evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> how was your break? >> it was great. it was really great. it's going to be quite a year. i'm processing the news right now. i'm a little stunned by what appears to have been this air strike which if true is just an enormously consequential deal. >> exactly. and i have to say watching those ongoing reports as they are rolling in tonight trying to assess whether this really happened and what the sources of information here and everything, at this point it feels very like potentially huge, also very unsettled on the factual basis of what we're getting. we are obviously monitoring that. >> this year is going to be enormously consequential in so many ways, and i just am like -- starting this way is making me wonder what is coming. >> you know what? chin up. thanks, chris. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. it was nice to be away for a few

days. it's also nice to be back. it turns out when you take off at new years in 2019 you come back to work right after new year's in 2019, it turns out it is then 2020. i know mathematically this should not be a shock, but it does feel like a shock. it does feel 2020 has been looming so large for so long. it does feel sort of shocking it is here now. we are now officially among other things in a presidential election year. iowa is a month away. i was up in new hampshire for part of the break visiting with family members in new hampshire. we're already playing count the yard signs game in new hampshire ahead of the new hampshire primary. we're also starting to block off the weekends on the calendar in forthcoming weeks when there's important primaries and caucuses on the weekends. those are going to be workdays for those of us covering the campaign even though those are saturdays and sundays. it is all here.

it is upon us. but for now at least it just means there is that much more to keep track of all at once. we've sort of have to find a way to keep everything all in frame all at the same time. tonight, for example, we have got the democratic presidential candidates one by one all reporting their fund-raising totals for the last quarter, which is a key demonstration of strength at this point in the campaign. and in terms of, you know, thinking about the year ahead, there's definitely a story in those numbers, at least the ones we've got thus far. this for example is the lead headline at politico.com. democrats rocket into 2020 with huge donor wind fall. party veterans once worried about democratic fund-raising are now convinced the eventual nominee can compete with trump. quote, democrats are riding a massive surge of presidential campaign cash into 2020 boosting the party's hopes of taking back the white house, their leading candidates for president faced

criticism last year from party veterans alarmed by tepid early fund-raising totals. but the candidates finished up 2019 raking in cash from fired up donors. the current democratic presidential contenders and the dnc combined raised over $450 million in the last year, more than president trump's re-election machine brought in during that same time. democrats are encouraged by the money pouring in from both the progressive and moderate wings of the party as well as from democrats writing big checks and from small dollar donors. the millions of contributions to democrats in 10 or $20 increments signal massive enthusiasm from the party grass roots heading into the election year. that's the lead from politico.com tonight showing that democrats, you know, have good reason to be fired up about those numbers in terms of the overall prospects for their party in 2020. but in terms of the presidential race, of course, they've got to

figure out who their nominee is going to be. and within the fund-raising numbers the biggest news is from senator bernie sanders of vermont. he's announced a huge haul of over $34 million in just the last quarter, which not only puts him $10 million ahead of his nearest financial competitor, mayor pete buttigieg of indiana, it also somewhat incredibly puts him in the same ballpark as the sitting president of the united states. i know trump has raised more money than democratic candidates at this point, but he is not competing with anybody else in his own party. hez the sitting president and he has the resources of the entire republican party behind him. a sitting president should be way, way further out ahead of the field at this point in the race. i mean, as of tonight even without elizabeth warren even announcing her totals yet, the leading democratic candidates combined are dwarfing what president trump raised in the last quarter. and i mean more than doubling what trump has done in the last

quarter. again, without elizabeth warren factored in, and bernie sanders alone is not far off what president trump has raised. i mean, trump brought in $46 million in the last quarter. sanders alone is at $34.5 million which is nuts when you're talking about one u.s. senator in a gigantic filled compared to the president. that kind of ratio between an out of power contender and an incumbent president, that's very unusual at this point in the race especially while the opposing party is still fielding a gujillion candidates in their primary. that buttigieg number, over $24 million for the quarter, that's also big particularly for a candidate who had zero national name recognition until just months ago. the front-runner in national polling is of course vice president biden. he has announced a $23 million fund-raising quarter. and while that puts him in third place after sanders and buttigieg on the democratic

field, this is also the best fund-raising quarter joe biden has had since he's been running, which is the direction you want to be going, right? it shows while he's been able to maintain his polling advantage he's upping his donor base. and at the same time we're getting this specific measure of the competitive strength of the democratic field, there's also less quantifiable sort of x-factor about the strength of the republican field, the strength of the president's re-election effort. and i say that's a black box, that's a sort of unknowable unquantifiable thing not just because it's not just about money, but because never in the history of our country before has a president ever run for re-election after just being impeached. how do you factor that in?

