good evening. we begin tonight in a far different place than we left you last night, and that is a good thing, plain and simple. iran's signal that its missile strike on two bases in iraq, housing u.s. forces was the limit of their response. the american killing of general qassem soleimani. they apparently offered a way out and this morning, president trump took it. >> iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world. no american or iraqi lives were lost, because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces and an early warning system that worked very well. i salute the incredible skill and courage of america's men and women in uniform.

>> this is, obviously, a very welcomed development, no matter where you might stand politically or how you view america's role in the middle east. last night, we were staring into the abyss. tonight, we aren't. that said, if, in fact, president trump took the off-ramp here, the question remains, was it from a highway that he, himself, built, with his decision to kill general soleimani. a highway he didn't need to build. the administration has yet to publicly offer evidence to support his claim that the killing stopped imminent attacks on americans. they did, officially, brief members of congress today behind closed doors, but from the sound of it, for some members, republican and democratic, it did not go well. >> without commenting on content, my reaction to this briefing was, it was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing. and i believe more than ever, that congress needs to act to protect the constitutional provisions about war and peace. >> what can you say about the rationale for the strike on soleimani? and also, the idea of whether there were imminent threats?

>> i believe there was no rationale that could pass a graduate school thesis test. i was -- well, utterly unpersuaded by about any evidence about the imminence of a threat that was new or compelling. >> well, quite a few republicans differ with congressman connelly's assessments. lindsey graham for one who said, i find this whole idea that somehow the national security team did not have a good basis to hit this guy ridiculous. utah republican senator mike lee called the briefing, quote, unacceptable, disgraceful, and very insulting. again, those are senator mike lee's words, republican senator mike lee. now he said at the outset he supports president trump and then he said this. >> i had hoped and expected to receive more information outlining the legal, factual, and moral justification for the

attack. i was left somewhat unsatisfied on that front. the briefing lasted only 75 minutes, whereupon our briefers left. this, however, is not the biggest problem i have with the briefing. which i would add was probably the worst briefing i've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years i've served in the united states senate. what i found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was, do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against iran. and that if you do, you'll be emboldening iran. >> now, in a moment, we'll be joined by another lawmaker who was in the room, democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut. this all comes with the house set to vote tomorrow on a resolution that would force president trump to end hostilities against iran without congressional authorization, which senator lee now says he has not seen, but is open to

considering, which is not to say there's widespread bipartisan skepticism of the intelligence. senator lee and his colleague, rand paul, are outliers within the gop. mostly, there's bipartisan division, not unity or even rough consensus on how the president's handling this. in part, that's due to how polarized the country is now. but keeping 'em honest, it's not like president trump was trying to unify the country in his address today when he blamed much of the crises on president obama. >> iran's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. then iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in yemen, syria, lebanon, afghanistan, and iraq. the missiles fired last night at

us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. >> just as a factual matter, what the president said there is not correct. the one was actually iranian money for u.s. weapons frozen in the late 1970s, which was unfrozen under the nuclear deal, which the president's own intelligence officials say iranians were abiding by. which does not mean that they can be trusted now or that general soleimani wasn't a brutal killer with american blood on his hands. it doesn't mean, either, that there was ant good reason to kill him or that future military action against iran wouldn't be justified. it only means that president trump had a chance today, a chance today to keep it between the lines, between the lines on some really serious stuff. but for some reason, he chose to paint outside those lines. we'll talk more about it in just a moment. first, cnn's jim acosta has some late new reporting on how last night unfolded behind the scenes. jim, talk more about what you're learning about how close the united states came to a counterattack last night. >> yeah, anderson, talking to my sources, to my colleague, pam

brown and barbara starr, we're getting an understanding as to what was going on behind the scenes as the president was weighing whether or not to retaliate against iran last night. we're told by administration officials that, yes, the president was considering striking back at iran when these missiles were fired, but they were waiting to see what the casualties looked like on the ground. and the other thing that was happening behind the scenes, anderson, is that iran was using these back channels. they were going through intermediaries like the government of switzerland and some other countries, as many as three countries, from what we understand, to essentially tell the trump administration that they were essentially done for the night. and based ton that information coming into the white house, the president decided to pull back and not launch a counterattack, which obviously could have had devastating consequences. now, getting back to what you were just saying a few moments ago about these senators coming out of this briefing with administration officials, like senator mike lee, who was just hot coming out of that meeting, i will tell you, i talked to a

