common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. we begin with dramatic breaking news at this hour in the impeachment of the president. speaker nancy pelosi just moments ago offering a timeline to finally deliver the articles of impeachment from the house to the senate. it will happen next week. there, of course, has been several weeks of delay. the speaker writing moments ago, quote, i have asked the judiciary committee chairman

jerry nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the senate. i will be consulting with you at our tuesday house democratic caucus meeting on how we proceed further. so, manu, they'll talk about this tuesday, they'll be ready middle of next week. what else do we know? >> reporter: this means the president's impeachment trial is going to happen in a matter of days and the terms of that trial will be set by mitch mcconnell. the democrats have been demanding that mcconnell agree to have witnesses up front, documents up front. that's one reason why we've seen this impasse of her for weeks, but they're not getting that. nancy pelosi making it clear she plans to take those procedural steps to send over those articles of impeachment. first there will be the vote on the house floor that would actually appoint the impeachment managers, the people who would actually prosecute the case on the democrats' part. we do expect adam schiff, the house committee chairman, to lead that effort, as well as house committee chairman jerry

nadler. there will be other people the speaker will name. those will go over to the senate. they will deliver those articles of impeachment to the senate and that will set the course for the trial. this impasse had been intensified in the aftermath of the vote at the house to impeach the president on those two counts, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, and one part because the democrats had demanded a fair trial, but also nancy pelosi had demanded that mitch mcconnell unveil the exact procedures of how the trial would take place, the resolution the senate would vote on that it had to adopt to move forward here. mitch mcconnell made clear he was not going to listen to nancy pelosi. he told me last night he was not going to unveil the resolution. he made it clear he was not going to agree to witnesses up front. so ultimately the democrats agreed they had to turn this over because it was unclear what else they would get from this delay that had been going on for several weeks here. they contend some developments happened that was beneficial to them, like john bolton saying he would testify in the senate trial, but nevertheless, john, this trial is going to proceed

and mitch mcconnell wants it to happen quickly, as the white house does, to acquit the president in just a matter of weeks. john? >> it sets up a critical week next week on capitol hill. manu raju, i appreciate the breaking news. kaitlan collins, dan bose, jeannie poultry and gina davis with the "new york times." it's been more about the process than the decision with the president. did she win here? >> she did get a lot of focus on whether the trial is going to include witnesses and the degree to which mr. mcconnell has indicated he'll be working hand in glove with the white house, which i think she knew from the get-go, many lawmakers knew from the get-go, but she did get a lot of public attention on that, and asman u sa manu said, he ca saying there might be more facts to come forward in this trial,

but really, i think she was at the point of diminishing returns. they got what they were going to get and there started to be some discomfort by democrats about holding this out when everyone knew what the outcome was going to be. >> now we know the outcome. we don't know the exact timing, but the house will come through on tuesday, they'll finally bring it to the floor. he says we're going to have the clinton rules, mitch mcconnell, which means the house managers present their case. the president's team offers their defense. senators then get to ask questions, submitted in writing through the chief justice, and then and only then after that phase, they will come to the issue of do we want witnesses. so there's still a chance for witnesses, but mcconnell has made clear he doesn't want that. >> no, and it's likely that debate will be the most important debate of the trial. because i think we know what the ultimate outcome will be, that the senate will acquit president trump, but this question of whether this evidence that now seems in the offing will be presented in a public forum is

the big question. julie is right, that in the interim, because of what john bolton indicated, that he's willing to testify, that gave pelosi something, and i think the question is why she waited several more days and didn't move quickly. for democrats, the issue is this. how do they get through this relatively quickly, because they know that this is not a winner in some of the swing states, but how do they do it in a way that they come out with the ability to say this was ultimately not a fair trial. those are the tensions and mcconnell will try to manage it in his way and the democrats will try to manage it in their way. >> they're going to manage that at a consequential time in a sense that we're at a military standoff at this time. hopefully it's at a diplomatic standoff with iran. there is a briefing at the white house today about the subject. i just want to look at the calendar for january and february, where we are. here's tuesday when the house

democrats will get together and meet, tuesday the 14th. there is a democratic presidential debate that night, including senators who would be jurors in an impeachment trial. elizabeth warren and bernie sanders have qualified for that debate, so they are factored into this. sometime in this period here, we'll have a clearer sense. the articles will go over to the senate. mcconnell will make clear his scheduling. the weekend after that, kaitlan collins, the president of the united states is supposed to be in davos. the 20th also is supposed to be a democratic presidential forum in iowa. martin luther king day forum there. we assume the trial will play out that week there. >> so the question is does the president still go to davos. several people in the white house say this is not a good idea. it's a shopper trrt trip, he go comes back in the same day. does he do this while the senate trial goes on?

