my thanks to garrett, eli, donna, jake. and i think i forgot to thank our friend joyce earlier. thank you, joyce. most of all, thanks to you for watching. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. welcome to thursday. it is "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in new york and in for chuck todd. 2020 is finally here. a year democrats have been focusing on obsessing about, even panicking over since donald trump was elected more than three years ago. and it's all unfolding in the wake of the president's historic impeachment in the house of representatives. and on this second day of the

new year, the field of democrats looking to defeat president trump risks being shaken up. starting with senator bernie sanders, who right now is lapping the democratic field in fundraising. bringing in $34.5 million. you see it right there in the final quarter of 2019. that's nearly $10 million more than pete buttigieg. and nearly $12 million more than front-runner joe biden. but those numbers pail in comparison to the $46 million donald trump raised. and that does not include money raised by the rnc. it was the president's best fundraising quarter yet. and his campaign manager credits impeachment with helping his re-election bid. claiming it's made the campaign bigger and stronger. a notion that, frankly, has worried democrats since the start of the impeachment inquiry in september. meanwhile, another potential anxiety is facing democrats as their field just got narrower and less diverse. with former hud secretary julian

castro. the only hispanic candidate in the race, announcing he is dropping out. >> i'm so proud of the campaign we've run together. we've shaped the conversation on so many important issues in this race, stood up for the most vulnerable people, and given a voice to those who are often forgotten. but with only a month until the iowa caucuses and given the circumstances of this campaign season, i have determined that it simply isn't our time. >> castro's exit leaves just three minority candidates. cory booker, andrew yang, and dev deval patrick. none of whom have qualified for the debate two weeks from now. with congress returning to washington and potential impeachment trial in the senate five days from now, the iowa caucus is about four weeks from now and election day ten months from now. 2020 is looking to be as historic as we'd anticipated. for more, i'm joined by msnbc national political correspondent

steve kornacki. political correspondent for business insider. and matt, republican strategist and former nrcc communications director. everybody, welcome. steve, i do want to start with these numbers. we pay attention to these fundraising numbers. and some people at home might be looking at the television thinking it's a lot of money. everyone's got a lot of money. why are these numbers such valuable information for us? >> they do tell you the state about each campaign. the energy they're generating. but i have to say when it comes to sort of the all important role of fundraising, i'm a little bit more on the skeptical side when it comes to this stuff. i look at it this way. i don't think there is anything wrong with anybody's fundraising that a strong performance in iowa, new hampshire, and the early states wouldn't make right. and i don't think there is anything right with anybody's fundraising numbers that a poor performance in those early states would make wrong. we have seen this before. i remember the all-powerful howard dean fundraising machine came roaring into 2004. he had the money to go the

distance. he fell flat on his face in iowa. and all that money counted for nothing. i remember john kerry coming into that year with no money. he had to take out a $6 million mortgage against his own property in boston to keep his campaign alive. he won iowa and everything took care of itself. i look ought all these candidates. they have the money to compete in iowa. they have the money to compete in new hampshire. they've got to win or they've got to did well. be seen as doing well in those states. and i think the rest of it takes care of itself. >> i worked for jeb bush. i know a little something about money and how far it can take you. what i'm also looking at right now is not just how much you raise but what is he your cash on hand, right? joe biden had a very high burn rate last time. and now we're getting to the point where votes are being cast. you need to spend that money. and no one leaves the race just because they want to. nine time the out of ten, it's because they run out of money. even jeb bush did at the end. >> i think it also tells us a little bit about excitement for a candidate. bernie sanders was somebody who was -- i don't want to say flying under the radar because that's not giving him enough credit.

but somebody who maybe wasn't as highly targeted by the other candidates so far in the race. but he's raised over $30 million. it is a ton of money from small donations. i think it's 1.8 million donors or something like that. that's a lot of excitement for a sanders candidacy heading into iowa. what do you make of it? >> yeah, absolutely. this quarter was, you know, this definitely put it like cemented bernie sanders' status as a front-runner. when we look at iowa and new hampshire, it's basically turning out to be a four-way pileup. you know, between sanders and biden and pete buttigieg and elizabeth warren. i will say that it seems like both biden and sanders could have a path to the nomination even if they don't have first-place finishes in those first two states. but buttigieg and warren maybe not so much. >> really? let's bring in doug thornell. former dnc senior advisor and principal at skd nicker backer. i read the extra k for good measure there. doug, what do you think of the fundraising numbers?