republican source familiar with this briefing to senators, who said that the posture, the attitude coming from the secretary of state, mike pompeo, and other administration officials who were briefing these senators was essentially, don't question what we're doing. don't second-guess what we're doing. and obviously, that doesn't go over well with senators. >> and was the white house surprised at all about the size and scope of the iranian attack? >> reporter: it sounds that way, anderson. and one of the things we're picking up on this evening, and i think it's fascinating, is that both the joint chiefs chairman, mark mille, and the defense secretary, mark esper are both saying publicly this evening that they agree with this assessment that iran was actually trying to not only destroy property at these bases but kill u.s. personnel. we were hearing from our sources -- cnn was hearing from our saucers earlier in the day, there were some officials saying maybe the iranians had intentionally missed as to not draw a counterattack from the u.s.

but from what we're hearing over at the pentagon, there were top officials who were very much convinced that the iranians were trying to kill americans in this attack. and it so may have been an amazing stroke of luck that no american service members were killed, anderson. >> jim acosta, thanks very much. more now on the briefings. we mentioned senator chris murphy sat in on it. he joins us now. senator murphy, you heard from senator lee earlier. he also called the briefing today, quote, unacceptable, disgraceful, very insulting. i'm wondering how you would characterize it? >> i mean, i don't know that i would use all the same words, but it was fairly extraordinary, to hear the administration tell congress that we can't debate war and peace. in fact, the founding fathers, as mike lee pointed out, vested that power solely in the legislative branch. and you know, this idea is regularly trotted out by the administration. it was echoed by mitch mcconnell on the floor of the senate yesterday, that if you're criticizing the administration's policy when it comes to war

overseas, that you're somehow doing damage to the country or to our troops. that's just absolutely ridiculous. and i'm not going to let this country slide into war again like we did in 2003, when the bush administration bullied opponents of that war into silence. the other problem, though, and frankly the bigger problem with the briefing today, was that there was no evidence of an imminent and specific threat. and i can't get into the details. but that was fairly shocking to many of us, the lack of evidence of an actual, imminent, immediate threat, because without that, the president doesn't have the authority to take military action without coming to congress first. >> the president, over in the past couple of days, has said that they were planning a very major attack, i believe that was the phrase he used at one time, in a speech. can you say if that is accurate or not? >> well, i think a lot of us worried when the explanations

shifted over the weekend. some administration officials were using the word "imminent," others weren't. some people said it was days, others said it was weeks. that all started to sound a little suspicious, if there was a set of facts that underlied this decision. no, anderson, i can't get into the details, but i can definitively say that there was not evidence presented of an imminent attack. and, of course, that's what the administration was telling us all weekend. and you know, when you're not straight with the american people about why you go to war, about why you risk american lives, it's devastating to the credibility of the federal government, of the president, and, you know, ultimately, of congress, as well. and that's why many of us were very worried coming out of that briefing today. >> you explain, you know, mike lee was saying in the nine years that he's, you know, been in -- been on capitol hill, he's never seen a briefing as bad as that. what was so different about it? was it -- i mean, were you able to ask questions? did you have a question to

answer? was it just not specific? can you elaborate at all? >> yeah, i mean, i've been in a lot of very bad briefings, so i'm not sure where i would rank this one. but it was -- you know, it was insufficient, first of all, in the sense that we've waited six days to get a briefing. all 100 senators were in that room, as far as i know. and the administration stayed there for an hour and 15 minutes and then got up and left. only about 15 senators got to ask questions, and they apparently had to be somewhere else. i mean, i'm sorry, that's not taking your responsibility seriously to report to congress. if you can only give all 100 senators about 75 minutes. and then, with you know, the lack of specific details around the threat, to me, i think was a signal that the intelligence doesn't exist, but the alternative isn't really helpful, either. that they had the intelligence and they're not telling us. so, yeah, it was insufficient from a number of standpoints

and, you know, i can see why both republicans and democrats are walking out of that briefing, you know, angry. >> we mentioned the divide that we've seen amongst some republicans based on rand paul and mike lee. i want to play something that senator lindsey graham said about senator lee and senator rand paul being dissatisfied with the security briefing. so you'll hear senator graham first, then senator paul's response to him on wolf blitzer's program. >> i think they're overreacting, quite frankly. go debate all you want to. i'm going to debate you. trust me, i'm going to let people know that at this moment in time, to play this game with the war powers act, which i think is unconstitutional, is whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the item. -- enemy. i know you don't mean to, but live in the real world here. so, debate all you want. this is a constitutional democracy, but get ready for a lively debate. >> you know, i think it's sad when people have this fake sort of drape of patriotism and anybody that disagrees with them

