i see what you're doing. that's why you were so quick to echo the president when he called those never trumpers human scum. you were like a deep cover asset for the resistance inside the white house. but don't worry, your secret is safe with us. president trump never watches cnn. so keep sending those messages on fox. he'll never notice how much you're pointing out his own hypocrisy on "the ridiculist." the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for cuomo prime time. >> quick story. when i was at abc, i jumped off the taj mahal. we were supposed to be facing our fears. and the president, then citizen trump, donated 20 grand to charity for me jumping it off. i was told he offered double the next day if i did it without the rope attached. it's ftrue. but he was charitable. >> a long game with that one too. >> it was literally a string attached at that time that he didn't like. anderson, thank you. i am chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. 176 innocent people were killed

taking off from iran on their way to ukraine, and we have new evidence that most likely missiles shot from and by iran are to blame. we have the forensics. we also have the analysts to make sense of it and the minds to tell us what this means for the united states. and the president said more at a rally tonight about why he had to take out soleimani than he did in his national address aboutimminencesy. he has yet to prove any good reason why it had to be done at that time, and yet the house today voted nowhere near close to unanimously in voting to take back the power this president used without basis. why? time to test. let's get after it. all right. first the plane. soon after iran fired missless on u.s. forces in iraq, a passenger plane lit up in iran's

sky and went down in a ball of flames. why? new evidence indicates iran shot down ukrainian flight 752 with two surface-to-air missiles made by russia. the u.s. apparently saw iranians' radar signals or radar signatures locking onto the jetliner before it was shot down along with satellite and other data. canada also says it has intel that the plane was shot down but may have been unintentional. can something like this happen by accident? the families of the 176 victims, they deserve answers. iran has gone back and forth with defenses, they did it, they're not going to talk about it, their desire to share data. now we have more evidence ourselves. we have new video obtained by cnn. joining us now to help us walk through it, what does it mean, what does it mean going forward, cnn military analyst, major

general james spider marks. and cnn safety analyst david susie. specifically this, okay? this is the video of what we have. youi you guys ready? i'm going to play it full. i also have it in slow. all right. quick, again. let's try it again. ready? here it is again if you're watching at home. watch for this little blip, which is believed to be something obviously approaching the plane. then you'll see impact. ready? and again. all right. now, here it is -- we took the time to slow it down for you. and, listen, i'm not trying to show you this in some type of theatrical way. this isn't to be provocative. it is to get to the truth of those 176 deaths, the families that deserve to know, and the political ramifications of the same. here it is slowed down. this is believed to be some type of incendiary device or missile.

now, you'll watch. as it hits, that's the explosion. the explosion, this explosion is believed to be the airplane. now, you'll remember from the other night, okay -- you remember this that we showed you, the video that someone took? this was believed to be -- i hate when i do that. it was believed to be the airplane, okay? now, do we still believe it was the airplane? i believe yes. we'll talk to david about it. and then eventually we saw this descent. all right. so this is the after impact of it being struck. this is the moment of impact, they believe. david, first of all, this video, does this -- i know you've reviewed it already. does this look like what it appears to be, that something approached this aircraft and struck it? >> it most definitely does. there's little question about what that is in my mind, if it's

actually a valid video, which we have validated it as cnn, so it does. >> all right. so that's what it is. now we get into what was it, and how did this happen. general marks, the idea of iranian capabilities, spider, could they have done this? >> oh, absolutely. they have the sa-15, which is a russian-made surface to air missile, made in the early '80s, not particularly overly sophisticated, but it has some capabilities to go after particularly, you know, cruise missiles is why it was developed, which means it has some incredible maneuverability. bear in mind by comparison, this is a slow-moving, ascending commercial aircraft with passengers. >> right. that takes us to the next question, and david, weigh in once i get the take from spider here. how do you make this mistake? do you not know what the plane is? does the thing launch itself? i mean what are the variabilities here that make it something other than, let's shoot down this plane? >> yeah. from the outside working in, first of all, you've got the