we don't know what that's going to do to the strength of the donald trump re-election effort, especially since the impeachment scandal, the impeachment process is still absolutely alive. i mean the u.s. senate will be back in session as of tomorrow. presumably then we will get some kind of word or some kind of hint at least how they intend to proceed with the impeachment trial of president trump, which will decide of course whether he'll be removed from office. if you sort of checked out of the news over the holiday break you should know that, yes, it happened, it was not the dream. donald trump was impeached right before christmas in the house of representatives, and you should note that the house still has not conveyed those articles of impeachment over to the senate. so they can start the impeachment trial in the senate on those charges. house speaker nancy pelosi says she will convey the articles of impeachment. she will convey those articles, she will announce who the prosecutors will be for that impeachment trial. she says she'll do that once the senate announces the rules under

which they're going to conduct trump's trial including crucial decisions about hearing from witnesses and subpoenaing documents and how much each time they'll have to present their case and how they'll do so. ahead of the holiday i had bin one of the naive who assumed over the christmas break there would be some sort of progress toward some sort of senate trial, that they would at least fight openly or start to work something out about the rules, that there would be some plan or at least some fight that would be starting to emerge. and we do expect to find out more tomorrow when the senate is back in session, but at this point i was naive. at this point there does not seem to have been any substantive progress, and so that question of how president trump's ilpeachment trial will be conducted is still totally live, still a totally open question. and it has no time frame that any of us can discern from the outside in tufrms of when the truls

tr rules of the trial will get resolved and how long it will take place. and that timing all matters not only because the start of the presidential primary calendar is upon us and we've got this impending election in the fall and we don't know how the impeachment process may affect the president's re-election efforts, but it's also important -- i mean the timing here and how long it's going to take for the senate to get their act together and figure out how they're going to deal with this, the timing is also important not just because it starts to but up against the political calendar each year but each day more freaking stuff comes out in this scandal. even though the house has already impeached president trump for what he did in ukraine and that is done. and even though the white house and the entire trump administration continued to defy subpoenas and refuse witness testimony in conjunction with that whole impeachment inquiry, even as the senate tont appears to still be at this odd impasse

slash interignm where we don't even know how they're going to put the president on trial, still while all of that has happened and still unfolding, still enterprising reporters and the courts have continued to pry loose new information and documentation that go right to the heart of the scandal. stuff that in some cases is just as dramatic as any of the previous big reveals in other impeachments including watergate. over the holiday break, for example, the center for public integrity obtained about 150 pages of documents from the trump administration. these are documents that had been sought by the impeachment investigators. they tried to get this stuff by subpoena. the administration defied those subpoenas. nevertheless a federal judge has ordered those documents released under the freedom of information act, and these documents released over the holiday break were sort of shocking enough on their face. even with tons redacted out of

them, i mean you still got in these documents a trump appointee in the white house writing to the pentagon within two hours of president trump making his call to ukraine where he told the ukrainian president he wanted him to launch an investigation into joe biden, less than two hours after that call was over a trump appointee to the white house writes to the pentagon and they need to hold up military aid to ukraine and by the way don't tell anybody about it because it's super sensitive. that was part of the redactions that came out over the holiday break. and today just security reporter kate brannen essentially pulls the edactions. brannen says she has been able to see the original unredacted verges of those documents that were released a few days ago. in the annals of presidential scandal if she has accurately reported on the unredacted

version of those documents, well-what's in those documents is going to go down as hall of fame stuff in terms of presidential scandal. for example, august 30th as the pentagon is repeatedly pressing the white house about the military aid and the fact that holding it up and illegal, and of course we now know that the white house would later try to say that holding up the military aid at this point was because of some sort of policy review process or widespread concerns in the administration about corruption in ukraine or some such other nonsense we ultimately know they'd try to cook up some sort of cover story here, but now we can see from brennen's reporting that on august 30th here's this dude at office of management and budget telling the reason she couldn't release the funding, the reason she couldn't release this military aid was because the president said don't do it. quote, clear direction from potus to hold.

