you for joining us. our coverage tonight continues with "a.c. 360" and anderson cooper. see you tomorrow. good evening. there's breaking news out of the pentagon, or maybe it's out of iraq, or possibly the white house. at this point, we're not exactly sure. and that's kind of the point. someone late this afternoon sent out an official letter notifying the iraqi government that u.s. troops there would begin repositioning in what would appear to be the first step in leaving the country outright. then a few hours later, secretary of defense, mark esper, said that the letter was sent in error. actually saying his staff was, quote, trying to figure out, unquote, what the memo is. which left everyone trying to figure out just what's going on. and the frightening answer is about the letter and just about every other thing that's happened since the u.s. killed the iranian general, we simply do not know. that's where the last three days that the united states and iran, trading threats and mobilizing forces suggest we are. that's where the last three days, developments and seemingly

unanticipated consequences suggest we are. in iran, there have been giant crowds publicly mourning the man who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american troops in iraq and many other civilians in iraq and syria and elsewhere. the iranians announced they're pulling out of the international agreement, the iraqi parliament voted to expel u.s. forces. in addition, the president threatened to target iranian cultural sites in retaliation for any future attacks, which his secretary of state on sunday tried to deny, which the president then reiterated, which his secretary of state today denied. we'll talk about all of that shortly with jim acosta and presidential candidate bernie sanders, but first barbara starr has been working her sources at the pentagon. barbara, what's the latest on this letter regarding troop moveme movements? >> well, this is a letter that apparently got leaked to the iraqis by some members of the news media, filtering its way across the media. and what the pentagon said today is once they checked into it, that the letter was poorly written, was a mistake, was

never supposed to come out. what it says is that u.s. troops are repositioning in iraq, and that is true. but it also goes on to talk about future onward movement of u.s. troops, very strongly suggesti ining that u.s. troops leaving iraq. and what defense secretary mark esper told reporters today is, no, that is not policy right now. and in fact, the iraqi government has not yet officially asked u.s. troops to leave. >> and what's the situation about the intelligence used to target the iranian general. because top national security officials are still defending that. >> they are defending it. today, again, esper, and especially the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mark milly, meeting with reporters who are adamant that the intelligence was good. look, they are focusing a lot on what soleimani has done in the past with his attacks, but they're also saying they had more current intelligence, that he was plotting near-term future

attacks against the u.s., against u.s. troops and u.s. interests in the region. were those attacks imminent? what does imminent really mean? is that days, weeks, or months? i think a lot of people in the administration wish the word "imminent" was never used. hard to say when those attacks might have been targeted for. but they are adamant that soleimani had more plans in the works. >> because the president used the term, i think it was, "very major attack" was being planned. >> that's right. the pentagon has talked about significant plans for violence, that sort of thing. they had a sense that he was going -- he was in iraq at the time he was killed to finalize plans in that country to attack perhaps u.s. bases, the u.s. embassy. >> what about the president's comments on targeting cultural sites in iran? >> right. yeah. you know, the president has talked about this twice and we know it is a violation of both u.s. national security law and international laws of armed conflict, so we asked esper

about that today. and he said that the u.s. would continue to follow the law and that would mean, not targeting cultural sites, only targeting military sites. >> but the the president gives an order to do that, what happens? >> what happens? yeah, what happens? mille and esper, at least today, have been very adamant, as you would expect, that the u.s. military will follow the law. i think behind the scenes, they think that the president may have a bit of bluster here, that maybe they can offer him other options. also very watchful in case the iranians were to eventually move weapons into cultural sites. that takes away their protected status. they do become valid military targets then. but for now, if that were to happen, if the president of the united states was to order a strike on cultural sites that are not military targets and can't be talked out of it, you have very senior government officials that would have to