and steve was saying that he thinks basically anyone doing well in an iowa showing is going to have no problem with money going forward. we're seeing bernie sanders at the top of the ranks. we haven't gotten elizabeth warren's money numbers yet. she hasn't released them. does it matter if she's not really high up there? >> i think collectively if, you're a democrat, you got to be very happy with these numbers because you are looking somewhere in the neighborhood of 115 million with these five or six candidates. versus what trump raised, which was impressive but it just shows there is a lot of energy and excitement in the fund raise circles for democrats. overall, i think bernie, you got to -- you got to give him credit for the way he rebounded in recovered from his heart attack. and i think a lot of that credit probably goes to alexandria ocasio-cortez, who endorsed his campaign on october 19th. participated in a rally when, you know, people weren't really quite sure if -- if senator sanders was going to be able to continue. and i think that really injected

a lot of momentum and energy into his race. and with elizabeth warren, i think there is indications she's going to raise somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 to $20 million. which would be a drop from where she was the previous quarter. and you know, is that important? yeah. of course. you know, she's got a big staff in iowa and new hampshire and other places. you got -- you know, you got to have the resources to -- to pay those folks and be up on tv in iowa and new hampshire and super-tuesday states. >> but is that amount of money going to preclude her from spending a ton on ads in iowa? i mean, $20 million. >> no, i think she's -- i think she has the resources she needs right now to win in iowa. and to win in new hampshire. but i do think just symbolically, everyone -- i mean, we're talking about him right now. people look at these q4 numbers and they -- they make judgments about the health of campaigns. and bernie's campaign is on the rise. and people are saying the same thing about joe biden. andrew yang raised $16 million. pete buttigieg. and the fact that she is likely

not going to surpass her previous quarter, it's just going to raise questions about, you know, about -- about her campaign. which may be legitimate or not. >> still hasn't qualified for the next debate. i mean, does that say something about how the system works and whether it's working? >> i think also the nature of his support. you might draw a parallel between andrew yang and ron paul in the republican side. remember in 2008, ron paul and his campaign dropped these money bombs. internet money bombs. staggering sums of money. there clearly was a large, significant base of support there. but there also was a ceiling with ron paul. we'll see what happens. but i think some parallels there. >> i think andrew yang is a really interesting candidate that has gotten under covered. >> absolutely. he raised $1.3 million on december 31st alone. i'll tell you he does very well in the debates for somebody who's never been on the stage before. and i think he, on the stage, i think talks best to suburban voters. talks a lot about his family life. how his wife takes care of their

child with special needs. he does a very good job speaking to some of those issues democrats won on in 2018. >> i think he's also interesting when you ask about foreign policy challenges, he's much more forward looking about what the future holds than a lot of other candidates. he talks about cybersecurity. he -- he's -- he's thinking in more of i think a 21st century way than i hear from the other candidates. i just -- i just think he's got an interesting kancandidacy. >> yeah, he's not a politician. that comes out when he's on stage. like you said, he talks a lot about the future and technology. he talks about ai. you know, he talks about how technological advances are going to affect, you know, the voters who he's talking to. and i think that has really helped him break through. >> talking a lot about automation as well. trump, though. the numbers that trump raised for his campaign in this last quarter is $46 million. they have $103 million on hand according to the campaign. i mean, that is a lot of money for donald trump.

and the campaign says impeachment is only helping them. true? false? >> look. you can look at the fundraising for trump. you can look at the poll numbers for trump. i just checked it before i came here. the current average if you took the polls on impeaching and removing or not impeaching and removing, it's dead even right now. it's 47.3% to impeach and remove. that's actually an improvement for trump of a couple points. we're talking about two points here i'd say since this process began. two or three-point improvement. there's been some evidence in some swing state polls last couple days. florida, maybe even virginia, see if there's other polls that replicate that, that show trump with some surprising strength there. the floor, i think there was some thought that the floor might fall out for trump. it hasently done that. i think you have to consider now it approxima-- if that has solis support a little bit around the margins. >> what i thought was really interesting when you look at donald trump's approval,