in other words, don't worry there's no ambiguity, everybody has communicated through official channels that the person who done it is the president, and it's him personally who did it and is insisting on it even when people in his own administration are telling himt's illegal. so it's like it's a big sign-on the front lawn. hey, historians this is going to be an easy one. the documentation proves the president did it and did it alone despite being told it was illegal. the reporter who obtained the unredacted versions of these documents, kate brannen is going to be joining us tonight. i'm very much looking forward to speaking with her. also tonight just as we were getting on the air a huge new pile of documents weas released again by federal court order. this time it's new documentation from the special counsel investigation. and i tell you this is still live now, too. including in the context of

impeachment. tomorrow morning in federal court in washington there's going to be two big oral arguments at the federal appeals court in washington, d.c. this is a court one level below the u.s. supreme court. one of the arguments is whether or not congress will be able to receive all of the grand jury testimony from witnesses who testified to the mueller investigation. the other argument that the d.c. circuit court is going to hear tomorrow is whether or not former white house counsel don mcgahn can be compelled to testify despite the trump white house telling him not to. the top lawyer for the house of representatives basically warned that federal appeals court in d.c., that there might be another impeachment of president trump in the works, another one. and that's part of why they need mcgahn's testimony because they may want to impeach him in addition to what they've already impeached him for. they may want to bring additional articles of impeachment against the president for obstruction of

justice. you will remember in the mueller report don mcgahn describes many, many instances of president trump trying to divert or thwart the russia investigation. well, the house says they want don mcgahn to testify about that evidence in part because they might want to impeach trump on obstruction of justice based on what mcgahn saw and witnessed. and this is literally going to be litigated in the federal appeals court in d.c. tomorrow morning, while tonight we the public for the very first time are getting access to all of these new fbi interviews with mueller report witnesses including paul manafort and sarah huckabee sanders and michael cohen and k.t. mcfarlen and rob porter. you may remember rob porter. he was fired from the trump white house in a scandal of his very own. after he had been white house staff secretary, he spoke to the fbi for the mueller investigation. here's just a sample of what we got tonight. we the public are seeing this for the first time.

this is from rob porter's fbi interview as part of the mueller investigation. quote, the president told rob porter to tell white house counsel don mcgahn that he should write a letter. the letter should make clear that he, don mcgahn, had never been directed to fire special counsel robert mueller. rob porter thought the white house communications shop should handle the press response rather than a letter from mcgahn, but president trump wanted a letter, a letter to the file. the letter referred to him as, quote, a lying bastard and said he wanted a letter from him. quote, if he doesn't write a letter i will have to get rid of him. threatening to fire him if he won't write this letter. if the counsel for the house of representatives is correct when he tells federal appeals court in washington that they may also try to impeach president trump on obstruction of justice, one

of the marquee instances of obstruction of justice described in the mueller report and don mcgahn testimony specifically is president trump telling don mcgahn he needed to fire special counsel mueller. mcgahn refused to do so. when news of that directive from the president was publicly reported, the president responded by telling mcgahn to write a letter denying that president trump had ever told him to fire the special counsel. the way mcgahn tells it trump told him to fire the special counsel, mcgahn said no, and then when word came out about that, trump said i will fire you unless you write a letter denying i ever told you to fire special counsel. well, we had descriptions of that in the mueller report. we're now seeing for the first time fbi 302s that corroborate that and lay it out. in terms of, you know, the importance of this and what this might mean for the president in his re-election year, and mean not only trying to shutdown a

justice department investigation but then directing a white house official to create a false paper trail to obscure the fact you tried to shutdown the investigation, i mean that's like the version of obstruction of justice that you can still understand even if you're only looking at the pictures only waffle house menu version of the penal code. right, that's obstruction of justice, right? and that is all very, very much live. you know, new news breaking over the holiday break. those white house communications being broken further opened this morning by a reporter who's able to get access to the unredacted version of those documents. then we get new documents being forced out by federal court order tonight that might relate to additional articles of impeachment against the president and new litigation tomorrow, potentially hugely consequential litigation tomorrow at the highest court in the land below the u.s. supreme

court. we've never had a president run for re-election after he's been impeached, the live issue of the president's impeachment is still totally up in the air. the prospect of a second impeachment is weirdly more alive than ever. and did i mention that iowa is in a month? we have to figure out a way to keep it all in frame, right, to pay attention to it all at once. there will be one more democratic candidates debate between now and the iowa caucuses next month. that debate is scheduled january 14th at drake university in des moines iowa. so far there are five democratic candidates qualified for that next debate which is just head of the iowa caucuses. here are those five candidates who are qualified as of right now. notice anything? it is possible that other candidates may qualify for that next debate between now and then. but as of now it is just these