is not a patriot. he believes in this unitary theory of the executive that presidents can do whatever you want. the only way you can stop them is by defunding a war. that's not what our founding fathers said, it's not what the constitution says, and he insults the constitution, our founding fathers, and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism. i think that's a low gutter type of response. >> it sounds, senator murphy, like that lindsey graham was kind of echoing the message that you were told in the briefing about don't debate this. >> yeah, that's right. and it's just a ridiculous argument that gets trotted out every time that the hawks, the neoconservatives want to go to war. they tell us that if you criticize our path to war, that you're being unpatriotic. i mean, frankly, that's insulting. and it belies the fact that our troops are actually fighting for us and protecting us overseas and to protect our right to disagree with each other and speak our minds.

the reason we want the ability to debate this is because many of us think this was a very bad decision to escalate the war in a way that is already accrued to the detriment of u.s. national security. i mean, let's just be honest about the fact that today, iran has restarted its nuclear program, on their way to a potential nuclear weapon. our troops are getting kicked out of iraq. the counter-isis mission has stopped. all of that is a consequence of what happened on thursday. so we want the chance to debate this in the united states congress, because we believe, as the people's representatives, we need to write a policy that has gone very wrong. >> senator murphy, appreciate your time. thank you. coming up next, two top white house advisers on today's presidential address and why this president cannot seem or to or not interested in uniting the country, even in a moment like this. later, an airliner goes down in tehran at the height of the crisis. tonight, the deeply troubling questions about what exactly caused that airliner to go down and whether someone made it happen or it was an accident. with advil liqui-gels,

you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain? ♪ only lexus asks questions like these. because we believe the most amazing machines are inspired by you. experience the rewards of our curiosity.

proof i can fight moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. proof i can fight psoriatic arthritis... ...with humira. proof of less joint pain... ...and clearer skin in psa. humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. humira is proven to help relieve pain,

stop further joint damage,... ...and clear skin in psa. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. want more proof? so ithat gives me cash backsome new on everything.uten that's ebates new name. rakuten, it gets me cash back at tons of stores and i just shop like normal. that's ebates. i've told you fifteen times, we've saved like five hundred dollars last year. rakuten is changing my life, i get cash back on electronics, travel, clothes. you're talking about ebates. look, if you use my referral code you get ten bucks, i get twenty five. this is a pretty good deal to me we should probably- sfx [blender] smoothies ready. awesome. ebates is now rakuten, sign up today and get cash back on everything you buy. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g.

almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. you have a brother in the seyes sir.talion? they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow's attack. if you fail, we will lose sixteen hundred men. your brother among them. we need to keep moving. i can't see! you keep hold of me! come on! what the hell are you doing lance corporal? trust me! (shaq) (chime) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink

that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪ the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... breaking news tonight. a senator who spoke with the president telling us the president appeared ready to launch a counterattack if there had been even one american casualty. also, a source telling us that iran reached out through at least three back channels to signal that the strike they launched was only one. the president did not speak of either in his address today. he did talk about things that everyone can agree on, namely that what appeared to be a march to war now seems to be on hold. however, he didn't leave it there. he attacked president obama. in fact, he criticized all presidents going back to 1979. he also said little to persuade anyone who didn't already support him that the confrontation with iran is something worth rallying behind. which is what presidents traditionally do. it's also ironically what presidents have traditionally had to do less of. that's because in a crisis, americans tend to rally behind any president in any part until

now. our next guest, david fromme, has a column on the subject in the atlantic. he writes, the united states finds itself in the dangerous situation of having a president in power but without authority. he helped draft the axis of evil speech. joining us as well tonight, another distinguished white house senior adviser, david axelrod who served in the obama administration. david axelrod, just looking at the president's speech this morning, clearly not rushed. his team had all night to prepare. key military officials standing there behind him. how do you think hep handled the moment? >> well, look, it was -- this was a moment where you had a nation that was on war footing. and he was there to deliver good news, which was, he was taking -- we were taking a step back, both sides were taking a step back. it was a moment for national solidarity and relief.

