re 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 impeachment saga and

could have a story to tell if he is willing. now president trump has said he will take steps to block john bolton from testifying at the senate impeachment trial which could begin sometime next week. he made the statement to laura ingraham for an interview airing tonight. she asked why not allow him to testify. this thing is bogus, why not allow him to testify. the president testifies, no problem except you can't be in the white house as a future and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, league and other things, especially -- ingraham interrupts saying, are you going to invoke executive president. the president says i think you have to for the sake of the office. i want to go to phil mattingly at the capital. if he invokes executive privilege, could it change the speaker's thinking in sending over the articles? >> reporter: i'm told it could not shift the strategy to send

the articles next week. it underscores the reality the house speaker and democratics have been facing for the last weeks. there's nothing they can do to control the process. the speaker hoped to withhold the articles in that she could shape the senate trial. up to this point it has not worked. mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, has not moved an inch, at least in terms of how the initial stages of the trial will work. there's some hope the political pressure will help peel off republicans at some point during the trial. but the baseline for the next step, for the next stage is republicans control the united states senate. if republicans stick together, they will dictate how the trial goes. the same with whatever the president's legal team decides. right now it is more up to public and political pressure than it is anything that the speaker or house democrats can do. >> what is senate leader mitch mcconnell saying? >> i spoke to the senate majority leader as he walked out of the capital earlier today and he had two words unsolicited as

he walked by me and those were, at last. from what you have seen from the majority leader and what i'm told is going on behind the scenes over the last several weeks is a need to move it forward. they want to move it quickly. they want to move to acquit the president as quickly as possible. there's been significant fres traugs inside the republican conference on the senate side and certainly in the majority leader's office that the speaker has taken this tack. it is worth noting he didn't move an inch on the scope of the trial. he didn't move an inch on even releasing the initial rules of the trial he has drafted that the speaker requested, but it is worth noting he doesn't necessarily have control over everything when this gets to the united states senate. anderson, the number to keep in mind is 51. with 51 senators however they go you can dictate how the next stage of the trial goes. mcconnell controls 53 seats, but if he loses seats, then chuck schumer has a lot of control. there are a lot of steps to go and not everything is in the control or power of mcconnell. >> so how soon could a senate

trial actually start? >> reporter: yeah, despite the impasse and the waiting seemingly forever over the course of the last couple of weeks it will move quickly once the articles are sent over. the house will vote we expect on wednesday, certainly by midweek, to send the articles of impeachment over to the united states senate. the managers that speaker pelosi appoints will physically walk them in the hallway behind me across to the senate chamber and hand them over. by 1:00 p.m. the next day the trial kicks off. for the first couple of days it will be largely procedural, the chief justice will be swearing in, and we expect the opening arguments and the defense team to defend the president will kick into gear. it will move quickly, no question about it. >> thank you very much.

ma maz maz mazie herono will be one of the jurors. >> this is part of the president as ongoing desire to stonewall the impeachment inquiry in the house and basically to throw out a blanket immunity position. there's no such thing as a blanket immunity. also, you can can't invoke executive privilege or immunity to coverup crimes. >> executive privilege does apply between conversations between the president and his national security adviser, wouldn't it? >> well, one would think if it has actually something to do with national security, but this has everything to do with protecting and covering up the president's crimes. >> could bolton still testify about conversations he had with gordon sondland or mick mulvaney without even dealing with executive privilege? >> i should think so. so he's perfectly willing to testify should the senate subpoena him, and that's what the senate should do. so now that the speaker is sending the articles of

impeachment, the focus is once again on what kind of trial will take place in the senate. that trial should include relevant witnesses and relevant documents, neither of which the president is willing to produce. so just as the president is trying to basically rig the election for himself by leaning on the president of another country to do his political dirty work using $400 million of taxpayer money for the purpose, he is trying to rig the trial in the senate by preventing relevant witnesses and information from coming forward. >> given how things are, do you think the senate will try to subpoena bolton and given what the president is clearly telegraphing here? >> well, one would hope -- i would hope there would be four courageous senators who would want to have a fair trial. i'm hearing that perhaps susan collins, who during the clinton impeachment trial said, "yes, we should have witnesses," so apparently she's having some