context of missiles being fired by the iranians into iraq almost simultaneously. so you have a very hot, contested, busy airspace over iran. that's number one. everybody's on a heightened level of alert, concern. there's a lot of chaos, and they have commercial flights still leaving the tehran airport, which i think is just amazingly irresponsible. >> good point. spider, let's hold on that point for a send. david, the idea that iran would not clear the airspace during this. does this show how sloppy they are or don't know what they're doing, or is there another explanation? >> i can't think of another explanation, chris. i'm really outraged about this because of the fact the u.s. has restrictions over this. but the passengers that were on that airplane had no idea that they were flying into this area. they weren't informed. they didn't know. they went through security. they were on the safest airplanes in the world, and then we fly it right into a war zone. it's just totally, as spider said, it's just completely irresponsible. >> so the lack of coordination

that we would assume between air traffic and military and government just doesn't seem to happen. now, spider, your earlier point about when this was happening, do we know that this plane was taking off during the time of active missile bombardment by iran? >> i don't -- i don't know. i've not seen any of the time lines in the sequencing of all that. >> so does it change, spider, if it was after? the bombs had landed. it had been there. and while we were processing, this plane takes off and gets hit. >> no, it does not matter at all. look, we've got the context of all of this confusion, heightened levels of alert. people are concerned. this type of capability can be in an automatic mode, or it can be in a manual mode. so there's a man either in the loop or there's a man on the loop and defers to the machine. i don't know which one of those was triggered at that time, but when this thing was launched, clearly it was probably done in an automatic mode, and the authority, delegated authority to have the lunch take plaaunch

had gone from some higher command and control -- why would you delegate that authority? that's an incredibly aggressive step? it's crazy command and control. >> a little bit of context, spider. back in june when they shot down that u.s. drone, they offered up an excuse of, look, this wasn't a big part of a plan. there was some under ling general that made a bad call. could that be the case here that some dope decided to fire a missile in clear error of something that looks nothing like something coming to hit you, right? they're firing up at something that is clearly trying to move away from them as you see the video, you know? if we can get the video to play full again, you know, they're obviously aiming at something going up and away, not coming down and at them. is that something that you could just right off to being a dope and doing your job poorly? >> doing your job extremely

poorly, horrible training, irresponsible command and control type of apparatus. this is a dangerous, dangerous situation that we're talking about. very crowded airspace with a lot of, as i've indicated, a lot of animosity and a lot of kinetic -- >> does that sound like -- >> absolutely. and it also tells you about, you know, having very tight command and control structures is not necessarily what you see. we see the militias that are associated with the irgc as a matter of routine doing their own thing over time. local commanders making a decision to go execute some particular task. well, where's the control mechanism that says, yeah, we want to do that? where's the grander strategic view? look, you might have local perceptions, but what is the overall strategy that we're trying to achieve here, and what's the mechanism in place to ensure that you can control that? >> right. >> and moderate that behavior. >> david, the ability to escape responsibility for this, there's

the suggestion, oh, they'll probably blame the united states. well, how? forensically, are you going to be able to determine where these missiles came from if they let the ntsb in on the investigation as has been ping ponged back and forth? the latest word is that iran would let boeing, the manufacturer, have a representative there, which may well be an ntsb rep to go. would you be able to rule out that this was anybody but them and then how do you escape responsibility? >> well, you would be able to rule out who it wasn't. >> right. >> i don't know if you could say who it was or why they did what they did. but it's definitely we can do rebuilds. if you remember the m 817 accident that was a different missile. i believe it was the mr-56 bouq missile. but that was a different set. it was much more sophisticated. but at the same time, we were able to reconstruct it, show exactly where those penetrations went in, where they came from. in fact we know it was three meters from the cockpit when that explosion happened and

