more. >> some of us work on the weekend, we will break down what's happening in iraq. the next time the secretary of defense comes on, pay attention to every word he says. >> thanks, leland. "outnumbered" starts right now. >> melissa: of fox news alert, we are awaiting senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and minority leader chuck schumer to speak on the floor as the senate returns from recess. they are expected to weigh in on this stunning event in the middle east. president trump ordering the air strike that took out iran's most powerful general, qassem soleimani, near baghdad's airport. iran's top leaders vowing retaliation. soleimani was the mastermind behind a sum of iran's deadliest attacks and had the blood on americans on his hands. the strike was to disrupt an "imminent attack" that could've cost caused more american lives.

>> what was sitting before us was his travels throughout the region in an effort to make a significant strike against americans that would've meant to many muslims killed as well, iraqis, people in other countries as well. a strike that was aimed at both disrupting that plot and deterring further aggression. >> melissa: this is "outnumbered" and i melissa francis. joining me is the host of "kennedy" on fox business, kennedy her cell. executive director of the serve america pac and fox news contributor marie harf. polster and fox news contributor kristen soltis anderson, and in the center seat today, senior editor for "the federalist," chris bedford. thanks to all of you for being here, we will bring it to the couch in a second but first, let's get right to jennifer griffin at the pentagon. >> defense secretary mark esper telegraphed this drone strike when he warned the u.s. was prepared to order preemptive

strikes to protect americans. "the game has changed," he told reporters at the pentagon. >> we've had around sponsored militia groups attacking u.s. forces now for several months, culminated in the death of americans last week and the wounding of several soldiers. there is obviously crossed line for us. >> the restraint president trump had shown was important and it's now the time we need to take action to restore deterrence. >> soleimani had become a fixture in baghdad, as a rack try to form a new government. his goal has always been to push the u.s. military out of iraq. he led the iraqi fight against isis, forcing the u.s. military at times to fight alongside and even fly air cover for his forces to push isis out of key are iraqi cities. during the surge, soleimani

perfected the use of explosive penetrators that slice through american armor with devastating effect. this is how the former chairman described soleimani's roll in iraq. >> the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and the number has been recently quoted as about 500. >> more recently, iranian backed forces fired the rocket that killed an american contractor and organized writers to attack the u.s. embassy. u.s. officials tell me they had eyes on soleimani as he flew from lebanon to a rack and an armed american drone was awaiting overhead after he exited the plane. the shadowy iranian commander wasn't just a threat in the middle east. in 2011 he ordered the sse and assassination of saudi arabia's ambassador to the united states outside a popular georgetown restaurant here in washington, d.c. that plot was thwarted by u.s.

intelligence. iraq right now is without a permanent prime minister, its parliament is holding an emergency session on saturday calling for all u.s. troops to leave iraq. >> melissa: we were waiting for majority leader mitch mcconnell to speak on the floor and we think he's going to address the events overnight. let's listen. >> the deaths of more american service members, qassem soleimani. the leader within iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. soleimani's schemes and his agents killed hundreds of american service members in iraq and afghanistan. he oversaw the state-sponsored terrorism that iran used to kill our sons and our daughters. and as we've seen in recent days and weeks, he and his terrorist

posed an ongoing threat to american lives and american interests. soleimani made it his life's work to take the iranian revolutionary call for death to america and death to israel and turn them into action. but this terrorist mastermind was not just a threat to the united states. and israel. about for more than a decade, he masterminded iran's malevolent and destabilizing work throughout the entire middle east. he created, sustained, and directed terrorist proxies everywhere from yemen to iraq to syria to lebanon. innocents were killed. these sovereign countries were

destabilized. in syria, this leading terrorist and his agents acted as strategists, enablers, and accomplices.l repression and of the slaughter of the syrian people. in iraq, his violence expanded the influence at the expense of the iraqis himself. his dark secretary and vision paved the way for the rise of isis. and with isis largely defeated, soleimani and his agents again turned their sights on controlling the iraqi people. who, through massive protests, are rejecting not only a corrupt government, but also iran's influence over that government. and once again, there were oran

and its proxies for facilitating violence against these peaceful protesters. for too long, for too long, this evil man operated without constraint and countless innocents have suffered for it. now, his terrorist leadership has been ended. now, predictably enough in this political environment, the operations that led to soleimani's death may prove controversial or divisive. although i anticipate and welcome a debate about america's interest in foreign policy in the middle east, i recommend that all senators wait to review the facts and hear from the administration before passing much public judgment.