talks with some other republican senators. but it is going to take four of them to break ranks and go along with the democrats in calling for bolton, mulvaney and the two other witnesses to testify and production of the documents. i hope they do that. that would be a surprise, frankly, but a welcome one. >> we did hear obviously from fiona hill in the house, who obviously worked for bolton, who spoke about his concern about the pressure on ukraine, his calling it a drug deal. given that if -- i mean if that was all bolton was prepared to tell the senate, i guess there's a question of why would the president then try to stop him from appearing unless the president is concerned, a, about precedent of executive privilege, which is perhaps possible, or it concerns something else that bolton knows. >> i think you hit it on the nail. the president is very afraid of what bolton is going to testify to. you have a president who thinks that he can do anything he wants as president including shooting

somebody on fifth avenue. so he's invoking blanket executive privilege. i think he is very afraid of what bolton will testify to because bolton, i don't think, is interested in perjurying himself. >> it is strange. some of the other senators have come up with interesting ideas of the way the senate should operate in this trial. i believe it was marco rubio who was saying you should only go into evidence that other witnesses had already been brought up in the house. there should be no new witnesses as if that's some sort of precedent. that's really not a thing. it is a trial, witnesses can be called. >> actually, the precedent of all of the impeachment trials conducted in the senate did have witnesses, so i don't know where marco is coming up with this kind of explanation except that he's totally supporting the president and the president's desire to coverup and rig the

senate trial. >> even if you know that the president could invoke executive privilege and would use -- and there were enough republicans on board who were willing to subpoena bolton, would you want bolton subpoenaed to the senate chamber, i mean just to make him relay that claim in person on television or would it be a waste of time. >> well, what i would like to see is the senate vote to subpoena bolton's testimony, and then the president is going to have to figure out a way to assert his executive privilege and have that stick, possibly in court. the burden will be on the president at that point to show that bolton shouldn't testify and that executive privilege applies. >> senator hrono, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. sometimes we lose sight of the fact but this sort of thing, an impeachment trial it simply doesn't happen that often, only two other times in the country's history, only once in the modern era. as the guest mentioned in the first hour, the concept of

executive privilege goes way back as does the battle between the two branches of government. joining us with the long view, historian. does the president have the ability to invoke executive privilege for the sake of the office? >> it is untest evidence. believe it or not, given the history it is an untested issue. the supreme court has never weighed in on the executive privilege in impeachment inquiries. the famous u.s. versus nixon case that was so important in 1974, it was about whether the president could invoke executive privilege regarding criminal trials. we don't know what the supreme court would say about executive privilege in an impeachment trial. it is untested. >> is there any reason though to think it would be different? because obviously presidents have invoked executive privilege in terms of stopping, you know, national security advisers or

whomever from actually testifying on other issues in front of congress on specific things. >> well, i mean in this case you would need a lawyer, but let's just think about the issue involved. would the founders be supportive of the use of presidential power to prevent congress from assessing whether a president is a threat to the republic? >> an interesting question. >> i think the founders -- i don't think the founders would be at all happy that executive privilege, something they didn't ever write out by the way, but something they would have understood, that executive privilege would be used as a way to stonewall in a constitutional crisis. >> would this be like president nixon trying to prevent john dean from testifying? was that a possibility during watergate? >> oh, it was always a possibility. now, let's keep something in mind if people have forgotten

this, it is okay. history is hard to remember. but richard nixon allowed his lieutenants to testify before the watergate, the senate watergate committee, but he expected them to lie. they perjured themselves -- now, john dean didn't, but h. h.r. halderman, he lied in front of senate. we think about richard nixon cooperating, but he cooperated with the understanding that his lieutenants would not tell the truth about the coverup because they were implicated. go ahead. >> sorry to interrupt. i was thinking about what you said before. didn't george washington say something about documents -- about congress not being able to look at some diplomatic cables except if, of course, it was an impeachment? >> yes. there was an issue involving thor jay treaty, a treaty with great britain. the house, which was controlled