sending shrapnel into the airplane. so from this we can take that shrapnel, take that aircraft and those pieces and do a reconstruction and find out nearly exactly where it exploded and the direction and which way it came from. >> so the facts will show who has to own this, whether it will be owned and what it means going forward, we're going to take up later in the show. but for this fact analysis and taking us through the video, major general spider marks, thank you very much. dave susie, again, two nights in a row, appreciate it. so if the most likely scenario that we showed you here and the facts triangulate to it being iran, well, then what? what if they own it, say they're sorry? what if they don't? what does it mean for the united states? they're could be implications to our safety from this. how so? next. with so many nourishing shades,

a color change is easy. nutrisse has 77. from our darkest blacks, to our lightest blondes. it nourishes while it colors. plus avocado, olive and shea. change a little, or a lot. nutrisse. nourished hair. better color. by garnier, naturally! i like working. what if my retirement plan is, i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan, let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

yeah, i could see that. i had no idea that my grandfatherfe changing moment for me. was a federal judge in guatemala. he was an advocate for the people... a voice for the voiceless. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss.

your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. audiences give "1917" an "a". [ gunshots ] "it's a thrill-ride behind enemy lines." we need to keep moving! tomorrow.

dthen you have a reasons to go to jackson hewitt today. you could get up to $3,200 the day you file with an express no fee refund advance loan. that's money fast. like, today fast. don't wait weeks. go to jackson hewitt today. all right. just to remind, if iran shot this plane down, it's not the first time we've had to deal with something like this. there have been more than two dozen instances where civilian planes were shot down. if the untell is accurate, the ukraine jet could join that grim list. now, here are just a few other ones, and one was kind of like this one. in 2014, malaysia airlines flight 17 was shot out of the sky over eastern ukraine. 298 onboard, all obviously killed. i was there. i saw the scattered debris firsthand. more importantly, i heard the

denials from russia-backed rebels. i watched them point guns at us to keep us from investigating the scene. i watched them refuse to accord the dead any respect, being tough even on u.n. investigators. ultimately it was concluded russia-backed separatists were responsible. what's the point? for political reasons, people can do terrible things to innocents in the air. 1983, a soviet fighter jet shot down korean airlines flight 007 after it strayed into its territory. soviet union claimed the jet was on a spying mission. 269 onboard, all killed including u.s. congressman larry mcdonald, an outspoken anti-communist and one of 61 americans on that plane. then in 1988, there was also a piece of notorious history that certainly matters to iran. a u.s. navy warship in the persian gulf called the vin senz was engaged with iranian gunboats. in the midst of it, the united

states ship shot down an iranian passenger jet, mistaking it, it said, for a fighter jet. 290 people killed. tehran believed the u.s. did it on purpose, and it was a big, big block between the united states and iran to this day. now, if iran is to blame here, shooting down a passenger jet in the midst of this standoff with the united states, what are the variables going far? letsz bring in vali nasr, former state department official and middle east scholar at johns hopkins university. i wanted to go through the history which obviously you know, vali, just to remind people this has been done before and often for different reasons. so let's just look at removing some types of possibilities here. what is the chance that iran did this on purpose, thinking it was a way of retaliating against the united states? >> i don't think so, largely because majority of the passengers on this airplane are

iranian. even the canadians on this plane were probably mostly if not all dual citizens. and ultimately it's very difficult to show that at such a low altitude, there was a projectile coming from somewhere else hitting this plane. i think the biggest problem right now the iranian government has is to explain to its own people why 176 people died, majority of whom are iranian. they have families in iran. there's a lot of grief, and they haven't come out immediately saying that this was an attack from the outside. their initial explanation was that this was a mechanical failure and the plane was trying to turn around and come back. >> how can they not know what it was, though? i mean we have the video. they must have the video and in all likelihood, they shot it. >> right. but, you know, usually the knee-jerk reaction in these cases is not to come out and say this was a fog of war. we were on hair trigger, or this

