlling the iraqi people, who through massive protests are rejecting not only a corrupt government but also iran's influence over that government.

and once again, there were iran and its proxies facilitating violence against these peaceful protesters. for too long -- for too long -- this evil man operated without constraint and countless innocents have suffered for it. now his terrorist leadership has been ended. now predictably enough in this political environment, the operation that led to soleimani's death may prove controversial or divisive. although i anticipate and welcome a debate about america's interest in foreign policy in the middle east, i recommend that all senators wait to review the facts and hear from the administration before passing

much public judgment on this operation and its potential consequences. the administration will be briefing staff today on the situation in iraq. we're working to arrange a briefing for all senators early next week. for my part i've spoken to the secretary of defense, and i'm encouraged by the steps the u.s. military is taking to defend american personnel and interests from a growing iranian threat. i speak for the entire senate when i say that my prayers are with all american diplomats, personnel and brave servicemembers serving in iraq and in the middle east. i'm grateful for their courageous service to protect our country. right from the outset of this new year, it is already clear that 2020 will require the senate and our whole nation to redouble our resolve to keep

america safe in this troubled world. now on an entirely different matter, of course we also anticipate another totally different very serious item will be heading the senate's way soon. the senate will have to address some of the deepest institutional questions contemplated by our constitution. we'll have to decide whether we're going to safeguard core governing traditions or let short-term partisan rage overcome them. back in december, i explained how house democrats sprint into the most rushed, least fair, and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history has jeopardized the foundations of our system of government. last spring, speaker pelosi told the country, quote, impeachment

is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path. that was the speaker less than a year ago. back in 1998, when democrats were busy defending president clinton, congressman jerry nadler said, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, said congressman jerry nadler 20 years ago. that was obviously a standard when a democrat was in the white house. but ultimately house democrats cared more about attacking president trump than keeping their promises. so they rushed through a slap-dash investigation. they decided not to bother with

the standard legal processes for pursuing witnesses and evidence. they don't have time to do that. chairman adam schiff told the entire country on national television that getting a court decision takes a long time. he didn't want to wait. it takes a long time to go to court. so he just plowed ahead. plowed right ahead with a historically weak case and impeached a duly elected president with votes from just one -- just one -- political party. democrats have let trump derangement syndrome develop into a dangerous partisan fever that our founding fathers were afraid of. and then mr. president, just before the holidays, this sad spectacle, took another unusual

turn. as soon as the partisan impeachment votes had finished, the prosecutors began to develop cold feet. instead of sending the articles to the senate, they flinched. they flinched. that's right, the same people who just spent weeks screaming that impeachment was so serious and so urgent that it couldn't wait for due process now decided it could waiti indefinitely whie they checked the political wind and checked some new talking points. this is another situation where house democrats have blown right past the specific warnings of our founding fathers. alexander hamilton specifically warned about the dangers of a, quote, procrastinated determination of the charges.

he said it was not fair to the accused and it was dangerous to the country. speaker pelosi apparently does not care. her congress is behaving just like the representatives that hamilton warned might abuse the impeachment power. so as house democrats continue their political delay, they're searching desperately for some new talking point to help them deflect blame for what they've done. we've heard it claimed that the same house democrats that botched their own process should get to reach over here into the senate and dictate our process. we've heard claims there's a problem that i've discussed trial mechanics with the white house.

even as my counterpart, the democratic leader is openly coordinating political strategy with the speaker who some might call the prosecution. so it's okay to have consultation with the prosecution but not, apparently, with the defendant. oh, and we've heard claims that any senators who have formed opinions about house democrats' irresponsible unprecedented actions as they play it out in view of the entire nation should be qualified from the next phase. obviously, mr. president, this is nonsense. nonsense. let me clarify senate rules and senate history for those who may be confused. first, about this fantasy that the speaker of the house will get to hand-design the trial of the proceedings in the senate, that's obviously a non-starter.