on this operation and its potential consequences. the administration will be breathing staff today on the situation in iraq. we are working to arrange a classified briefing for all senators early next week. for my part, i have spoken to the secretary of defense and i am encouraged by the steps the u.s. military is taking to defend american personnel and interest from a growing iranian threat. i know i speak for the entire senate when i say my prayers are with all american diplomats, personnel, and brave service members serving in iraq and in the middle east. i am grateful for their courageous service for protecting our country. right from the outset of this new year it is already clear that 2020 will require the senate and our whole nation to redouble our resolve to keep america safe in this troubled

world. now on an entirely different matter, of course, we also anticipate that another totally different, very serious item will be heading this on its way soon. the senate will have to address some of the deepest institutional questions contemplated by our constituti constitution. we will have to decide whether we are going to safeguard core governing traditions or let short-term partisan rage overcome them. back in december i explained how house democrats sprint into the most rushed, least fair, and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history has jeopardized the foundations of our system of government. last spring, speaker pelosi told the country "impeachment is so divisive to the country that

unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path. that was the speaker less than a year ago. back in 1998 when democrats were busy defending president clinton, congressman jerry nadler said "there must never be narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the oth other. such an impeachment would lack legitimacy" said congressman jerry nadler 20 years ago. that was obviously a standard when a democrat was in the white house. but ultimately house democrats cared more about attacking president trump then keeping their promises, so they rushed through a slapdash investigati investigation. they decided not to bother with

the standard legal processes for pursuing witnesses and evidence. don't have time to do that. chairman adam schiff told the entire country on national television that getting a court decision takes a long time. he didn't want to wait. it takes a long time to go to court. so they just plowed ahead. plowed right ahead. with a historically weak case and impeached a duly elected president with votes from just one, just one political party. democrats have let trump derangement syndrome develop into a kind of dangerous partisan fever that our founding fathers were afraid of. and then, mr. president, just before the holidays, this sad spectacle took another unusual turn.

as soon the partisan impeachment both had finished, the prosecutors began to develop cold feet. instead of sending the articles to the senate, they flinched. they flinched. that's right. the same people who just spent weeks screaming that impeachment was so serious and so urgent, they couldn't wait for a due process, now decided it could wait indefinitely while they checked the political winds and look for some new talking poin points. this is yet another situation where house democrats have blown right past the specific warnings of our founding fathers. alexander hamilton specifically warned about the dangers of a "procrastinated determination of the charges." in an impeachment. he explained it would not be

fair to the accused and it would be dangerous for the country. speaker pelosi apparently does not care. our congress is behaving exactly like the "intemperate are designing majority in the house of representatives" that hamilton warned might abuse the impeachment power. so if house democrats continue their political delay, they are searching desperately for some new talking points. to deflect blame for what they've done. we've heard it claimed that the same house democrats who botched their own process should get to reach over here into the senate and dictate our process. we've heard claims that it's a problem that i've discussed trial mechanics with the white house. even as my counterpart, the

democratic leader is openly coordinating political strategy with the speaker who some might call the prosecution. so it's okay to have confrontation with the prosecution but not, apparently, with the defendant. oh, and we've heard claims that any senators who have formed opinions about house democrats irresponsible and unprecedented actions as they played out in the view of the entire nation should be disqualified from the next phase. obviously, mr. president, this is nonsense. nonsense. let me clarify senate rules in senate history for those who may be confused. first, about this fantasy that the speaker of the house will get to hand design the trial proceedings in the senate, that's obviously a nonstarter. what i've consistently said is

pretty simple. the structure for this impeachment trial should track with the structure of the clinton trial. we have a precedent here. that means two phases. back in 1999, the senate passed a unanimous bipartisan resolution 100-0's that set up the initial logistics like briefs, opening arguments, and senator questions. it stayed solid on mid-trial question such as witnesses until the trial is actually underway. that was approved 100-0. somewhat predictably, things started to diverge along party lines when we consider those later procedural questions but the initial resolution laying

out the first half of the trial was approved 100-0. i believe we should simply repeat that unanimous bipartisan precedent this time as well. that's my position. president trump should get the same treatment that every single senator thought was fair with president clinton. just like 20 years ago. we should address mid-trial questions such as witnesses after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions, and other relevant motions. there is fair. now, let's discuss these lectures about how senators should do our jobs. the oath that senators take in impeachment trials is to "do impartial justice according to

the constitution and laws" as never meant that senators should wall themselves off from the biggest news story in the nation and completely ignore what the house has been doing. the oath has never meant that senators check all of their political judgment at the door and a strip away all of our independent judgment about what is best for the nation. it has never meant that and it never could. the debate whether to give the power to try impeachment to a court or to the senate. and decided on the senate precisely because impeachment is not narrow legal question. impeachment is not a narrow legal question. but a deeply political one as well.