was on automatic and it was a mistake. it's that, you know, you have people scurrying to deny, and then they're trying to come up with some kind of an explanation. then there is silence. and as you can see, their position has changed from, no, we're going to handle the black box, and nobody from the outside can come in. >> right. >> now inviting boeing and ntsb to come in. i think at some point it's to their own advantage to come out and say that, you know, that they made a mistake, and it's the fog of war, and they were in the midst of a missile launch against the u.s. and they reacted as if they were being attacked. >> now, i would have assume the this was a non-factor in terms of u.s./iranian tensions and the u.s. would just follow suit with the international community in demanding accountability and recompense for their 176 lives and their families. but i had state department officials, you know, off the record giving me background information that, no, no, no. we have to be very careful here. the ramifications to our own

exposure with iran. how? >> well, first of all, there were no americans on the flight. and even the canadians on the flight a flight, probably all of them were dual nationals. which in the eyes of iran, they were iran nationals. they were traveling to iran probably to visit family. so iran doesn't see them as foreigners who had died but rather as more iranians who were on that plane other than iranian nationals. >> so even though they shot it down, they would say this is america's fault because they had us on high alert? is that the tortured reasoning? >> that would be a circuitous reason. but -- we're in a situation of war, and this is a consequence of being in a situation of war that even civilian flights are no longer safe. and that's not, i think, a message necessarily that the iranian government would benefit giving its population because it can create additional pressure on them. i mean one of the consequences of this shooting down is probably that for some time, other airlines are going to cancel their flights to iran.

>> right. >> and that means that it's going to be even more difficult for iranians to travel. it's going to hurt them economically. >> right. >> it's going to create unhappiness within iran. so i think this was -- this is a headache for the iranian government that they have to figure out how they're going to handle. >> well, you kill 176 people. the least you should have is a headache. what i'm waiting for -- tell me if this is one of the right cues. i'm waiting for the people that the united states needs as allies in the region, who were quiet about taking out soleimani -- i mean even france, you know, and germany and the uk were talking about de-escalation, not taking america's side in terms of saying this was a righteous killing. i'm waiting for allies to come out against what iran did here because otherwise you really do have the u.s. against iran, and that's just not good for united states interests. >> well, even for the united states, even if up listened to the president today, he was very careful to say that this is what we suspect or strongly suspect. we have to see the facts. you have to actually fully

establish more than just the video that somebody standing on the side of the road took. >> right. >> and say that, yes, this was a missile. this is where it originated. then i think the case is it was a mistake, which more than likely it was, or is it something else? and all countries in the world have to be very careful not to sort of get ahead of themselves and intervene and then be seen as being too eager to pick on anything possible to basically criticize the iranian government. and then also the european governments, they don't have a standing immediately unless they have citizens on this flight. right now the country that is most aggrieved is ukraine. >> right. >> it lost an airplane, which at some point probably iran would have to compensate them for it. a number of their own citizens were killed in this. and then there is canada, which had a number of citizens which are also iranian, which has a standing here. but if there were no french, no germans, no dutch americans on this, they have to wait and see

what is the final verdict on this. and ultimately once the debris has been looked at, how does iran respond? i mean we have to forget, even when airplanes go down for accidents or malfunction in the west, there is some pause not to immediately come out and say -- >> no, absolutely. you have to have the right conclusion. >> so it's going to call for a bit of time. >> what i'm saying is analysis i know you share is the most likely answer to is this over is no in terms of hostilities. and the most likely answer to where we'll see that answer manifest is in the region with iranian proxies doing very inflammatory and hostile things, and the united states will need a coalition, will need its friends to deal with that to the extent they deal with it at all. that's why i'm looking to see who speaks up now. vali nasr, thank you so much for your perspective. appreciate it. >> thank you. all right. the president was anything but confident when he addressed the nation. he offered you no proof of why

the iranian general posed an imminent threat. all you had to do was watch the speech. i'll show you some of it in a little bit. but tonight at the rally, he dropped something he's never said before. i'm going to lay out to you how there is an obvious lacking of strategy and proof of imminency. once and for ul, facts first so you can decide, next. so why you paying so much for wireless? i don't know... the new tracfone wireless gives you all kinds of control. leftovers? tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. what are you doing? unlimited carryover data! hey! do you know you can get unlimited talk and text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20, no contract? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know i gotta talk to mama, then on... this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control.

