howard: on our buzz meter this sunday, much of the media continues to castigate president trump few killing iran's top terrorist. despite the easing of tensions with tehran. >> a president of the united states, they used to hide from assassination responsibilities. this is brag about it. >> you are not crazy. we are on the precipice of what many imagined as a worst case scenario of donald trump as president of the united states. >> those worries were not helped today by the bizarre double take, walkback, oops, we didn't really mean it announcement and then un-announcement from the pentagon. that all u.s. troops were leaving iraq. howard: many media conservatives rally to the president's side, but there is a definite divide on the right.

>> a huge success, the world is safer. one of the world's worst, most powerful terrorists is dead. the mob in the media, democratic party, they just seem distraught. >> trump forces democrats to reveal themselves in the media. >> they're so caught up with resisting and hating trump, for everything he does and breathes, that over the weekend they literally sounded more empathetic to the mourners of an iranian mass murderer. >> as recently as last week, most people didn't consider iran an imminent threat. it seems about 20 minutes ago we were denouncing these very people as the deep state and pledging never to trust them again without verification. but now for some reason, we do seem to trust them implicitly and completely. howard: are the pundits justified in saying trump spread confusion after the attack as the house was right to invoke the war powers act to rein him in? are the president's detractors to admit that in cold political

terms he seems to have won this round? and is the press challenging elizabeth warren and bernie sanders as they accuse trump of a political assassination? plus, much media mockery for prince harry and meghan markle as they step away from their royal duties, but isn't this really about trying to escape the constant carping from the tabloids? i'm howard kurtz and this is "mediabuzz." ♪ ♪ howard: in the aftermath of his deadly drone strike against iran's top general, the media began slamming the president for sending contradictory signals, what "the new york times" calls a chaotic brew of mixed messages. >> iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism in their pursuit of nuclear weapons

threatens the civilized world. we will never let that happen. the united states is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it. howard: media reaction was mixed with many journalists, but ott all, seeming to breathe a sigh of relief. >> it was measured by donald trump's standards, and i would even argue it was measured by the standards of any american president. >> you've got to bring people together as the president and, you continue to take shots at president obama three and a half years later doesn't make sense. >> this is a moment for statesmanship. he comes out and gives the cheapest of cheap shots at a predecessor. >> america will not be pushed around, you will not cross our red lines, and iran is now staying within those red lines. howard: joining us now, gayle trotter who today is launching the podcast the gayle trotter show right in d.c., griff jenkins, a fox news correspondent, and ray suarez,

former correspondent for the pbs "newshour." gayle, president trump obviously taking plenty of media criticism for the airstrike that killed general soleimani, was it necessary. did the intel support it. my question is since his speech and his iran's spoons was rather puny -- response was rather pupilny, has the media response softened? >> i would say not. they're continuing to portray it as chaotic and that there's no long-term strategy. the most important thing in reviewing the media coverage of what transpired this past week is that the media has not shown, hasn't reflected this is the anti-benghazi. our embassy was attacked. we responded with lethal force immediately in a very surgical attack, and unfortunately in this week, we've seen that the mainstream media has been schilling for tehran's autocratic regime -- howard: wait, wait, stop you on that, schilling for tehran's regime? >> "the washington post" called

soleimani the most revered military leader. "the new york times" had similarly flattering reports about soleimani, and they talked about -- "the new york times" in particular talked about soleimani dedicating his life to the iranian national security, and yet this is a man who's responsible for the deaths of 600 americans and injuries of thousands -- howard: i would just say some of that was trying to portray how he was viewed in iran, although obviously there were mixed feelings in iran. i sense a real exhaling in the commentating, even amongst some of the president's detractors in part due to president's speech. >> i think so but, listen, the job of the media, the press s to hold our leaders accountable whether it's the president or members of congress. and in this case, the one thing that is going to continue to get interest is whether or not there was an imminent threat. it's -- everyone agrees that soleimani had killed 600 plus americans, but the time which