some people speculate, no, because he doesn't like to go on these foreign travel trips, anyway, so that will be a big question of where he is when this impeachment trial gets started. >> and the big question, will the senate impeach and remove the president of the united states? there is no indication that will happen. you need 20 republican senators. not going to happen. based on everything we know today, the world can change. there is another day here, february 3rd, the iowa caucuses. if the trial begins this week on the 19th or if they decide to go quickly, there is all indications that it is over by then. but those senators will have to be here, julie davis giving me a shrug saying she's not so sure. the senators have to be here. elizabeth warren says, of course it matters. don't tell me it doesn't matter

being face to face. a democratic kohl league, chris murphy, says, i don't really buy the fact that it really affects them. >> the more this has gotten delayed, the closer it is to the iowa caucuses, and you're seeing two different sort of strategies. for elizabeth warren, if you remember, she has not been doing as much national tv. she has not been doing as many national interviews. for her going on to iowa, campaigning, doing those selfie lines, were to her advantage. she's starting to do more national tv, but her campaign viewed this as potentially problematic in terms of the timing. for others, going on national tv does get them the voters and the fundraising they need. there is also thinking that this primary in particular has become more nationalized than what we've seen in the past. so going on national tv might actually be more helpful than

potentially hosting events in iowa and getting the front page of the des moines register, for example. >> during the proceedings, the senators are to sit and sit silently. i remember in the clinton trial, it's an unusual position for senators in the chamber, to sit silent. if mcconnell does not give her exact details, she needs to pick managers not knowing exactly how many she will use or what the format will be. so she has to have some flexibility in those choices. >> right, and i think she's been thir thinking about this for a number of weeks. does she pick people who are good at questioning and cross-examining? if they're going to have witnesses, of course, she would. if they're not going to have witnesses, does she pick people with other strengths. i don't think she knows the answers to that question. i think we know that jerry nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee, and adam schiff will be part of that

team. because of this impasse and all of this delay, one thing we haven't talked much about is how little time these people will have to prepare for this trial. the clinton impeachment managers had a long holiday break to craft their opening arguments, these managers will have a very, very tight window. >> we should note that the white house has not selected their team yet. that's going back and forth with mccarthy and the leaders of who is going to be on his team. they're kind of in the same position there. >> a fascinating week next week and the competition of the democrats to be part of the managers team, you now know you have a two to three-day deadline to make your case to the boss. the white house adds new details about why the president made that strike to kill iran's terror chief. unstopables in-wash scent booster ♪

downy unstopables if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness,

and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. trumpand total disaster.mplete let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor.

vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy can get those medicines. nurse: you should know, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

what is your definition of "imminent"? >> this was going to happen and american lives were at risk.

we would have been culpabcullpa negligent if we hadn't killed soleimani. >> this is from the question of the strike that killed iran's terror chief or questioning the explanation of why the president decided to issue those bold orders. they announced new sanctions against iran, and what the president blames for, quote, murder and mayhem. it was dominated back and forth over how specific americans were and how imminent those threats were. the tweets keep changing over the days. what the president and his top

deputies are saying in public isn't being backed up in television briefings. imminent. pick up a dictionary. it means about to happen. last night, though, pompeo took issue with the dictionary. >> there is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by qassem soleimani. we don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real. >> so the first question from reporters today at that white house briefing, how could imminent mean that you don't know when? it brought this clarification. >> we had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on u.s. embassies, period, full stop. >> so you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and you didn't know precisely where? >> those were consistent thoughts. we didn't know exactly what day it would be executed, but it was very clear. qassem soleimani himself was planning a large, broadscale

attack and those attacks were imminent. >> on americans. >> including american embassies and military bases. >> they get prickly at these questions sometimes. i get it, however they should understand the legacy of the iraq war, that we did not do as good as we could have, questioning the intelligence, and so should we in questioning the intelligence. but if it had evidence that it was embassies, plural, why didn't they disclose that out of the box? they said they can't disclose some things. if it's embassies, plural, why didn't they say that right outside the box? >> and that's why the word "imminent" had such a big place in these conversations because you see the pentagon is reluctant to use the word imminent, but you see the secretary use it time and time again. it's hard to use the word "imminent" when you don't know when it's going to happen. the president was the one who