it's finally time for... geico sequels! classic geico heroes, starring in six new commercials,

with jaw-dropping savings. vote for your favorites at: geico.com/sequels ahhh, which way do i go?! i don't know, i'm voting for our sequels. with geico, the savings keep on going to a screen near you. not the leg! you dang woodchucks! geico sequels. vote and enter to win today! $12.99 all you can eat you da♪g woodchucks! now with boneless wings. only at applebee's.

remember, this president, donald trump, told you u.s. intel is not to be trusted. classified information, confidential informants, forget it. reveal them when it matters. so why has he offered you none of that? he limped through his address to the nation when it counted. but tonight at the rally, look at him. >> soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in baghdad. but we stopped him, and we stopped him quickly. >> look at him all cock sure and

candid. where was that during the national address? where was that in the briefings as relayed from our lawmakers? so it was about another embassy, multiple embassies. does not sound like our members of congress, members of his own party, were told that to any satisfaction. and he never said it in the address. is it true? would this president lie to these rally people about that too? the vice president says, let me answer the question. no, wait a minute. too sensitive. >> some of the most compelling evidence that qassem soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against american forces and american personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have. it could compromise those sources and methods. >> boy, oh, boy. remember their reaction to the same rationale? it's so good, this proof, but i can't tell you. remember what they said about

the same explanation. listen. >> the deep state are desperate to stop us. >> we've got to get to the bottom of how all this started. >> they hid it so nobody could see it. and remember this, that truth is a force of nature. >> it's a force of nature, the truth. but now we can't share. even when the move is being questioned, even when he has to justify it and he's president of the united states, and he says they have to guard it because of two things. one, leaks. but remember, trump pardoned scooter libby, the guy convicted for his role in one of this nation's biggest intel leaks, which in no small irony stemmed from bad intel that was used to start a war. second, you know who's never been convicted of leaking national security intel? any member of congress, past or present. and the idea of protecting an

embassy, now, that matters to lawmakers. they give it a lot of weight. you remember benghazi? >> benghazi. tend to confirm a lot of our worst fears about our government. >> i believe hillary clinton's abdication of responsibility, her refusal to provide an adequate defense for benghazi, her dereliction of duty should forever preclude her from higher office. >> now, he was campaigning, but mike lee and rand paul, not exactly a couple of anti-trumpers, and they care about embassies, right? they want that information. they want to protect them. yet for all their concern to protect diplomats, here is how they came away from the briefing about what made taking out this general imminent. >> it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong. >> it's an insult to the constitution. >> now, again, iran, bad when it comes to american interests.

soleimani, bad, terrorist according to the u.s. government. our embassies in the region, targets for years. so all of that is true, but none of it answers the question of why now. that's what imminent means. trump knows this matters. that's why he laid it out to the rally folk. but he can't prove it. now, when will that sink in to congress? do your job and make sure our military is not exposed for no reason. this is your job in the constitution. the house has taken action to remind the president that he has to go to congress first if he wants to take further action. it wasn't unanimous, though. how was it not unanimous? and what does it really even accomplish? is it only symbolic? the chairman of the house democratic caucus answers next. when you have pain... you want relief. fast.

only thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients to fight pain 4 different ways. get powerful relief today, with thermacare. car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business.

from finding out what's selling best... to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life.

my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously. so celebrity makeup artist sir john is here to help. thinning or sparse brows are very common and that's why l'oreal paris created unbelieva-brow longwear brow gel. it's easy to fill in and thicken your brows. unbelieva-brow in your favorite stores.