and he could not refrain from taking shots at his predecessors, and particularly, president obama. we've become accustomed to this. the question is, why? why does he do that? i think he sees some political advantage to flaying obama any chance he gets. and there may be some sense of envy, because obama left as a highly regarded president. and you know, donald trump's about -- ratings are everything for donald trump. and i think that it bothers him. and he feels like he needs to tear his predecessor down. but it was a missed opportunity on a day he should have had nothing but good news for the american people. >> david frum, i'm trying to think of instances where this president has really reached out to people who did not vote for him or may not have voted for him. and i can't really think of many. in your piece in the atlantic today, you say, quote, a president who writes off half the country can't expect to garner support from a crises of his own making. >> this president has insulted the state of california, he says

he hates the state of new york, says that new jersey is a rodent infested mess, has described atlanta as a disgrace to the nation. and just in the immediate aftermath of the targeted killing of general soleimani, the president retweeted one of his most fervent supporter who said that the democratic leadership in congress were the equivalent of iranian terrorists. the person who is jockeying for the job of replacing mike pence as his running mate in 2020, former u.n. ambassador, nikki haley, said that democrats mourn the death of soleimani, which no democrat has done. and when challenged on that said, well, they've regretted it. and the two people who most conspicuously regretted it are members of trump's party, rand paul and trump's favorite it have host, tucker carlson. so the president, it has never even occurred to him that this is part of his job. he thinks his job is to put on makeup, raise his chin, go on tv, and say things. and then the people should applaud.

and if they don't, it's their fault and not his fault. >> david axelrod, we mentioned, you know, senator mike lee today is saying that the closed-door senate briefing was un-american and completely unacceptable, given that the administration suggested that congress shouldn't have arole in approving iran military action and essentially shouldn't debate this. were you surprised to see him and senator rand paul speak out? lindsey graham dismissed them as libertarians and essentially outliers. >> look, the administration's -- i'm someone who's -- sorry. >> go ahead. >> two davids. >> david axelrod, go ahead, and we'll get david in. >> no, look, i think that if you were going to -- if you were going to identify two members of the republican party who were likely to dissent, it would be them. but look, they raised an important point, which is that there are constitutionally shared powers here, that congress does have responsibilities and they ought to be treated with respect and, you know, one of the -- you talk

about building solidarity in the country, but it's also important to build solidarity for governing purposes. and bringing in the other branch, both democrats and republicans and sharing the burden of these decisions, is an important part of that. and it's a huge mistake to treat the congress as they're treating the congress here. >> david frum, i mean, on that point, it is remarkable to think, you know, having experienced what we all experienced in the run-up to the iraq war in terms of the use of intelligence and just the lies that have subsequently been revealed about, you know, what the public has been told about the war in afghanistan for quite some time, which, you know, revealed in "the new york times" recently, an extraordinary history of lies, just as it was in the vietnam war, the fact that lindsey graham is arguing that old argument of, just, even discussing this is giving comfort to the enemy, i mean,

that's a line that's been used time and time again for decades. >> look, general soleimani is a blood-soaked murderer. no one regrets his death and his death was overdue and there was no way he was going to die peacefully and he shouldn't have died peacefully. that said, the administration's account, you don't have to know anything about the intelligence. it's obviously not true. it's -- look, one of two things were true -- they are claiming, this is a person who is at the top of the iranian chain of command. and also, that there is an imminent attack. if the attack is imminent, killing the guy at the top of the chain of command doesn't stop it. if the united states had been able to kill osama bin laden two days before 9/11, that wouldn't have stopped 9/11. the operation was underway. the killing the guy at the top of the chain of command can stop the operation, the operation is by definition not imminent. it's still in the planning phase. so their explanation can't be true. that doesn't mean the decision was wrong. but given -- if you believe in the decision, you could give a truthful explanation for it. including that this man owed the

united states a blood debt. that would be an answer that many americans would accept. but what they're saying now is, you can't accept it, because it's obviously not true. >> david frum, david axelrod, appreciate it. up next, a live report from iraq, where there was actually in baghdad today, the latest on that in a moment. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you(whistling)

i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424.

