willing to testify in the case of a subpoena. the question is will he be subpoenaed? >> this shifts the case entirely now. it really could be shifting the focus and the conversation right now. thank you so much, manu, i really appreciate it. thank you so much, everyone, for joining me. "inside politics" will pick up this breaking news right now. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. we begin the hour with the just breaking major news related to the trump impeachment inquiry. john bolton issuing a statement just moments ago saying he's now willing ask ready to testify in a senate impeachment trial if -- if -- the senate issues a subpoena demanding his testimony. let's get straight to the state department. our correspondent kylie atwood joins us live. kylie, what do we know about this development? >> reporter: this is a major development because it really is the thing we focus on in the

next few days. john bolton, the former security adviser to president trump, who was pushing back against the president withholding the ukraine aid. he knows things about withholding that aid. he is now saying he's willing to testify if he is subpoenaed by the senate. now, of course, the house, in their investigation that they led at the end of last year, they did call for john bolton to come and talk to them, to provide them with testimony about what he knew. but he didn't show up. what he points to in this statement that he just released on twitter moments ago is the fact they never actually subpoenaed him. he is saying now that he's not going to put up a fight if the sena --. if the senate moves to subpoena him, he will provide testimony. one of the most important things to consider here is the fact that he's come out with some statements that are a little bit telling. he has taunted the fact that he knows things about this ukraine situation that have not yet come

to fruition. so he knows things that could very well change the calculation and the story line that we know at this point, john. so it's going to be interesting to see, however, if senate republicans decide now that they are going to have people come up and provide testimony in their trial, because they have not yet made a formal decision on that front. >> a giant "if." kylie atwood, come back to us if more comes in. on capitol hill we find cnn's manu raju. manu, the big question is will the white house allow witnesses? a, does it change mcconnell's mind, and b, does it change the mind of three or four senators so mcconnell has no choice? >> reporter: i think we can bet it will not change mcconnell's mind about the way this is handled initially.

the question is will it change some republicans' minds? president trump said he is not against having witness, but he thinks they should have the opening arguments in the case and deal with having witnesses later after the opening arguments. that's the way the clinton hearing played out. so if john bolton wants to testify, that's not an issue for mcconnell. he says deal with that later. the question will be if john bolton's decision to testify, if he is subpoenaed, is can those four republicans change the calculus in the senate? 47 democrats and four republicans could join ranks to compel testimony. we expect senators will come back to washington after spending the last two weeks on recess back home. they come back today. this will be the question before every republican senator, particularly the ones who have not ruled out bringing forward witnesses, the people who are in

the middle, the people who have faced the most amount of pressure. that includes people like mitt romney who has not ruled out pushing for witnesses, also susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska. those two witnesses in the middle often swing votes. how do they come down on wanting john bolton to testify? will there be one of those members, particularly in difficult races, be reticent in being accused of covering up witness testimony, particularly a witness who has information that they're willing to present. that makes it a much more difficult calculation for these republican senators who want to just move forward and dismiss the case when you have someone of this magnitude willing to come and testify. to just simply say no, let's move to dismiss and acquit the president, that's going to be a difficult decision for senators to make. i do think it may change some senators' minds, but mitch mcconnell may say, let's do

opening arguments and worry about john bolton later. that won't be enough for democrats who want that agreement up front, john. >> a surprising twist. come back and let me know if there's anything more in the hour ahead. with me, julie pace of the associated press, jackie co -- kucinich with the "washington post." happy new year, everyone. we thought the trial would be this week. it looks like next week or somewhere in that period of time. now john bolton decides to raise his hand at a time when we thought there would be no witnesses and a quick senate trial. he says, oh, by the way, i'm willing to testify. one of the republican arguments in saying, we're going to dismiss this, is the house democrats had nobody in the room with the president, only ambassador sondland who spoke with the president. but nobody in the room with the president as this played out. someone in the room with the president saying, i'm willing to testify. how do they say no?

