sanders than i do. >> reporter: but here's the secret. >> i don't think you're acting when you do bernie sanders. >> there's not much to it. >> reporter: she didn't even have to beat it out of him. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> and thanks for joining us. anderson starts now. good evening. tonight with house speaker pelosi saying he's ready to hand articles of impeachment over to the senate, there's breaking news about the man who would almost certainly be the star witness, that is if republicans allow it. former national security advisor john bolton. never mind what senators might want or majority leader mcconnell might agree to, when it comes to bolton, president trump made it clear he wants him nowhere near the witness stand. that's what he told laura ingraham during an interview. she said why not call bolton, allow him to testify? this thing is bogus, why not allow him to testify? the president says no problem other than one thing. you can't be in the white house as president, future, and have a

security advisor, anybody having to do with security, legal and other things. ingraham interjekts are you going to invoke executive privilege? the president says i think you have to for the sake of the office. in a moment our legal and political team weigh in on that. first from our jim acosta, including some late new reporting that he's got. what more do you know about the president's move to block bolton from testifying? >> reporter: well, it's sounding more and more that the white house is moving in that direction. i talked to a source familiar with discussions inside the president's senate trial team who told me earlier this evening that there are significant and important executive privilege issues with this potential of john bolton testifying. it's not altogether clear whether or not they will assert executive privilege in the case of john bolton because it's not clear whether or not he's going to be testifying. according to this source, they believe inside the president's team that this goes to the heart of his presidential powers in the constitution and so at this point it does sound as though if

you look at what the president said yesterday, he sounded open to it and today he sounded as if he was closing the lid on it and he does not want this to happen. so it does seem at this point tonight, anderson, that the white house is raising up a threat to assert executive privilege if john bolton is subpoenaed to testify. >> one of the problems for the white house, although i don't think they view it that way, so many witnesses have invoked their own kind of phony invented executive privilege, even though the white house hasn't done it, they have just done it on the witness stand in front of congress, that there are actually -- i mean there is such a thing as executive privilege and there are legitimate reasons why some -- why it would be invoked in some cases and there is an argument certainly for somebody like a national security advisor. the president said it would be for the sake of the office. it would also be for his personal sake. >> reporter: that's right. the president was saying earlier today that he doesn't think a national security advisor should be able to go up to capitol hill

and talk about all of the things that happened when he served as national security advisor at the white house. i suppose there is something to be said for that. at the same time, this is the same john bolton who according to fiona hill described this alleged scheme to pressure ukraine to deliver dirt on joe biden as a drug deal and described the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, as a grenade that is going to blow everybody up. so obviously john bolton has a lot to say. if the white house is successful in keeping a lid on john bolton and not allowing him to testify, remember, he wrote that letter earlier this week that sent shock waves through the capital when he said he was willing to testify. if the white house is able to block him from testifying, they have essentially been able to block a key witness at the president's impeachment trial which has a lot of other constitutional questions. i think some critics would say, anderson. >> just lastly on iran, i mean in terms of the latest reasons being given for the air strike that killed soleimani, now the president says soleimani was targeting four embassies?

>> reporter: right. yesterday the president said they were threatening to blow up an embassy. last night he used the plural word embassies. then today told fox that it was four embassies. the problem is, is that during the white house briefing that we had earlier today, it wasn't a traditional white house briefing with the press secretary, but in that rarely used room, the secretary of state mike pompeo came in and was trying to field these questions. it was the secretary of state who had told fox the previous day that he couldn't cite when or where such an attack was going to take place. the national security advisor, robert o'brien, had said he couldn't name the time or place of when this attack was going to take place. and so there have been mounting inconsistencies all week long, anderson, that the administration has not been able to get its story straight. remember, this is the same donald trump who during the campaign attacked former president george w. bush and accused that president of lying on the war in iraq, lying the

country into the war in iraq so this president has big questions moving forward and i don't think they addressed them this week. >> 305 days at my last count without a white house press briefing. thank you very much. joining us now carrie cordero, elliott williams and kirsten powers, all cnn analysts. kirsten, what do you make of the president coming out and saying that he would exert executive privilege when it comes to bolton? >> well, i mean, first of all, i think the idea that he's doing this to preserve the integrity of the white house is kind of laughable because this is a person who has basically been tearing down every institution that he can get his hands on since he's come into office. so it's not really plausible that that's what's driving. this it's more likely what's driving this is that john bolton has something to say that's going to be harmful to donald trump. i think it's a major tell, frankly, that he would do this. and so i think that the ball is