five. this rainbow coalition. there were seven candidates in the last democratic debate, these five plus tom steyer and andrew yang. andrew yang the lone candidate of color in the last debate. as of right now there's none going to be in the next debate. i should tell you andrew yang just announced a very healthy $17 million fund-raising quarter for the last quarter of 2019. what that means big picture is that this field of presidential candidates for 2020 which started off as the most diverse racial presidential candidate field ever, it may have started off quite racially diverse but it is not ending up that way. and today that dynamic became all the more stark with an announcement by former housing secretary julian castro he is leaving the presidential race. and one way to look at this is

that it's, you know, yet another weird twist, you know, a winnowing of the big democratic field that hasn't really followed any of the obvious rules of political science. right, the field early on shedding charismatic, successful, multiterm popular governs like jay inslee in washington state, national leader on climate change. also steve bullock, who's won statewide twice. the field has also shed one of the best known senators in the country with a huge national profile, senator kamala harris. as of today it has shed obama's housing secretary, julian castro. he outed the race today meanwhile still in contention is a small town mayor from indiana, mayor pete buttigieg. and a few different types of

business tycoons and entrepreneurs. some of whom have held public office before, some of whom have not. when it comes to secretary castro leading the race specifically, the only latino candidate in the race now dropping out, it feels palpably different he's dropping out. not just for him in terms of his prospects but also for the democratic field and for this contest against trump. >> let's be very clear the reason that they're separating these little children from their families is they're using section 1325 of that act which criminalizes coming across the border to incarcerate the parents and then separate them. some of us on this stage have called to end that section, to terminate it. some like congressman o'rourke have not, and i want to challenge all of the candidates to do that. i think it's a mistake and i think if you truly want to change the system we've got to repeal that section.

if not it might as well be the same policy. >> as a member of congress i helped to introduce legislation that would ensure we don't criminalize those who are seeking asylum and refuge in this country. i want to make sure -- >> i'm still talking about everybody else. >> but you're look at one small part of this. i'm talking about a comprehensive rewrite of our immigration laws. >> but that's not true. >> i'm talking about millions of folks -- a lot of folks coming are not seeking asylum. a lot of them are undocumented immigrants, right? and you said recently the reason you didn't want to repeal section 1325 was because you were concerned about human trafficking and drug trafficking, but let me tell you what section 18 -- title 18 of the u.s. code, title 21 and title 22 already covered -- if you did your homework on this

issue you should know we should repeal this. >> it just spooled out from there, it kept going. and the history of the democratic presidential primary in 2020 will show it was julian castro who drew first blood in the democratic primary on the democratic debate stage. beto o'rourke would not last long in the presidential campaign after that first conflict on that debate stage. tonight julian castro has announced he too is leaving the presidential race after having changed it profoundly by his presence. secretary castro joins us live next. ary castro joins us live next kraft. for the win win.

the sleep number 360 smart bed. prices of the season on can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it's the final days of the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is $1299. ends sunday you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

joining us now here on set for the interview is julian ks trow and as of today a former candidate for president in the democratic primary. thank you for being here. >> good to be here, rachel. >> you have the choice to not talk to anybody on the day you drop out of the race. i appreciate you being here. how are you doing? >> i'm doing well. i've had better days, obviously. but things considered i'm doing well. i'm very proud of the effort of the campaign that we put together. i said it many times during the

campaign but i felt it in my heart and i believe it today that we helped shape the debate. i said things that a lot of other candidates in some cases all the other candidates weren't willing to say. i took on issues that i believed in and i think that our country has to confront, whether that's boldly putting forward a positive vision on immigration to go against trump's dark, cruel vision on immigration or tackling the fact we see video after video of especially young black men and women being mistreated by police across our contr country. and most politicians want to run away from that as if it's not a problem. the fact you have more people sleeping on the street at night in america and that it's been 40 years really since we invested enough resources in making sure people have a safe, decent and affordable place to live not only in cities like new york but in smaller towns across the country. i ran a bold campaign. i didn't compromise on what i