what i've consistently said is pretty simple. the structure for this impeachment trial should track with the structure of the clinton trial. we have a precedent here. that means two phases. first, back in 1999, the senate passed a unanimous bipartisan resolution 100-0 that set up the initial logistics like briefs, opening arguments and senator questions. it stayed solid on mid-trial questions such as witnesses until the trial was actually underway. that was a 100-0. somewhat predictably, things started to emerge on party lines

when we proceeded with those questions. but the initial resolution, laying out the first half of the trial, was approved 100-0. i believe we should simply repeat that unanimous bipartisan precedent this time as well. that's my position. president trump should get the same treatment that every single senator thought was fair for president clinton. just like 20 years ago, we should address mid-trial questions such as witnesses after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions and other relevant motions. fair is fair. now, let's discuss these lectures about how senators should do our jobs. the oath that senators take in impeachment trials to, quote, do

impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, end quote, has never meant that senators should wall themselves off from the biggest news story in the nation and completely ignore what the house has been doing. the oath has never meant that senators check all their political judgment at the door and strip away all of our independent judgment about what is best for the nation. it has never meant that and it never could. the farmeounders debated whethe give the trial of impeachment to the court or to the senate, and decided on the senate precisely because impeachment not a narrow legal question. impeachment is not a narrow legal question but a deeply political one as well.

hamilton said this explicitly in federalist 65. impeachment requires the senate to address both legal questions about what has been proved and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires. senators do not cease to be senators skbrus because the house sends us articles of impeachment. our job remains the same, to represent our states, our constituents, and our nation's best interests in the great matters of our time. that is our obligation whether we are voting on legislation, nominations or the verdict entering impeachment. 20 years ago, i might add, democrats understood all of this

very well. president clinton had obviously committed an actual felony. president clinton had actually committed a felony. if democrats actually believed in the narrow sense of impartiality, they've now adopted as a talking point, then every single one of them would have voted to remove president clinton from office. oh, no, but instead a majority of the senate decided removing the president despite his actual crimes would not best serve the nation. mr. president, they made a political judgment. and by the way, back then leading democrats had zero -- zero -- objections to senators speaking out before the trial.

the current democratic leader, senator schumer, was running for the senate during the house impeachment process back in 1998. he voted against the articles both in the house judiciary committee and on the house floor. and a major part of his senate campaign that year -- listen to this -- was literally promising new yorkers in advance -- in advance -- that he would vote to acquit president clinton. people ask if it was appropriate for him to prejudge like that. he dismissed the question, saying, quote, this is not a criminal trial but something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was acceptable to the whims of politics.

that was a democratic leader in the '98 senate campaign. that was a newly sworn-in senator schumer in 1999. a few weeks later, during the trial itself, democratic senator tom harkin successfully objected to the use of the word "jurors" to describe senators because the analogy to a narrow legal proceeding was so inappropriate, according to senator harkin so look, mr. president, i respect our friends across the aisle, but it appears that bun symptom of trump derangement syndrome is also a bad case of amnesia. a bad case of amnesia. and no member of this body needs

condescending lectures on fairness from house democrats who just rush through the most unfair impeachment in modern history or lectures on impartiality from senators who happily prejudge the case with president clinton and simply change their standards to suit the political wind. anyone who understands american history or understands the constitution knows that a senator's role in an impeachment trial is nothing, nothing like the job of jurors in the legal system. the very things that make the senate the right forum to settle impeachment would disqualify all of us in an ordinary trial. all of us would be disqualified in an ordinary trial.

like many americans, senators have made attention to the facts and the arguments. many have rolled out publicly. many of us know the parties on both sides. look, this is a political body. we do not stand apart on the issues of the day. it is our job to be deeply engaged in those issues. but, and this is critical, the senate is unique by design. the framers built the senate to provide a check against short-termism, the runaway passions, and the demon of faction that hamilton warned would extend this ceptor at the house of representatives in certain seasons. we exist because the founders

wanted an institution that could stop momentary hysteria and partisan passions from damaging our republic. an institution that could be thoughtful, be sober and take the long view. and that is why the constitution puts the impeachment trial in this place. not because senators should pretend they're uninformed, unopinion a unopinionated or disinterested in the long-term questions that the president of the impeachment imposes, but because we are informed, we are opinionated and we can take up these weighty questions. that is the meaning of the oath we take. that is the task that lies before us. impartial justice means making