hamilton said this explicitly in federalist 65. impeachment requires the senate to address both legal questions about what is been proved and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires. senators do not cease to be senators just because the house sends us articles of impeachme impeachment. our job remains the same. to represent our stage, our constituents and our nation's best interest in the great matters of our time. that is our obligation. whether we are voting on legislation, nominations, or the verdict in an impeachment. 20 years ago, i would add, democrats understood all of this very well.

president clinton had obviously committed an actual felony. president clinton had actually committed a felony. if democrats actually believed in the narrow sense of impartiality, they have now adopted as a talking point, every single one of them would've voted to remove president clinton from office. oh, no, but instead of a majority of the senate decided that removing president clinton despite his actual crimes would not best serve the nation. mr. president, they made a political judgment. and by the way, back then, leading democrats had zero, zero objections to senators speaking out before the trial. the current democratic leader,

senator schumer, was running for the senate. during the house impeachment process back in 1998. he voted against the articles both as the house judiciary committee and on the house flo floor. and a major part of his senate campaign that year, listen to this, was literally promising new yorkers in advance, in advance, that he would vote to acquit president clinton. people asked if it was appropriate to him to prejudge like that. he dismissed the question, saying "this is not a criminal trial. but something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics." that was the democratic leader

in the senate campaign. that was the newly sworn in senator schumer in 1999. a few weeks later during the trial itself, democratic senator thomas harkins successfully objected to the use of the word "jurors" to describe senators because the analogy to a narrow legal proceeding was so inappropriate according to senator harkin. so look, mr. president. i respect our friends across the aisle but it appears that one symptom of trump derangement syndrome is also a bad case of amnesia. a bad case of amnesia. and no member of this body needs condescending lectures on

fairness from house democrats who just rushed through the most unfair impeachment in modern history or lectures on impartiality from senators who happily prejudged the case from president clinton and change their's to standards to suit the political whims. anyone who knows american history or understands the constitution understands a senators role in an impeachment trial is nothing, nothing like the job of jurors in the legal system. the very things that make the senate the right form to settle impeachment would disqualify all of us in an ordinary trial. all of us in an ordinary trial. like many americans, senators have paid great attention to the facts and the arguments and house democrats have rolled out

publicly before the nation. many of us personally know the parties involved on both sides. this is a political body, we do not stand apart from the issues of the day. it is our job to be deeply engaged in those issues. the senate is unique by design. the framers built the senate to provide a check against short-term-is him, the runaway passions, and the that hamilton warned would be over of the house of every cap representative at certain seasons. we exist because the founders

wanted a position that could stop momentary hysteria's and partisan factions from damaging our republic. an institution that could be thoughtful, be sober, and take the long view. and that is why the constitution puts the impeachment trial in this place. not because senators should pretend they are uninformed, unopinionated or disinterested in the long term political questions. precisely because we are informed, we are opinionated and we can take up these weighted questions. that is the meaning of the oath we take. that is that task that lies before us. impartial justice means making up our minds on the right basis.

it means putting aside purely reflexive partisanship and putting aside personal relationships and animosity. it means coolly considering the facts the house has presented and then rendering the verdict we believe is best for our states, our constitution, and our way of life. it means seeing clearly not what some my wish the house of representatives might've proven but what they have or have not proven. it means looking past a single news cycle to see how overturning an election would reverberate for generations. so look, you better believe senators have started forming opinions about these critical questions over the last weeks and months. we sure have.