decide if they will follow those orders, which would be illegal, by all accounts, or make a decision to leave the administration. >> barbara starr, thanks very much. appreciate it. >> sure. >> jim acosta is standing by. jim, you have some new reporting on this letter. >> reporter: yeah, anderson, we understand, talking to our sources over here, talked to a white house official earlier this evening, who said the president did see some of the coverage about this mistaken letter from the u.s. military to the iraqis, about a potential withdrawal that we know that is not happening now, and was concerned about it. and wanted it cleaned up, in the words of this white house official. not exactly a good thing to have it on the first day back in the office for everybody after the holidays. >> is there any more clarity as to what the white house strategy on iran actually is? >> not really, anderson. the president was asked about this on conservative talk radio earlier in the day, and he essentially said, he's waiting to see how the iranians respond. he's basically in the same position that everybody else is

across the world. this administration is now essentially putting the ball in the iranian's court and waiting to see what they do next, and then determining from that how they're going to respond at this point. >> and last night, the president made some sort of a vague comment about releasing the intelligence. what did he say? >> he essentially said, they're thinking about it, they may release it to the public. at this point, the plan is to brief lawmakers up on capitol hill. that's going to be happening over the next 48 hours. and i think, anderson, that is going to be a significant moment, because if you have democrats coming out of these briefings, essentially saying they don't believe the intelligence that was behind this military strike on qassem soleimani, then you're going to potentially have hearings over in the house about all of this. now, i did talk to some republican officials earlier this evening, and they essentially said at this point, they're waiting to see these briefings and get the intelligence before they make any further comments on this. but anderson, here we are, more than a decade after the beginning of the iraq war in the

mid-2000s, back in 2003, and we're still questioning the intelligence, talking about the validity of the intelligence behind a major american military action in that part of the world. it does seem as though this administration, despite being led by a president who claimed that he would not get into anymore quagmires in the middle east, is at the moment finding his intelligence and his decision making questioned at this point. anderson? >> jim acosta, thanks very much. joining us now for his take on the day and events leading up to it, bernie sanders. senator, thanks for being with us. the mistake with this letter today, what does that say about this administration and what message do you think it sends to both allies and adversaries? >> it says that there's mass chaos. that the administration hasn't a clue about what it is doing. but it's creating a very dangerous world scenario. just yesterday, you had trump saying very loudly that if the iraqis want us to leave, the

iraqi government want us to leave, we're going to impose trillions of dollars of sanctions. they're going to have to pay for everything that we spent. and the next thing we hear is, oh, we respect the sovereignty of iraq. we're taking our troops back, out. and then a few hours later, we say, oh, that was a mistake. we are stale in. what kind of message does this send to the entire world? but, anderson, what frightens me most is what we are seeing now sounds very much like what i observed and the american people observed in terms of the war in iraq. something that i vigorously opposed. what we heard was an administration lying about intelligence. we got involved in a war we never should have got involved in. we lost 4,500 brave soldiers. thousands more were wounded. hundreds of thousands of iraqis were displaced and died. we spent trillions of dollars on that war, that should have been

spent at home, providing health care or rebuilding our infrastructure. and now at the end of all of that, the government, the country that we were trying to save, to liberate says, get out, we don't want you anymore. so that lesson must be learned. and i think if anything, we get involved in a war in iran, and in all likelihood, it will be even worse. and i will do everything i can in terms of a united states senator, in terms of defunding any effort of the trump administration to go to war, do anything i can to stop what i think will be another disaster. >> as you just referenced, the iraqi parliament voted yesterday in favor of expels u.s. troops from the country. if u.s. forces are actually expelled, and it's not clear it would actually come to that, would that be a good thing in your opinion? because you've called to an end to endless wars in the middle east. >> the united states should have