revealed yesterday, they were looking to plblow up our embass. an official said, yes, they included attacks on embassies, and the question is those members of congress that got briefed and they were hearing more than we heard publicly, why didn't they get told about that? members of the house committee said they were not told about a plot to blow up a u.s. embassy. >> and the reason why the word "imminent" is so important, particularly to congress, is because there is a loophole in this confrontation that has to happen before congress if military action is taken when there is a threat to americans and american troops. this is something the administration has been very interested in confirming they were acting on that intelligence, because then they're totally in their rights for moving without a call to congress. but if they did not have that kind of information, that's more questionable, and that is why lawmakers were insisting so strongly in these briefings that

if you did have that kind of information, what was it? and the people we talked to in the briefing for members, they were told "imminent." when they pressed on what specific information they had, they were not given any. >> the secretary of state this morning said embassies and facilities. so we've broadened it out. the president said last night he didn't have time to call speaker pelosi. that suggests something is about to go down. understanding why there's so much confusion, and it is totally legitimate to press on those points. administrations have to be held accountable because we know administrations in the past have not told the truth about these kinds of matters. >> and, forgive me, this president has a history of saying things that are not true or are greatly exaggerated. if you're a trump supporter, i'm sorry, use the tools at your disposal, including your smartphone. it's just a fact. it's just a fact that this president has credibility questions from time to time, so you would think at a time of war and peace, they would get their

stories straight and say as much as they can of their sources and methods. > >> trump was in iowa talking to his voters, and they believe what he was saying on his account of why he chose to attack soleimani at this moment, and they believe it showed what the president ran on, that he wants americans to be taken seriously and he did what he was going to do. i did talk to some democrats at events this week that they're not sure why now. critics have been asking, what changed? why now? >> another wrinkle where there is some inconsistency, and i think i understand this better about the politics not in this country, but the geopolitics. after the missile strikes, it appeared to them that iran came close but not close enough, if you will. the missiles were fired in a way that iran was well within fire

of iraq. they know where the troops are, they know where the bases are. no americans or iraqis killed, thank god, but some officials said they think iran did it on purpose to prove its capabilities but not ignite further military confrontation. now u.s. officials are going public with mike pompeo saying, oh, no, they were trying to kill americans. >> if it was iran's intent to kill americans, does that not deserve some sort of response? if somebody takes a shot at you and they don't hit you simply because you duck, does that mean they weren't trying to kill you? >> i'd like to defer to the department of defense on the details, but there is no doubt on my judgment as i observed the iranian activity in the region that night, they had the full intention of killing u.s. forces. >> and yet, again, this is complicated in a number of ways. they're now saying publicly they believe they were trying to kill americans, but if they were trying to kill americans, how does the president step back? one of the explanations they

gave for the president not retaliating for the irani strikes, was because the president was trying to stand down. >> and members of the administration saying they intentionally missed. they did not hit our troops on purpose, and now we have the defense secretary, the joint chiefs of staff chairman and the sebl secretary of state saying, no, they were trying to kill americans. when you ask people to square this, how does that work? they're saying by striking places where they knew u.s. troops were generally, they were trying to kill them. of course, that doesn't square with what the president had been saying, so that is really the question here. they say it's more of a thing of nuance, but it's part of a larger thing here of the shifting explanations of the intelligence. were they trying to hit u.s. troops or not? were they plotting to blow up the u.s. embassy or not? was it imminent or was it not? those are the questions that have been percolating for several days and we haven't gotten sufficient answers on them. >> part of the challenge they're facing is this question of how do you both ratchet down from where we were and continue to apply maximum pressure? so in a sense they are trying to

have it both ways. they're trying to send signals in many different directions. so these answers are not consistent, perhaps deliberately, because they haven't figured out what's the right path forward to get to that calibration. >> they're also dealing with a president who is unwilling, unlike prior presidents, to sort of stay quiet when strategically that may be the thing to do. he wanted to say that they stood down so that people would understand why he wasn't hitting back the day after these strikes. he wanted to say that when he struck soleimani, he was retaliating, but of course that's not the rationale that the rest of his administration was given, so it makes that job of trying to balance this even harder when president trump wants to say what he wants to say and it's often not the most disciplined. >> when that happens on health care and domestic policies, that's one thing. when it happens with the risk of troops, it's a whole other matter. we get the latest report card as the dow reaches new

numbers. we'll be back. the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. these'll work. the utter delight of free wi-fi... . oh man this is the best part. isn't that you? yeah. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton.