you clearly raise tensions, that's still the an untold story. howard: and we will come back to that. ray, on the speech, a lot of tough talk, stricter sanctions imposed on tehran, a threat that iran can never have a nuclear weapon. and, by the way, we're open to negotiations. >> it's hard to fathom what the bottom line of american policy in iran is right at this moment. the president announced he wants to get troops out of the middle east but created a situation where american troops must stay close to tehran in order to enforce american penalties on the regime there. howard: but the question for the coverage is did he entirely create that situation, or was he also reacting to things like the siege of our baghdad embassy by pro-iranian militants? >> sure. there's a lot of things that lead up to attack on soleimani and, don't forget, a senior iraqi militia leader. and there to a degree free

agents -- and we don't know yet where that leads, whether they're going to strike american targets or, should i say, continue to strike american targets. howard: there's a lot we don't know. what we do know, gayle, as we showed at the top, there is a divide among media conservatives including here on fox. many people are supporting the president's handling of the entire matter, showing restraint, but others like tucker carlson are saying don't listen to the same people who dragged us into the iraq war, and don't automatically believe the intel reports from what had previously been criticized as members of the deep state. >> this is not a binary choice, and i think many members of the media want to go into that script of any military intervention by the united states is either vietnam or another iraq. but there are many options on the table, and president trump has values of america first, stopping endless wars, trying to make sure that he protects americans, and there are many options on the table. is so where some people might in the media see that it's chaotic

or without a long-term strategy, other people on the right and americans generally understand that it's part, it's staying true to his values of keeping them guessing. howard: it would be a lot simpler if it was a binary if choice. grif if -- grif finishing, i think it's driven in part by a sense of guilt and embarrassment by the bush administration and the slam dunk cia intelligence about saddam's weapons of mass destruction which turnedded out not to exist and a kind of determination not to roll over or be passive when intelligence claims are made. >> exactly. so what you're going to see now is whether or not speaker pelosi takes the next step. in her first press release when he said she was going to take the vote on this taos let war powers resolution -- toothless, she also said she would take a vote to repeal the authorization of military force which we all know was a lie or an inaccurate amount of evidence made by secretary of state colin powell

to the united nations. you have, by the way, complicating all of this -- and to gayle's point about where people fall on all of this -- you have bernie sanders and mike lee introducing something in the senate here that's going to block more funding for iran. howard: right. you know, the media always complain about donald trump's messy process, the way he governs, his style. for example, the president said we we would, if necessary, target iranian cultural sites. mike pompeo said we'd follow the law, and they seemed to back off. much of the public doesn't follow the rhetoric hour by hour -- >> there's a difference between messy process and messy messaging. there may be internal logic and coherence in the trump policy, but when you roll it out and there's five different stories within five days, that's a problem for people who cover this for a living. if you want the story to just be kill bad guy, good, then sure, fine, we'll get through a couple of news cycles with that.

but with all the things that are implicated by the assassination of a high-level foreign official, it gets more complicated than that, and kill bad guy, good, is not going to take you the whole way. >> one thing to point out, you know, do we get enough coverage, ray, that essentially if you're looking for a doctrine of sorts from president trump, he did say you kill an american, you cross the line. ing so it's not just a bad guy, it's a guy that crossed, i presume, from the white house a certain line. >> and think about the coverage of iran downing our drone, and president trump said there were no lives taken, we're not going to take lives. howard: called off an airstrike at the last moment. >> i want to play this, the president's interview with laura ingraham, this came as the media criticism builds that trump had no strategy and, of course, the pentagon letter sent to the iraqis and disavowed saying we're pulling all of our troops out of iraq.