believed in, so i can hold my head high. >> tell me about the decision that now is the time to get out. >> well, you know, we've got about a month until the iowa caucus, and it just became clear we didn't have the resources, didn't have the organization because of the lack of resources. and i lost the mayor's race in 2005 when i was 30 years old. never feels good to lose but one of the things i remember clearly from back then is understanding it's about timing as much as gg else, and this just wasn't my time, it wasn't our time. i think certainly there's things we could have done better in the campaign and we're going to have a lot of time to think through that, but it also is about timing and the mood of the democratic party, and i just think it was time. >> you have been thinking about the process in which the democratic party chooses its nominee and i highlighted as of

right now the next debate has five candidates qualified. they're all white. the initial long roster of candidates that was running was the most racially diverse candidate field the democrats or either party has ever put forward. but yet as it is winnowing down it seems to be getting whiter and whiter. you said when senator kamala harris dropped out of the race she was held basically to an unattainable double standard. can you talk a bit about that critique what you meant when it comes to senator harris and whether you think that also applies to you? >> i do. i remember reading about senator harris for instance that she -- that some members of the black caucus were not supporting her. in my campaign we heard a lot especially at the beginning of the campaign about the fact i'm not completely fluent in spanish as though all latinos were analyzing the candidacy whether i'm completely fluent in spanish. first of all, more than 80% of latinos in the united states

speak english, so there's just this disconnect there i think in the way some of these campaigns are covered. but the other thing i brought up was the way we do this nominating process of starting with iowa and new hampshire. and, you know, putting the race or ethnicity of candidates aside for a second, if i told people out there -- if you didn't know anything about the iowa caucus and i said to you, look, this is how we're going to start the process. you can only vote one day at 7:00 in the evening, there's no early voting, there's no secret ballot so you can't -- you know, you can't have a secret ballot on how you're voting. you have to declare in front of everybody how you're voting. people would think republicans designed the iowa caucus. so i very much see this as keeping with our push in the democratic party for greater ballot access and voting rights, that we change the way we do our presidential nominating. i also know our country has

changed a lot in 1972 when the caucus was started. >> are you saying the caucus itself is inherently small seat conservative or the process is inherently unfair to certain types of candidates or types of campaigns? >> i think all of the above, for instance people with disabilities have complained for a while about the lack of accessibility at the iowa caucuses. shift workers, somebody who has to work at 7:00 at night and can't just take off that day, they have said how about early voting or some way to vote by mail, that doesn't exist. in addition to that the fact you start your nominating process in two states that are -- that are some the whitest states that lack people of color, it's ironic we keep telling black women you're our saviors, you're our key to 2020, and we see what happened in 2016 that trump won

because african-american turn out fell from 66% four years earlier to 59.5% including in places like philadelphia, in detroit, in milwaukee, which are important in those three states. those states that we always obsess about. and at the same time you start your nominating process of two states that hardly have any black women, any black people at all. it doesn't make any sense, and it was so weird because voicing that opinion was almost considered more radical in the democratic party saying maybe iowa and new hampshire shouldn't go first than to say we should have single payer health care or something. it doesn't make any sense. it's time for us to grow up as democrats and to be willing to look at our own house. we have to complain and take action and file suit when republicans trample on voting rights, but we can't stop there. we actually have to improve how we do things as well or else there's a little bit of

hypocrisy there. i was willing to call that. and just because this presidential campaign is over doesn't mean i'm not going to continue to call that out. >> what else do you think the democratic party should be doing to put together the best shot at beating president trump? you have a critique in terms of 2016, voters of color not being enthused and that voter turn out dropping off from the obama years to the clinton election. other than the iowa and new hampshire factor that you're talking about here, i mean it's been dramatic and now it's winnowed down to 5. obviously you can't have 20 candidates indefinitely, but is the angle of the funnel too steep? are there other things the party should be doing to treat the candidates more fairly? >> i think it's not only about the presidential process but recruiting candidates up and down the ballot. one of it reasons i'm proudly a democrat is because we do reflect more the diversity out

there in our country, and we do embrace people of different backgrounds. we need to keep doing that, investing and recruiting people running for state assembly, state senate for congress and so forth all across the board at every state in our country. but, yes, it also counts in the presidential nominating process how we handle this. the dnc is going to have to go back and look at these thresholds put in place because clearly there's been a misfire on some of this. and we have an opportunity in the future to correct that. there's nothing sacrosanct about the process put in place. in some ways it has failed and we need to improve it. >> what's next for you? i imagine you want to sleep, and i imagine you have a bunch of people to go see and thank and talk to -- >> yes, and my son just turned 5. i am looking forward to spending more time with him and my daughter. i'm going to find a way to make sure, number one, we replace donald trump with a good president in 2021. i'm going to do everything i can