for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.

fresh economic numbers showing a resilient u.s. labor market as 2019 gave way to 2020 and the election year. they added 45,000 jobs in december, that according to the latest jobs report. that number a bit short

economists' expectations. investors clearly cheering on the news the dow jones hitting a record 29,000 for the first time a bit earlier today. you see it a bit below that. now, christine romans here to break down the numbers. christine? >> john, i'm going to call it a solid end to the year. not sizzling, but solid. 145,000 net new jobs created, and we saw november-december revise down just a little bit. where is the hiring? 3.5% unemployment rate, still that low, low generational unemployment rate, trade, health care. this is about 400,000 jobs for the whole year in health care, manufactured those stumbled again. the manufacturing job growth barely positive for the year in total on manufacturing jobs, and when you look at some of the output numbers that we watch, it's probably a manufacturing recession right now. it's the december jobs report, so we get the picture of the whole year. 2.1 million net new jobs for the year. that's a little bit shy of what

we saw in 2018. that was probably the president's tax cuts boosting that, but it's in line with 2017 and really on par for the last seven or eight years. it doesn't approach some of the best years of the obama administration. when you watch these numbers, we also really look at wages. 2.9% wage growth. this has been the missing piece, the missing piece of a strong job market, john. 2.9% wage growth with a job market that looks like it is nearing full employment, you would expect those wage numbers to be higher. they just haven't been. john? >> christine romans, appreciate that. damian poleto joins us from the "washington post." she says strong but not sizzling. looking at the latest data, can we look ahead? is there more growth in the 11th year of an economic expansion? a lot of people think at some point that has to stop. what are the clues for what happens next? >> i think we've come a long way since august when it looked like we could be barrelling into a

recession mid-2020. we will have the china deal behind us, so some of that could help the economy move forward. i don't think there will be a big shot in the arm heading into november, for instance, so is this an economy chugging along, not at super high speed, but moving along enough for washington to be good? but there is a lot that can happen between now and november and can change anything. >> any president, forget his name, forget his party, running for reelection, 50-year low in unemployment. wisconsin down from where it was when the president won the election. michigan, unemployment rate down. florida, unemployment rate down. iowa, unemployment rate down. ohio, unemployment rate down. if you're a president, no matter your name, no matter your party running for reelection, that was your map in 2016. every one of those big battleground states that went

for trump has a low unemployment rate today. that's a very good calling card. >> it's a very good calling cart card, and it would be more impressive for the president if he could stay on that message. most presidents running for reelection would talk about that constantly. not every day, obviously, because things happen. but that is the main message. that is quietly the main message the trump campaign is delivering to voters in ways we don't necessarily see. but the president himself continues to offer distractions and continues to raise questions. i think one of the big issues is, is this going to be an election that's decided on some of these traditional issues, peace and prosperity, or is it all what people think and feel about donald trump? >> to your point, when he does talk about the economy, he always wants to say it's the greatest. he acts as if the economy was dead when he took office and he suddenly revived it. that's not true. he inherited a very strong

economy. it's at a record high as is the dow as the numbers go up. but in terms of the percentage growth from day one through the third year in office, barack obama had a higher percentage growth, george h.w. bush had a higher percentage, donald trump is right in the ballpark. here's another way to look at it. the first 34 months of the trump administration, the economy added 6.5 million jobs. that's great. that's something for the president to rightly brag about. but look at the final 34 months of the obama administration. the economy added 7.5 million jobs. the economy was thriving when he came into office and he can argue he sustained it. that's a pretty good calling card. he just wants to say, no, it was dead. i saved it. >> that's what you see the president do time and time again. he takes things that are true and good for him, but he exaggerates them and it's things like this. it's notable because the voters truly do absorb that message, and that is what you hear from

them when we go to rallies all the time and we're in these swing states and we're talking to them about whatever news of the day is. they go back to the economy time and time again because they are not as hesitant to vote for a president that doesn't have their morals and values if the economy is good. >> now anything he can do is going to have to come administratively. up next for us, a republican apology after he accused democratic colleagues of loving terrorists. apps are used everywhere...