take a look. >> don't the american people have a right to know what specifically was targeted without revealing methods and sources? >> well, i don't think so, but we will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in baghdad. i can reveal that i believe it would have been four embassies. howard: now there's a lot of media skepticism about what four embassies. it wasn't mentioned before by the administration, and apparently this was not given to members of congress in those briefings. >> great question by laura ingraham, great response by president trump. he's got to protect his personnel who are overseas and doing their jobs as american diplomats and service members, and it was great of laura to push back on that. but he should not have revealed any more information than that. howard: i also want to show you the questioning of mike pompeo, this reporter pressed him because the operative phrase had been imp innocent attacks, we acted to prevent imminent

attacks. that's why we took out soleimani. then they kind of stepped back there that, and then it came back. here's what happened at the presser. >> this morning you said we didn't know precisely when, and we didn't know precisely where. that's not the definition of imminent. did you have specific information about an imminent threat, and did it have anything to do with our embassy? secretary pompeo, what is your definition of imminent? >> this was gonna happen. howard: and, ray, "the washington post" quotes two senior officials saying, yes, there was a vague threat against the baghdad embassy, none specifically -- >> the secretary of defense is already pulling back on that imminent threat to four embassies part saying he had never been told anything -- howard: right. he's been on the sunday shows, and he said, look, i do believe these embassies were threatened, and so you get into the sort of angels on the held of a pin debate about what's specific, what's imminent, and that seems to be a dominant storyline right

now. >> if you don't answer the question when it's asked, they're going to keep asking the question which, to some, makes them look bad. this is part of what we do. we keep asking the question til somebody gives an answer that you can run with. howard: well, they are answering the question. in fair ifness, they say, you know, they can't prove this because releasing the raw intelligence would compromise sources and melteds which is a feature of over administrationses as well. i've got about half a minute. one of the sites that was bombed in that retaliation by iran which seemed not to kill anybody, and she said what were the iranians -- there's nothing here. that's, i think, parking lot of the value of on-site reporting. >> of course it is. and, you know, these missiles, my own reporting this past week, you know, i talked to some commanders, and they said, listen, the technology that the iranians have, they could have hit much more pinpointed strikes. this looks like it was a overshoot by intention. howard: a face-saving effort, i think, by the iranians and

warnings to the u.s. that nobody would be talking if -- at least for now. when we come back, the house passes a war powers bill, as we mentioned, and nancy pelosi getting dinged by the press as she finally agrees to send over the articles of impeachment, plus, networks that bought into iran's bogus propaganda during its bombing attack. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ howard: a largely party-line vote that drew heavy media coverage, house democrats invoking the war powers act to restrain president trump from further military escalation with iran without congressional approval. some pundits criticized the move, others called it justified saying the president hasn't adequately explained the killing of iran's top terrorist. >> and now the democrats want to, at least symbol

symbolically, try to tie the hands of the president. it just seems like in the context of real world events, it seems like a crazy idea. >> this dog's breakfast mess of conflicting, evolving, internally-contradictory, vague and, frankly, unbelievable assertions from the president and the administration as to why exactly he launched this strike. in the middle of his impeachment. howard: so, gayle, many in the media, i think, are backing the house democrats, but saying this should be done on all presidents and not just donald trump. >> if it were applied in an even-hatchedded manner, that might be -- handed manner, that might be persuasive, but it's not. only three republicans voted against the war powers resolution. eight democrats went against their party. so it seems like it's just fringe elements in both parties that are breaking ranks -- howard: well, utah senator mike lee is not a fringe guy, he's a strong trump ally -- >> on this issue he's a fringe

player. howard: ahs, okay. ray, there's a new media focus, i think, on congress restraining the president's authority to declare war, but this goes back to the vietnam war when the war powers act was originally passed, mostly symbolically at that time to rein in richard nixon, and congress hasn't done how much in this area since. >> the framers of the constitution gave war-making power to specific bodies with specific mechanisms, and we now honor it in the breach. howard: [inaudible] >> well, this hasn't been a declaration of war since pearl harbor -- howard: right. >> and we've been in a lot of wars since then, and the problem is that no -- when the president of your party is in, no congress wants to oppose the executive branch's unfettered ability to use military force. howard: and then it flips if it's an opposition president. and, of course, any president has to be able to respond in the nuclear age. let me go now to all the chatter and speculation about when is nancy pelosi going to send over the articles.