now going to be in the court of john bolton whether he wants to try and defy this, whether he wants to go to court to see if the court could rule in his favor. but i do think that the fact that the president would say that he would do something like this shows that he has something to hide. >> carrie, just from a legal standpoint, as i mentioned, there's been so many phony uses of even the term "executive privilege" and invented ones by people testifying in front of congress. there is such a thing as executive privilege. can it be used this way? >> it can be asserted by the president. the president is the one that owns the executive privilege and he can assert it over things john bolton would say. in a normal type of proceeding, that type of privilege would be asserted based on specific things that i person would say. so certain statements, certain conversations, certain words that would come out of their mouth. what the president is doing is trying to -- he is saying he's going to assert privilege over

john bolton's entire testimony, which is incredibly broad and which you don't really know whether or not the certain things that john bolton would say would fall under the privilege. so it's very broad. but i just want to point out that john bolton holds a lot of power here because he doesn't -- even if the president were to assert executive privilege, if john bolton, particularly if he was under subpoena, he could go and sit in the chair and testify. and so the president can't actually restrain him from doing that. >> elliot, one of the questions is obviously does bolton really want to do this? he said now after not agreeing to go to the house, saying he was waiting on court decisions, then saying he would go to the senate, he's also got a book to sell and, you know, probably a big advance and so if he gives up a lot of information now, it's maybe going to make the book less. i mean is it possible he's kind of playing a long game here,

that he knew that the president would not want him to testify, would say he's going to exert some form of executive privilege but he gets the benefit of saying that he tried to go and now he's just going to put all that stuff in a book? >> i don't think we can try to divine john bolton's motives. everyone is trying to graft what john bolton might say. >> it's like a rorschach test. >> it's literally like a rorschach test. >> we all see john bolton in different ways. >> i literally see my father. not enough can be said about the fact that the president just cannot -- you know, look, i'll be the first person to tell you that the president has the right and ought to have the right to have private conversations with the senior staff but the president just does not have the authority to use every word that comes out of his mouth as a shield. and john bolton's testimony is the ultimate test of this. frankly what i think we'll be

talking about in 50 years is how this president and this administration has tried to stretch this role of the presidency. and the extent to which presidents can exert executive privilege. i don't think we know at all what john bolton ought to or is going to say. look, he's a central figure and he ought to testify. >> and he apparently said to fiona hill it was a drug deal. the bangor daily news says susan collins says she's working with a small group of republicans to see that witnesses can be called in the impeachment trial. i guess it would take four republicans. do you get the impression there are enough republicans she could bring to that point of view? >> it's possible. this is kind of the game it feels like we play a lot. like susan collins is going to come in and save the day. >> she's like john bolton. the female john bolton. >> another rorschach test. but i think it will be difficult. you know, when it comes to something like impeaching the

president of the united states, it's very different than being somebody who is maybe a critic or dissents on something versus actually playing a role in trying to impeach the president of your own party. so i know there's a lot of hope that there are a few republicans that would be willing to do that, but i think that i'm not holding my breath. and i think that at the same time a trial without witnesses isn't much of a trial. so it is pretty outrageous that mitch mcconnell is so closed off to this idea and that susan collins has to be doing this in the first place. >> carrie, how does it actually work? the president says he wants to exert executive privilege over john bolton. i know you're saying it's this weird blanket thing or unprecedented blanket privilege. if it was in normal times and it was on certain things, would the president and bolton or bolton

and the president's legal team get together and discuss what are the conversations that are okay, what are the topics that are not? >> okay. well, so, first of all, none of this is normal times because we're talking about a senate impeachment trial which this is only the third one in our history. so from one perspective, there really aren't a whole lot of rules, a whole lot of precedent to go by for how this specific instance should work, which is why the members of the senate really need to look at it that way. they have an opportunity to craft this impeachment trial in a way that's appropriate for today, that's appropriate for the facts that are before them and the gravity of the allegations that are being made. if there was, to answer your question specifically, though, if this was just assertions of privilege in a normal witness testimony that didn't have anything to do with impeachment, then yes, normally executive privilege or attorney/client privilege would be asserted based on particular documents or particular statements.