it's easy to fill in and thicken your brows. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the president tonight offering a part of what he called obvious reasons for killing one of iran's top generals, and the reason is he was planning to blow up more

u.s. embassies. you ever heard that before? me either. why does it first come up at a rally? congress says it's not so obvious, that the briefings were unsatisfying. so they put up a vote today to take back the power that they've been giving to presidents for generations, republicans and democrats in congress and republicans and democrats as president. the vote mostly along party lines. you had a few democrats cross lines and a few republicans cross lines, but it was basically party vote. and the war powers resolution, which aims to limit the president's ability from 1973, that he can't do things in iran or anywhere else without congressional approval, but what is the point of any of this? is anything going to change? let's get perspective from the chairman of the house democratic caucus, congressman hakeem jeffries. welcome back to "prime time." happy new year to you and your family. >> happy new year. good evening. good to be on. >> as you well know, i swing at you guys on this on a regular basis, that administration after administration, congress has side stepped its constitutional duty and let presidents do

things i argue they should not. so here we are again. clear evidence that this is what happens when you leave the executive all alone and he doesn't have to consult with you. he can't even explain it except at a rally. now, what can you do to change it? you couldn't even get all the democrats to vote on it today. >> well, we took an important step today in a bipartisan fashion to reassert congress' sole authority, as you know, as it relates to article 1 of the united states constitution to declare war on behalf of the american people. the framers of the constitution made a clear decision to vest that authority in congress, presumably to make sure that all of the views and interests and hopes and dreams and aspirations, fears, concerns and anxieties of the american people are thoroughly vetted and debated. so i think we took an important step in the right direction in that regard today, and hopefully the senate will do the same. >> but how? because this thing -- i know that there was a little bit of a

play here. how does the house get the senate to have to vote on this? and you're right to think about it that way, you, pelosi, whoever it was. but by the nature of what you're going to send over there -- and this was, you say, bipartisan. i'll give it to you, hakeem. but it was mostly along party lines. you only had a handful of crossovers. he doesn't sign this, so there's a big legal debate about whether or not even if the senate took it up, even if they voted to pass it, you don't even know that it would have the effect that you want it to. >> this is an initial step in the right direction as i mentioned. >> what does that mean? >> well, the clear assertion by the house, speaking on behalf of the american people, is important. and hopefully the senate will do the same thing. and i think the senate will act in a bipartisan way. we will see individuals like mike lee and rand paul, perhaps a few others join democrats in terms of reasserting our authority as it relates to matters of war and peace. but the house is also going to take up legislation next week,

for instance, i believe, to revisit the 2002 authorization for the use of military force, which is now being used as a justification by another administration approximately 18 years later. >> yeah. >> when the original decision and authorization to go to war related to nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. >> right. >> resulting in thousands of american lives being lost and trillions of dollars being wasted. >> and my argument is you guys -- not you. you know what i mean. i'm talking about congress. i'm not blaming you, congressman jeffries. but you got burned in congress. they said they had the yellow cake. they said they had the weapons of mass destruction. it was bogus. now, you know how it works. they try to make it a little bit more legit, the people who were around bush every year. it was bogus. they voted for it on that basis, and now congress is scared because they got burned on that. and ever since -- and really before also -- presidents can do whatever they want. you guys watch. even with obama, they cross the red line.

he says, oh, they crossed the red line. i'm going to go to congress. you guys say, do whatever you think is right. it was your job then. it's your job now. but is the cat out of the bag? is it too late? will presidents do whatever they want and you won't be able to come together because of partisan politics to stop it. >> i do not believe that it's too late in part because the american people are understandably frustrated at the concept of failed, unnecessary, endless wars in the middle east. >> i'm with you. >> having experienced the consequences of those wars, particularly as it relates to what's taken place over the years in iraq. and so i think as a result of public sentiment, which as speaker pelosi always reminds us, is really the key to driving public policy, i think we are at a moment in time where we can change direction and hopefully restrain the impulses of the executive branch as it relates to matters of war. >> i'll tell you this question is even clearer than 350e67impet