gotten our troops out of iraq a long time ago. but it has to be done in an orderly manner in conjunction with the iraqi government, so that the anti-terrorist activity can't continue. it is not a good thing when after spending trillions of dollars and losing 4,500 soldiers that you are booted out of the country you went to liberate. that is not a good thing in any sense. >> the -- you had made a statement about the killing of soleimani, who everybody agrees was a killer, responsible for the deaths of many american forces, as well as many civilians around the world. you called it an assassination. michael bloomberg, fellow presidential candidate, said that was, quote, an outrageous thing to say. i wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to that. >> no, i think it was an assassination. i think it was in violation of international law. this guy was -- was a bad news guy, but he was a ranking official of the iranian

government. and once you get into violating international law in that sense, you can say there are a lot of bad people all over the world running governments. kim jong-un in north korea, not exactly a nice guy. responsible for the death, perhaps, of hundreds of thousands of people in his own country. to name one of many, you know? the president of china now has put a million people, muslims, into educational camps. some would call them concentration camps. but once you start this business of a major country saying, hey, we have the right to assassinate, then you're unleashing international anarchy. i think all -- >> sorry, go ahead. i'll let you finish. >> and all that trump seems to be doing now is trying to break all kinds of international

protocol, denying the foreign minister of iran to speak before the united nations, and really basically trying to lead us into another war, which i believe will be a disaster. >> if soleimani was a non-state actor, not a general, an official, a high-ranking official in the iranian government, would it be different in your mind? >> i'm not a lawyer on these things, it might be. but this guy is, you know, was, as bad as he was, an official of the iranian government. and you unleash -- then if china does that, you know, if russia does that, you know, russia has been implicated under putin with assassinating dissidents. so once you're in the business of assassination, you unleash some very, very terrible forces. and what i'm seeing now in this world, as a result of trump's actions, more and more chaos, more and more instability. and it is absolutely imperative that the united states congress

stand up. because, by the way, let us never forget that according to the constitution of the united states, on which some of us actually believe in and respect, it is congress that has the responsibility for making war, not the president of the united states. and that is why we have got to pass an authorization, legislation that makes it very clear that trump does not have the right to go to war without the authorization of the united states congress and also, i will work to make sure that he doesn't have the money to do that. >> there's more i want to talk to you about. if you can, please just stick around. we're going to take a quick break and talk more about the president talking about targeting cultural sites. also, about politics here at home, what appears to be a three-way tie in iowa. impeachment, and some very big breaking news. also, john bolton saying he would now be willing to testify during a senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed. the question, of course, if he

serious and what would the white house do? would they allow that even to happen? we'll be right back. you try hard, you eat right... 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. hi. uh, can you tell me how to get to i-70, please? sorry, i'm working. right. could you just use your sign to point me in the direction?

i wish i could. it's not that kind of sign. you know what? thanks. thank you. thanks so much. switch to progressive and you can save hundreds. you know, like the sign says. switch to progressive and you can save hundreds. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com trumpand total disaster.mplete 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.

we've been talking with senator bernie sanders about the air strikes that killed qassem soleimani as the race for the democratic nomination continues to heat up. in iowa, senator sanders, joe biden, and pete buttigieg are in a three-way tie at 23%. in new hampshire, bernie sanders at 27% followed closely by biden at 25%. those numbers from both states are according to a new poll from cbs news and u.gov. in both cases, senator sanders is in the lead with joe biden tied or right behind him. we'll get to that polling in a second. i want to stay on iran for a second with you, senator sanders. your democratic colleague,

senator murphy, tweeted that targeting cultural sites is what terrorists do. he also said nit's a war crime. do you agree with him? that's something the taliban did in afghanistan and isis did in syria and elsewhere. >> that's right. that's right. absolutely, i agree with the senator. it is a war crime. and to be learning from the taliban about destroying cultural sites is unbelievable. but in addition to all of this, anderson, one thing we have got to not forget, in america today, domestically, we have enormous crises. tonight, have a million americans, including 30,000 veterans, are homeless. we've got 87 million people who are uninsured or are underinsured. we have an infrastructure which is crumbling. we have enormous needs facing our country. and the idea of spending trillions of dollars more on an endless war in iran is to me