>> elliot, you were counsel for the senate judiciary committee. is it all helpful for house and senate democrats to know the president's thinking ahead of time on this? >> to know the president's thinking ahead of time? you know, it's hard to know. again, i think the big strategy question here is what affects susan collins and the four or five senate republicans up in tough races. it's far more than what the president is thinking. it's really what's mitch mcconnell thinking with respect to the five or so folks, including susan collins. and i think what we're seeing here is giving them a bit of a leash to maybe even -- to avoid having to take a tough vote down the road. so there was some reporting about susan collins negotiating with other senate republicans over this today. but it's just hard to know right now because everybody -- none of them have the same interests or incentives. i think the president and mitch mcconnell have different incentives here. yes, they're both republicans.

one quick point, anderson. i think you referenced fiona apple. she did sing what i need is a good defense. >> i was about to say -- i was realizing as you were talking, i was thinking about, i think i said fiona apple. i was going to say i appreciate the fact that none of you mentioned that and you just allowed me to -- my mistake to just linger. but yes, thank you for calling me out. yes, i said fiona apple. fiona hill obviously. >> i tried to stare at the camera and keep a straight place while playing through fee opeio apple's songs -- >> more power to you. >> hey, i do what i can. >> all right. carrie, elliott, kirsten, thank you. president trump possibly blocking impeachment testimony from john bolton. also tonight why secretary of state pompeo and president trump cannot say with any specificity what the imminent threat from

qassem soleimani was and just what does the secretary mean by imminent? later, a tight race just got a lot tighter in iowa. we have a new poll when "360" continues. it's tough to quit smoking cold turkey. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking,

or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

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. ♪ only lexus asks questions like these. because we believe the most amazing machines are inspired by you. experience the rewards of our curiosity. 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. our breaking news tonight, president trump was asked in an interview with fox news would you consider invoking executive privilege to stop john bolton from testifying. his response, well, i think you have to for the sake of the office. jim acosta reported that no decision has been made. bolton has previously said he would testify if subpoenaed, but the question of course is would he buck the president. the importance of the president's comment is calm pounded by susan collins today told reporters in her state of maine that she's working with a small group of republicans toward ensuring witnesses. that's according to the bangor

daily news. i want to talk about it more with wajahat ali and scott. >> most every president has done it dating back to george washington. i myself was part of one of these episodes back in the george w. bush years. i had to show up in front of the senate judiciary committee one day and invoke executive privilege, which is sort of the constitutional equivalent of the executive branch flipping off the legislative branch. doing that in person is not a lot of fun. for people who were at john bolton's level of the white house, however, normally they don't show up. they send a letter saying the president invoked privilege. what's interesting about this is they really don't have any leverage on bolton. all the white house could do is go to court and get an injunction against bolton to prevent him from testifying. but because he doesn't work there, they don't have the stick

of being able to fire him if he violates the president's order. in my case i still worked there and didn't have interest in getting fired so i invoked executive privilege as i was directed to do. it's a normal thing. obama did it several times, bush did it, clinton did it. >> when you went, did you invoke it for everything or just specifics or topics? >> in my particular case we invoked it for specific topics. my counsel was there, my own personal counsel, emmet flood, who has been in this white house, was part of that as well. so we invoked it on certain topics. my presumption is, because bolton was the national security advisor, the top level of advisor to the president, that they would just invoke blanket executive privilege and say these people have blanket immunity from testifying. again, that doesn't necessarily restrain bolton from showing up. i think they'd have to go to court and try to stop him. what i finding amazing about bolton is he doesn't have to wait. if he wanted to tell people

things he could write it all down and send it over to congress right now which is why i've been dubious that he's going to go through with testifying. >> does the president have a point? there is executive privilege for a reason and he was the national security advisor. >> these are obviously the actions of an innocent man who has nothing to hide, anderson. donald trump said that they had a beautiful, perfect phone call with president zelensky. so beautiful and so perfect, let's not forget he is impeached. only the third president impeached. there are two articles of impeachment. he has abused his powers as president to get a foreign country to interfere in the u.s. alexandria ocasio-cortez elections. even richard nixon resigned before the house impeached him and did not try to block all evidence and all aides from testifying. but donald trump has claimed all these privileges and has all these immunities which has kept pompeo and bolton and mulvaney from actually coming forward and testifying. so my question is if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to lose, because john bolton as