disapproval, it is better at this time of year than president obama's was at this time during his administration. that's -- that's remarkable for a president who's gone through scandal after scandal. who's just been impeached. who is about to face a senate trial. >> yeah. >> it is something else. >> it is. i was in the romney campaign during this time in 2012 and the economy was really bottoming out at that time. you had a steady drumbeat of bad economic news. i think no doubt that contributed to it. and -- and the same way bernie sanders has that 20% level of support really doesn't grow it that much. really doesn't shrink that much. so does trump. and i think in a lot of ways, those impeachment numbers really mirror at least the national ballot test in terms of the fundraising, the truest test i look at is look at the committees. right? the nrsc. have all done record fundraising totals, too. i think that shows it's a little bit broader along the party line when it comes to impeachment for fundraising. >> sure there are viewers

screaming at the television saying the man has done so many things wrong. he's been impeached. he's lied. he's locked kids up in cages. how could he possibly win again? how could he possibly get enough americans to support him again? are democrats -- have they figured out a way to run against him? i know they're all unified in the message of we need to beat trump. but when you look at a piece that jonathan alan of nbc news wrote today, that's the thing they're unified on. everything else, the democrats are arguing over, yes, it's a primary. you're going to argue over policy issues. you should be. have they figured out, though, how to run against donald trump? >> i think it's still really early to try to gage that just because the democratic field is still pretty, you know, pretty wide. there's still a lot of people, you know, contending for the nomination. >> do they still have time to figure it out? >> i think -- >> rushing them forward i guess. >> yeah. so i think again it's really -- i think it's going to come down to who the eventual nominee is because each person has laid out a different strategy. but i think what's really difficult, specifically about

the trump presidency, is that there is no agreement on what the actual baseline facts are. the president just says whatever he wants. and his supporters kind of believe him. it's a very cult-like in that way. and so it might be difficult for democrats to run a campaign against someone who has been so willing to just say whatever he wants. and, you know, his supporters believe him. >> doug, what do you think for democrats? basically, a third support biden. about a third support biden. a third support bernie or elizabeth warren. and a third support everybody else. can one person among those thirds come, find a way to bring the entire party behind that person? is it enough to say i'm just not donald trump? >> well, whoever the nominee is will have to. because obviously, trump is a formidable opponent. and in order for democrats to win the white house, they're going to need to win over those obama/trump voters. but also, turn out

african-americans who, in 2016, those numbers dropped. and excite progressives. and that's -- you know, you can't -- can't just be one thing. you've got to be able to accomplish all three things. i think that's critical. and i think, you know, look. i have no doubt that, you know, whoever -- you know, the -- the -- the top-tier candidates who are running right now. you know, everyone seems to be happy with their choice of -- of candidates in terms of the democrat democratic party. so i think if it's biden, if it's warren, if it's mayor pete, if it's sanders. you know, they're going to have some work to do. but yes absolutely, i think they're going to be able to unite the party and win in november. >> steve kornacki, thanks so much for coming and talking to us. you guys are sticking with us. ahead with the impeachment trial looming, all eyes are on the senate. and what can we expect as the case gets underway? we're going to talk to one of the jurors of the country's last impeachment trial. and later, a world of crises. iraq, iran, and now once again north korea. how should the white house respond?

s the table until your finished. fine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. if you listen to the political it sounds like we have a failed society. but nothing could be further from the truth. americans are compassionate and hardworking. we aren't failing. our politicians are failing. that's why i'm running for president. to end the corporate takeover of the government. and give more power to the american people. that's how we'll win healthcare, fair wages, and clean air and water as a right. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

i was disappointed because the president of the united states had just confessed to engaging in an extramarital affair with a young woman in his employ. and to willfully deceiving the nation about his conduct. i was personally angry because president clinton had, by his disgraceful behavior, jeopardized his administration's historic record of accomplishment. in the same way, it seems to me the talk of impeachment and resignation at this time is unjust and unwise. >> welcome back. that was then democratic senator joe lieberman in 1998. ahead of his vote to acquit president clinton in the senate's impeachment trial. and while the circumstances of president trump's impeachment may be quite different than what clinton faced 22 years ago, the