just beyond comprehension. >> i want to focus a little bit on domestic policy, obviously, with iowa and new hampshire coming up. you said, recently, about vice president biden, his record, you said, to "the washington post," quote, is just a lot of baggage that joe takes into a campaign, which isn't going to create energy and excitement. is there something specifically you were referring to in terms of baggage? >> sure. look, joe and i are friends and i truly like joe. but what is imperative is that we defeat trump, the most dangerous president in modern history. and that means you're going to have to have a huge voter turnout. you'll have to have working people excited. you'll have to get young people excited. joe biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country. joe biden voted for the disastrous trade agreements, like nafta, and permanent normal trade relations with china, which cost us millions of jobs.

you think that's going to play well in michigan or wisconsin or pennsylvania? you know, joe biden has been on the floor of the senate, talking about the need to cut social security or medicare or medicaid. joe biden pushed a bankruptcy bill, which has caused enormous financial problems for working families. so if we're going to beat trump, we need turnout. and to get turnout, you need energy and excitement. and i don't think that that kind of record is going to bring forth the energy we need to defeat trump. >> senator elizabeth warren was asked by jake tapper yesterday why she believes her medicare for all transition plan is better than yours. i want to play her response so that you have an opportunity to respond to that. >> it gets the most help to the most people the quickest possible. help starts on day one. and then it's full health care coverage, for 135 million people

to be able to opt into it at absolutely no cost. >> so do you think his is unrealistic? >> we can do that on a 50-vote -- we can do that on a 50-vote budget reconciliation and get help to people. let people experience it. >> does her plan, in your opinion, get the most help to the most people, the quickest possible? >> i think my plan makes a lot more sense. and this is why. for a hundred years, anderson, from teddy roosevelt on, we have been talking about the need for health care for all. but as i think everybody understands, the reason we are not doing that, the reason why we are -- we have 87 million people uninsured and underinsured, why we spend twice as much per capita as the people of any other country, and why the health care industry last year made $100 billion, they have the power. they dictate. they and the drug companies dictate what happens in health care.

when i win or at least when i hope i win the election, we will have the momentum in this country to finally tell the drug companies who are charging us by far the high test prices in the world, the insurance companies who are ripping us, that finally, finally, we are going to move to a medicare for all single-payer system. with millions of people standing up and demanding that. our program, my legislation, is a four-year transition period. and the first year we expand medicare to cover hearing aids, dental care, eyeglasses, and home health care. and we lower the eligibility age from 65 to 55. that's in the first year. i think there will be massive support for that idea. and the next year, it's 45, 35, and in four years, everybody is in. that is the easiest way to bring universal health care to all americans. >> obviously, there's questions about cost. we'll address that another time.

senator sanders, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you. coming up next, john bolton's decision to talk or at least say he's willing to if subpoenaed in the impeachment trial. our political and legal team looks at the implications. he wanted a man cave in our new home. but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. there's brushing and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better. it's the one inspired by dentists... with the round brush head. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gumline... for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. oral-b. brush like a pro. i can. the two words whispered at the start of every race.

every new job. and attempt to parallel park. (electrical current buzzing) each new draft of every novel. (typing clicks) the finishing touch on every masterpiece. (newborn cries) it is humanity's official two-word war cry. words that move us all forward. the same two words that capital group believes have the power to improve lives. and that, for over 85 years, have inspired us to help people achieve their financial goals. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information. talk to your advisor or consultant i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free worry free...boom! this week buy one, get one 30% off hp ink at office depot officemax and officedepot.com

today may have been internationally, it was no less meaningful at home. former national security adviser john bolton made sure of that we have announced he was willing to testify if subpoenaed at the senate impeachment trial. and he could have a lot to say, obviously. his lawyer has already touted ambassador bolton's knowledge of, quote, many relevant meetings and conversations in the ukraine affair that have not