national security advisor, if indeed this call was so perfect, it would be in donald trump's interests to actually have him and mulvaney and pompeo and everybody else come and testify and tell the american public that there was nothing wrong. but we know from the evidence already established, from the partial phone transcript, from ambassador sondland's testimony, fiona hill's testimony, colonel vindland, george kent, ambassador taylor, there was quid pro quo. and we know from fiona hill and vindman were told by bolton to go see what this drug deal was all about, the conversation between sondland and the ukraine a -- ukrainians. this is why it's going to be a sham trial. the one thing i want to say is mitch mcconnell and all the republican senators have to take an oath before this trial. he's already violated that oath. it's like the james bond villain who reveals the plan before doing it. he said we are not going to impeach this president, our

minds are made up. he's literally telling you he's biased. it's like the jury foreman and the judge siding with the defense counsel. i do hope this puts pressure on those four or five republicans who are vulnerable in 2020, including susan collins, to do the right thing. all you need is a majority to vote to have witnesses. they had witnesses for bill clinton's impeachment. >> scott, though, to your point, wajahat, the point he makes are very valid. but, scott, to your point on bolton, if he wanted to show up, he could show up. and if he did show up and against the president's wishes, that would certainly not help him in whatever future career he hopes to have on the speaking circuit or on fox tv or perhaps even for his book, no? >> yeah, i don't know what is obviously going through his mind on this. my presumption in reading his

statement was that he wanted the appearance of being willing to show up but not the responsibility of actually having to do it. so if the white house were to invoke executive privilege, that would be a way for him to say, gee whiz, i wanted to do it but they're having executive privilege on me. i would have done it and maybe that way he can preserve some credibility that he thinks he might need for some issue in the future. i would say the here and now is interesting. but there is long-term implications of this. having to look ahead to future presidencies and having their national security advisors drug in, during the obama years they prevented eric holder and even the white house social secretary from testifying. so presidents have always guarded these advisors because if you start making your advisers think they're going to get drug in front of congress, they will not give you candid advice. >> but i think you would make the point that obviously this is not appear administration which has really looked for precedent,

long-term concerns about protecting the office of the presidency or the institution. you could look at the number of executive orders this president has done, though he complained about the last president's executive orders. >> oh, yes, donald trump cares really much about preserving democracy and the integrity of his office. the same man while eating meatloaf and ice cream at mar-a-lago, his resort, ordered the assassination of qassem soleimani. so yes, i think we can set aside this fake concern that trump has for the integrity of his office and we can see just based on the record and his own actions and behavior, he cares about donald trump and preserving donald trump. again, if he had nothing to hide, he has nothing to lose by inviting john bolton and mick mulvaney and pompeo and esper to testify. however, if he has something to hide, he will behave like donald trump, which is why he's the only the third president in our nation's history to be impeached. coming up next, a week into the iranian crisis and the administration still hasn't said specifically why it began.

what is the evidence, was there really an imminent threat? what about the president's escalating claims about how many potential targets there were. we're keeping them honest, ahead. buanted snow for the 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! [sneezing] ♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing]

cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu. [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. mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. ♪

♪ country roads, take me home there's a booking for every resolution. book yours at any price, at booking.com book yours at any price, t-mobile 5g is here. and it's nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network.

(whistling) wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

keeping them honest tonight, after a week of consequences following the killing of a top iranian general, the administration is still unable or unwilling to say without any clarity or evidence to back it up what it was that drove the need to kill this terroristic leader right now. many in congress, including several republicans, say they haven't been shown any evidence either in closed door briefings. general qassem soleimani for all

the lives he has taken, the people he has killed or enabled to be killed, hundreds of american troops in iraq included, the gem was someone whose demise was seep by other presidents as not worth the potential blowback it might cause. just a week since the drone strike that ended his life, we've seen plenty already. at the height of the crisis the apparent shootdown of an airliner with the loss of 176 lives. with all that behind us and who knows what else ahead, we still haven't been told why it was necessary now. we have heard again and again as most notably secretary pompeo talking about the imminent threat that soleimani's killing averted, without being told what it was or when. the president is starting to get specific about the presumed target or targets, though, again, without providing any evidence to show that he's also being truthful. here's secretary of state pompeo talking vaguely about imminent threats on fox last night. >> 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 precisely where, but it was real. >> didn't know when or didn't know where. his fuzziness led cnn's kaitlin collins to ask him today what he thinks the word "imminent" actually means. >> secretary pompeo, what is your definition of imminent? >> this was going to happen. american lives were at risk. and we would have been culpably negligent, as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, we would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended he take this action. he made the right call and america is safer as a result of that. >> this was going to happen, he says. again, without saying what the "this" was or when it would happen. when another reporter followed up, he did acknowledge one thing when asked about attacks on u.s. embassies. >> mr. secretary, the