up our minds on the right basis. it means putting aside reflexive partnerships and putting aside relationships and animosities. it means coolly reviewing the facts the house has presented and then making the verdicts that are best for our states, our constitution, and our way of life. it means seeing clearly not what some might wish the house of representatives had proven but what they actually have or have not proven. it means looking past a single new cycle to see how overturning an election would reverberate for generations. so, look, you better believe senators have started forming

critical questions over these weeks and months. we sure have, especially in light of the precedent-breaking th theatrics that the house chooses to engage in. but here we are, mr. president. their turn is over. they've done enough damage. it's the senate's turn now to render social judgment as the framers envisioned. but we can't hold a trial without the articles. the senate's own rules don't provide for that. so for now we're content to continue the ordinary business of the senate while house democrats continue to flounder. for now. but if they ever muster the courage to stand behind their slap-dash work product and transmit their articles to the

senate, it will then be time for the united states senate to fulfill our founding purpose. >> there is the senate majority leader there, mitch mcconnell, issuing a two-pronged statement, the first part reacting to the u.s. targeting of qasem soleimani, killing him at the baghdad international airport, saying that no man alive is more responsible for the death of american military personnel, strongly defending the president's decision, saying this individual qasem soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american military personnel in iraq and afghanistan. the second part of his lengthy

address involved what's happening with the impeachment trial in the senate as far as the president of the united states is concerned. he says this was the most unfair, the least fair impeachment process in the house of representatives. he says it's an historically weak case all designed by what he called a trump derangement syndrome by the democrats in the house of representatives. he said what they should do now if the articles of impeachment are transferred from the speaker nancy pelosi to the senate is do what they did some 21 years ago when there was an impeachment trial of bill clint no one the, have statements on both sides and then decide whether to call witnesses. let's get back to the breaking news on the death of qasem soleimani. ryan browne is at the pentagon. i understand you're getting more information on u.s. troops about to be deployed to the region. >> reporter: that's right, wolf,

new information. several thousand u.s. soldiers will be deployed to the middle east, we're being told by defense officials. this is a step that will help bolster the u.s. military's presence in the region. they had already been placed on a stand-by status earlier around the crisis of the american embassy. the pentagon had actually sent 750 paratroopers to the region from kuwait to act as a rapid response. 7,000, 3,000 or so additional soldiers will be headed to the region to help bolster the u.s.-mill tlaer, but also in t

tl tlt. there will be an dachttle they are hunkering down with this additional protection. they will be joining forces there to provide additional support, additional security amid these high tensions with iran amid fears there might be some retaliatory action by iran or their militia groups in the region. >> we're talking another 3,000 in the american division. 3,000 troops are about to be deployed in the region. does that mean qatar or the region, or does it mean iraq itself? >> we believe at this time that the additional thousands will at least initially go to kuwait. that's pretty common in this situation. they'll go there first and if of. they will be split up among

these various. they were sfoernt. they want to have various locations in kuwait if something should spring up. >> about 3,000 troops from the 82nd airborne division about to be deployed. ryan, i know you're getting more information. we'll get back to you shortly. coming up, capitol hill responds to the death of qasem soleimani. the top democrat in the foreign relations committee is standing by. we'll get his reaction, many --

when we come back.when we come back. chuck schumer, the majority leader of the senate, now speaking on the senate floor

responding to the majority leader. let's listen in. >> no one should shed a tear over his death. the operation against soleimani in iraq was conducted, however, without specific authorization and any advance notification or consultation with congress. i'm a member of the gang of 8, which is typically briefed in advance of operations of this level of significance. we were not. the lack of advanced consultation with congress was put in the constitution, or rather, the need for advanced consultation and transparency with congress was put in the constitution for a reason. because the lack of advanced consultation and transparency with congress can lead to hasty and ill-considered decisions. when the security of the nation is at stake, decisions must not be made in a vacuum.