especially in light of the president-breaking theatrics that house democrats chose to engage in. but here's where we are, mr. president. their turn is over. they've done enough damage. it's the senate's turn now to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned. but we can't hold trial without the articles. this in its own rules don't provide for that. for now we are content to continue the ordinary business of the senate while house democrats continue to flounder. if they ever muster the courage to send the slapdash product and transmit their articles to the

senate, it will then be time for the united states senate to fulfill our founding purpose. >> under the previous order, the leadership time has reserved, under the previous order of the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. >> melissa: that was senate majority leader mitch mcconnell addressing the chamber as we see the senate

coming back into session after the break. he started with discussions on the strike that happened last night that president trump's authorize the strike. we are also expecting that senate minority leader chuck schumer is going to come out and probably addressed both issues, that strike and impeachment coming up and we will bring that to you when it happens but in the meantime i want to bring it on out to the couch here for discussion. chris, i think one of the things we learned towards the beginning about speaking of the strike first was that he said that we are learning there is going to be a classified briefing to senators early next week because the question hanging in the areas what is the information that was received, what evidence was received that there is going to be another strike that made

this strike on the iranian leader happened now? >> chris: i think a lot of senators are asking that question both on the right on the left, there are ongoing discussions on capitol hill trying to figure out where the more constitutional leaning senators are going to come out and what they think on this strike. timmy this strike comes across as unnecessaras a necessary stet to be in this nasty sandbox we call the middle east and may be a good reason for why we ought not to be entangling in the middle east because you have a country year where half of it is supporting a ran and soleimani and the other half are more sympathetic to isis because they don't like being killed by each other. the united states has a fortress in the middle of this country left over from our previous war there and when you light off this firework which i think was necessary, to attack the u.s.

embassy, that should be the response, you have to deal with those repercussions and it is a dangerous place to be, should the united states be involved in this because right now it seems that they are lumbering towards war with iran. >> melissa: there were 11 rocket attacks in the past two months on bases where there were americans. this latest one was the most recent provocation. was this an appropriate response in your experience? >> marie: probably one of the most consequential decisions that has been made in the middle east since the united states since invading iraq because of the possible repercussions. soleimani and his militias in iraq have been attacking american troops and american entities for -- since we invaded in 2003 so the question on many peoples minds is why now and what comes next? in the main strategic question is, was this strike worth it to take on the likely retribution that iran will bring upon the united states and also the chaos this will lead to in the region driving us away from iraq's

government, possibly emboldening the hard-liners. the bush administration and obama administration both contemplated making this step but they weighed the fact that the possible outcome and repercussions were so severe and so against american national interests that taking that step, quite frankly, was not worth it. we need to hear from the trump administration why they made a different decision. >> chris: war is not in iran's interest either, they are not that powerful. they are not that strong, not that rich. the last time we had done this hard was probably ronald reagan and they backed off. >> melissa: kristen, let me ask you. the flip side to marie's point was made in "the wall street journal" where they made a big point of president trump has not responded and iran has escalated especially in the past few months. thing after thing after thing, whether it was our drone, whether it was a tracking these

saudi oil fields or all of the attacks on americans, saying that no person alive has more blood on its hands than the late general soleimani. if the president didn't respond it was making it even more dangerous for americans. >> kristen: the strategy has been a death by a thousand cuts to kind of strategy, confrontations with oil tanker tankers -- >> melissa: let's listen in to senate minority leader chuck schumer. >> holding up a senate trial, whether there will be witnesses and documents, not one mention, he has no good argument against having witnesses and documents so he resorts to these subterfuges. i will have more to say on impeachment momentarily. but i first want to address the issue of iran. last night, the united states contacted a military operation designed to kill major

general qasem soleimani, a notorious terrorist. no one should shed tear over his death. the operation against soleimani in iraq was conducted without specific authorization and any advance notification or consultation with congress. i am a member of the gang of eight which is typically briefed in advance of operations of this level of significance. we were not. the lack of advanced consultation in transparency with congress was put in place, was put in the constitution for a reason. because the lack of advanced consultation and transparency with congress can lead to hasty and ill considered decisions. when the security of the nation is at stake, decisions must not be made in a vacuum. the framers of the constitution

gave ours to the legislature and made the executive the commander-in-chief for the precise reason for saying the two branches of government to consult with one another when it came to matters of war and of peace. it is paramount for administrations to get an outside view to prevent groupthink and rash action, to ask probing questions, not from your inner and often insulated circle but from others, particularly congress. to be met it asks to answer very serious question. the administration did not consult in this case and i fear that those very serious questions have not been answered and may not be fully considered. among those questions, what was the legal basis for conducting this operation? and how far does that legal