administration said this strike was based on an imminent threat. but this morning you said we didn't know precisely when and we didn't know precisely where. that's not the definition of imminent. the president has also suggested that there was some sort of attack being planned against an embassy, perhaps several embassies. can you clarify? did you have specific information about an imminent threat and did it have anything to do with our embassies? >> we had specific information on an imminent threat and those included attacks on u.s. embassies, period, full stop. >> so you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when or precisely where. >> i don't know exactly which minute or which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear. qassem soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against american interests and those attacks were imminent. >> it's not clear whether this is one large-scale attack or several. nor is he saying precisely which embassies were targeted or if

these attacks were indeed imminent, how killing the general managed to somehow stop them, which has been a consistently vague theme for the secretary. >> what was the nature of those imminent threats? >> john, i can't talk too much about the nature of the threats, but the american people should known that president trump's decision to remove qassem soleimani from the battlefield saved american lives. >> who were the targets and how soon? >> president trump was right in what he said and so was i. i think any reasonable person who saw the intelligence that the senior american leaders had in their possession would have come to the same conclusion. >> why now? why was it urgent this week? >> we could see that he was continuing down this path, that there were in fact plots that he was working on that were aimed directly at significant harm to american interests throughout the region, not just in iraq. >> have they been called off, those attacks? >> we're prepared for anything the islamic republic of iran may do. >> today, though, he answered the embassy question perhaps because his boss is now out there with it talking about what

he says was a threat to destroy the american embassy in baghdad. >> we did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy, and you know who organized it, that man right now is not around any longer, okay? and he had more than that particular embassy in mind. >> that was yesterday morning. yesterday evening at a rally in ohio, embassy became embassy, plural. because his interview with laura ingraham today he was saying four embassies, but again no evidence to back it up. joining us is oregon senator jeff merkley. senator, the president is saying soleimani targeted four embassies. have you seen any intelligence to back up that claim? >> absolutely not. when there is a specific threat, you see intelligence which says these are the type of information we're getting and these types of matters, these sort of things were mentioned. this is how we've reinforced it by checking on other sources.

embassies did not come up at all in the briefing we received. i must say as i thought a lot about the briefing we received, the picture that you walk away with is general soleimani was somebody who traveled the region as a general, planning on ways that the quds forces, the iranian militias to exercise influence and take actions. that's what he's done year after year after year. so you can say he's always planning, always thinking. thus we had him coming back from meeting with hezbollah. well, he may have been discussing future activities. but there was no decision, no target, no time, no acting force, no details and certainly no mention of any detailed or any type of planning about embassies. so i think this is pretty much an effort to take a generalized understanding that soleimani is someone who planned as a general

attacks on the united states, does it year after year after year or attacks in the region and try to give the sort of specificity probably weaving it out of whole cloth that would justify the assassination. >> that's certainly the portrayal of general soleimani as a thug and a killer who -- he's a state actor, but this is what he does, he plots attacks against u.s. interests, certainly against u.s. personnel in iraq for years when there were more american forces there and perhaps even now. why wouldn't -- why isn't it then okay to say, well, okay, he's planning some sort of attacks or some sort of actions that are in the best interests of the united states. therefore he's a legitimate target. >> well, under international law the idea that someone is about to do something very specific, and you can stop that from happening, is a vision that involves something specific, not

just that someone is a general and execute or works out plans for the future. our generals all the time are planning contingency plans and alternatives for the future. what we do know is that in the past because he had been so central in leveraging influence in the region, he's been in our scope, if you will, for a long time. but the reason that the united states might have hesitated under former presidents from assassinating him was a sort of interest that we have in the region would not be served by doing so. and by that i mean killing him has reversed the iranian protests against the iranian government into protests against the united states. of course we've been trying to and hoping that the iranian citizens would revolt against their government. it has proceeded to completely undermine the government in iraq because we did not ask their permission. we violated their sovereignty. we embarrassed the government. now the parliament has voted to