fundamental dilemma facing many current senators is the same amid the current impasse over a senate trial. how do you balance party loyalties with the impeachment of a sitting president? joining me now is former senator and former democratic vice president shl nominee, joe lieberman, who has since become an independent. senator lieberman, welcome to "meet the press daily." always good to have you. so i know the specifics of the trial and the allegations are very different. >> sure. >> and i am not trying to equate the two. but there are many republican senators who are going all out to defend the president. not necessarily on the merits but they're spouting the same ukrainian conspiracy theories. >> right. >> that the president has been. and -- and rudy giuliani has been. why do you think it's been difficult for some republicans to say what you said on the -- on the house floor, which is i don't -- or the senate floor -- which is i don't think what the

president did was right. it bothers me. but i don't think it's impeachable. >> well, we'll see. before it's over, i hope some of them will say that. incidentally, the way senators are behaving today is pretty much the way the framers of the constitution, who wrote the impeachment clause, thought they would behave. i mean, you read federalist 65 by hamilton. and he basically says there'll be a natural tendency when impeachment begins against a sitting president, for each side, his friends and his allies and his opponents, to rally round him because he's part of their faction. the word parties in that sense then. they understood how important it was to raise a high threshold to take a president out of office because the whole system of government they were setting up was based on elections. so i hope before this is over,

there -- there are -- there are a lot of choices here. one is obviously to convict the president, remove him from office. but another is to acquit. and yet, to condemn his behavior. and i hope some of the republicans will feel the personal independence of mind to do that. >> so far, we've seen mitch mcconnell closely align himself with the white house. and say so without immunity. he went on fox news and proudly, it seems, said i'm going to be working really closely with the white house on this. and don't worry. the president is not going to be removed from office. a couple of republican senators have expressed discomfort with that. or disappointment with that. senator susan collins is one of them. senator lisa murkowski is another. what do you think? >> well, i wish senator mcconnell had not said that. i mean, look. everybody is predicting this time that there's no way that the senate will reach two-thirds to remove president trump from office. just as everybody predicted correctly in 1999 that there was

no way that the senate would reach two-thirds to take president clinton out of office. because there's a natural political rallying around unless the facts are really extreme and egregious. but the fact is that when the senate sits in impeachment trial, it does so after taking an oath. the oath is sacred. it's important. it's -- the constitution specifically requires a separate oath. >> but aren't you flouting that oath if even before you take the oath, saying -- >> that's my point. that the -- the oath swears every senator to try to do impartial justice. and i think part of that is not announcing a conclusion even though you have a strong inclination before the trial actually begins. >> i mean, i doubt he would ever recuse himself. should he be recused by somebody else? >> no. that's never going to happen. >> but can you have a fair trial when the leader of the trial's come out and said don't worry. he's going to get acquitted. >> well, it's up to everybody else.

i mean, got 99 other senators. you'll have the chief justice there presiding. i found in 1999 that when chief justice rinquist came in and sat in that chair where we normally have the vice president or another senator, it said to each of us not only had we taken a separate oath to do impartial justice. but this was different. this was not just the senate considering an amendment. we were a court now. and we had to do it fairly. why? for the country. for the american people. >> things were partisan back then. no doubt about it. >> very partisan. >> do you feel they're more partisan right now? >> they are more partisan right now. i will tell you part of why i think the senate trial worked in a fair way. though, the outcome was exactly what people would have predicted. is that the bipartisan leadership of the senate, trent lott, republican majority leader. >> they work together. >> they work together and i know because i talk to trent lott. it was my dear friend and remains so.

that he was upset at how partisan the house republicans seem in voting for articles of impeachment against president clinton. and he wanted the senate to do it in a different way even though he had a pretty good idea of how it was going to end. >> do you see that happening in this senate? >> not right now. but i really hope that senator mcconnell, senator schumer will rise to the occasion. and realize that there's something important they're doing. now, articles of impeachment have been voted. whether they think that was outrageous or not enough, the senators have an obligation and responsibility really to do what is called for in the constitution. >> would you want to hear from witnesses if you were a senator today? >> one way or the other, i probably would. i mean, i could tell you that we resolved that problem in a compromise. >> taped witnesses. >> that's right. we had three witnesses. they were videotaped depositions. that is, the house managers, president counsel were there.