cnn said it could be friday. friday it was, okay, now she actually says it's going to be tuesday. but there's so much she's going to do, and she's not going to do it. she got annoyed with the questions from reporters a couple of times. wasn't all that pontification about if and when ultimately pointless? she was going to act when she was going to act. >> look, the media, i don't think, covered quite enough that her gambit to try and force concessions out of mitch mcconnell when she knew she would ultimately have to hand over articles of impeachment, she lost that. she thought she could how old out, now she's got to turn it over, now she's saving face. at the end of the day, it's worth noting that at the same time we were urgently going to need to get this impeachment trial going, but then she held back, she passes this war resolution. it does nothing. it's nonbinding. it doesn't become law. you're not even going to stop the president. so really i think that the coverage of her handling of those two issues at the same time is going to be something that we'll hear more of.

howard: you know who agrees with you on the first part is nbc's chuck todd who said on the air she tried to smoke out mitch mcconnell, and she failed. she's on the cover of time this week about her gamble on impeachment. but i think since many democrats have ended up breaking with her on this strategy that nobody could quite figure out, even the pundits who are sympathetic were forced to say, well, what did she really accomplish? >> it's good that there's mainstream media coverage of, like you're saying, the democrats who have broken rank like senator dianne feinstein, a leader of the senate. she essentially told nancy pelosi to hurry up, and it's good that the media have reported that because, you know, she's managing these two things at the same time. but the war powers resolution is a symbolic gesture, the impeach isn't also a symbolic gesture because, obviously, the senate is not going to convict and remove president trump. and we're seeing that the confluence of these two events has not worked to speaker pelosi's advantage.

howard: right. impeachment may be symbolic, but i think it will always go down in the history books that the house voted to impeach donald trump even though it was almost a uniformly party-line vote. do you believe nancy is pelosi lost the media battle on this 23-day delay? >> well, by day 23 it was starting to look not so great, but let's go back three weeks after the articles were approved, her delay was looking kind of brilliant when documents shook loose detailing some of the communications between various executive branch offices over ukraine and when john bolton started to do sort of, to use the old nixon phrase, a modified hangout. and we started to think, oh, maybe john bolton's in play -- howard: [inaudible] >> but once the days continued to go on, she probably started to get pressure from her own party because cory booker, elizabeth warren, bernie sanders

and amy klobuchar don't want this going on while they're trying to win primaries. >> well, give an advantage to the senate republicans too because senate mcconnell said, you know, you can delay all you want, we're going to take it up. so i think the senate republicans also put a lot of pressure, and there was coverage of that. howard: one-sentence answer. by next week will iran seem like an old story? >> no, because persians have a long memory, and we should expect there will be another chapter in that. wherever it is, i think impeachment is going to be gone a lot quicker than the iran story. howard: great to see you all. ahead, are the media unfairly mocking prince harry and meghan markle? but up next, how msnbc handles iranian claims that its bombs had killed americans? ♪ ♪ he wanted a man cave in our new home. but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle.

ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be.

♪ ♪

howard: msnbc was live as iran was launching rocket attacks against iraqi bases housing american soldiers, and a tehran bureau chief sought to report what turned out to be completely bogus iranian propaganda. >> this bit, i'm not sure about but iran state media is claiming that 30 u.s. soldiers have been killed in this attack. howard: yes, he offered the caf a yacht that he wasn't sure, but then why report it at all? chris matthews offered no qualifiers. imagine if you had a loved one in the military serving on one of those bases and heard this fabricated report designed by the iranians to scare the american public? and msnbc repeated this several times. >> we were also getting unconfirmed reports from state media saying that they have leveled an al assad base in iraq, and they have killed 30 u.s. troops. howard: leveled the entire base? i mean, come on. how do you put that on the air without ed?

anchor chris hayes, to his credit, cautioned viewers about this so-called reporting. >> i just want to be very clear, we don't have independent confirmation, that is a claim being made on iranian state media. howard: now, it's not unusual to report conflicting death tolls or claims about civilian casualties after an attack, but why would anyone air this garbage from tehran's state-controlled media during an today tack? -- attack? iran lied about this just as it lied in denying it shot down that passenger jet headed for ukraine. on a lighter note, it was a historic moment on today show. al roker bringing together bernie sanders and larry david whose impersonation of him is such a slam dunk. they're just two guys from brooklyn, you know what i'm saying? >> if you become president, you've got to be flying back and forth to play him. >> yes, it's true. it's not going to be easy for me. it'll be great for the country, terrible for me.