been shared with house impeachment investigators. and though he signaled his unwillingness to testify in the house and was ultimately not called by lawmakers there, he certainly was a central figure in the proceedings there. >> shortly before his visit to kyiv, ambassador bolton's office requested mr. giuliani's contact information from me. i send ambassador bolton the information directly. i heard ambassador bolton express to ambassador taylor and national security counsel senior director tim morrison his frustration about mr. giuliani's influence with the president. >> ambassador sondland leaned in, basically to say, well, we have an agreement that there will be a meeting, a specific investigations are put underway, and that's when i saw ambassador bolton stiffen. >> ambassador bolton cut the meeting short when ambassador sondland started to speak about the requirement that ukraine deliver specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with president trump.

>> you tell eisenberg, ambassador bolton told me, that i am not part of this, whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> now it's up to the senate, where the republican leadership does not want new witnesses, but just four dissenting members are all it would take to change that. let's talk about it with jeffrey toobin, john dean, who made a name for himself because he testified in the watergate hearings, and also with us, cnn chief political analyst, gloria borger. obviously, bolton's testimony, if he was willing to actually do it and show up, would be sfra t significant. >> you know, i think sometimes those of us in the news business, we overhype events. this is a huge development. if you care what happened between the united states and ukraine, if you care about the facts of this case, you have to hear from john bolton. he is probably the single most important witness. if he is willing to testify, anyone who cares about the facts should -- >> couldn't the white house just say, just stop him? >> this is where we get into

john dean territory. what could they do, exactly? i mean, i don't think -- they would have to get an injunction from a court if he wants to testify. i'm not sure they could get that injunction. if john dean shows up and wants to testify -- >> john bolton. >> i'm sorry, if bolton wanted to testify, i think the white house would have a very hard time stopping him. >> john dean, do you agree with that? as someone who did testify? >> i do. and in fact, it occurred to me it might be an effort to block my testimony, but i was loaded for bear. i was prepared to say that the crime/fraud exception would preclude any kind of privilege that they could claim, and i think there's a parallel, in this situation, i think bolton clearly extracted himself and denied being involved in any conspiracy and that's the most likely offense that was involved here. he also reported the activity to the white house counsel, which is exactly what you should do. they didn't take any action, but

he did. so i think he is exactly a very powerful, potential witness. i don't think he particularly likes the president, and i don't think, also, he wants to be selling a book for a lot of bucks and refusing to testify. >> but gloria, we don't really know what his testimony would be, whether it would help the president or hurt him. he does have a book coming out, for which he probably has a bilbig advance. but that kind of stuff usually hinges on having new information in the book that hasn't been previously disclosed. and if he testifies to everything, is he disclosing a lot? and if he testifies against the president, does he ruin his chances of getting back on fox news as a, you know, paid contributor? >> right. i was talking to a senior democratic leadership aide today who said to me, look, we know what john bolton has said through others who have testified, calling rudy giuliani a hand grenade that's going to blow us all up and talking about the drug deal that mulvaney and

sondland orchestrated, getting very upset, telling fiona hill, you've got to report this to the lawyers, which she did. but we also know john bolton. we know that he complimented the president, for example, just today on the iran raid and on the killing in iran and we know that he wants to not lose his place in the conservative firmament in which he resides, such as on fox news and in other places. so is he willing to go out there and tell a story that is incredible damaging to the president, or will he just say, as the white house is saying, look, he disagreed with the president, that's not a crime. so the danger for the democrats here is, how much would they know, if he ends up testifying, how much would they know about what he was going to say before he said it. >> but isn't the point, gloria, not will he help or will he hurt, isn't the point that he has relevant evidence and they want to find stuff out.