and they were then shown to the senators in a closed session. it was a special sensitivity then because of the sexual content of the charges against president clinton, which is not present here. but that might be a good compromise this time, as well. >> i mean, wanting to hear from somebody like bolton or pompeo or mick mulvaney. i mean, there's new reporting that seems to come out by the week showing internal e-mails and documentation about how that aid was being withheld. i wonder if you could have a fair trial. and do you think senators are on the republican side are going to demand to hear witnesses? do you think they want to have as fair a trial as possible? or do you believe that this is now become just a partisan court where you're going to side with the president if you've got an r in front of your name. >> yeah. i mean, it's up to the senators. it could very well go that way. i mean, we've got people saying that the president himself wants an open trial with witnesses. but he's not thinking about -- >> the president says a lot of

things. >> he's thinking about joe biden or hunter biden. and i don't think the senate will ever call them. in part because they're not directly related to the charges against the president. look. this can become -- this impeachment trial can become a circus that further divides the country. and diminishes respect for our government, which is not good for anybody. or if they get together and do what's right for the country, it can give us a kind of moment of saying, okay, it ended as we thought it would. but they did it in a fair and bipartisan way. here's a final word from 1989. the two leaders, trent lott, tom dashle, took us into the old senate chamber in the capitol, which is sort of a museum. and because we couldn't agree on the rules to proceed. and nobody was allowed. no staff. no press. and we worked it out as colleagues. so we came to a moment of agreement that i think that and

the presidents of the chief justice carried us to a fair trial. and i hope and pray for the sake of the country that the senate today can find a way to do the same. >> somebody get all those folks in a room today. senator joe lieberman, thank you very much for coming in. >> thank you, katy. happy new year. >> happy new year to you as well. and coming up, the two-day siege of the embassy in baghdad may be over. but the threat is far from over. we'll have an update from the pentagon next. pentagon next. people go to learn about their medicare options... before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised

to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today... to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire,

find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor.

some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. 1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with. and most of that debt is actually from credit cards. it's just not right. but with sofi, you can get your credit cards right by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. including your interest rate right by locking in a fixed low rate today. and you can get your money right with sofi. check your rate in two minutes or less. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k.

welcome back. 2020 begins with the trump administration facing a pair of foreign policy crises in the middle east. in an interview with my colleague andrea mitchell, defense secretary mark esper today strongly condemned iran after protestors backed by an iranian militia group stormed the u.s. embassy in baghdad earlier this week. secretary esper also told reporters today that there are indications iran might be planning another attack on u.s. interests in the region. he made it clear that the u.s. is prepared to use military force preemptively if necessary. the episode raises major questions about iran's influence in iraq. and the u.s.'s approach in the region as a whole. joining me now from the pentagon, nbc news national security and military correspondent courtney cuby. courtney, what is the latest from the pentagon? >> so you gave a couple of the headlines out of secretary

esper. he and general mark millie, chairman of the joint chiefs, spoke for the first time today in an off-camera gaggle with reporters here about the situation. so we know the protestors have moved back from where they were literally only hours ago. but secretary esper and general millie both had some pretty strong language about the situation there. general -- secretary esper, of course saying the u.s. had the right to take some sort of a preemptive action or preemptive strike if they saw the kataib hezbollah, this iranian-backed militia group there, was preparing to attack again. this is the group that the u.s. claims has -- has struck 11 different times in the last two months. primarily, rocket attacks against iraqi and u.s. coalition bases there in iraq. of course, the largest of those being last week when they struck an iraqi base killing an american contractor and wounding four american soldiers. but we also heard from general millie about the embassy security today. saying that he believes it is a

fortified compound and that it is highly unlikely it will be overrun. we also asked him some questions about the troop situation there. they've ordered now about 700 additional u.s. soldiers to go to kuwait. to be prepared to deploy on orders to move in should be necessary. and of course marines who are part of a security detail to guard the embassy there in baghdad. as of now, there still are additional u.s. troops that are on prepare to deploy orders here in the u.s. but none of them have been ordered into the region or into iraq. but they are ready, should they need additional forces to move in there. katy. >> does the pentagon or anyone you've spoken to have any idea why iran suddenly feels more emboldened? why we are suddenly seeing an increase in the number of attacks? >> look at it from iran's perspective. they're being squeezed economically. the u.s. has this maximum pressure campaign that is having an impact there inside iran. so there are two ways to look at it according to u.s. officials i have spoken with. they are lashing out as a way to