the framers of the constitution gave war powers to the legislature and made the executive the commander in chief for the precise region forcing the two branches of government to consult with one another when it came to matters of war and of peace. it is paramount for administrations to get on outside view, to perform rash action. to ask probing questions, not from your inner and often insulated circle, but from others, particularly congress, which forces an administration before it acts to answer very serious questions. the administration did not consult in this case, and i fear that those very serious questions have not been answered and may not be fully considered.

among those questions, what was the legal basis for performing this operation and how far does the legal basis extend? iran has a number of surrogates in the region and a range of possible responses. which responses do we expect? which are most likely? do we have plans to counter all of the possible responses? how effective will our counters be? what does this action mean for the long-term stability of iraq and the trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives sacrificed there. how does the administration plan to manage hostilities, and how does the administration plan to

manage the conflagration in the middle east? these are questions that must be answered. it is my view that the president does not have authority for a war with iran. if he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time, the administration will require congressional approval and the approval of the american people. the president's decision may add to an already dangerous and difficult situation in the middle east. the risk of a much longer engagement in the middle east and acute and immediate. this action may well have brought our nation closer to another endless war, exactly the kind of endless war the president promised he would not drag us into. as our citizens and those of our

allies evacuate iraq and troops prepare for retaliatory action, congress needs answers to these questions and others from the administration immediately. and the american people need answers as well. on impeachment. mr. president, the senate begins this new session of congress preparing to do something that has happened only twice before in american history, serving as a court of impeachment in a trial of the president of the united states. president donald trump stands accused by one of the offices of offenses the founding fathers most feared when it came to stability of this republic. abusing the powers of his office for personal gain, soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections to

benefit himself. the house has also charged the president with obstructing congress in the investigation into those matters. the consequence of an unprecedented blockade of relevant witnesses and documents, flatly denying the legislative branch's constitutional authority to provide oversight of the executive. as all eyes turn to the senate, the question before us is, will we fulfill our duty to conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the united states, or will we not? that is the most pressing question facing the senate at the outset of this second session of the 116th congress. will we conduct a fair trial that examines all the facts or not? the country just saw senator mcconnell's answer to that

question. his answer is no. instead of trying to find the truth, he is still using this same feeble talking points that he was using last december. the country just saw how the republican leader views his responsibility that the pivotal moment in its nation's history. the public leader prefers finger pointing and name many calling to avoidancing the looming question. why shouldn't the senators call witnesses? the republican leader hasn't given one good reason why there shouldn't be relevant wntsz or relevant documents. we did not hear one from leader mcconnell today or any day. once again leader mcconnell tried to bury his audience under an avalanche of partial recriminations and references to

precedents. there is only one precedent that matters here. that never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial of the president and where the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. let me repeat that. that is the salient fact here. there is only one precedent that matters. there has never, ever in the history of our country been an impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. yet the republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the american people. leader mcconnell has been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. leader mcconnell reminds us today and in previous days that

rather than acting like a judge and a juror, he intends to act as the competent person in the impeachment trial. this will be decided by this chamber, not by the republican leader alone. the crux of this still is whether they wiwe will receive documented evidence against the president. there have been several events that have bolstered my argument for specific documents. nothing in that time has bolstered leader mcconnell's argument that there shouldn't be relevant witnesses or documents. on december 21st, the center for

public integrity obtained emails through a freedom for information act request that showed that michael duffey, a top omb official and one of the four witnesses i requested asked the defense department, quote, to hold off for 90 minutes after president trump's july phone call with ukranian president zelensky. on december 29th, the "new york times" report contained several refr legislatio revelations about the extent of chief mulvaney's involvement. about the lawyers, omb, justice and the white house to create legal justifications for the delay in assistance and about the depth of opposition, too. and, indeed, alarm about the delay in military assistance from parts of the administration, particularly the