in terms of what the founders wanted. i think impeachment is a vehicle for something that overwhelms bipartisanship. that's why they put the two-thirds vote in there for the senate to remove, that it's got to be where the parties are more worried about the president being toxic than any internessent dispute. here the founders were so clear. declare war is all on congress. so let's talk a little bit about impeachment. you have mcconnell said today, you know what? i'm in. if they don't give us the articles of impeachment soon, i'm going to vote that it triggers a dismissal clause, that they've been exhibited -- means we know what they are, we're on notice, and we're unimpressed. simple majority, which he could make it. >> well, let's examine why we're here at this particular moment. the president abused his power in a corrupt fashion by pressuring a foreign government to target an american citizen for personal and political gain. >> i accept the argument. >> him accountable. as a result of that, because of

the fact that no one is above the law in the united states of america, we're now at this moment where there will be a trial in the senate. our perspective led by speaker pelosi is that the american people deserve a fair trial, period, full stop. >> i'm with you. but if the senate had been saying about the house, we don't like your rules. we don't like your rules. you would have said, shut up. this is our job. when it's your turn, you do what you want. but now pelosi is saying, this is how the senate should do their job. so when is she going to deliver the articles? >> well, that's not what she's saying, and she's indicated that the articles will be delivered sooner rather than later, without putting a time frame on that. but we are at a transition point, and that is why her decision to hold them to date has been relevant, because we have to also send over impeachment managers. >> right. >> and how can she determine who are the appropriate individuals to prosecute the case if we have no idea what the rules of engagement are going to be in? that is a reasonable thing that

has been suggested. and what we also have seen in the interim, since when we voted to impeach this president on two counts, abuse of power and obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. >> right. >> is that john bolton has indicated, for instance, that he's willing to testify. we've learned additional information, which makes the concern that we have for a fair trial on behalf of the american people even more meaningful. >> john bolton. can you believe that guy says that he's a patriot? that's what this is all about. now he says he's willing to testify. by the way, you're not supposed to choose if you're willing. if you get subpoenaed, you have to go. these guys are justity t fighti subpoenas. if he cared so much, why didn't he say it three months ago? >> i hear your argument about picking the right managers. does it present as a legit explanation or an excuse to delay? congressman jeffries, appreciate the candor.

thank you for coming on the show. best for the new year. so the vote in the house tonight, not happy about it. should have been unanimous. why? look, the founders were more clear about this than anything else. military action, it's got to be collective. got to be collective unless it's an emergency. this president hasn't made the case. so what's congress doing right now? the right is playing politics, toxic politics when we need to come together more than most. i'll point it out in the argument next. that's why it's important to be prepared for anything life brings. at fidelity, we'll help you build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties while still giving you the flexibility to make changes to your plan as often as you need. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ here's wishing you the bluest sky ♪

there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ still fresh... ♪ unstopables in-wash scent booster ♪ downy unstopables

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

[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. tonight the house voted 224-194 to limit the president's ability to launch an attack against iran without getting approval first. this is not a new idea. that's what is in the constitution. my argument, i can't believe it wasn't unanimous. and, no, this is not about the gop just choosing trump over the truth. there's some of that. but democrats have been anxious to give war power to presidents

as well. this has been going on for a long time, and it's gotten worse. and it is the worst example of congressional cowardice. now, though, we're hearing really that is making this partisan, like this. >> nancy pelosi does it again and her democrats fall right in line. one, they're in love with terrorists. they more in love with soleimani than the gold stars who suffered under soleimani. that's a problem. >> wow. they mourn soleimani more than gold star families? that guy was a pastor and a chaplain in theater, in conflict. bless his heart, as they say. why don't you come on this show, congressman collins, pastor, and show your faith in this sinful suggestion. you won't, shocking. trying to divide americans at a time that it is life and death that we come together. shame on you and every trumper

and never trumper who voted against this. the right, though, especially egregious in this instance, trying to make this not about their own cowardice, but about the democrats. representative rutherford calling congressman ajayi pal an ayatollah sympathizer. why? she said the president didn't have evidence of an imminent threat. that's all she said. go look. meadows, republican, tweets, democrats are falling all over themselves, equivocating about a terrorist. nobody is equivocating about the terrorist on the right -- on the left. i would say if they were. they're not. but all of it starts at the top. a week ago president trump retweeted far-right author and film maker dan earn d'souza, the former felon that he pardoned who equated senate minority leader schumer to the iranians saying, neither deserved advance notice of the strike for pretty