except work. why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business.

to learn more, visit paycom.com which is why xfinity mobile data,is a different kindent. of wireless network that lets you design your own data.

choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70. click, call or visit a store today.

an apology this hour from republican congressman doug collins after he accused democrats of side ingwiing with terrorists over the president of the united states. he admitted he went too far. i do not believe democrats are in love with terrorists. a step back there, though, democrats do see a clear line in the limits of powers and the life of the man in office. >> reporter: is it true to say that democrats love terrorists? >> i think it's been absolutely clear that the democrats are so blinded by their hatred of president trump that they will not stand with him even when he takes actions to take care of the world's deadliest terrorists. >> do they love terrorists? >> a sharp distinction of liz

cheney. democrats will say that's not true, that they're asserting their powers of the house. i want to go back. in today's age, in today's partisan politics, it is rare, and congressman collins deserves credit for deciding, i went too far, i'm going to apologize. here's how he started all this on television. >> i did not think she could become more hypocritical than she was during impeachment, but guess what, surprise, surprise, nancy pelosi does it again and her democrats fall right in line. one, they're in love with terrorists. we see that. they mourned soleimani more than they mourned our gold star families who are the ones that suffered under soleimani. >> no democrat loves soleimani, and no democrat to my knowledge have mourned soleimani. they have questioned of the strategic wisdom in the tactical victory in taking him out. but it is rare to see somebody come forward in relatively short order and say, you know what? i was wrong. i'm sorry. >> he does deserve credit just

as he deserves the criticism he got for what he said originally. we know he is a very fast talker and clearly at that moment his words got ahead of his brain, probably. today by pulling it back, he puts us back into a place where we can have a more serious discussion about the wisdom and value strategically of what was done here as opposed to who is mourning or who isn't mourning the death of soleimani. >> that's an important point because our business gets caught up in this, too, where people are throwing around accusations when the country should be having a civil conversation about what to do with the confrontation of iran. there are heroes in both parties. heroism, patriotism does not know a label. congresswoman tammy duckworth

said that. >> i don't need to justify that to anyone. >> i wonder if gold star families become sort of a pawn in this police difficult course. what is your view on that? >> i'm disgusted. i would not -- i would never, ever use gold star families, military men and women, or their families, as any pawn for any political gain. >> again, she's a democrat, but i think all of us could debate the policy, let's have partisan differences but let's be careful. >> it's clear that a lot of republicans, if you listened to that debate yesterday on the house floor, are taking their cues from the president. president trump did say nancy pelosi and democrats were defending soleimani, even having this discussion about war powers. republicans are being emboldened, that to say to debate whether the president has power to engage in military action without coming to congress is tantamount to

helping iran, divides the country and is inappropriate. >> it's also a ridiculous thing to say. there is a reason we're here and you can debate whether or not a president has the authority like that because he is not this all-powerful president. that's why you heard criticisms from members of his own party who are typically very loyal to him wanting to lay this out about what the war powers are and what the administration could do if something happens with iran in the future. hypotheticall hypothetically, do you believe if the situation comes up, you should do it without asking congress? so to say it emboldens iran by questioning the president's war powers authorities is a debate. the field shrinks again. the officer and spiritual adviser mary williamson announced she is suspending her

campaign for president. she knows the caucuses could be tight contests and she doesn't want to, quote, get in the way of a progressive candidate winning any of them. up next for us, what iran is saying today about the downing of that ukraine airliner. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. because it's tailored to you! ...take the personal assessment and get matched with a proven weight loss plan. find out which customized plan can make losing weight easier for you! myww join today with the ww triple play! 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. rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

bewelcome back. secretary of state mike pompeo telling the world that it is, quote, likely that iran shot down that ukraine jetliner earlier this week. pompeo said they will have an appropriate response once the facts are known for sure. iran has denied any hostile acts. 176 people died in that plane crash in tehran. this comes with growing transparency in the investigation. fred pleitgen is with us in

tehran. fred, there are questions about the black boxes, and number two, how and why was the debris field cleaned up so quickly? >> the black boxes and the debris field is what we've been asking questions about also. i asked the official, why has the debris field been cleared? he said the larger pieces of debris and smaller pieces of debris have been brought away. the iranians say they brought those pieces to a hangar where forensic experts are going to try to reconstruct the entire plane from that debris, to try to get a sense of what happened to that plane and whether or not there was some sort of outside influence like, for instance, a surface-to-air missile that impacted that plane and may have caused the outer hull of that plane to be punctured. what we're hearing, ukranian experts also had access to that plane as well. as far as the black boxes are

concerned, both the ukranians and the iranians are trying to decipher those black boxes. they said it could take up to two months to do that. the flight recorder has been damaged in that crash, john. >> grateful as always, fred, appreciate it. up next for us, big developments in the 2020 presidential race. a billionaire surges, and it's not michael bloomberg.