>> i think that's a great question of how they say no. john bolton is a complicated witness. i certainly don't think he's a slam-dunk witness for the democrats even though he was in the room. they've certainly had disagreements. but they should be able to say, if he thinks the president is doing something wrong, wouldn't you want john bolton to come forward and say something to you? i did nothing wrong. here's somebody who can prove that. >> remember this, too. there's gambling in the casino and politics in washington. mitch mcconnell is on the ballot this year. mitch mcconnell held the obama administration for more than a year until we had a presidential election. mitch mcconnell is not afraid to play hardball. however, one of his key deputies, fiona hill, did testify in the house impeachment inquiry. they said, this is trump being

trump. sure, he brought up joe biden, maybe he wasn't articulate, but it wasn't an abuse of power. fiona hill said she and her boss thought it was. >> john bolton told me that i am not part of this whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> isn't it now incumbent, if we care about transparency, and if you care about this issue, that the senate should subpoena john bolton, say, what did you mean by drug deal, sir, let's get it firsthand. you were in the room with the president. what did you mean by drug deal? >> this is going to make it so much harder for mcconnell to say no witnesses. fiona hill also said john bolton was the one who instructed her to go to the white house counsel and tell them this is going on.

he clearly thought something illegal was going on. how did they not call him? he's one of the top firsthand witnesses. republicans have said over and over again, oh, these democratic witnesses they brought in, they never spoke to trump. this is someone who spoke to trump. it will be so much harder for mcconnell to hold out. i think there is a question about what pelosi does right now. she still has the articles of impeachment in the house, and we were hearing from sources that a lot of people thought she would just send those over without an agreement with mcconnell on witnesses. now that bolton has come out, she might want reassurances from mcconnell that he will be heard. >> john bolton's own lawyer, i think manu mentioned this, said john bolton had information that wasn't out there yet. now, we can't assume that's necessarily negative for the president. don't forget, john bolton is a very known entity in republican circles. a lot of senators know him very well, both in his role in previous administrations and

being an a.i. for a number of years. this might not be bad for the president. it might fill in some blanks, but we just don't know. >> that's why this is so serious. john bolton used the words interesting and controversial. he is one of the interesting and controversial staff members. but why now? this train was headed to a short senate trial and dismissal on the side of the president. when will speaker pelosi send over the articles? will, whether it's lisa murkowski of alaska, susan collins of maine, two others, that's all they need is four to have an agreement on witnesses. and lamar alexander who was aide to howard baker in his young days during the nixon impeachment who is retiring and

shows zero indication to get in the president's face on this one, and then you get something like this. >> here is something john bolton has been doing ever since he left the white house. he has been beating his drum about priorities outside the white house, making it clear he has his own world view that is separate from the president's in some ways, and even recently, with this iran business, he's been saying, i'm happy that we went in this direction. so i think he's been trying to really establish himself as someone of principle on his own merits so that at a moment like this, he can't be accused of being this sort of never trumper. now, the question i think everybody has right now is does the white house even know what bolton has to offer? do they know what he wants to say? and if they don't, are they confident that it won't really throw the president under the bus? i think that can have some ripple effects, potentially even opening the door for other witnesses that the white house might be a little more confident in what they have to say to balance out a john bolton. i think this really opens the door wide because bolton is such

a wild card, the white house, as a smart defense strategy, will want to protect themselves in some way. they may not want it to be john bolton being the only person going out there. but we know fiona hill testified about her feelings at the time. >> the white house perspective is, a, will republicans agree that he wants to call john bolton, call the whistleblower. the democrats have said we would love the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney who gave a white house briefing who said, yes, there was a quid pro quo, get over it. they would love to have the deputy, mr. blair. they would love to have the office of management and budget come in who held the aid, who ordered it, who had the questions of whether it was illegal. but john bolton made a bolt, you might call it, out of the blue saying he would subpoena in the trial if he -- testify in the trial if he

is subpoenaed. we'll be back in just a moment. find out which customized plan can make losing weight easier for you! myww. join for free + lose 10 lbs. on us.

mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more.