by jeffersonian democrats, didn't like it. they didn't want to actually implement it. they requested from president washington the diplomatic record of the negotiations with the british. george washington wrote in response, "you can't have them, you can't have them because in our constitution the senate is responsible for advising and giving consent on diplomatic issues, not the house." however, he woulrote, my answer would be different if there were an impeachment inquiry, thus giving the impression that the founding fathers understood that the house could ask about anything in an impeachment inquiry. >> it is great to have a historian to call who knows so much. tim natali. thank you. >> thank you. just ahead, looking at trends playing in iowa in the democratic presidential race. at the center of one story line,

bernie sanders. also a loss felt across canada after the downing of the airliner in tehran. so many canadian citizens were killed, iranians, ukrainians and so many more. that and more as we continue.

sign your lips with weightless matte color. 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. rouge signature by l'oreal paris. when the murray's go to work... michelangelo goes to work, too. good thing they use new gain ultra flings with two times the oxi boost, and febreze. fresh again...

my grandparents that i never knew.ch about i'm a lawyer now, but i had no idea that my grandfather was a federal judge in guatemala. my grandfather used his legal degree and his knowledge to help people that were voiceless in his country. that put a fire in my heart. it made me realize where i got my passion for social justice. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

president trump is escalating his claims about how many attacks the killing of qassem soleimani prevented. he is not offering any evidence to back it up nor have lawmakers gotten any such evidence in their closed-door briefings according to a democratic senator who just joined us in

the first hour. he is now saying that killing soleimani, who we should always point out had plenty of blood on his hands, was a thug and a killer, averted attacks on four u.s. embassies. that's the president's newest claim. meantime secretary of state pompeo continues to say attacks were imminent without ever really explaining how they were imminent. for now now on all of it i want to go to kaitlan collins at the white house. you asked secretary pompeo what his definition of imminent was today because earlier he said he didn't know with the attacks would take place or where. >> reporter: right, and the question is how do you know if something is imminent if you don't know when it is going to happen. today he said that his definition of that word just means it was going to happen, but, of course, the big question is when is it going to happen. that raises questions about why weren't lawmakers briefed. you heard the president say they didn't have time to call house speaker nancy pelosi and give her a heads up this was going to happen, that's why it raised so many questions. precisely for pompeo, who was the first person out of the administration after the strike

to describe the threat as imminent, and in recent days we heard from pentagon officials who say we do not think it is a word he should have been used to describe this attack. >> and to some people it may seem like nitpicking by reporters to be pressing on this, but the use of the word "imminent" is important for legal reasons to justify an assassination strike killing a general from another country. >> reporter: exactly. >> it is also not to imply that soleimani, his whole m.o., his portfolio was planning attacks, planning actions, you know, attacks on u.s. forces when we were in iraq, attacks wherever possible. so it is not out of the realm of -- you know, it is probably very likely he was planning some sort of attacks at some point on somewhere. the question, of course, were they imminent that required this strike then, which is what they're claiming. >> reporter: exactly. that's the question, is, you know, when is this going to

happen, how imminent is this, why did you strike this night. those are the questions leading up to it. of course, congress is a co-equal branch of government. that's why they demanded to know that. you have seen the administration reluctant to provide any of those details. so when you see the president start to be the one who releases details like saying it was not just one embassy that was target but multiple and now today he is saying four, though declining to say which other three were target he believes in addition to baghdad -- something he has already said -- those are the questions being wrraised. that's why you're seeing lawmakers say, we didn't find out that during our briefing. if it was so imminent, why wouldn't you have told us about it. anderson, the other question is were the embassied warns warned. you would think if there was an imminent threat, they would get a heads up. so far the administration has not answered questions. >> was it four u.s. embassies or other country's embassies, and if it was other country's were those countries warned if there