basis extend? iran has many dangerous surrogates in the region and a whole range of possible responses. which responses do we expect, which are most likely? do we have plans to counter all of the possible responses. what does this mean for the long-term stability in a rack in the trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives sacrificed there? how does the administration plan to manage an escalation of hostilities and how does the administration plan to avoid a larger and potentially endless conflagration in the middle ea middle east? these are questions that must be

answered. it is my view that the president does not have the authority for a war with iran. if he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time, the administration will require congressional approval and the approval of the american people. the president's decision may add to an already dangerous and difficult situation in the middle east. the risk of a much longer military engagement in the middle east is acute and immediate. this action may well have brought our nation closer to another endless war. exactly the kind of endless war the president promised he would not drag us into. as our citizens and those of our allies evacuate a rack and troops prepare for retaliatory

action, congress needs answers to these questions and others from the administration immediately. and the american people need answers as well. on impeachment. mr. president, the senate begins this new session of congress preparing to do something that has happened only twice. twice before in american history. serving as a court of impeachment in a trial of the president of the united states. president donald trump stands accused by the house of representatives of committing one of the offenses the founding fathers most feared when it came to the stability of the republic. abusing the powers of his office for personal gain, soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections to benefit himself.

the house has also charged the president with obstructing congress in the investigation of those matters. the consequence of an impressive blockade of relevant witnesses and documents. flatly denying the legislative branch's constitutional authority to provide oversight of the executive. as all eyes turn to the senate, the question before us is, will we fulfill our duty to conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the united states? or will we not? that is the most pressing question facing the senate at the outset of this second session. will we conduct a fair trial that examines all the facts or not? the country just saw senator mcconnell's answer to that question. his answer is no.

instead of trying to find the truth, he is still using the same feeble talking points he was using last december. the country just saw how the republican leader used his responsibility at this pivotal moment in our nations history. the republican leader prefers finger-pointing and name-calling to avoid answering the looming question. why shouldn't the senate call witnesses? the republican leader hasn't given one good reason why there shouldn't be relevant witnesses or relevant documents. we did not hear one from leader mcconnell today or any day. once again, leader mcconnell tried to bury his audience under an avalanche of partisan recriminations. and misleading references to precedents. there is only one precedent that matters here.

that never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. let me repeat that. that is the salient fact here. there is only one precedent that there is never, never been an impeachment trial in which the senate denied the ability to hear from witnesses, yet the republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the american people. leader mcconnell has been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. leader mcconnell reminds us today and in previous days that rather than acting like a judge and a juror, he intends to act

as the executioner of a fair trial. thankfully, the rules of the impeachment trial will be determined by the majority of senators in this chamber, not by the republican leader alone. the crux of the issue still is whether the senate will hear testimony from witnesses and receive documentary evidence directly relevant to the charges against the president. since congress recessed for the holidays, there have been several, several events that have significantly bolstered my argument for specific witnesses and specific categories of documents. nothing, nothing in that time has bolstered leader mcconnell's argument that there shouldn't be relevant witnesses or documents. on december 21st, the senate

republic integrity integrity obtained information that showed michael duffy, a top official and one of the four witnesses are requested asked to the defense department to "hold off" on sending military aid to ukraine 91 minutes after president trump's july phone call with ukrainian president president zelensky. on december 29th, "the new york times" report included several revelations about the extent of chief mulvaney's involvement in the delayed military assistance. about the effort by lawyers and the white house to create legal justifications for the delay in assistance and about the depth of opposition to and indeed alarm about the delay in military assistance from parts of the administration,

particularly the pentagon. then just yesterday there was a new report about a trove of newly unredacted emails that further exposed to the serious concerns raised by trump administration officials about the propriety and legality of the president's decision to delay military assistance to ukraine. one of those emails released yesterday was from michael duffy, one of the witnesses we requested to the pentagon controller and it read "clear direction from potus, the president, to continue the hold. clear direction from the president to continue to hold." is what duffy wrote. what constituted a clear direction? did michael duffy get an order from the president? or did someone like mr. mulvaney get an order from the president that was passed on to mr. duffy?

where their discussions by administration officials? about covering up the reasons for the president, directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence. by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure to seek the whole truth with these new emails, we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by

the recent request has been heavily redacted. here is an email chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted. every word crossed out. not available. can't be seen. here is another email. with the subject line "apportionment" between officials and the pentagon. completely redacted, none of the words can be seen at all. we know now that some of these reactions were covered up, but only some of it. why did they redact the sections they redacted? who ordered the raid actions?