pentagon. then just yesterday there was a new report about a trove of newly redacted emails that fully exposed the serious concerns raised by trump administration officials about the propriety and legality of the president's decision to delay military assistance to ukraine. one of those emails released yesterday was from michael duffey, one of the witnesses we've requested to the pentagon controller. and it read, quote, clear direction from potus, the president, to continue the hold. clear direction from the president to continue the hold is what duffey wrote. what constituted clear direction? did he get an order from the

president, or did someone like mr. mulvaney get an order from the president passed on to mr. duffey? was there discussion among officials about covering up for the president in delay of military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a did he ever stati-- devastating blow t leader mcconnell's push without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth. with these new emails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the

evidence that was obtained by the recent foyer requests has been heavily redacted. here is an email chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted, every word crossed out, not available, can't be seen. here's another email with the subject line, apportionment. between officials at the omb and the pentagon, completely redacted. none of the words can be seen at all. we know now that some of these redactions were covered up, but only some of it. why did they redact the sections they redacted?

who ordered the redactions? why are they covering up? what are they hiding? these questions must be asked. when you are accused of something, you don't suppress evidence that will exonerate you. the fact that the administration is going to such lengths to prevent such emails from coming out is extraordinarily telling. it seems like they themselves feel they are guilty. getting the full documentary record would undoubtedly shed light on the issues at hand. these were senior trump officials discussing the delay in military assistance to ukraine. who ordered it, why it was ordered, whether or not it was legal and how it was connected to the effort to pressure ukraine into announcing investigations regarding a political rival of the president. and these emails represent just

a sliver of the documentary evidence that exists in this case. there was an exceedingly strong case to call witnesses and request documents before the senate went out of session for the christmas break. in the short time since, that case has gotten stronger and remarkably so. we are not asking for critics of the president to serve as witnesses in the trial. we are asking only that the president's men, his top advisers, tell their side of the story. and leader mcconnell, once again, has been unable to make one argument, one single argument as to why these witnesses and these documents should not be part of a trial. now, i want to respond to one

suggestion by leader mcdonnell, that we follow the 1999 example of beginning the impeachment trial first and deciding on witnesses and documents at a later date. first, to hear mcconnell say no witnesses now but maybe some later is just another indication that he has no documents or witnesses on the merits. will leader mcconnell submit to witnesses and documents now and discuss timing later? second, leader mcconnell's comparisons to 1999 are hopelessly flawed and inaccurate. there were witnesses in 1999, leader mcconnell. you want the president of 1999, there were witnesses, as there were in every single impeachment trial of the president in history. it would be a break in presidcet

for there not to be witnesses. third, there was even a greater rationale for witnesses in the clinton trial. in 1999, the witnesses in question had will testified. they had already testified under oath. ex ten-- and there are also questions on the floor of the senate. the witnesses we've requested never testified under oath, and the documents we've requested have not been produced. fourth, we have a tradition in america of a fair and speedy tri trial. that's why we've requested only the relevant information up front so the trial can truly be speedy and fair. it makes no sense, and, in fact, it is a ruse to suggest that the senate wait until the end of the trial to settle the hardest question when it might take time

for witnesses to prepare testimony and for the senate to review new documentary evidence. we can and should begin that process now and ensure the trial is supported by the facts and doesn't suffer unnecessary delays. fifth and finally, when leader mcconnell suggests both sides present their arguments and then deal with witnesses, he is essentially proposing to conduct a whole trial and then, once the trial is basically over, consider the question of evidence. that makes no sense. that's "alice in wonderland" logic. the trial must be considered in evidence, not the other way around. the witnesses must present all the evidence to make their case, not present their case and then ask for all the evidence that's

out there. so if we don't get a commitment up front that the house managers will be able to call witnesses as part of their case, the senate will act as little more than a nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club. if we leave the question of witnesses and documents until after all the presentations are complete, leader mcconnell will argue that the senate has heard enough, we shouldn't prolong the trial any longer. at that point you can be sure he'll label anyone he wants to subpoena evidence as a partisan who wants to drag the whole affair out. i know this because he's already told us what his position will be. this is not a mystery. quote, after we've heard the arguments, leader mcconnell said on fox news, be ougwe ought to