>> i totally agree with you. and this is why i think it makes it harder for republicans who have been complaining that the democratic case against the president is all hearsay, to suddenly be presented with somebody who's at the epicenter of a story, who is a witness to the everything that occurred and say, oh, by the way, we don't want to hear. he should have testified in the house. >> gloria, is there any chance that they're before republicans, who would be willing to vote on that? >> that's the question. i think there is more of a chance today than there was yesterday. and i think this is a living, breathing story that is playing out in realtime and who knows? who knows the answer to that? because the odds are better today than yesterday. >> john, if bolton is saying he would respond to a subpoena from the senate, does that mean that he would need to respond to one from the house? i mean, is it possible now that he could head back to house committees? >> i think the house managers could make a very strong

argument that if he's going to testify in the senate and has agreed to do so and accept a subpoena, that he has an obligation to tell managers what he's going to talk about. and they have either an executive session with him or even just a private session with him. so they know the parameters of his testimony and can prepare accordingly. that would certainly be the normal route. you don't really spring witnesses in any trial. and so, i don't think this will be a perry mason moment in the impeachment trial. >> but we don't know what the rules would be. weapon don't know. the republicans could say, okay, you want him, take the good with the bad. we don't know. >> well, you know, the procedural things are -- you have someone like marco rubio saying, well, we can't have him testify because we should only draw on the evidence that came before in the house. that's a completely made-up argument. in no trial do you only require -- you know, pay attention to what went on in the

preliminary proceedings. if you want to know the facts, if you want to know why or whether the president should be impeached, you should get all relevant evidence and there is no one more relevant than john bolton. >> let's leave it there. thank you. thanks. coming up, next back to the breaking news, the iran confrontation, someone in a unique position to know about how white house decisions are made, at least in the past were made. president obama's national security adviser, susan rice, joins us. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. i learned about myuse grandfather's life. on ancestry and it was a remarkable

twentieth-century transformation. he did a lot of living before i knew him. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com actions speak louder than words. she was a school teacher. my dad joined the navy and helped prosecute the nazis in nuremberg. their values are why i walked away from my business, took the giving pledge to give my money to good causes, and why i spent the last ten years fighting corporate insiders who put profits over people. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. because, right now, america needs more than words. we need action. that gives me cash back onesome new aeverything.akuten that's ebates. i get cash back on electronics, travel, clothes. you're talking about ebates. i can't stop talking about rakuten. pretty good deal - peter sfx [blender] ebates is now rakuten, sign up today. oh, your she's landed.ed. and she's on her way to our house.

what. i thought she was coming next weekend. i got it. alexa. start the coffee. set the temperature to 72. start roomba. we got this... don't look. what? don't look. lets move. ♪ mom. the lexus es, eagerly prepared for the unexpected. lease the 2020 es 350 for $389 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more.

i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. in our breaking news, the pentagon now saying that a letter suggesting that the u.s. may withdraw troops from iraq was released by mistake to the iraqis. for over an hour, there was confusion with military officials in baghdad unable to answer a definitive answer on exactly what was happening. all of this coming as the white house and the pentagon face questions about the killing of iran's top general. joining me now is susan rice, former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. she's the author of "tough love: my story of the things worth fighting for." she joins me now. ambassador rice, in terms of this letter that was apparently accidentally released by the military regarding withdrawing troops from iraq, does this kind

of thing happen a lot? >> no, anderson, it doesn't happen a lot. and it should rarely, if ever, happen. this is a messup on the order that we rarely see, particularly out of the pentagon, which typical is a pretty tight ship. >> particularly in the midst of, i mean, it is a critical time. it's not like it was just an average weekend, you know, it's been -- it's obviously not a great time to have a mistake like this. you write in a "new york times" op-ed that americans would be wise to brace for war with iran. and while it's not a certainty, the probability is probably higher than at any point in decade. i mean, that's pretty disturbing. you think the u.s. needs to brace for war? >> anderson? >> yes, can you hear me? >> i've lost -- yes, say again. >> i'm sorry. -- i read your op-ed, do you think americans need to brace for war? >> well, yes, unfortunately, i

think we need to be prepared for that possibility and as i say, it's no certainty, but what's happened in the last several days and even frankly in the last several months, has led us on a course of increasing escalation, that i'm quite concerned about. the killing of soleimani require from the iranian perspective a clear and definitive retaliation. and that retaliation could take any number of forms. it could take the form of a tributable cyber attack, it could take the form of terrorist attacks, missiles launched at american military or diplomatic facilities in the broader middle east, but when that happens, and it will happen, even if it doesn't happen tomorrow or next week or the week after, president trump will face a moment of reckoning, where he has to decide how to respond. according to his public statements on the one hand, he doesn't want a war with iran.