welcome back. we're tracking very major breaking news today. the trump former security adviser john bolton says he's prepared to testify at the senate impeachment trial if the senate subpoenas him. he is hinting that he has a story to tell. tweets from november, glad to be back on twitter after two months. stay tuned. now the statement today, john bolton saying he is willing to testify if he is subpoenaed by the united states senate. let's go straight to kaitlan collins live at the white house for us. any indication inside 1600 to this startling news? >> reporter: not yet, john king. so far the officials seem to be caught off guard with this announcement. they are now aware of it and

seem to be waiting to see what they hear in response. he thought the house process was unfair and that's why they didn't, now we have this former national security adviser saying he is willing to go in front of the senate if he gets a subpoena. and if he does, john, he is the closest person to the president in all of this -- he would be the closest person to the president in all of this to come guar forward. now, in the months since he's been teasing those tweets there when he ended up getting into a dispute with the white house, saying they locked him out of his twitter account when he left his job as national security adviser, the relationship has not been good between the white house and bolton. the national security council thought if he did speak, it would not be good for the administration. the question is what would he say about the president. we know the relationship between mick mulvaney and john bolton was very bad in the end. you've seen what they said in the past, and you saw fiona hill

testified what john bolton told her to do during those meetings, so that's going to be the big question here. if there was a subpoena for john bolton, would the white house order him to not testify, and how would he respond to that? essentially still a lot of questions, but this is not likely to be welcome news, because john bolton, if this does come to fruition, if this does happen, and there are a lot of steps from where we are now and that actually happening, the white house has generally not thought that would be in their favor. john, right before the break, it's notable because we reported that essentially people inside the white house who have been working on the president's impeachment strategy have said, the longer it is before the trial, the more potential there is for trouble. they worried they didn't know what could happen, but they feared something could pop up, and this seems to be right up that alley of what they feared could happen, someone like john bolton saying pretty clearly they are willing to come forward with no legal battles, nothing like that, as long as the senate subpoenas him.

of course, there are questions whether or not that would happen. >> a wild card is not something the president wants waiting for him at an impeachment trial. let's bring in our senior analyst michael zelden. if you read the statement from john bolton, he acknowledges one of his deputies had gone to court and asked the court, essentially, the house has subpoenaed me. the president doesn't want me to go. let the courts tell me what to do. that all became tangled up. at one point it became moot because the white house said never mind. john bolton is saying, i'm willing now but only if you subpoena me. your take? >> that case was held out with john bolton. now that case has gone away and they say there's nothing but absolute immunity. now he has the opportunity to come and testify if mcconnell will subpoena him. it is the republicans who have

subpoena power here. schumer does not have that power. once he agrees to testify, the question will be, if he's subpoenaed, will the president assert executive privilege? that is, he shows up and the president says to him, you can't tell anybody about any of our conversations. that's another whole court battle that we don't know how that will play out. depending on what the white house says once they understand what it is that the testimony will be about, because we don't know whether or not this testimony will invoke the notion of a quid pro quo. we don't know what he says. we know he said there was a drug deal, we know he said that giuliani was a hand grenade, we know that his deputy said that she went to the legal counsel at his suggestion once he heard the zelensky call, but quid pro quo is the key testimony they want from bolton. >> help me on this legal question. i don't believe the founders could have forseeseen such a

situation, but nancy pelosi still hatz ts the articles of impeachment in the house. can she reopen the impeachment, or could they say we want you over in the house where the democrats have the votes. could she add more testimony or would the democrats have to open another case? >> i think she has the authority to do that, once she has oversight authority, to the articles of impeachment. talk about a continuing pattern of behavior. both articles of impeachment say he did these specific things, and this was a pattern of behavior. so in this pattern of behavior language within those articles of impeachment, they could call bolton, i believe, as a supplemental witness to that, and it would be further evidence of that which they've already impeached him on. i don't believe they need a third article of impeachment of any kind. i think the way they were drafted was clever and bolton could fall within the obstruction of congress and abuse of authority, and that

testimony would then be relevant to trial if mitch mcconnell was willing to hold a real trial. >> if he is willing. i just want to know john bolton, a veteran, says i have concluded if senate issues a subpoena, i'm willing to testify. it doesn't say what he would do if the house gave him one. when we come back, all of this coming out as the president is in a military staredown with iran. ance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going.