was a threat? the heart of the problem is this is a president who has routinely lied and made stuff up and a lot is meaningless and weird that he lies about. obviously this has real consequences and now there's reason to distrust what he says. kaitlan collins, i appreciate your reporting on that with pompeo. more on the larger question includi including how the president conducts foreign policy. fareed zakaria. fareed, you wrote in the piece for the post that trump does not have a foreign policy as a series of impulses. can you explain what you meant by that? >> well, if you look at his policy toward the middle east, at one level he has kept saying he wants to get out. he keeps talking about how he thinks it is quick sand, it has been madness to get involved, and that's why he wanted to withdraw forces from syria. but then last week he gets us deeply involved in the middle east in a very complicated and dynamic, you know, game with

iran. even while he was withdrawing troops from syria, he was sending 3,000 more troops into saudi arabia. so if you look at all of these contradictory impulses, you have to ask yourself, what is the strategy here. what i have come to realize is trump doesn't think that way. he doesn't have a strategy. he has a series of impulses. he is basically an isolationist at some level, but he is also a kind of bellicose unilateralist. in other words he wants to do things his way, and he doesn't like it if somebody disrespects him. so spasmodically he will act in ways that are emotional and often inconsistent with one another, and it makes for an incoherent foreign policy. so it is sad but sometimes slightly comical to watch some of his loyal hench men support him in this almost north korean

style of enthusiasm except it is something the opposite of what they were supporting three days ago. >> in normal administration goes, republican or democratic, you have a sense even if the president is not talking about it on any given day that there is foreign policy being negotiated or talked about or executed in some realm. but with this president and this white house, it feels like the president lurches from, you know, public -- big, you know, public event. he wants to publicly meet with putin. he wants to publicly meet with kim jong-un. he is focusing on that, and then i don't know why -- i mean you don't hear much about u.s. policy to north korea or negotiations or discussions that are actually ongoing or being carried on by the levers of government, because in many of these departments doubt have secretaries, you have ancting secretaries. >> it is a very good point. part of what trump seems to dislike is the machinery of the

american government that works slowly, involves consultation with allies, tries to align all departments up in the same direction, you know, and moves with a certain kind of speed and deliberation, but also in a way that kind of includes everybody, makes sure everyone is on the same page. that's not the kind of foreign policy trump likes, and most importantly he doesn't like it because it doesn't involve him. so that is typically the way in which you build toward a summit. that's the way you build toward negotiations with the chie nene. what trump wants instead is to have chocolate cake with xi engine pin at mar-a-lago or meet with kim jong-un. we do not have the complete deal with china that was promised us. we have no better nuclear deal with iran.

we have a broken relationship with europe. so far what you have seen is a lot of histrionics and theater, but you have not seen the kind of deals which come from what you were saying, which is the machine of american diplomacy, american government, making sure everybody is moving and on the same page and delivering a product. >> jared kushner was the one allegedly working on the middle east and all of the issues in china and mexico and stuff, and now it seems like -- i think in the "wall street journal" he is now focused on the campaign. fareed, zakaria, thank you so much. fascinating op-ed. >> thank you for reminding me that we were going to somewhere a peace process between israelis and palestinians. >> yes. fareed zakaria, thanks so much. new polling shows why every democrat running for president will need every vote they can get in iowa, the latest picture

with only weeks before the caucuses, next. discomfort back there?

instead of using aloe, or baby wipes, or powders, try the cooling, soothing relief or preparation h, because your derriere deserves expert care.

preparation h. get comfortable with it. [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. 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. only 24 days left until the

first votes in the race for the white house, and tonight there's no clear front-runner among the top tier democrats in iowa. sanders, warren, buttigieg and biden are competing close together, although sanders' campaign is showing signs of momentum. klobuchar and yang are the only other candidates to receive at least 5% support. what stands out to you, van, in those numbers? >> first of all, the sanders' surge is unbelievable. i mean his people complain all the time that he doesn't get the media attention that he deserves. they're probably right. they can complain he is kind of written off by the establishment. they're probably right, but he is surging. the number -- he has more donors than anybody has ever gotten, and i think that he got written off early. i said, gee, we're going to do the sanders thing again. he is a real threat for the nomination. >> it is so interesting, governor dean, how there was a lot of attention on elizabeth warren and the medicare for all