[laughter] >> a good job at your complaining. howard: there hasn't been a better mind meld. larry david and i both went to high school together, i used to be the more famous one. ahead, why did cnn settle a liewpt with a student from a catholic high school? but first, the commentary on president trump's confrontation with iran. ♪ ♪ if you have medicare, listen up.

medicare alone only covers 80% of your costs, leaving you to pay the rest. with so many changes, do you know if your plan is still the right fit? having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. and that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. call or visit healthmarkets to find your fitscore today. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit, or if there's another one that can get you extra coverage, or help save you money. best of all, their service is completely free. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? well, if not, maybe it's not the right fit. how about hearing aids, glasses, and gym memberships at no additional cost? maybe there's a better fit for you. call healthmarkets now, or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore.

we can instantly compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more, including plans that may let you keep your doctor and save money. don't waste another minute not knowing if you have the right medicare fit. for this free service, go to healthmarkets.com, or call right now. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a plus customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. don't assume that your plan is still the right fit. the healthmarkets fitscore makes it easy to find the right medicare plan for you. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company. they work to help you, and they do it all for free. your insurance marketplace. healthmarkets. call now to take advantage of this free service. now is the time to update your coverage or enroll for the first time. call healthmarkets now.

♪ ♪ howard: more now on our top story on the u.s. military confrontation with iran with some very different voices. joining us now, buck sexton, former cia analyst, and jeanne zaino who teaches media and government. buck, let's start with you and the split among conservative commentators, those who think that taking out qassem soleimani was a brilliant move by president trump and those who think it was risky and is being

promoted by some of the same hawks who dragged us into iraq. does this reflect a political divide on the right? >> yeah, it certainly does. and i think what you're seeing are people, especially those who do commentary on this issue in the media, trying to see what the timeline is that we're working on. right now it's very hard to make the case based on what expectations were of the iranian response to taking out qassem soleimani that this has been the disastrous move that many, including some on the right, thought it would be leading us perhaps into a deeper military escalation and perhaps conflict with iran. people are going to say that we don't know yet, that we have to wait. but based on what the initial parameters were, this has to be seen as the president establishing a red line that may, in fact, change iranian calculations going forward. and the huge response from iran just did not come. howard: all right. jeanne, i think liberal comment caters are -- commentators are much more united, but you had

columnist tom friedman saying he killed the dumbest man in iran, because according to friedman, he threw autoaway the benefits of the nuclear pact. >> i think what we saw from the media quite generally in response to this was we saw the media still gun shy because of what has happened in 2003, and they felt very much like they had egg on their face for not being aggressive enough with the bush administration, trying to get to the bottom of questions about imminence. but, yes, in terms of, you know, this sort of foreign policy divide, you see it on the right as was just mentioned, and you see it on the left. and tom friedman's piece, everybody should read it. he raises an excellent point about, in fact, another view of this which was that soleimani was bad for iran. that, in fact, he had walked iran to the brink of an economic disaster really with what he was doing with his proxy wars and others. and, in fact, the taking out of soleimani might not just have