here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. hours after president trump told the nation that, quote, iran appears to be standing down, unquote, the iraqi military says two rockets landed in the green zone of baghdad, which houses the u.s. embassy. no casualties reported. the cnn team in baghdad says it heard sirens from inside the green zone, as well as two explosions. we should note that there had been numerous rocket attacks in

the area in recent months, even before the killing of qassem soleimani, and it's not exactly clear who fired the rockets. cnn's clarissa ward is in erbil, the northern kurdish region of iraq, near where some of last night's missiles struck. so, clarissa, talk about the situation there tonight? >> reporter: well, anderson, it's very quiet here tonight, but i have to say, it was extremely eerie to be flying in to erbil at night. the airport was essentially deserted. ours was one of the only flights that was not canceled because one of the missiles that fell in erbil actually landed within the perimeter of the airport. this is, obviously, extremely important place strategically for the u.s. it is the heart of the fight against isis. a lot of special forces operatives working in and around this area. that fight is now frozen, but we did notice in our hotel, roughly a hundred, if not more, u.s. military contractors, they had

essentially been evacuated from places like baghdad, also from the beladd air base amid fears of continuing attacks. the assumption was that erbil was the safe place to send people, but iran sending a powerful message last night that no place is essentially beyond the reach or completely secure from the reach of their missiles, anderson. >> you know, you talk about this as being kind of frozen. obviously, things can, unfortunately, thaw out quite quickly. there are still, i mean, you can't understate the tensions between the united states and iran. that still exist. >> reporter: and -- absolutely, the tensions are there, and i think you're going to continue to see them exploited, particularly through the situation here in iraq. this is an easy move for iran going forward, to try to play on the divisions between iraqis and the u.s. you know, you mentioned before that we've seen a lot of rockets go into the green zone, and we

have. but given the events that have transpired in the last 24 hours, it's hard not to see this through the prism of essentially passions running high, with supporters of the various shia militias that are loyal to iran, they're looking for revenge. they feel anger. they feel resentment. they want to see u.s. forces leave. and that is what iran has ultimately said its real goal here is. these missiles last night were essentially a strategic gesture to show strength, to save face. but the real goal, according to their own rhetoric, is to try to push u.s. forces out of this region entirely. that is not going to be a short-term prospective, anderson. that could take years, and believe me, they are willing to play the long game here. >> clarissa ward, thank you. be careful. for more on the standoff with iran, the president's use of national security-related intelligence, i want to bring in leon panetta. mr. panetta served as both defense secretary and national security adviser under president obama. first of all, your reaction to

the administration's so far handling of the iranian missile strike and the pushback from some members of congress. >> anderson, i think it's very difficult to try to understand, what is the overall strategy of this administration in the middle east. it's very confused. the president has talked on both sides of the fence, talked about withdrawing from the middle east, talked about forever wars, talked about the need to let those countries deal with their own problems. and at the same time, we are now building up our forces in the middle east and we are virtually continue to be on the brink of war in that area. i just think that the handling of this situation has been very confusing. the justification for why they went after soleimani has been mixed.

there's been different reasons presented. there's no clear evidence of an imminent threat that's been involved here. and i think all of that raises a lot of questions about just exactly how we are going to proceed with regards to this crisis in the middle east? >> yeah, i mean, it doesn't -- i'm just not clear on what the administration's policy is to iran. i mean, there's clearly there were some in the administration, bolton and perhaps pompeo, who wanted and may still want regime change. obviously, the president has talked about getting troops out of syria, out of iraq. is it clear to you that there is a policy? >> i think if there's any history regarding the wars in the 21st century is that they've come about because of miscalculations, of poor judgment, of not understanding

the intelligence, and somehow assuming that power alone could resolve these issues. that's the history of the wars we've been in. and we're in the process of repeating all of those same mistakes now. i think the president tried, essentially, to bully iran into negotiations with the united states and iran, to some extent, is trying to bully this president to get out of the middle east. both have failed. and yet, you know, i don't see much changing, although we had a pause last night, and thank god for that, in terms of whether or not we were going to go to war. i don't see anything changing right now in the relationship between the united states and iran. and that spells trouble for the future. >> how concerning is it that the administration is essentially telling members of the senate,

telling a room full of all of the senators, don't discuss this, don't debate this, because it's emboldening an enemy. >> i -- in my experience, that's unheard of. if you're going to go and brief the senate with regards to a national security issue, your job is to present the truth to that group of senators. and let them know exactly what has happened and the justification for any action that took place. to then go there and lecture a group of senators about what they should or should not say or what they should or should not do, is asking for trouble. and you heard that trouble today, with the senators who came out and reacted to that briefing. the purpose of those briefings is to build support with the senate and with the congress. you're in the process of being

on the brink of some kind of conflict in the middle east. you need the support of the congress, if the united states is going to take any steps in that part of the world. and not to bring the senate on to your side, but instead, criticize them for opening their mouth, i think, was just a serious mistake in terms of the ability of this administration to try and get their support. >> we had david frum on earlier, who wrote a piece in "the atlantic." essentially, one of his points was how president trump is only speaking to half the country. he's only speaking to the people who, you know, voted for him, who he believes will vote for him again. and that was just very evident today in, you know, this moment of potential national unity and national kind of relief, he, you know, chose to kind of lay it on -- attack president obama and, you know, presidents going back to '79.