sort of provoke something. to provoke -- whether it's to bring everybody to the negotiating table. who know? but to provoke some sort of action to get them out of this quagmire, this stalemate. the other thing, they have a history even in the last few months of pushing their limits. they shot down a drone over the summer. the u.s. came very close to responding. president trump was very open about that over the summer about how it was only minutes before he decided to pull back from a u.s. military response to that. so this could be another case of iran pushing the limits and seeing how far they can provoke, in this cause, there were as i mentioned ten previous attacks. rocket attacks on bases. some of them were deadly. i mean, i was in baghdad in october. there was a rocket attack on a u.s. military -- an iraqi base there with a large u.s. military and coalition component. where an iraqi soldier was killed in that attack. but in this case, what they've shown, the u.s. has shown, is

that when they killed this american contractor last week, that was the line that provoked a u.s. response, katy. >> let me ask you this. what is the u.s. backing under the iran deal have to do with this? is that why they're trying to force people back to the negotiation -- the u.s. back to the negotiating table? >> it's not just that. but it's -- it's the fact that there is this stalemate right now, right? there's the -- not only the u.s. pulling out of the jcpoa, the iran nuclear deal. but also the fact that continues to level more and more sanctions to try to force iran, a number of different things. to, you know, iran is a state-sponsor of terror. they are trying to force iran to stop sponsoring terror. groups like kataib hezbollah in iraq, right? but it's -- it's -- it's a combination of just trying to break the stalemate that iran and the u.s. have been at odds. have been locked in really heightened since this past summer but for some time, katy. >> courtney kube, you have done

the best job explaining the situation to me so far in the past three days that we've been covering it. i appreciate it. >> i'm here for you, katy. always. >> courtney, thank you so much and happy new year to you. we will be right back.

welcome back. as we just mentioned just two days into the new year and the trump administration is facing multiple foreign policy crises in the mid-east. and potentially now with north korea as well. as "new york times" national security reporter david sanger notes both the iranians and the north koreans seem to sense the vulnerability of a president under impeachment and facing re-election. even if they are often clumsy as they try to play those events to their advantage. the events of recent days have underscored how much bluster was behind mr. trump's boast a year ago. that iran was a very different nation since he had broken its economy by choking off its oil revenue. they also bee lied his famous

tweet there is no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. joining me now, brett mcgurk, former special presidential envoy for the global coalition to defeat isis. so, brett, if you can just make sense of what's happening for us. >> well, katy, i think i was on the show about five months ago and we kind of predicted where this was going to go. i think there's kind of an uber level incoherence in the trump foreign policy. he is a national security strategy that he signed that is -- that says that we should reduce our commitments to the middle east and focus on the threats from china and russia. at the same time, he's pursuing a very maximalist policy against the iranians that courtney just laid out. which is leading us to kind of a tit for tat cycle of escalation. and we have now deployed almost 15,000 additional troops to the middle east since may. even as trump has said that he's getting out of the middle east.

and when you are in an action/reaction cycle, that's a sign of a policy that is leading to serious risk and unintended consequences. and right now, i think we're on track for this to get even worse. >> how do you break that cycle? >> well, you need some diplomacy. and what is troubling here is that this seems to be a policy of all pressure and no diplomacy. look. it was predicted when this policy began by a lot of experts who study the region that if you do this, this maximum-pressure policy against the iranians, they are not just going to come to the table. they are going to try to fight back. and then the question will be what do we do? so this is actually been a fairly sophisticated campaign by iran beginning with attacks on the gulf. an attack on saudi arabia. and these attacks in iraq to try to provoke us into a response. and now, the onus is on us. just as i have been sitting here, reports from baghdad are that additional rockets are landing at the airport in baghdad. this group kataib hezbollah, look, we fought this group in

2007-2008. i was in the bush white house at that time. we had 160,000 troops in iraq. we -- we inflicted significant casualties on this organization. and we never really stopped the rocket attacks. the rocket attacks stopped based upon a political arrangement that the iraqi government reached in 2011. and they just started up again a few months ago. >> can you restart diplomacy with iran? and -- and with other leaders across the middle east in such a way that will stabilize the region enough to allow american troops to leave? or will you end up creating another vacuum for a group like isis to fill in? is it possible for us to get out of there? >> i think at this point, look, we're in iraq with about 20 other coalition partners. we have about 5,000 american troops in iraq. we're not fighting. we're on bases. we're training. and we have about 20 other coalition partners there with us. a total force of about 10,000.