why are they covering up? what are they hiding? these questions must be asked. when you are accused of something you don't suppress evidence that will exonerate y you. the fact that the administration is going to such lengths to prevent such emails from coming out is extraordinarily telling. it seems like they themselves feel they are guilty. getting the full documentary record would undoubtedly shed light on the issues at hand. these were senior trump officials discussing the delay in military assistance to ukraine. who ordered it? why it was ordered, whether or not it was legal and how it was connected to the effort of renouncing investigations regarding a political rival and these emails represent just a

sliver of the documentary evidence that exists in this case. there was an exceedingly strong case to call witnesses and request documents before the senate went out of session for the christmas break. in the short time since, that case has gotten stronger. and remarkably so. we are not asking for critics of the president to serve as witnesses in the trial. we are asking only that the presidents men, his top advisors, tell their side of the story. and leader mcconnell once again has been unable to make one argument, one single argument as to why these witnesses and these documents should not be part of a trial. now i want to respond to one suggestion by leader mcconnel mcconnell. we follow the 1999 example,

beginning the impeachment trial first and deciding on witnesses and documents at a later date. first, to hear mcconnell say no witnesses now but may be some later is another indication he has no argument against witnesses and documents on the merits. will leader mcconnell commit to witnesses and documents now and it discuss timing later? second, leader mcconnell's comparisons to 1999 are hopelessly flawed and inaccurate. there were witnesses in 1999. do you want the president, in 1999 there were witnesses as there were in every single impeachment trial of the president in history. it would be a break in precedent for there not to be witnesses.

third, there was even greater rationale for witnesses and the clinton trial. in 1999 the witnesses in question had already testified under oath. extensively. and there were also bipartisan concerns about the suitability of the subject matter. there is no analogy to today's situation. the witnesses we requested never testified under oath and the documents we requested have not been produced. fourth, we have a tradition in america of a fair and speedy trial. that's why we've requested only the relevant information up front. so that the trial can truly be speedy and fair. it makes no sense and in fact it is a ruse to suggest that the senate wait until the end of the trial to settle the hardest question when it might take time for witnesses to prepare

testimony. and for the senate to review new documentary evidence. we can and should begin that process now and ensure that the trial is informed by the facts and does not suffer unnecessary delays. fifth and finally, when leader mcconnell suggests we have both sides present their arguments and deal with witnesses, he is essentially proposing to conduct a whole trial and then once the trial is basically over, consider the question of evidence. that makes no sense. that is "alice in wonderland" logic. the trial must be informed by the evidence, not the other way around. the house manager should be allowed to present all of the evidence to make their case. not make their case and afterward ask for evidence we know is out there. so if we don't get a commitment

upfront that the house managers will be able to call witnesses as part of their case, the senate will act as a little more than a nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club. if we lead the question of witnesses and documents until after the presentations are complete, leader mcconnell will argue that the senates are enough, we shouldn't prolong the trial any longer. at that point you can be sure you will label anyone who wants to subpoena evidence as a partisan who wants to drag the whole affair out. i know this because he's already told us what his position will be. this is not a mystery. "after we've heard the arguments," leader mcconnell set on fox news, "we ought to vote and move on." does that sound like someone in good faith who intends to have

the senate reasonably consider witnesses at a later date? no, it does not. leader mcconnell's proposal to vote on witnesses and documents later is nothing more than a poorly disguised trap. after we have heard the arguments, leader mcconnell said, "we ought to vote and move on." all of my fellow senators, democrat and republican, should take stock of the leader's words. and remember the commitment he made on national television to take his cues from the white house. so i say to the chair, it may feel like we are no longer, no closer to establishing the rules for a senate trial then when we last met. but the question, the vital question, of whether or not we have a fair trial ultimately

rests with the majority of the senators in this chamber. the president faces serious charges. abuse of power, abuse of his public trust, soliciting the interference of foreign powers in our election, unprecedented obstruction of congress and, if convicted, the president faces the most severe punishment our constitution imagines. framers gave us, this chamber, the united states senate, the sole power to discharge this most difficult and somber duty. will the senate rise to the occasion? i yield the floor. >> kennedy: and we accept that yielding. we've been listening to senate minority leader chuck schumer talk not only about the death of the iranian general qassem