my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

we turn now to other breaking news. the skyrocketing tension, fear and threats between the united states and iran. in iran today, look here. huge crowds. this is the third day of mourning after the death of the country's top military commander, qasem soleimani. iran's foreign minister using these images to seemingly taunt president trump, asking the president if he's ever seen such a crowd. adding, quote, do you still want to listen to the clowns around you? the leader even threatening the united states to leave the entire region or, quote, face another vietnam. tehran also says it now plans to abandon the limits it agreed to in the 2020 nuclear deal with the obama administration. iraq planning to expel u.s. troops from that country. president trump responding with

threats, quote, we have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. we're not leaving unless they pay it back for us. if they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it on a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before. i'll make irani sanctions look somewhat tame. fred pleitgen joins us live. fred, we see the crowds, we see the words of the foreign minister and the threats of retaliation. take us inside iran. >> reporter: the demonstrations we saw on the ground in tehran was really something remarkable. i've been at a lot of these protests over the past couple years. i've been in iran many, many times, and i've never seen something of that size and of that scale in tehran. there were literally hundreds of thousands of people who were on the street there, and the mood was also a lot different than i've seen in the past. the people there were extremely angry at the trump administration, at the united states, and one of the placards

that many people were holding had two words on it. it said "harsh revenge", and that's what people were calling for on the ground. they said they want their government to take revenge for the killing of qasem soleimani. i talked to an adviser of the supreme leader of iran yesterday, and he told me there was definitely going to be a retaliation on the part of the iranis, it will be a military target. iran says they don't want a full-on war with the united states, although they say thai ready for a full-on war, but the killing of qasem soleimani, their revolution of the military guard is still able to operate anywhere in the middle east, john. >> fred pleitgen for us in tehran. i appreciate your reporting at this very delicate time. we have david miller who is also a senior fellow with the carnegie endowment. there are a lot of words being thrown around from our president, from their leaders. it's more important what's being

done as opposed to what's being said, i think, but when you step back, from your perspective, the trump administration says, what's all the fuss about? this is a man with a lot of american blood highways handon he's a threat to our region and they've essentially taken a terrorist off the battlefield. >> that may be true. the question whether it's a tactical success. you would have to see the intel to know what we're talking about. what does imminent mean? i looked it up yesterday. it means about to happen. maybe it wasn't a ticking bomb. maybe soleimani was planning attacks throughout the region. the real question for me, does this require a broader strategy? and tactical success? let's give it to him. but a pugitive set of failures. why did the president do this? very careful so far about getting into unwanted and

untimely wars and getting out of old ones. this seems to be departure. and why he did this, what personal, emotional factors? who are the advisers pushing this? that's a critically important question. >> we know among the advisers, a long-time hawk when it comes to iran, is secretary of state mike pompeo. he was asked your question about show us proof, give the american people some assurance you had reason to do this. here's his answer. >> when you say the attacks were imminent, how imminent were they? are we talking about days? are we talking about weeks? >> if you're an american in the region, days and weeks, this is not something that's relevant. we have to prepare. we have to be ready. we took a bad guy off the battlefield. >> is that good enough? >> no. >> he says it's not relevant. he's the secretary of state in the world's leading democracy. i get that this is classified, some of this maybe we can't see, but there are members of congress who say they would like to see it, too, and they haven't. >> one of the cases for taking

soleimani off the battlefield may be clear, but it comes back to the practical implications. are americans safer? i don't think so. are we really going to deter iran from spreading its nefarious influence throughout the region? i don't think so. is our position in iraq, a 17-year venture in which thousands of americans died, let alone scores of thousands of iraqis, trillions of dollars expended, and now we face the prospects of having this iraqi-u.s. cooperation disrup d disrupted? finally, what's going to crawl out of the pandora's box? a possible reunion with kitaib hezbollah or another war? i wish the president had thought about this more.

the president puts iran on notice after the soleimani strike. trump: obamacare is a complete and total disaster. let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford

to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy can get those medicines. nurse: you should know, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i am not for ignoring the first sign of a cold. i am for shortening my cold, with zicam! zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

welcome back. democrats now demanding efvidene that there was an imminent threat that led to the strike to kill qasem soleimani. and they put the president on notice that he needed authorization for such a move. nancy pelosi wrote a letter that says just that. the letter says in part, the trump administration conduct a provocative and disproportionate

military airstrike targeting high level iranian military officials. we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of congress and without respect pho for congress' war powers granted to it by the constitution. democrats don't dispute soleimani's bloody history but said the president has not shown there was a threat significant enough to risk a major middle east conflict. >> i just don't think any one incident should have led to a move that was this significant without thinking through a fuller strategy. if there was an imminent threat, if people were truly at risk in sort of an immediate way, just bring that to us. >> this administration has taken its time briefing congress on exactly what threat was posed, why we needed to move forward right now with this attack. we haven't heard the long-term strategy. >> he has to come to congress and make sure we understand what