send us out of the region. it proceeded to interrupt the collaboration between isis, our top priority. and by us being reduced and our influence in iraq, it increases iranian influence, which is exactly what iran wants. first they wanted to get rid of saddam hussein. we did it for them. then they wanted a reason to pressure iraq to push the americans further out of the region and now we've given them that excuse. it's hard to see how any considered strategy would result in deciding to take this action. >> "the wall street journal" is reporting that mr. trump after the strike told associates he was under pressure to deal with general soleimani from gop senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the senate, associates said. how would that influence the way you see this? >> you know, i've been asked this over the last several days and each time i said surely no

president would conduct a military operation to influence politics, including an impeachment trial in the senate. i must say i kind of dismissed that possibility until the president himself brought it up and said that this was something important to senators that he needs their support in the impeachment trial. i -- it's a very disturbing connection that i would certainly hope would not be the case, but it's the president himself who's raised it. >> senator jeff merkley, i appreciate your time. >> thank you. president trump has spent years calling hillary clinton crooked, of course triggered cries of "lock her up." now a review pby the president' own justice department is wind doung and he's likely not going to like its findings. that's ahead. we used to love going out with julia and mike,

but since they bought their new house... which menu am i looking at here? start with "ta-paz." -oh, it's tapas. -tapas. get out of town. it's like eating dinner with your parents. sandra, are you in school?

yes, i'm in art school. oh, wow. so have you thought about how you're gonna make money? at least we're learning some new things. we bundled our home and auto with progressive, saved a bunch. oh, we got a wobbler. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. that's what the extra menu's for. hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, pie insurance here to stop you from overpaying for worker's comp. try pie and save up to 30%. it's easy. sweet! get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. it was a life changing moment for me.

i had no idea that my grandfather 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 let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other.

big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. so after years of unproven conspiracy theories about hillary clinton appeared tnd th one scandal, the justice department is reportedly wind doung their investigation without finding anything to lead

to criminal charges. that would be a very far cry of the countless claims of criminal conduct and conspiracy made by president trump and his allies over on fox news. >> she gave up 20% of u.s. uranium. >> and voila, 20% of u.s. uranium rights go to russian interests. >> 20% of american uranium. 20% of our uranium. >> uranium one. >> the uranium one. >> we have uranium one. >> the uranium one deal. >> this whole uranium one deal. >> uranium to russia. let them look at the uranium she sold that is now in the hands of very angry russians. who gave 20% of our uranium to russia in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars? hillary clinton! [ crowd chanting "lock her up" ] >> well, the justice department is reportedly prepared to say

the allegations of criminal wrongdoing aren't true. the justice department investigation initiated by the trump administration. perspective now from someone who knows a great deal about being caught in the crosshairs of a politicized government investigation, andrew mccabe who's now a cnn contributor. are you surprised this investigation into the clintons turned up nothing, according to all the reports now? >> no, no, i'm not surprised at all, anderson. what's surprising, and i think sad, is that we now have yet another example of this department of justice tod capitulating to the political will of the president and his supporters. this is an investigation that never should have been initiated. it was initiated and i would note publicly announced only because the president demanded it. people like former representative goodlatte on the hill demandinged it and the department did it to mollify

those demands. they did it in a very public way which creates immediately a cloud of suspicion that's been hanging over secretary clinton and the foundation and everybody involved in this for two years now. >> what's so kind of, i mean, kind of sad, annoying about this, i'm not sure the right adjective, is that these things get chanted at rallies with thousands -- tens of thousands of people and it stirs people up and the president, you know, runs on it and his acolytes all over promote it and folks in congress do and on fox news. and then to much -- to much headlines and much air time and conspiracy theories and they wind people up. and then they do an actual investigation and nothing comes of it. you're not going to hear those people, you know, recanting, oh, you know, we were wrong about that whole uranium one thing. turns out there wasn't anything to it. there are no criminal charges.

>> it is -- it's horrendous. and that -- you know, rectifying that sort of mistake could start with the justice department coming out and publicly announcing the end of the investigation. i'm not saying that they should come out and do, you know, walk through everything they found or unnecessarily cast aspersions on anyone, but they could easily come out and say that they have declined prosecution, the way the i.g. does and many of the cases that he refers to prosecution that don't go anywhere. but for the department not to do that, not to take that proactive step to remove this cloud of suspicion, to answer those screaming chants of "lock her up" and all the conspiracy theories on fox news and elsewhere is just -- it's absolutely -- it's cowardly. the reason they don't do it is because they know the kind of wrath that it will provoke from the president and others on twitter and everywhere else. and it displays a true lack of integrity. >> but by not doing it,