soleimani but also the potential death of the president's political career. it's a very somber and serious thing. we also heard senate majority mitch mcconnell. first about soleimani, now we are hearing the rest of that 82nd airborne division has been sent to kuwait to join the 750 who are already deployed. there has been talk on both sides, you talk about the constitutionalists in congress who might have an issue. what does this further deployment say to you? >> chris: hopefully what it says is that to secure peace you have to prepare for war because a week united states is a lot easier to strike. i don't think it's very likely. it is a little while to see the

same people that thought that the authorization for military force extended to fighting turkey now doesn't extend to her terror leader in baghdad. either way, war with iran is not something the united states should want or something the president wants. it is something the foreign policy establishment, has long been clamoring for. they want this war with iran. he's got to be careful of his own staff and his own advisors and moving forward, he shown restraint before, as with the saudi drone attack and he showed i think admirable pax americana after the attack on the u.s. embassy. >> kennedy: he seems to be a fan of a limited show of force. let me ask you, is there the possibility that this leads to a de-escalation in the middle ea

middle east? >> kristen: i think there's a possibility of that. we don't know what this is going to lead to and we should be concerned about all the potential roads this can lead to but it is true that the united states has taken a position of we are going to put maximum pressure on iran, putting sanctions back on them, a lot of tough talk. this is taking kinetic action, taking it up a notch end of the strategy was death by a thousand cuts, see how far we can push america before, they snap back in say absolutely not. this is the snap. >> kennedy: now you've got a bunch of people running for president and if one of them is elected, this will be their problem. what would your advice be to some of these candidates? you can't just badmouth the current president. we learned that from past campaigns and past administrations when there is a transition. if you are joe biden, how do you take this on? >> marie: you do say you have to reverse what the trump administration has done which is continue the cycle of escalation.

this maximum pressure campaign they've undertaken has led around to be more aggressive, led them to restart their nuclear program, do things they were doing before. we will respond if our people or our embassies are attacked, we will keep the sanctions on all of these areas, terrorism, ballistic missiles, their gross human rights record but we also will open the door to negotiations with the trump administration which the trump administration says in theory it wants but this action undercuts the ability for any talks so we will open that door to negotiations about how you can change a behavior in the region and we have leverage and power to do that. what worries me is the administration's stated policy of getting around to behave better in the region, getting them to come back to th negotiag table. >> kennedy: you have senators like democrat chris murphy, he used the word "impetus" talking about u.s. foreign policy.

in the next tweet he's talking about how this response is too overwhelming, too great and just goes to show everyone is eager to politicize this but it's too serious to be trivialized. >> chris: you do need -- >> kennedy: we don't know yet, though. we do need to wait for more facts. i am skeptical but there could be intelligence. >> chris: we know when iran was given, can you be a reasonable actor in this region, they used it to try to build a bridge all the way through iraq and to syria, soleimani was instrumental to assad's regime. it's not as if they were well behaved, they were causing trouble through the whole thing. >> kennedy: he is single-handedly responsible for the death of civilians and the placement syrians and the

architect, bashar al-assad's against his own people and we can't forget things like that today even though people like rose mccowan say we are being held hostage by our terrorist president. soleimani was a terrorist. >> kristen: we know the benefits of taking him out, taking an extremely talented commander of enemy forces off the battlefield. we shone around they cannot do what they've been doing in iraq without consequences. what we don't know yet are the costs. >> kennedy: this could be very serious, this is a test for the presidency no one ever wants but we don't know what the next chapter is going to be. i do hope it's peace, i really do no matter how hot the rhetoric gets. i hope that people pause and take a minute and see what is at stake. thank you so much for being here today, chris. >> chris: i picked the right weekly.

>> kennedy: thanks to senators mcconnell and schumer you got to rest a little bit. we will back here on monday. ""outnumbered overtime"" starts in right now with melissa francis in for harris. melissa? >> melissa: around bowing harsh retaliation after president trump orders an air strike on baghdad international airport, killing top iranian general qassem soleimani. this is "outnumbered overtime" and i melissa francis, in today for harris faulkner. the iranian regime quick to name a successor as tens of thousands of people take to the streets intchanting "death to america" n protest. "general qassem soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of americans over an extended period of time and was plotting to kill many more but got caught. he was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people including their recent large number of