and we've been training iraqi security forces, who are still fitting isis. this is not over. this is designed to be a very long-term, sustainable campaign. but what changed is the unilater unilateral american policy towards iran has caused this cycle in the region. and potentially now getting out of hand. what concerns me is that having, again, the experience i had many, many years ago with president george w. bush is that there's no real military kinetic option in iraq. particularly, right now. this is really diplomatic political thing. we need to apply military pressure. and i very much agree the fact that they took an american life about a week ago, there had to be a response. i'd always recommended that if they ever attacked us again -- again, this group kataib hezbollah, that had not really launched an attack like this in almost eight years. but if they ever did that again, our response should probably not be in iraq. because the -- the foot soldiers of this group are young iraqis.

>> well, that's what i was going to ask because what -- what -- what happened in response to our -- to our -- our attack on the group was the iraqis ended up just letting the protestors walk right into t green zone. and then hold siege on the u.s. embassy. that couldn't have been to our benefit. >> well, again, i think the appropriate response -- this would have been risky as well but i think the appropriate response is a very limited targeted response inside iran. an attack in iraq that kills iraqis, these are iraqi militia fighters. they're under the umbrella of this iranian-backed group but young iraqis who are the casualties causes just a host of risk and unintended consequences. these were not protestors that attacked our embassy. these were the iranian-backed militia groups and the iraqis they support. thousands of them. there are other iraqis protesting in downtown baghdad who are not necessarily pro-american. they're very pro-iraqi.

they want to see reforms. they're also anti-iranian. they have also attacked iranian diplomatic facilities. so this is a very complicated situation. i think our actions are actually making it worse and right now we don't have an exit. and if rockets keep falling. again, it's very difficult to stop the rockets. we will be trapped into how do we respond? and this can escalate very rapidly. and president trump, i have to say, he's pursuing a maximum-pressure policy against iran. but he's really shown no commitment to the middle east or the region. we have left most of our positions in syria. we did that overnight really with no plan. we've totally reduced our diplomatic presence in iraq. there's discussions of reducing our military presence in half even before all this began. we closed our consulate. we didn't respond at all to iranian attacks on the gulf. so now, we're really into this thing. and i think the onus will be on president trump, who has said he wants to get out of middle east commitments. but i think he's being duck

walked into a very dangerous situation, which could get out of hand. so i hope there is some back channel diplomacy going on. but right now, i don't see it. >> brett mcgurk. brett, thank you very much for joining us. and next up, the impeachment trial waiting game. stay with us. ment trial waiting game stay with us ♪

[ gunshot ] [ multiple gunshots ] [ orchestral music playing ]

actions speak louder than words. she was a school teacher. my dad joined the navy and helped prosecute the nazis in nuremberg. their values are why i walked away from my business, took the giving pledge to give my money to good causes, and why i spent the last ten years fighting corporate insiders who put profits over people. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. because, right now, america needs more than words. we need action. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. welcome back. once again with us. all right. let's take about impeachment and

the trial. just security has come out with a trove of e-mails that were unredacted e-mails between omb and the pentagon talking about the aid that was withheld. and we had seen these e-mails in "new york times" reporting and some other outlets. but what they were got were the unredacted versions. what we saw. what we saw. >> every time she raised those concerns, those e-mails of hers, those interactions where she was bringing up those red flags was redacted. and so it raises a lot of questions about what the justice department's motivation was for redacting that. you mentioned it seems like they were really trying to cover the up fact that people across the government, every level virtually, at different federal agencies had concerns about

this. >> and they kept asking over and over again what is the reason for this hold? and didn't get a response back. this pentagon budget official, senior pentagon budget official kept pushing back against omb and michael duffey and said you can't hold this much longer. the pentagon won't be able to spend this money by the deadline if you keep holding it. and duffey kept excluding that information from the footnotes he sent over to congress. and then, according to these e-mails in just security, and then when it -- when it was clear the pentagon wouldn't be able to spend the money in time, he tried to blame it on the pentagon. saying this is your problem that you can't spend this in time. and she responds, the pentagon official, by saying you can't be serious. after all the e-mails she sent to him and all of that -- that -- that pushback that she sent saying this is not going to go out on time was redacted. >> yeah. >> so i mean, what does this mean for a senate trial and calling witnesses? >> couple things. i think possibly, you might have given nancy pelosi a bit of an escape hatch, right? they're at a stalemate