issue seemed to be a big stumble on how she handled that and sanders, to van's point, was probably written off by folks a couple of mont ahs ago and obviously appears to be the front-runner, though it is close. >> first of all, in fairness to the polling, there's four front-runners. there's no question that bernie is surging right now, and the question is are we going to have one more candidate surge before we get there. i remember this very well in my own case. i was leading with months to go and then kerry came up and was ahead of me and then had the primary been a week later, i mean the caucus, edwards would have won it. we know that bernie has momentum for sure. we also have no idea which one of these four is going to win. the other thing we have to keep in mind is if you don't get 15% in a caucus, you don't get any delegates out of that caucus. if somebody like joe biden is at 15rks th 15, that means he will not place for delegates in a good number

of the caucus and that's true of bernie at 20. >> governor, what accounts for that? go back to your case, you're in the lead, you're feeling good, feeling like everything is going well and all of a sudden it is not. >> well, i mean everybody is different. in my case it was there was a lot of stuff that hadn't been done organizationally, and also i was the kind of candidate that was incredibly appealing to people until they actually thought of me as standing up against george bush. they liked me a lot, but they sort of moved back towards the, look, we got to get rid of bush, let's pick the safer choice. there was some of that, too, but a lot was organization. i was not a very well-organized candidate, and i think bernie is well organized. in fact, i think all four of these candidates are well organized, so i wouldn't want to bet on this race but i would rather be bernie than joe biden at this moment. >> bernie has the experience of having run before and run an organization before. >> yes, he is incredibly organized.

the other stuff that stands out for me, if you had told us a year ago that pete buttigieg would be right up there at the top of the pack you would have said, pete, who? did you just sneeze? who are you talking about? that andrew yang, kamala harris, would out last governors and senators, you would say, andrew yang? what are you talking about? it shows something is happening in the party, that people trying to find a way fofrmrward. bernie and biden, they're kind of where they were. you have had elizabeth go up and down, pete go up, and he's coming down. you had the two steady eddies, on the left, bernie, and on the middle biden. then you have all on the left with buttigieg and andrew yang and nobody would have expected that to happen. >> four out of ten say they're locked in on their choice, governor. is that about what it normally is? less than a month away. >> it really is. 24 days is a lifetime in iowa

politics. >> that's for sure. >> not only do the people see candidates five or six times and shake their hands more than one time, they don't have to make up their mind, and a lot make up their mind at caucuses. if you don't get 15%, a lot of horse trading goes o we don't know what is going to happen. >> that's why elizabeth -- >> first it was biden, then warren, then buttigieg and now bernie. that's probably room for one more shift, though god knows who it will be. could be klobuchar. >> i tell you, because of the way the caucus works, elizabeth warren is everybody's second choice. once you get through the first round a lot of people may wind up going with her and she could wind up surging at the end. don't write elizabeth off. she may have another run at this the night of. >> that's true. >> the night of she could pull off an upset. >> that's true. >> 25% said impeachment was an issue for them, are you surprised with that? >> not at all. because i spent a lot of time on red and purple straits and

people have made up their mind on trump. they want to know who can beat donald trump. >> that's right. >> i'm sorry. go ahead, governor. >> no, you're right. go ahead. i think you were about to say what i was going say. >> two theories. one, you are electable if you are more moderate. the other is you are electable if you can electrify the base. we are still fighting it out in this party. >> van jones -- >> and i'm in the second camp but i will vote for anybody that can beat trump. >> governor dean, good to have you on. cnn in conjunction with the "des moines register", we will have the democratic presidential debate. we will talk with the stories of those in the crash in iran earlier this week. their stories when we return.

i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪

my derm jglycolic acid.on her little anti-aging secret- revitalift 10 percent glycolic acid serum. with our highest concentration of glycolic acid. resurfaces skin to visibly reduce dark spots and wrinkles. revitalift glycolic acid serum from l'oréal. 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. uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service."

what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. $12.99 all you can eat ♪ now with boneless wings. only at applebee's. you shouldn't have to pretend you're fine. you shouldn't have to be the ambulance. you shouldn't have to be thinking about the cost.