on the other hand, he's threatened to attack them mercilessly, including outside of the laws of war, at their cultural sites. so this has every potential to escalate. and it's hard to see how diplomacy can be retrieved at this point, and then you look at the whole spate of consequences we've seen just over the last few days. the iraqi parliament has required that the united states leave. eventually, we will be compelled to leave iraq. and that is a huge strategic victory for iran. we've had to suspend the fight against isis. the reason we're there in the first place, when isis still has thousands of troops that are in a position to reconstitute itself, and the iranians have really pulled the last leg out from under the iran nuclear deal, giving them carte blanche to pursue their nuclear program. and that, too, could lead to conflict.

so it's not a pretty picture, i'm afraid. >> some in the administration are still talking about, you know, that this is de-escalation. that this was -- you know, this is a road to de-escalation. to have actual de-escalation diplomacy, don't you need to have kind of off-ramps that both sides can kind of take baby steps in that direction to kind of show -- to develop good faith, to show that things are ratcheting down. it doesn't seem like there's any off-ramps or even, frankly, a highway at all. >> well, you do need off-ramps. it's very hard to see where they might be in this context. and you have leadership on both sides that seems to believe they have their credibility, if not their manhood on the line. and are making statements that indicate not a rush to de-escalate, but rather a rush to escalate. so, i do think that we're in a very perilous moment. i hope very much that somehow, some way, we can find a path out

of this march to war, but i do think that rational minds, as they assess this situation and know the broader region, have every reason to be deeply concerned at this point. >> defense secretary esper said that, you know, the military would obey the laws and not -- you know, it is against the law to bomb cultural sites, to target cultural sites. i'm not quite clear what happens if the president says, do that -- i mean, anyway. what does happen? >> what is supposed to happen in that case, anderson, is for the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs to say, respectfully, no. they are not prepared to violate the law. that's the oath they take. and if they were to go along in blatant violation of domestic and international law, they, too, would be accountable.

and i have faith in our uniformed military. i have faith in the american defense establishment's readiness and desire to adhere to the norms and laws of war, because they benefit americans and help keep americans safe. i'm hopeful it wouldn't come to that. but i must say i'm troubled that options seem to be presented to the president that may not be the ones that the defense establishment thinks make the most sense. and yet, they're there on the plate and we have a president who seems to be willing to veer from one extreme to the other. so i do hope that they'll be very careful about how they provide targeting recommendations to the president. >> ambassador rice, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. just ahead tonight, the top white house official that we've really heard very little from for almost a year now, even though her entire job is to be

heard and to be seen and to talk and to actually answer questions from human reporters. the white house press secretary, stephanie grisham, and the great disappearing press briefing makes our ridiculist. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow's attack. if you fail, it will be a massacre. we need to keep moving! come on! [ suspenseful music playing ] . 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.

let's check on chris and see how he's been covering all that's going on. >> happy new year. guys like me and you know where the president's decision to take out soleimani can lead. people like us will be on the front lines witnessing it. we'll look back to now as for justification as to why it had to happen. it's no small irony that a president who kept railing on everyone in this country to know that you shouldn't trust u.s. intel, now he won't share the intel that led to a decision like this. we're taking this on with one of his supporters tonight. we're going to ask why we're not being told why this was done. and we have judge judy.