to support the democratic nominee to make sure the democrat wins november 2020 and to encourage others to run. so we'll figure that out. >> housing secretary julian castro as of today a candidate for the democratic nomination in 2020, you had a huge impact on this race. you made the candidates talk about different issues they wouldn't otherwise talk about and talk about more precise, a bit more aggressive and more grounded. you were a very, very substantive member of this field and i think the country is better off for it. we'll be right back. stay with us. for it. we'll be right back. stay with us and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors. ahhhhhhhhhh! dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. the daytime, coughing, stuffy head, vaporize your cold, medicine.

at colonial penn, life insurance company. and with coverage options starting at just $9.95 a month, you can get a whole life insurance plan to help close that gap with a benefit check paid directly to your beneficiary. if you're between age 50 and 85, coverage options start at just $9.95 a month. and the rate is locked in. and it comes with two lifetime guarantees. one, your coverage can never be cancelled, and two, your rate can never go up. call for free information and you'll also get this beneficiary planner free just for calling. use it to record important information and helpful direction for your loved ones. so don't wait, call now. (announcer) and when you call right now, you'll also get this free prescription savings card that can help you save up to 80% on prescription drugs.

you shouldn't have to pretend you're fine. you shouldn't have to be the ambulance. you shouldn't have to be thinking about the cost. you should just be focused on her. covered california can help you find a health plan that fits your needs and budget. because we believe you shouldn't have to choose between the life you've built and the care you need.

so i want to bring you up-to-date on some news that have continued developing over the course of the last hour and as we've been on the air tonight. we've been monitoring these incredibly provocative but still vague reports that a very important senior commander in the iranian revolutionary guard, the head of the force in the irg, there are reports has been been killed in baghdad in either an air strike or a drone strike or a rocket attack, depending on what report you're seeing. it's very confused reporting at this point which is at this point why we've been monitoring these reports and trying to develop our own nbc news reporting. the reason this is so important is because he's the leader of a powerful elite branch of the ryanian revolutionary guard.

memably described the force as a combined cia and special forces. he's the long time leader of the force while they've been involved deeply involved for example propping up syria's dictator in that country's civil war and mounting militia led attacks on u.s. forces during the long iraq war. he's iran's most powerful and prominent military leader, one of the most influential, individual persons in the whole complex tinderbox of the geopolitics of the middle east. now, it is iraqi state tv that's been reporting tonight that he was killed in an air strike at baghdad's airport. other outlets as i mentioned are characterizing the attack differently. the press office of the coalition of iran backed militias in iraq is also now saying soleimani was killed.

nbc has not confirmed any of these reports. but if he was killed that would be consequential in its own right and potentially a massive escalation of tensions between the iran and the u.s. whose ripple effects are hard to predict have very sobering. again, these are unconfirmed reports at this point, but among those chasing this very hard tonight is the nbc correspondent covering national security and the pentagon. thanks for being with us tonight. first of all, correct me if i got anything wrong there and tell me if there's anything we know at this point? >> he's the head of the iranian force and the way you described it is perfect. it's sort of this intelligence unit and they do irregular warfare. one of the things the force is known for is supporting these militia groups like hezbollah,

they tie into these militia groups that act in many ways on behalf of the iranian regime. it also ties directly back to the supreme leader ayatollah komeni. iraqi state tv are also saying in fact he was killed in the strike near the baghdad airport. we can now say iranian state tv is also saying that. and i now can say a u.s. official is confirming that in fact the u.s. took a strike in baghdad tonight and that soleimani was the target. they're not saying he was killed. they are saying he was targeted in this, but they want 100% certainty he was killed. there are also reports out of the region also killed along with him was a very senior

popular mobilization force commander with strong ties with iran and ties with the iranian backed shea militia group who the u.s. is blaming for many attacks and the u.s. targeted in air strikes. >> the official saying the u.s. did take a strike tonight and soleimani was the target, i don't know if you know or you can tell us that sounds like anonymous confirmation of a cia strike. if it was the cia versus the u.s. military, would that have different implications in terms of what we the public are ever going to know about this or have confirmed by our own government? >> yes to all of that. so, yes, if it was a military versus a cia strike, we hear very little about cia strikes versus military strikes. there's a little bit more transparency, but i think we need to take a step back and