i didn't have to shout out for help. because you didn't have another dvt. not today. one blood clot puts you at risk of having another, so we chose xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto® is proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. almost 98% of people did not have another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of blood clots. while taking,

a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots, which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. and how janssen can help, 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.

tonight is the deadline for democratic hopefuls to qualify for next week's big debate in iowa. one candidate who already secured his spot, the businessman and billionaire tom steyer. that's because of his standing in the polls in early states. here's tom steyer making a surge in south carolina. biden on top, steyer now in second place in south carolina

at 15%, up 11 points from october. that is dramatic. you see the vice president down a little, bernie sanders down a little, pete buttigieg down a little. joe biden on top, bernie sanders right behind him. pretty ecstatic at the top of the race, but look at this, tom steyer in third place in nevada at 12%. tied with elizabeth warren and mayor buttigieg. how is this happening? steyer is campaigning across the country but a lot is happening because of this. you see the other candidates down here in their ad spending. 115 million spent by mr. steyer so far. only michael bloomberg yet to re register big time in the polls. 154 for bloomberg, 15.2 million

for steyer. that's a giant number. so if you're a voter, impeachment is getting the national media attention. now iran, if you turn on the tv in nevada or south carolina, odds are you'll see this. >> i'm the only person on this stage who will say that climate is the number one priority for me. it's a state of emergency, and i would declare a state of emergency on day one. >> i think it's important to note that this president is not against immigration, he's against immigration by non-white people. this is a racial argument by a racist president who is trying to divide us. >> it's interesting, there is no question the volume in the spending are a big piece of this, but the message is interesting, playing the racism argument, appealing to latinos. that's the nevada ad. and climate in south carolina. an interesting choice by steyer saying, you can't dispute the numbers. now he's moving up.

>> the message has been good, but he has been putting out ads for so long. he had these political groups before running for president who had fine-tuned his messaging well before he was a candidate. in terms of the spending he's doing what michael bloomberg is doing but on a smaller scale. he's focusing on iowa and south carolina. bloomberg, on the other hand, is focusing on the super tuesday states where other candidates haven't really started spending money in terms of ads. >> so when one candidate starts moving up, you start asking, where is it coming from? in the poll, 28% said joe biden would be their second choice, 19% bernie sanders, 14% elizabeth warren, cory booker 10, buttigieg 6. if you're joe biden and you're looking at that number, dan, do you have to worry about tom steyer or do you think this is a passing fancy? >> i would think they're not

terribly worried about tom steyer at this point. those are two states that come after iowa and new hampshire. we know iowa and new hampshire will have a dramatic effect on south carolina voters. this looks like strategic spending from tom steyer to qualify for the debates. he wants to continue to be seen on the stage. >> and it worked. here's a new iowa ad, trying to take advantage of the moment, if you will. >> we lived in the most dangerous moment in a generation. our world set on edge. this is a moment that requires strong, steady, stable leadership. we need someone tested and trusted around the world. joe biden, a president with the experience to lead on day one. >> this is an interesting debate at the moment, especially between biden and bernie sanders. biden says, i was the vice president, senate foreign relations chairman, i have the experience. bernie sanders says, oh, no, you don't, you voted for the iraq

war. you don't have the judgment. >> there is a lot of argument among democrats about this issue, and biden with his strengths was vice president, he does have a lot of strengths here. bernie does have an in on this issue as well. brianna keilar starts right now. have a great weekend. i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. underway right now. it's not over. the u.s. taking new action against iran after tehran's revenge strikes as the trump administration can't seem to get its story straight on the intelligence that led them to kill a top iranian leader. and nancy pelosi gets ready to make her move as the president's impeachment moves to the jury. plus stunning video of another close encounter with the russian military as one of their warships gets aggressive with a u.s. navy destroyer. and the united states' justice department says no to