much the same reasons. i mean, now look, he's a fringer. but nikki haley, the once hoped for voice of reason said this. >> the only ones that are mourning the loss of soleimani are our democrat leadership and our democrat presidential candidates. no one else in the world -- >> can you believe hailey was once hailed for trying to calm toxic tensions? h haley's office when pressed had a clarification. democrats were saying it would be better if the general were still around. no, they're not. that equals mourning. no, you know what mourning is? mourning is what happened in charleston when your community came together, crushed by pain after the senseless murder of innocence by a bigoted white punk. that's mourning. okay? don't mock the word. questioning when and why a bad guy is taken out is not

mourning, especially when this president won't give you an answer and his proxies can't even completely satisfy republicans with their rationale. and you know why? because they can't prove it was imminent to anyone except rally fans there to accept anything trump says. and so tonight at the rally, trump says soleimani was planning attacks on other embassies. neither he nor his people have shown any proof of the same. and what was the strategy here? oh, it will stop iran. really? what proof is there of that? well, maybe it will get them back to the table, said the president. clearly not. look at what you're empowering. >> he was a bad guy. he was a blood-thirsty terror and he's no longer a terror, he's dead. [ cheers and applause ] >> that's the best that he can do. and here he was when the world

was watching, making the case for why this happened to be. look at the difference. >> your campaign of terror, murder, mayhem will not be tolerated. >> even sniffles knows this was dicey. glued to the prompter. not sure of himself. you know why? because he knows he's over his head. so on the right, stop spreading toxic gossip about who likes terrorists. this country has been scarred by terror here at home like nothing else has ever done. it scarred a generation. don't mock that pain. and stop mocking your duty. congress, you righteous righties in particular, you're supposed to say when we risk our american fighting men and women and their families and expose this homeland to risk with military action, except in an emergency. and an aumf and 9/11 has no

bearing, and you know it. you should have all voted to take the power back you have wrongfully surrendered. of course presidents will take the power. i don't blame trump. i mention him very rarely in this analysis. it's bigger than him. and right and left have taken the power that you're afraid to keep. but it's not yours to give. we gave it to you in congress. and more importantly, the founders gave it to you in the constitution to avoid exactly what just happened. these decisions must be a function of the collective. the founders said it. you all know it, but you didn't vote for it. do your damn job. that is the argument. now, the president doesn't want you to see a lot of things, like his taxes. and now he apparently doesn't want you to know how much he's costing you to keep him and his kids safe. bolo next. holidays. so we built a snow globe.

i'll get that later. dylan! but the one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. what? switching and saving was really easy! i love you! what? sweetie! hands off the glass. ugh!! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i love her!

rouge signature by l'oreal. finally a lasting lip stain. for a matte color impact, with a barely there feel. luxuriously intense matte shades. rouge signature by l'oreal paris. we're worth it.

bolo, that means be on the look out. democrat efforts to require the ski kret service to disclose how much it spends protecting poet us and his family are being rebuffed by treasury secretary

steve mnuchin. how odd. we don't know how much the president has spent or how much he could be profiting considering he's made dozens of visits to his own properties. if there's nothing wrong with his spending, why hide it? familiar question, right, for the most transparent people ever. thank you for watching. cnn tonight with d. lemon starts right now. >> you know why. you know why. >> you are just like, you know why. >> you are just a big rain cloud on a daily basis. >> i'm not a rain cloud. i'm the truth. >> you are not the truth. you are not the truth. what are you talking about? >> the truth is they don't want you to know how much he spends. the troiuth is the last time we did it, a fact check, the projection was he would spend more in his first year as president than barack obama would spend in his entire two terms as president in eight years. yet he used to critize