see -- and factor two things into this particular strike. number one is the fact that president trump is the commander in chief right now, so i think there's a higher likelihood we will hear more detail about this or some kind of confirmation if it was cia or a conventional military strike. the other thing is just the magnitude of what we are seeing here if in fact he was targeted by a u.s. strike tonight and killed, this is a -- this is very significant step. this is an extremely significant escalation between the tensions with the u.s. and iran. the u.s. officials i spoke with very clearly say he has blood on his hands, that he has ordered attacks on americans and coalitions and iraqis for years now. there's certainly no doubt he has been an enemy of the united states, he's the head of an

organization that is an enemy of the united states. but to take him out, someone who if in fact this was a targeted assassination against him, that was a very significant step for the united states to take something like this would tend to require presidential approval. so if in fact, you know, these reports are coming in very quickly and so we don't want to get ahead of anything here. the u.s. is not yet confirming this, but if in fact he was killed in this attack, this situation is sure to escalate in the coming days. >> let me just talk about that a little bit from a layman's perspective of someone who observers this from a desk here with no expertise in the area. what you were talking about what the force has done, there really is no parallel for us to understand in the united states or indeed in the western world in the kind of figure he is and kind of role he has in iran, particularly in the projection of irregular iranian power

around the world. part of the reason iran is seen as such a fearsome and important adversary in the world is not because of their own military force but through soleimani's military genius, oz has been described they've been supporting pro-ryanian militias outside of iran all over the world in some very etive and murderous ways including u.s. forces fighting in the iraq war for years and years. so if in fact he's dead and if a u.s. strike has caused his death, again there's no analog in terms of us understanding the kind of figure he'd been seen as if he was an american. what can you tell us how iran will see his death and how iran might respond to his death given the power he's had well outside

his borders. >> it's not even a direct parallel the head of the joint special operations command in the united states, it is a group that does irregular warfare, and they're the most elite of the special operators in the united states military. but that is -- most americans couldn't tell you who the head of jsoc is right now. he has a direct link to the supreme leader of iran. he's a powerful figure head in iran and beyond that. he can -- we know he's been directing attacks against others whether it's in yemen, in iraq, in syria against americans in iraq and syria. so he has a -- he wields a tremendous amount of power. as far as how this is going to be received in iran, it's probably too early to say. i think it's fair to guess that this could have the affect of coalescing the iranian people

more around the ayatollah and around the regime and against america. what's so fascinating about what's happened over the last several days is when i was in baghdad just a few weeks ago there were these anti-iranian protests. there was very little anti-american sentiment and they tried to torch the iranian consulate. the strikes over the weekend, the u.s. strikes against hezbollah has had the impact of starting to coalesce the people there more against america and more back in the camp with iran. so it's fair to say that taking -- if in fact again i want to be very careful because the united states has not yet confirmed any of this certainly not on the record, but if in fact he was killed here, this will have an impact on the american people making them coalesce and rally around the flag. it's a matter of how strong is that impact and what are the

next steps, rachel. >> thank you, courtney. i know you are chasing this. if you're able to confirm more of this or the story develops, get right back on the air with us. >> i want to bring now into the conversation the bureau chief and correspondent. thank you so much for making time for us on very short notice tonight. i just want to ask you if you can update our understanding at all as we continue to follow these developing reports about, again, unconfirmed reports that the head of the force has been killed in baghdad. >> i'm getting reports that state media in iran and the irg, the revolutionary guard, state tv has now cut all broadcasting off. they are playing photographs of

soleimani on a loop with prayers being given. this is going to seriously ratchet up the stakes between washington and tehran. he's a revered figure against the ruling establishment in iran. he's a figure amongst the militias that operate in that region, and it would probably be fair to say he is the second most powerful man in iran after ayatollah homeni, the supreme leader. >> just as you've been saying that and to that point we just got a statement from the u.s. department of defense, because this is clearly the u.s. confirmation as well. here's the statement. at the direction of the president the u.s. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect u.s. personnel abroad by killing soleimani, a u.s. designated foreign terrorist organization. he was actively developing plans to attack american diplomats and service members in iraq and