benefited the u.s., but, in fact, benefited iran as well. so he raises a different perspective that the media was not focusing on. howard: as we see with iranian protesters who are angry both about the downing of that jet and some of them about soleimani himself, which maybe we didn't fully appreciate. buck, let's pick up on what you said earlier, because the tone of the coverage went from donald trump is utterly reckless, world war iii was trending and all that. and now, obviously, the situation has calmed down, has deescalated. well, now we're hearing, well, he's oversimplified this, he caused the crisis. are some in the media refusing to give president trump credit even when something he does turns out pretty well? >> oh, there's no question. there are people that view opposition to trump as the single most important thing here, much more important than getting this iran decision and also iran policy going forward correct. i think you saw a bit of this with what i think really would be a distillation of trump derangement syndrome where there were some efforts, including

from democratic presidential candidates and some media analysts more so than straight news anchors who were saying, well, trump was really responsible for the iranians blowing an airliner out of the sky a because of the crossfire that trump's recklessness created. and that got, rightly so, i think, annihilated for people who were trying to be a little bit fairminded. so there was an effort to turn this around against him even after it didn't work out the way they thought it would. howard: at the same time, you don't have to be a journalist suffering from trump derangement syndrome to report that the pentagon sent the iraqis a letter saying we're pulling our troops out, that was disavowed, the administration has struggled to make the case about imminent attacks, conflicting remarks on the sunday shows today, reporting on the criticism of the obama administration's nuclear deal. aren't those fair questions? >> they're absolutely fair, and there is, we have to say, mixed messages out of the pentagon and white house, and journalists are

absolutely right to question those. and, you know, i do think that, you know, we also need to recognize that there were also people on the right who were saying things about democrats, you know, mourning the loss of soleimani. those were absolutely untrue as well. nancy pelosi was not mourning his loss. there were questions about whether, in fact, the president had done what he did legally -- howard: right. >> -- whether it was it was imminent. so those were overstated as well. howard: 30-second answers, "the new york times" reports that donald trump has said privately he'd been parished to take a -- treasured to take a -- pressured to take a harder line on iran. it was largely blown off the media radar, impeachment. >> well, it helped democrats, actually, because nancy pelosi -- this war right now or, rather, this exchange of military hostilities, we shouldn't call it a war, is distracting from the fact that pelosi called the articles of impeachment an imminent issue and now has basedded to over a

month to pass them. so people that are trying to view this as a wag the dog, i think now the dog is wagging him, some nonsense like that. st absurd. howard: jeanne, brief response. >> if you look at the history here and how many times the president resisted responding to iran's aggressions, it's very difficult to make the case that the timing was to wipe impeachment off the table which, as buck just mentioned, was actually working in his fair. howard: all right. coming up on "mediabuzz", coverage of elizabeth warren and bernie sanders as they rip the killing of iran's top general. and later, the royal couple wants out of the buckingham palace life. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ howard: the two most liberal democratic candidates are doing more than describing president trump's airstrike against qassem soleimani as reckless, they're attacking trump for killing iran's top terrorist. >> you made a statement about the killing of soleimani who, you know, everybody agrees was a killer responsible for the deaths of many american forces. >> i think it was an assassination. i think it was in violation of international law. howard: elizabeth warren initially called soleimani a murderer, then started describing him only as a government official, and on "the view," it took repeated attempts to get her to answer this

question, was sole handny a terrorist? >> he's part of a group -- >> he's not a terrorist? >> of course he is. howard: buck sexton, should it be a bigger media issue than if elizabeth warren had stopped using the word terrorist and had to be pressed to admit this obvious fact? >> absolutely. you see this from democrat candidates who are trying to find some way to oppose trump on this even though the only real way they would have been able to make that case based on if there had been some massive follow-on retaliation from iran, which there isn't. he is a terrorist -- howard: so why isn't that a bigger story in terms of covering the democrats? >> i think because there are a lot of people who want to find a way to make this a liability for trump, especially in the media, especially those trying to help democrats at this stage of the primary. look, i believe people in the press generally have people that they're rooting for in this primary, and so they're trying to help them as they can, and that means not using the t-word. howard: when bernie sanders