certainly. she doesn't have leverage with mitch mcconnell. so does she then use this for possibly reopening things in the house? reopening things in the house? some people, immediately cavanaugh is nominated. you have hell yes. hell no. mitch mcconnell. senator susan collins, lisa murkowski and others were very deliberate. waited on the facts a little bit. held their cards close to their vest. i'm not certain but does this give reason for collins or murkowski or other things to have fbi -- the equivalent of the fbi investigation over that week-long process. >> i wonder, doug, does chief justin john roberts have to get involved if a senate trial goes forward and house managers demand witnesses, is he going to be able to remain as an impartial overseer? >> that remains to be seen. i think the number one question right now is will there be any courage by any senate

republicans to go to mitch mcconnell and say, look, we need to have a fair trial. it needs to be open. it needs to be transparent. those three people i'm thinking about are lisa murkowski, susan collins, and mitt romney. and there may be some other republicans who are seeing this tr drip, drip, drip of information over the last couple weeks. which clearly indicates the president was the one who made the freeze of this aid. this has got to be very alarming i think to some of these senators. and even if they have decided that they don't want to remove the president from office, the fact that they are looking at a sham trial right now that mitch mcconnell is going to operate. i think has got to be something that, you know, when they're looking at the history books, do they really want to be a part of it? do they stand up and say, look, let's do a real trial? or are they going to just kind of continue to buckle under the pressure of trump? >> give us a gut check on that. >> fairest objective, right? you had chuck schumer. where he was on larry king in

1999 saying, look, senators can have pre-opinions on this. it's not a jury box. it's a political process. and that's what it is. look. trump's not getting thrown in jail. if he gets voted, he'll be removed from his political office. so mitch mcconnell isn't any more impartial than chuck schumer or the people running to replace him. >> coming out and saying i am going to work closely with the white house and don't worry, he's not going to be removed. that's taking it a step further, don't you think? >> as opposed to democrats on a debate stage saying we're going to impeach him? >> mitch mcconnell is the majority leader. he is the one running the trial. >> exactly. just like democrats had the votes in the house. we all knew impeachment was going to pass the house. >> nancy pelosi wasn't coming out and saying he is going to be impeached. >> it was a pretty good cover. >> but, matt, i think the difference is just the -- is the fact that what democrats are asking for is just an open and transparent trial here. and that is -- and that seems to be a legitimate concern. >> doug, thank you very much.

and ahead, sing it with me, everybody. >> do you remember the song "schoolhouse rock"? >> i'm just a bill. sitting here on capitol hill. hey there people eligible for medicare. gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask...

for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile... enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor,

who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide.

finally tonight, if you were a child in the '70s or '80s, chances are you know two things. one, mikey will eat anything.

and two, the functions of conjunctions. the latter is courtesy of the animated juggernaut that is "schoolhouse rock." but there is one we especially love, obviously. ♪ i'm just a bill ♪ yes only a bill ♪ and i'm sitting here on capitol hill ♪ >> i'm just a bill. one of the "schoolhouse rock" classics. here's something you might not have known. bill was actually jack. jazz musician jack sheldon lent his voice to the legendary series belting out the "schoolhouse rock" classics that have been ear worms for decades. he died last week and with him goes a voice that gave countless kids their first forray into the world of civics. ♪ well it's a long long journey to the capital city ♪ ♪ it's a long long week while i'm sitting in committee ♪

♪ but i know i'll be a law someday ♪ ♪ at least i hope but today i'm just a bill ♪ >> if only it was as easy as the song made it hangout to be. jack sheldon was 88. that's all for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." >> that was a great tribute. how was your holiday and new year? >> my new year was lovely. i spent it at the fish show screaming my voice out of my head. >> is that because you lost your voice? >> i'm sick. >> are you sick or did you have a great fish concert experience? which is it? >> i have both. i'm sick but i still went to the concert. i sang has loud as i possibly could and i totally lost my voice and i got a little bit of it back today, enough to be here to talk to you, which is good. >> it's great. >> i was bouncing around the