>> this president, and one of the things that's concerned me from the beginning of this administration, was not only rejecting the values of the presidency and how you behave, but failing to try to unify the country behind the president's policies. he's almost deliberately tried to split this country apart and continues to do that. continues to only speak to his supporters, instead of trying to reach out and bring all of the american people into supporting what the administration is doing. he is -- he's wrapped up in a political campaign, almost a continuing political campaign. and in that mind-set, all he cares about is whether or not his supporters continue to support him.

and he continues to appeal to them, rather than being big in that office and reaching out to all of the american people. i think that's a serious mistake. >> secretary panetta, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you very much. >> thank you. up next, a deadly mystery. was it an accident or perhaps something worse that led to the plane crash in tehran that killed 176 people only hours after the iranian missile attack. 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.

there's growing concern over the cause of that ukrainian airliner crash in tehran only a fus hour after iranian missiles crashed into american positions inside of iraq. officials say all 176 people inside the boeing 737 was killed. what we don't know is whether it was an accident or something more sinister. with us now, mary schiavo, cnn aviation analyst. she's now an attorney for victims and families in transportation accidents, including those involving boeing. mary, based on what you've seen so far, what stands out to you? are there clues to suggest what may have happened? >> well, i think this thing that stands out to me most of all was a change in the position. at first, there was a comment that it could be an engine, engine failure, et cetera, and then people changed their minds. and i think that probably suggests that what they looked at was the acars data, the data that is suggested by the aircraft itself.

it had a normal takeoff, climb out, it had good altitude gain, good ground speed, and all of a sudden it went completely silent and no more data transmission, obviously, that suggests something very catastrophic and probably not an engine failure. >> and it appears as if there wasn't a mayday call? >> that's right. highly significant, as well, because with an engine failure, there are very established and trained for procedures. the pilots have fire bottles, which they will set off to set out to extinguish a fire in the engine. they'll call air traffic control and request emergency clearance. the routes will be cleared for them and head right back to the airport. no mayday call suggests whatever happened happened instantaneously and catastrophically. >> it's said to be, i think, a difficult airport to fly in and out of. it requires training, apparently, from what i've read, that these pilots were experienced with it. >> i see no indication that the

pilots had made errors flying into and out of the airport. and if they had a problem, for example, gaining altitude, we would are seen that on the flight radar data, and it doesn't look like that at all. it got a fine climb, altitude, ground speed, and it looked like a completely normal takeoff. >> the fact that there was military activity in iran, and, you know, the missile attacks into iraq, it's obviously either a coincidence or there is some linkage there in some way. >> well, statistically speaking, when an airplane literally explodes in the side, when you have an in-flight breakup, especially with a fire, statistically, it has usually been a missile, a bomb, or an explosion. but there are a few notable exceptions. tw 800 back in 1996 was a center fuel tank explosion. and chalks oceans airways was a wing coming off. and there is a directive on this plane for the wing attachment. so there are notable exceptions

for mechanical failures, but usually it has been explosion, bomb, missile when a plane falls from the sky. >> and the iranian government has said they will not turn over the black boxes, which apparently have been located, and won't work with the u.s. government or the manufacturer, which i believe is boeing. again, one can read that, as, there's nefarious reasons for that, or, you know, distrust and other political reasons. >> or unfamiliarity with how an annexed 13 international civil aviation organization investigation really works. and that is, you deliver the black boxes securely and safely to a black box lab that is capable of downloading and really identifying and working with the data. they don't routinely just give them back to the manufacturers. they get them to the lab. now, the best labs are, of course, in u.s., canada, france, britain, australia, and others. so if i was certainly leading the investigation, i would want

to call in one of the these black box lab experts. if i wasn't going to use the ntsb, but, according to the annex 13iko guidelines, it would be irregular. you know, certainly, they could call in canada. they have a great investigation bureau. and there were so many canadians onboard. that would make sense. >> that would. mary, appreciate it, thanks. more to learn, obviously. >> thank you. coming up, house speaker nancy pelosi is still holding on to the two articles of impeachment passed in mid-december. ahead, the state of play tonight on their transmission to the senate. oh, your mom just texted. she's landed. 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. of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever. at "progressive on ice." [sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure.

coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. 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. even before they need it.need, with esri location technology,

you can see what others can't. ♪

i want to check in with chris. see what he's working on with "cuomo prime time." >> we're taking it from simple to complicated tonight. we have lawmaker on both sides

who are very upset about these briefings today. why? simple. if it's such a simple case, why hasn't it been made. why hasn't the president given us a stitch of proof it's necessary? because if we don't learn from the process the process will be repeated. this type of brinksmanship is no way to do diplomacy and keep the country safe. we're going to have experts say why they say this isn't over and what's worth speculating on, what is not. >> all right. six minutes from now, chris. look forward to it. with the showdown with iran on hold or maybe just a pause, the tension on capitol hill turning to impeachment. and the question, will house speaker nancy pelosi send the articles of impeachment to the senate as early as tomorrow? we'll look at that ahead. ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you love. the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late.

or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. ( ♪ ) hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber. if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good. we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

(whistling) fidelity has zero commissions for online u.s. equity trades and etfs,

plus zero minimums to open a brokerage account. with value like this, there are zero reasons to invest anywhere else. fidelity. even senate democrats appear ready for house speaker nancy pelosi to release the articles of impeachment voted on last year. with her fight against senate republican leader mitch mcconnell over trial rules at an impasse, several democratic senators told cnn it's time to begin the trial hopefully next week, according to senator chris murphy. california senator dianne feinstein told politico, quote, the longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. so if it's serious and urgent, send them over. if it isn't, don't send it over. phil mattingly joins us now from capitol hill. so, now that the speaker is starting to face criticism from inside her own party, what are your sources telling you about her next steps? >> reporter: yeah, anderson, it's remarkable in a building, the capitol, where just about everything leaks out, sometimes within minutes from closed-door meetings and briefings, that no one really knows what the speaker plans to do. even her closest advisers, her

closest leadership members don't have an explanation or an answer as to when the articles will head over. but you hit on a key point here. senate democrats are running out of patience. i'm told multiple democratic senators have told democratic leader chuck schumer to communicate to the speaker that the time is now to transmit the articles. the idea of holding them for a period of time has served its purpose. obviously, more stories have leaked out. john bolton is willing to testify, if subpoenaed. that has been effective to a degree. and effective in setting a message about what senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is trying to do. but what one democratic senator told me today, anderson, we have reached the point of diminishing returns. this needs to come over now. the expectation is that they will still come over this week, but no one knows for sure. >> tomorrow the house votes on an iran war powers resolution. is that expected to play into this at all? how is that expected to play out? and could it impact the speaker's decision on impeachment? >> anderson, one of the most interesting elements of this entire week is really how much members in both parties, in both chambers have tried as best they

can to separate these two issues. they understand the gravity of both of them. they understand the necessity of dealing with both of them. but they are trying to keep them separate. the war powers resolution tomorrow, which would halt iran, would halt the u.s. from hostilities towards iran, unless they came back to congress, will pass. and it will pass overwhelmingly. but at this point, keeping it separate from impeachment, anderson. >> phil mattingly, thanks very much. appreciate it. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> all right. thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." the question, is it really over? the president still hasn't provided you a stitch of proof this country had to take out a general right now. not a scintilla of proof. we have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who got the intel. why are so many so appalled by the quality of the briefing. and we're going to take on the great mystery in the sky over iran. 176 killed just after takeoff in iran on the way to ukraine.

forget the chatter, what does the evidence show so far? let's get after it. all right. the house says it's going to vote tomorrow to rein in the president's war-making powers. why? well, in large part because of wild dissatisfaction with briefings from the administration today about the strike that got u.s. bases bombed. here's a taste. >> probably the worst briefing i've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years i've served in the united states senate. to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against iran. it's un-american. it's unconstitutional. and it's wrong. >> all of those democrats, they won't shut up. oh, it was a republican. oh, well, he just hates trump. no, he doesn't. that was senator mike lee, a republican from utah, standing