basically this president knows better than anyone else, when you have somebody who is shameless, who is willing to say anything, he knows that he can say anything and down the road when it's proven untrue, no one is going to be paying attention to it anymore because they're going to be on to the next thing, which is the next shiny object, which he has now moved on to promoting a conspiracy theory about. >> they'll be on to john durham or whoever comes after him. you're absolute lly right, anderson. another thing you need to point out here is what's important to the president and his supporters, the political narrative that they seek is not supported not by the actual investigation or its result but by the announcement of the investigation. >> which is what he wanted out of the ukrainians. >> exactly. >> he didn't care if there was a ukrainian investigation into the bidens, he just wanted the announcement of one. >> that's what witnesses have testified to in the house investigation, that the important thing was the

announcement by president zelensky that joe biden and his son were under investigation. it is the same story, it is their go-to plan. >> andrew mccabe, appreciate your time. thank you. marianne williamson dropped out of the democratic >> a poll showing important trends for the front-runners. we will have a close look at the front-runners, only weeks away.

i can. the two words whispered at the start of every race. every new job. and attempt to parallel park. (electrical current buzzing) each new draft of every novel. (typing clicks) the finishing touch on every masterpiece. (newborn cries) it is humanity's official two-word war cry. words that move us all forward. the same two words that capital group believes have the power to improve lives. and that, for over 85 years, have inspired us to help people achieve their financial goals. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.

with time, comes changesor or consultant that's for sure... and when those changes might help more people, especially those in retirement, i think it's worth talking about! so, aag is introducing a new jumbo reverse mortgage loan so you can now access as much as $4 million dollars in cash, tax free, from your home's equity. aag's new jumbo reverse mortgage loan can give you more tax-free cash than ever before. if you've had your home for a while, it's probably worth a lot more today. so why not use that appreciation for anything you need

maybe it's some home repairs, or updates to make it more comfortable so you can stay in the place you love. it's a viable effective way to support your other investments long into the future, and another way aag is working to make your retireme... better. don't wait. get your info kit now! presidential debate tuesday at 9:00 only on cnn. just more than three weeks until the first in the nation iowa caucuses, a new cnn de ploin register poll shows a race for the top spot, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, pete buttigieg and joe biden in a virtual dead heat. a closer look at the number shows encouraging signs for one of the candidates. david, what do the latest numbers tell us in sort of trends going into the first vote of 2020? >> well, take a look and just

compare it to the november iowa poll and i think some trends are clear. bernie sanders clearly on the rise in iowa, some real momentum. in fact, he is the only candidate since november to make some growth. you see he was at 15%, now he is at 20%. warren and biden stayed about the same. buttigieg took a dive here of nine points, so the growth in this race right now in iowa is on bernie sanders' side. >> and all along, polling had told us above all democratic voters really just want someone who can beat donald trump. is that still the case? >> it is still the case, but by a slightly lesser margin. still a majority, 55% in this poll among likely iowa democratic caucus goers say they're looking for a candidate who is a strong chance to beat trump versus one, versus 40% say that share their positions but the margin has narrowed and it is to bernie sanders' benefit, anderson, because his supporters are on the side of i want somebody that share my position.

the fact that they're seeing some growth in that overall request of voters, if you will, plays to sanders' benefit. >> given what happened in iran, how would a foreign policy crisis maybe impact the democratic field? >> you know, it is such a good question. it is still not the top issue, that's health care and climate change in this poll, but it is worth noting. we asked about some candidates' strength. if you look at bernie sanders' strength, you will see his ability to empathize is very important to his supporters. his political resume they see as a strength, but his ability to lead the military, only 61% of his supporters -- people backing him -- say that that is a strength. about a quarter say it is a weakness. elizabeth warren also has a similar warning sign, this commander in chief moment i think is on the to-do list, if you will, for sanders and warren to try to shore up some of those credentials for voters. >> david chalian, thanks. >> sure. cnn's democratic debate and

partnership with the "des moines register" is four days away, tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. signs that democratics could be helped with key parts of the impeachment hearing. why president trump is threatening to invoke executive privilege, that's next. were cooking with mom. she always said, "food is love," so when she moved in with us, a new kitchen became part of our financial plan. ♪ i want to make the most of every meal we have together. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm dot com. build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you love. 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. 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. chris cuomo is off tonight. topping the special edition of 360, we have breaking news on the former national security adviser kbret to tell his story in the imp