likens president trump's drone attack against soleimani to putin assassinating dissidents, why is that not a front page, top of the newscast story, such a controversial charge? >> you know, i think because there's so much going on, quite frankly, and also it's not surprising coming from bernie sanders. there's one thing you can say about bernie sanders, he has been incredibly consistent, unlike elizabeth warren who in two days flipped on this, on this issue for years and years. i think you do see joe biden and mayor pete coming out and asking what i think are the right questions and the ones that will matter in november if they get that far through the primary process, which is are we safer now. if iran turns out in 7-12 months to have nuclear weapons, we are not safer, perhaps, they've reenergized this program. those are the questions democrats need to ask. howard: you set up my next question. i think part of the reason sanders' comments didn't get much coverage is because the

press doesn't believe he's going to get the nomination. he's leading in new polls in iowa. so on that point, joe widen, i think -- joe biden, he has denounced soleimani. here he is with nbc's lester holt. >> do you give this president the benefit of the doubt when he says there was intelligence of an imminent attack in. >> i don't give him the benefit of doubt on anything -- >> you don't believe him? >> well, it could be true, but i don't want give him the benefit of the doubt because he's lied so much about virtually everything. howard: so with biden not directly attacking trump over the airstrike and deannounce soleimani, does that receive less attention in the media because it's not as incendiary? >> yeah. because biden's attack here, it seems like he's nitpicking, he's trying to get down into, well, i don't know the intelligence, i'm not sure i believe trump. at the end of the day, what matters is the commander in chief made a very important, a very risky, let's be honest, executive decision to take out a

very well known international terrorist. do democratic candidates agree with that or not? biden is trying to say well, essentially, trump's a liar, we can't trust him, but i'm not going to say it was a bad move because a lot of people are look at this and saying it wasn't a bad move. including democrats, by the way. howard: pete buttigieg has been more measured. his comments haven't gotten that much attention. i'm wondering whether iran, impeachment coming up this coming week, has in some ways reduced the democratic campaign itself to kind of a side show. >> well, the impeachment certainly has. we are three weeks out of iowa tomorrow, and the amount of coverage that the primary is getting is far less than it usually does. but i would just say there's one reason these comments aren't getting coverage. it's because they don't drive ratings. unless you come out and call the president something nasty, it's not going to drive ratings. that's about the media, not what

biden or buttigieg was saying. what biden was saying was right, we need the evidence and the facts. that's the right response. and it may not be exciting or sexy or ratings-driven, but it's the right response. howard: well, i find that a tad depressing because these are such important issues of war and peace and, of course, impeachment. i think also you're right, when you use a nasty name or go way over the top, that's when you tend to get more coverage. jeannie seine know, buck sexton, thanks for coming by. after the break, are prince harry and meghan markle stepping back from royal life because of fierce anger at the tabloids and the paparazzi? ♪

♪ ♪ howard: the tabloids have already coined a word for it, take a look at "the new york

post." megxit, that's the catch phrase for the announcement by prince harry and meghan markle that they want to step back from their royal duties, split their time between the u.k. and north america, and have told the queen they want to work toward becoming financially independent. joining us now, kat timpf, co-host of the greg gutfeld show. kat, the royal couple are being bashed and mocked by the media because they're seen as they're being spoiled, they are bailing on the palace, they didn't have the queen's blessing -- that's in part because the story was about to leak to one of the british papers -- and i actually feel some sympathy for them. why has this become such a mega-story? >> right. even here in the united states, you know, we had a couple other minor news stories this week that might have distracted frit, you know, like impeachment, you know, a couple little whips going on -- blips going on are with iran, stuff like that, and yet everyone's talking -- i mean, i thought we won the war

and we didn't have to be concerned about this stuff anymore and that monarchy over there, but apparently that's very different. a lot of the narrative of people slamming them is saying they essentially want to, you know, have their cake and eat it too because they're not completely stepping away. they're still going to be getting some of that sweet, sweet cash. [laughter] they're not -- it's not like they're completely -- howard: yeah. it's not complete. >> -- quitting. they're not going to have to move into a studio apartment and sleep on an air mattress or anything like that. howard: i think this is mostly about their contempt for the press. remember, harry and meghan have sued london's sun and mirror over a leaked letter if her estranged father, harry issued that emotional statement back this october saying i lost my mother, princess diana, now i must watch my wife falling victim to the same forces. so they're tired of being prey, and in their statement they said the royal correspondents engage