on after 5 yea0 years in public life, she's decided to enter the public fray and back bloomberg. why? what's wrong with this president and what's right with him? >> chris, thanks very much. that's about eight minutes from now. up next, the spokeswoman with a non-speaking role in the white house and on the ridiculist. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu. mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr,

a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪

(whistling) without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. time now for the ridiculist. and a new year, a new record. 301 days.

that's how long it's been since the last formal white house press briefing and still no sign at the podium of one stephanie grisham. if you're wondering who's stephanie grisham, you're probably not a regular fox news viewer, because that channel is seemingly the one place she feels safe enough to regularly appear. and yes, your taxpayer dollars are indeed paying miss grisham to avoid you, ironically, like it's her job. let's see if you can identify stephanie grisham from a lineup. stephanie grisham is one of these three people. anyone? i'm going to whittle it down. the woman in the middle is stephanie powers from that show "heart to heart". the woman on the left, that's rnc chair ronna romney mcdaniel. the other one is stephanie grisham. miss grisham is officially the white house press secretary. that job was once a vaunted post in any administration, the conduit through which the white house tells the american people what it's doing, and often questioned about what it's doing by reporters. for example, if a president were

to escalate the dangers overseas by killing a high-ranking iranian general, you might think the press secretary would head to the podium to keep the country and the world abreast of what's going on, but that doesn't happen anymore. it hasn't for 301 days. we've mentioned miss grisham on the ridiculist before, back in socket, we highlighted her defense over on fox ampersand friends of acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney after the white house had to walk back or reinvent mulvaney's statements, basically admitting that president trump had squeezed the president of ukraine for dirt in return for u.s. aid. grisham's appearance came less than 24 hours after acting chief of staff, mick "great muppet caper" mulvaney drew huge reviews, ranging from not helpful to a confession. for her part, though, grisham said mulvaney did everything a good accomplice should. >> he did a great job, he mentioned the same message over

and over and over, and the now the media, of course -- we put a statement out clarifying some of the things that the media got a tizzy in. >> stephanie grisham apparently didn't like that segment. she sent an email to business insider saying quote, i think cnn has lost sight of the fact that we are human beings. i heard that statement. it gave me pause. i thought about it. have i lost sight that she and others who are lying frequently are human beings? i actually did some serious soul searching. i didn't curse her in that story or use any bad words or dredge up past brushes with the law. i'm well aware she is a human being and probably believes in what she's doing and is probably a very fine person. i haven't lost sight we're all human beings, we love this country and good people may disagree. that doesn't make them bad or traders or un-american. but what was interesting about miss grisham's accusation is that i have lorst sight of the

fact that they are human beings, she appeared over on "fox & friends" in order to defend this tweet from president trump about so-called never-trump republicans. the president tweeted in part, watch out for them, they are human scum. that's how the president described people who don't support him. i don't see how that fits with plany tru pla melania trump's be best campaign, but apparently miss grisham flood problhad no probl. this is what she said when asked if the president regretted his words? >> no, no, he shouldn't. the people who are against him and who have been against him and working against him since the day they took office are just that. they deserve strong language like that. >> they deserve that. yeah, they are that. they are human scum. it's funny how miss grisham has gone from, we are human beings, to they are human scum. and it was like in no time. it's funny and it's not funny at the same time. it's actually kind of really sad. of course, these are all things

that reporters would be table to ask miss grisham about if she actually did what every one of her predecessors had done, which is stand up and answer questions from reporters. but look, it's 301 days in counting, so for now we'll just have to make do with her occasional appearance here on the ridiculist. >> that's it. the news continues. let's head to chris. >> this is our first show of the new decade. the united states just killed a bad man. it is the most provocative act of this presidency. the question is, why did we have to do it now? he's a bad guy. no question, but that's not enough. the answer could be a matter of life and death. that's not an exaggeration. so why won't this president, who always questions u.s. intelligence, give us the answer? we have a top homeland security hawk in the house to test on this. and if this move is to be seen as part of a strategy we can there's, how much confidence can you have when the pentagon just