you should just be focused on her. covered california can help you find a health plan that fits your needs and budget. because we believe you shouldn't have to choose between the life you've built and the care you need. today's secretary of state

mike pompeo said it is, quote, likely iran shot down the ukrainian airliner earlier this week near tehran. they don't have access to the information inside the black boxes, while ukrainian officials said the intelligence the united states and united kingdom passed them was solid. they said they're not ready to rule out terrorism. 176 people were killed, most iranians or canadians. the former president of the iranian heritage society of edmondton, canada, he knew seven of the victims of the crash. thank you for being with us. i'm sorry it is under these circumstances. how are you and the community holding up? >> you know, we're -- it is tough. we lost a significant number of our community members here, and it really hits close to home when it is such tight-knit community. there are no words. i think most of the community is still in shock and disbelief. >> i believe you lost seven people that you knew.

can you talk always bit about some of them? >> yes. like one family, it was a husband and wife, both professors in the engineering department at a local university. they had two young beautiful daughters, 9 and 14. just bright, really curious kids. the husband and i would often go to the gym together. he was always laughing, such a friendly guy. the other three that i knew, the mother, she was an obstetrician/gynecologist, well-known in our community. always willing to help wherever she could. her two university-aged daughters, extremely bright futures. i think one was pursuing a medical degree and the other a clinical sipsychology. these are the kind of people we had in our city. bright, bright minds. >> how quickly did you hear about the plane crash and then realize exactly what plane it was and that you knew people on it and there were so many canadians on it as well as

iranians and others? >> you know, i think most iranians that were close to a tv at that time would have been glued watching the ongoing tensions between iran and the united states, given, you know, they likely have family members in iran. and while that news was breaking, as iran was launching ballistic missiles, this news came breaking that a plane was down. and as the story developed, we learned that it was an international flight and then we learned it was the kyiv-bound flight. as soon as the news broke word spread quickly and people started to identify, hey, i know this person was on, that person was on, and quickly we realized it was a tragedy unlike any we have dealt with before. >> now concerned with you about the investigation that essentially, you know, obviously iranians, the iranian government is in control of it. there have been questions early on. they said they wouldn't cooperate with the manufacturer of the airline, boeing, or u.s. authorities, perhaps canadian authorities.

i'm wondering how concerned you are that the investigation will be as fulsome as it should? >> well, we're never going to get our friends back so the why to the community is, you know, not on the top of our priority. but as far as the investigation goes, the people in iran don't trust their own regime after 40 years. so to have that government heading the investigation on something that they're accused of, you know, with wrong doing, it seems inappropriate. canada had 63 citizens on that flight, but of the 176, 138 were canada-bound, so we had many future canadians on that plane as well. the majority of those would likely have been international students or people nent residents and likely the number of visitors would have been a minority within that number. so it is vital that, you know, multiple nations get together for an independent investigator to be selected where iran is, for example, observing the investigation rather than

leading it with other countries observing. >> what are you hoping to see from the governments of the u.s. and the iranian government just in terms of moving forward? obviously it seems like things have sort of stepped back from the brink in the wake of what's gone on, but obviously the tensions still remain high. >> yes, it is unfortunate because most of the time when the governments escalate things or disagree, it is the people that will suffer. the iranian people likely have nothing against the american people and the american people likely have nothing against the iranian people. it is just two governments who don't seem to understand how to, you know, conduct appropriate diplomacy so that the lives of their people can be made better. >> again, i appreciate you talking to us. i'm so sorry for your loss. >> thank you very much. coming up next, the announcement from prince harry and his wife, the duchess of sussex, the couple said they will be, quote, stepping back as senior members of the royal family. how that is playing out at

buckingham palace and the united kingdom when we continue. 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 when you're not able to smile, you become closed off. having to live with bad teeth for so long was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed and all of the feeling bad about myself that was unnecessary. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com

or call today. a general dentistry office. of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever.

meghan markle, the duchess of sussex, has returned to canada for a few days according to a spokesperson for her husband prince harry. the couple announced earlier that they were planning to take time off from being an official part of the house of windsor. 360's and drea kei has details. >> reporter: the duke and duchess of sussex have had enough so they are calling it quits as senior members of the royal family. yet they have no intention of giving up their titles. it is all part of the couple's move to step back, become financially independent, and stop having to answer questions from the british press. the news came as a shock to the couple's 10.5 million followers on instagram and to the royal family as well. buckingham palace promptly issued a statement.

we understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through. it didn't take long before the #meetingxit was all over twitter. in london madam the british tabloids got in on it two. reading they didn't even tell the queen. and this from the daily mail. queen's furry. harry and meghan say we quit. what does this all mean? they plan to give up the 5% income grant they get from the government. what about the 95% of their income from his father prince charles? they are already report dollars worth $40 million. book deals and speaking fees can bring in cash. the couple had become more and more private as their

relationship with the media increasingly deteriorated. prince harry called coverage of meghan relentless and aggressive saying some contained racial under tones. the dutchess talked about the media spotlight back in october. >> you add this on top of just trying to be a new mom or trying to be a newlywed. it's -- thank you for asking. not many people ask if i'm okay. but it's a very real thing. to be going through behind the scenes. >> for prince harry this personal. his mother princess died in car crash being chased by the paparazzi in 1997. this latest move means the duke and dutchess are no longer bound by the rules of a regular pool of journalists covering royal events which include three tabloid sued by the couple. one for publishing a private letter from meghan to her

father. and hacking into voice mails. the couple plans to tell their stories to credible media out lets and those stories won't just be told in the uk. they now say they plan to split their time between england and north america. >> joining me now for more insight. expert on the monarchy. we were together for wedding. there was talk about meghan markle changing the royal family. and being a sign of future of the royal family. now to have this development. where both she and her husband are saying we want to leave the royal family. essentially while still kind of maintaining ties. we want to step back as senior royals. >> it was a sense of optimism. finally the royal family was representing the face of britain. britain today a multi-culture

society. there was a real sense that the royal family had finally pro peled into the 21st century. to find ourselves at this point now is sad. you have to wonder at what point did this go so horribly wrong. they were vocal about the struggles. the press of course. they played their part. meghan too, she was without question at the center of the most controversial media. it didn't matter what she did. she was accused of funding terrorism. because of the cook book. accusation that her favorite fruit was causing problems. avocado. >> there's a racial under tone and overt racism in some of the coverage from the beginning. linking her to gangs in compton. how much has to do with racism in the coverage of them? >> meghan has dealt with racism her whole life.

she talked about it. i don't think she thought it was going to be to this degree. it has been unconscious racism and members of the press and around the world that say absolutely not. there's no element of racism. exotic dna she was called vulgar. for wearing off the shoulder dresses. there's no question race mayed an issue. what happened this week has been drastic and quite a rash move. harry has been a bull in ha china shop presenting his terms without clearing it with the royal family first. they're saying enough is enough. >> they went ahead and announced this without the sign off? >> the royal family did know there was a shake up and they were keen to spend time in north america. none of the finer details. that's where they slipped up this week. this web site came out with effectively nine pages of details. of this and this. none of that had been signed off

on. it puts them in a prekars position. they need to negotiate this on a public platform. >> it steams so hypocritical. the press hounded meghan much like the allegations they handed princess die anna for many years and used the press in her own way in a much more different way than meghan has. they hounded her and with racial overtones and now they're saying they're leaving and it's wait a minute what are you talking about? you can't leave. >> perhaps it's been handled. on the one hand what do you mean because it's unprecedented. nobody has done this. but some people some of the negativeivity is because they feel like the queen was bulldozed somewhat. having disrespected her wishes. reports that the queen said i hear you, we'll try and work with you.

please don't go public until we iron out the detail. they went public anyway. we'll be back with more. so g 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.

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 aif you have moderates. 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.

news continues i want to turn it over to don lemon and "cnn tonight." this is "cnn tonight" i'm don lemon. thank you so much for joining us. we'll catch you up on all of it. up to speed. including on what it looks like the end of the impeachment stand off tweens nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell. she's preparing to send the articles of impeachment to the senate next week. which means the trial could possibly begin then. though the house and the senate both need to take some procedural steps first. that as republican sources say they want the president acquitted. no