is the overall strategy? why was this tactic undertaken? >> this is significant on many, many fronts. one, just giving the threat now of a major military confrontation in the middle east. two, this is a continuation of a battle of respect and stature between the branches of government with the democrats in the house saying, you cannot just do your will and do your way. you must consult. >> yeah, i think it's important to put this in context of what the relationship between the white house and congress has been. on foreign policy, it extends with not just a frustration of democrats but republicans as well. obviously the president was impeached over other matters. the president really does have broad powers when it comes to imminent threats against american citizens, american interests, and that's where i think this question lies right now. was this actually an imminent

threat? soleimani was someone whose role was plotting against americans. was intelligence just taken off a shelf and used to justify this action, or was this action something new? i think if he brought forward concrete evidence of an imminent attack, there would be support, even from the democrats. >> but the house said you have to consult us more and you can't do anything else. they're getting trashed in the senate, right? >> absolutely, but they need to make a statement saying, this is not okay. trump has gone around them to build his border wall. he's gone around them on the constitution. he's ignored dozens of requests for subpoenas and documents when it comes to trump's oversight authority. i think the interesting thing to watch in the house will actually be there's about a dozen republicans who have been non-interventionist republicans, including matt gates, who was an adviser of trump. he was actually a co-signer on

an amendment that would promote action against iran. so what do republicans say? do they push back or keep silent? >> one of the republicans who is retiring in texas listened closely during the impeachment debate. he just essentially made the point that the democrats had not made an impeachable case. he wasn't defending the president's conduct, but it wasn't impeachable. number one, he disagrees profoundly. if the president retaliates, some of the targets would be key irani cultural sites. he said, a, that would be a mistake. but, he says, soleimani was a bad guy and he's trying to tell people now is the time to be worried. >> taking someone of this significance off the battlefield is a good move. there will be repercussions, and one of the repercussions is his replacement will be looking over his shoulder. the iranians will do what the

iranians have always done, and that's attack our allies, attack our interests. >> at this moment, this would be -- i've been here a while -- this would normally be a moment of bipartisanship about the threat. we don't live in that world anymore. >> i also think that it's contradictory what they're arguing here. it's either that soleimani was an imminent threat that required this immediate action, or he was just a persistent threat that needed to be taken off the battlefield as part of a broader strategy with iran. in this particular case, it can't be both at the same time because soleimani's threat has been -- you know, it's been there in the obama administration, it was there in the bush administration, and will heard even argues in that clip that iran is going to continue to plot against the united states. they're going to continue to threaten american lives around the world. so it is a little bit of a problem that the president and his allies can't get their story straight on this, which is one

of the reasons democrats are extremely skeptical about where this is all going. there are real questions about whether there was a plan for the aftermath and what that looks like, and whether or not the president is trying to use this as a way to be belicose on the world stage when else politically threatened at home. >> in an odd way, it's an extension over the debate of the nuclear agreement. it did not do a number of things. it did not deal with hezbollah, it did not deal with amas. the democrats say they just got proof speaker pelosi's impeachment strategy is working.

americans come to lendingtree.com to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

some new details just in to us in last hour that the former security adviser john bolton is willing to testify if he is subpoenaed. we are told ambassador bolton left a voicemail for senate leader mitch mcconnell but he did not tell democrats. he is now saying he's willing to testify. bolton's announcement, in their view, is evidence that speaker

nancy pelosi's strategy of holding back the articles of impeachment is working. that aide saying, quote, we would not have this development absent the speaker's hold. another proof point, the aide goes on to say, that indicates the value of her strategy. i want to start with the priceless piece. john bolton, the ultimate inside player. mitch mcconnell gets the message, the white house gets nothing. >> he probably has a better relationship with mitch mcconnell than he does the white house. let's not forget how he left the white house and it's probably another twisting of the knife. >> i think it's fair for the democrats to argue, aha, now bolton is willing to testify. it adds to the pressure on mitch mcconnell, it adds to the pressure of the three or four retch cans who might be wavering on whether they should have witnesses in the senate. does it approve her strategy?