and move on. does that sound like someone in good faith who needs the senate to consider witnesses at a later date? no, it does not. leader mcconnell's proposal to vote on witnesses and documents later is nothing more than a poorly disguised trap. after we've heard the arguments, leader mcconnell said, we ought to vote and move on. all of my fellow senators, democrat and republican, should take stock of the leader's words and remember the commitment he made on national television to take his cues from the white house. so i say to the chair, it may feel like we are no closer to establishing the rules for a senate trial than when we last met. but the question, the vital question of whether or not we have a fair trial ultimately

rests with the majority of the senators in this chamber. the president faces gravely serious charges, abuse of power, abuse of his public trust, soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections, unprecedented obstruction of congress, and if convicted, the president faces the most severe punishment our constitution imagines. the framers gave us, this chamber, the united states senate, the sole power to discharge this most difficult and somber duty. will the senate rise to the occasion? i yield the floor. >> all right, a lengthy response from senator chuck schumer, the top democrat in the senate response to the senate majority mitch mcconnell. on both issues, the potential escalation of military activity

in the middle east following the killing of qasem soleimani, the head of the quds force in iran, also a lengthy explanation of the strong disagreements between the republic skpanz the dand th on the issue of impeachment. senator menendez has been patiently waiting to join us. senator, thank you for waiting. let me get to the breaking news that the u.s. is about to deploy thousands, thousands more troops to the middle east, including maybe 3,000 troops from the 82nd airborne division. what's your reaction to that? >> well, my reaction to this is what i've been saying for the better part of last year, and that's that the administration needs to come before congress and present what it is their strategy to deal with iran. and what we've seen between the missile strikes in syria and iraq and then the assassination

it of beyond those we already have is an explanation to the president of the united states and the intent of going to war with the administrative dong. number one, it was to make us understand what was the intelligence that led them to take out soleimani now? mpltd. is the value of taking out soleimani greater than the reputation? both republican and democrat decided not to do it. now that this administration has decided to taken owl? postpone the threat or simply cancel it.

what we have is a series of threats that are escalating and it was brought by the president of the united states. >> did he have authorization to conduct the drone strike that led to the killing of soleimani? >> there was a drone strike and therefore an instruction to use the drone quickly. we have to see if the president was right in making this determination, or if the facts simply don't rise to the occasion of the potential threat that follows on many american lives and sooifrcivilians in ir

stabilization of the region, so no one is going to lament his death. but what follows on is the critical security of the united states, and from my perspective, the potential for a regional war. >> senator menendez, we heard senator schumer, your colleague, say if the u.s. is going to deploy more troops to that area, it requires congressional approval. we just got word that 3,000 troops are about to be deployed to that part of the world. does that require a new authorization from the u.s. senate and the house of representatives. >> from my perspective, if what you're doogs. . that starts with the foreign relations committee for operation in the use of military force. we have not had many any word to

justify the attack on soleimani or what is their plan moving forward. these are urgent responsibilities of the administration, to come before congress and tell us what happened that they made this decision and where they're going from here, and how they're going to protect. i mean, the potential for asymmetrical warfare with iran is enormous. they have proxies throughout the region, they can use hezbollah through the state of israel, they have houthis. they can strike in oil facilities in saudi arabia, the emirates and elsewherement. our diplomats around the globe are in potential tledanger.

>> are we in danger after the death of qasem soleimani? >> one could argue that it's more safe. on the same token, he will be replaced. others have been planning with him, and the question is what will iran do? depending on iran's response to that realthough dwrags, it wo d would -- they don't have to attack us straight on, but the asymmetrical warfare they can

carry on in the skprethe region the world is vast. a sleeper cell in the united states that could ultimately dra crate domestic terrorist attack, there are a lot of options here. and we have unlocked that. >> thank you, senator bob menendez, for joining us on this important day. thank you for watching "wolf blitzer in the situation room." in the meantime, brianna keilar picks it up right now. i'm brianna keilar from cnn's washington headquarters. breaking news, thousands of u.s. troops will be deployed to the middle east followed by unrest between the u.s. and iran. the u.s. killed iran's most revered and feared commander