throughout the region. his force was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans and coalition service member and the wounding of thousands more. he had orchestrated attacks on coalition over the last several months including the attack c l cullminating in the death and wounding of additional iraqi personnel. general also approved on the attacks in baghdad that took place this week. the strike was aimed at deterring future iranian attack plans. the united states will take all necessary action to protect our people and interests around the world. again, the bottom line in this news statement from the defense department is the military has taken decisive action by killing soleimani the head of the iranian revolutionary guard force. as we were getting that statement you were describing him as the second most powerful man in iran after the supreme

leader. now that we've got as you described the iranian government confirming this, iranian state tv confirming it, and the u.s. government confirming this, what do you think will be the implications of this killing? >> i would be very surprised if there isn't some sort of a very serious reprisal from iran over this. they're going to want to show that they haven't been weakened by the deaths of soleimani, they want to show the irg is strong and operational. i think this is just going to aggravate the situation much further. as i mentioned actually he is a cult figure in iran amongst the ruling establishment. they rely very, very heavily on him, and he controls all the militias in that region that have made iran so powerful in that region. so they are going to take this very seriously. i'm not sure what kind of

reprisal they are going to unleash, but, you know, as you well know they have multiple, multiple groups of proxies spread across the entire region ready for a moment like this. so this has ratcheted up the stakes hugely, and this is probably one of the most significant i've seen happen in iran over the last couple of decades. >> in term of this being a sort of decapitation strike because of the power and the really centralized power as we understand the structure and how he has orchestrated all these powerful militias do you expect there will be zorlder within the force, within the revolutionary guard corp, or do you think he would have in place some sort of chain of command, a second in command, a line of succession that would allow for an

organized response here? >> well, they are very organized units of the irgc, very organized fighting units. but to say there's an obvious replacement for soleimani, there isn't. there isn't anybody comes to mind you'd think has that power to his name, his face is known as well. i don't think we'll see any obvious person step into the role. they're going to close ranks very quickly and plan their next move. they are a very, very well organized force. they are very disciplined, so this isn't going to break them. i think they are now going to want to show especially the united states that they are a force still to be reckoned with. >> thank you. it's going to be a long night tonight. i appreciate you being here. >> thanks, rachel.

>> i want to bring into the conversation now senator chris murphy of connecticut. thank you for joining us on short notice. i have to get your reaction to this news now confirmed by the defense department the u.s. military has taken action and killed the head of the revolutionary guards force. >> well, there's no doubt that soleimani ordered the killing of hundreds of americans. the question tonight is whether soleimani is a greater threat to the united states as a functional head of the force or as a martyr. the danger here of course is that we are going to get into a conflict in the region that will ultimately accrue to the u.s. interests -- they have capability to launch attacks

right back at u.s. leaders and proxy forces can threaten u.s. forces, israel itself throughout the region. and of course there are potentially grave complications with iraq, were they notified of this. if not how on earth will they continue to allow thousands of u.s. troops to operate inside their borders, a place where isis is regrouping as we speak. so this a very, very dangerous moment. this could be the most significant leader the united states has ever assassinated, and we are very careful about these kinds of things because they often end up and can end up spilling into a set of consequences that ultimately do much more damage to u.s. national security interests in the assassination itself and we will be watching closely. and of course there's a question of what thes orization is for this, if this indeed was an act unless it was done to prevent an

imminent attack against the united states. you can't do this without congressional authorization. >> as far as you know, senator, has there been any notification to the senate, to the congress or to the group of 8 about any of this. or is this something you and your senate colleagues are learning about along with the rest of us via the media? >> i would be suppliesed if there wasn't some notification to the gang of 8. i'm not a member of that group, but if it was premeditated and planned it would at least be noticed. >> joining on very short notice to respond to this breaking news, thank you very much for making time tonight. i really appreciate it. again, the breaking news we're following tonight that started with reports from iraqi state television that the feared head of the force which is a division of the iranian revolutionary

guard corp had been killed in some sort of strike in baghdad, we're watching and monitoring iraqi state tv reports on that. that eventually escalated tonight to there being iranian confirmation of this, and now just within the past couple of minutes the u.s. defense department confirming it was a u.s. military strike that has killed soleimani as described by our bureau chief moments ago he's not only a well-known figure in the middle east and in middle eastern geopolitics, in his telling he's essentially the second most powerful man in iran after the supreme leader. what the consequences will be of his assassination which is being confirmed by the defense department in the last few minutes remains to be seen. that's going to do it for us at least right now. >> we're going to be cti