>> there were some scratching their heads over the strategy. number one, they were saying they were playing politics with the impeachment, that the republicans just wanted him acquitted which is why it was being run by the senate. but right now this is a huge boon to speaker pelosi, because now she can say, look, us holding back the articles, john bolton is coming out, we're winning and we have a smart strategy here. it certainly helps her leverage. >> i would love to be invited to return john bolton's call. coming up, the iowa votes to kick off the campaign four weeks from today. foreign policy a big deal out on the trail. gs and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that.

pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

the 2020 race officially kicks off four weeks from today with the iowa caucus. the poll shows joe biden, pete buttigieg and bernie sanders locked in a dead heat. elizabeth warren and amy klobuchar round out the top five. similar polls show sanders leading the back with joe biden, and then warren, buttigieg and klobuchar. and now they respond to the middle east. >> what we need, in my humble opinion, is a president who can provide steady leadership on day one.

>> not only voted against the war in iraq, i helped lead the opposition to the war in iraq. war is the last response, not the first response. >> i'll say a presidential candidate who has served has a personal understanding of what we're dealing with. >> cnn's ryan nobles and jeff zeleny joins our discussion. abby phillip with us as well. i don't know if it still exists, into the anti-war sentiment in the democratic party, i've been with you forever. pete buttigieg, i'm the only guy here who put on the uniform and served. this is a time in the race when we really have no idea. >> it is satisfying. it's really about experience and judgment. to two of the voters i talked to over the weekend in iowa, they're not concerned about joe biden's war vote, but they are concerned about this moment.

so i think bernie sanders is tapping into something that we do not know, a, where the real situation on the ground is going or where the debate inside the party is going. there's not been a foreign policy debate, and that is what's going to happen here. it is fascinating to see -- i think in the beginning you're like, oh, this benefits joe biden and pete buttigieg because of experience, but as bernie sanders is raising the judgment question, what does that do to this conversation? this is very much adding more uncertainty to this unsettled race. >> i think what's also interesting is that there was this thought that because sanders relies on kind of his playbook that changing events would hurt his campaign in a negative way, but he's been able to kind of fall back on the same game plan he has when it comes to health care, when it comes to college tuition. this is what i've been saying for 40 years. i've been saying unnecessary wars in parts of the world that we don't have control of is a bad idea. he can revert back to that. it might not be a mainstream position, it might be something

people are uncomfortable with, but he's saying that's where the democratic party is right now and you need to vote for him. >> that's where pete buttigieg is walking a fine line right now, because you bring back the iraqi debate in some of these democratic voters who are very wary of jumping into another long war. but when you hit the electorate, i think there is a sense that you have to thread this line between understanding what the threat is and what is in the way. i think buttigieg is in that space. he's criticized soleimani, he's talked about looking into the aftermath of these kind of actions, and he's also pointed to the fact that he has served. some voters i talked to, that was top of mind to them. the first thing he said to me was, he served. >> and that's the pre dibdictpry

of this. if you pick sanders or warren, can you win the general election? the medicare for all the way to do or build on obamacare? sanders plays the serious card and biden is somewhere in the middle there. >> the iran conflict is going to influence potentially this democratic presidential campaign. also watch joe biden. he has not been as smooth on this in terms of the advice he gave to barack obama about osama bin laden here. so this is very much a wild card being injected into this, not really the 11th hour, but certainly the 10th. >> and they are using assassination as a word to describe what happened to soleimani. i don't know if it's kosher to call him a murderer.

it's still something they're feeling out. >> the impeachment trial could bring senators back as well. four weeks until iowa. it's a very busy day. don't go anywhere. brianna keilar continues our breaking news coverage right now. have a great afternoon. i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters, and we begin with breaking news that could tremendously impact negotiations over president trump's impeachment trial. trump's former national security adviser john bolton now says he's ready and willing to testify if congress subpoenas him. bolton's name came up during key testimony. the president's former top russia adviser, fiona hill, told congress that bolton directed her to talk to national security lawyers at the white house after becoming aware rudy giuliani was spearheading an effort to get ukraine to investigate joe biden and his son. bolton also called giuliani a hand grenade, who will blow everyone up, according to