in frequent misreporting, and they want to grant access to the young and up and coming journalists who don't have an agenda. >> yeah. and i cannot really blame them. the way meghan markle was treated, i wouldn't like to be treated by the press that day. i mean, i would like to be covered by the press in general but, you know, that's goals for the future. [laughter] but i completely understand, and i think a lot of people here in the united states, there was criticism, of course. people were very split. but a lot of people in the united states saw this as being awesome and even feminist because we all know this was a meghan thing. this was her thing. and there was particularly the news source tweeted out this story saying meghan and her husband. and a lot of people really got a kick out of that because a lot of times, you know, women are defined by who their husband is, and you'd think that particularly would be the case if the husband's a prince. but not her. howard: blame the woman. >> yeah. howard: look, the level of coverage in britain is almost unbelievable. we just picked out a few headlines. the mail on sunday, palace's warning on harry, millions.

kate and meghan haven't spoken in six months. sunday is mirror, they told elton john before they told the queen. and it was the sunday times that understood that prince harry -- excuse me, prince william has said i've tried to put my arm around my brother our whole lives, i can't do this anymore. this is not just a soap opera, it's gone global, right? >> it absolutely has. and, again, i mean, elton john versus the queen, i mean -- [laughter] howard: can't make it up. >> the press and the tabloids in the u.k. were very, very, very critical of this decision. and i certainly don't really understand it. i mean, even in the united states they were mocked a little bit on late night tv. i know jimmy kimmel had a joke, he said what does it mean they're limiting their duties? they're going to wave less? [laughter] colbert's saying, colbert's saying i didn't realize that there were, you know, senior royals s and what are the levels here? howard: yeah. >> again, it really is, i think, a smart move for them because it opens up the ability for them to

make more money -- howard: well, that could be true. >> they're kind of seen as rebels for doing this. i see them as rebels for doing this. howard: just for balance, i understand people say british taxpayers spent $3 million on their wedding and millions more for renovating frogmore college. i also think with impeachment and everything else, it is just a kind of a relief to talk about something like this, a gossipy story like this. kat timpf, appreciate your royal insights. >> thank you. howard: still to come, how a legal settlement was won against cnn and plans to sue a dozen cnn and plans to sue a dozen more media outlets. when we started our business we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half.

just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free.

shipstation. trowithout the commission fees of onland account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. howie: overshadowed by the iran story, cnn settle the lawsuit filed by nick sandman, the covington catholic high school student wearing a make america great hat who was characterized

as disruptive force in a confrontation with a native-american at they said it was designed to quote, deter cnn engaging in false, reckless, agenda driven attacks against children. cnn said it was covering a newsworthy event and adding facts as they developed. he is suing "washington post" and nbc. his lawyer says more suits coming against 13 media outlets. this was awful episode as most media rushed to judgment based on misleading video. cnn paid some sum of money to make the suit growing away, given pr nightmare, who a teenager who was unintentionally or not infairly maligned. i'm howard kurtz. check out my podcast, apple itunes, fox newsed p.o.d. cast or also on your amazon device. facebook page, post the daily columns. continue your conversation, and

dialogue on twitter at howard kurtz. i told my staff, maybe do the whole show on megan and harry, i heather: good morning to you. it is monday, january 13th. happening right now at 4:00 a.m. on the east coast, service members sent packing, alarming discoveries on u.s. military bases one month after a deadly shooting at a naval air station in florida. why more than a dozen saudi military students will be expelled today. >> i always said i would send them over. there shouldn't be any mystery to that. heather: ready for a senate showdown, house speaker nancy pelosthanteeing up -- nancy pelg up the next steps for articles of impeachment. why she claims the decision to delay paid off.