head of the intelligence committee and congress. and the speaker. and those that have the authority in that group of eight to know what is imminent and what is not. that does it for me. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here next saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern. up next, "meet the press" with chuck todd. this sunday, growing tensions. the u.s. kills a top iranian military commander, sparking fears of an all-out war. >> we took action last night to stop a war. we did not take action to start a war. >> the administration insists qasem soleimani was in the late stages of planning attacks on americans. >> last night was the time we needed to strike to make sure this imminent attack that he was working actively was disrupted. >> tens of thousands across iran gather to mourn soleimani as iran and president trump

exchange new threats. i'll talk to secretary of state mike pompeo this morning. plus iran in 2020. democrats applaud the killing of an american enemy, but warn of the consequences. >> donald trump seems to have no plan. he seems to have no strategy. >> and take on each other. bernie sanders hits joe biden for his, quote, baggage and biden responds. >> bernie has enough baggage. >> this morning i'll talk to democratic presidential candidate elizabeth warren. and impeachment fight. the senate's two leaders clash over the senate trial to come. >> they have done enough damage. it's the senate's turn now to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned. >> leader mcconnell has been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. >> democratic senator mark warner will be my guest. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt. former homeland security secretary jeh johnson. betsy woodruff swan of "the daily beast."

and the former republican governor of north carolina, pat mccrory. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. well, a good sunday morning and happy new year to everyone. president trump begins 2020 facing three challenges, impeachment, an emboldened north korea and most urgently iran where a week of hostilities that included iranian-backed militants laying siege to the u.s. embassy in baghdad ended with the u.s. killing iran's chief security and intelligence commander general qasem soleimani. the immediately result has been the deepest crisis with iran since the seizure of 52 american hostages in 1979. iran has promised a harsh revenge at a time and place of its choosing. the u.s. is sending even more troops into the region, while urging american citizens to get

out of iraq. and president trump is warning that the u.s. has targeted 52 iranian sites in case iran does retaliate. u.s. officials are warning an attack in the homeland may come with little or no warning. less immediate is the impact in a number of other areas for president trump. in 2012 he accused then president obama of then somehow seeking war with iran as a way to help his re-election chances. well, thursday's strike could be seen as an effort to overshadow impeachment. it has. and help the president in november. we don't know. in the democratic race, could this now mean joe biden's foreign policy experience becomes a bigger asset or could bernie sanders benefit from his consistent opposition to overseas conflicts. how will voters react to president trump escalating tensions in the middle east given that he as a candidate promised to pull america out of endless middle east conflicts. we begin our coverage in iraq with our chief foreign correspondent richard engle who is in the northern city of irbil.

richard, you're in iraq where the attack took place, but i want to go to the other side of the border to iran. from our reporting what you've gathered, the mood in iran two weeks ago, they had domestic political issues. they were divided in that country. how divided do they seem today? >> reporter: a lot less divided. a couple of weeks ago there were violent protests in the streets of tehran and many other cities with people saying the government should change, should even be overthrown. now young people in tehran, old people in tehran are uniting behind the government in a way that they haven't been in a very long time. if the u.s. wanted to isolate the regime, if president trump wanted to put the regime on the ropes, it seems to have done just the opposite. >> the immediate impact could be an iraq -- we know the parliament in iraq is meeting today and the future of u.s. forces in iraq could be at stake here.

is it possible that taking out soleimani while something that many american leaders have wanted to see happen, is the cost going to be america getting kicked out of iraq? >> reporter: it's possible. there are many particularly shiite leaders in this country who plan to ask for just that. they will say that the u.s. presence is no longer constructive, it's no longer helpful and it's time for the americans to leave. but that comes with an enormous cost. the last time that iraq effectively kicked out the united states and made it impossible for u.s. troops to stay here with the status of forces agreement, the country basically collapsed into civil war. >> based on your reporting and assessments, what does an iranian retaliation look like? is it conventional? is it asymmetrical? >> reporter: most likely asymmetrical. what soleimani built and why

he's so popular in iran is he built an outer layer of armor that protected the iranian homeland. a network of shia militia groups, hezbollah in lebanon, shia militias in iraq, also alliances in syria, and that outer network is now angry, mobilized and could be directed to carry out attacks. could those attacks be in the persian gulf against shipping lanes? already the uk is sending two more warships to protect british shipping interests in the persian gulf. so i think you would likely see some sort of asymmetrical attack through these proxies. but the problem is the u.s. doesn't fight with proxies. the u.s. would likely see this kind of attack and respond with conventional weapons and then we're in a shooting war. >> very quickly -- >> reporter: we will see. but there is a lot of risk right now if iran responds. >> you've covered a lot of risk in am middle east. how much deja vu are you having? >> reporter: when i saw the 82nd airborne getting the packs and

heading back to the region and there was a rocket attack into the green zone. i'm once again here on a rooftop in iraq talking about militias and troops coming into the region, i thought, wow, we are back in 2007 at the peak of the violence when the u.s. was fighting on multiple fronts against isis. it was al qaeda then, now it's isis and against shia militias and iran and iraq back in play. who knew we wanted those days to come back. >> richard engle reporting for us in iraq. richard, thank you very much. joining me now is the secretary of state, mike pompeo. secretary pompeo, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning, chuck, it's good to be with you this morning. >> let me start with the shooting -- the strike against soleimani, the killing of him. he's been a threat to the united states, to u.s. interests for years. why now? why was it urgent this week? >> chuck, you've captured it. we've all known about qasem soleimani for a long time. he's been a terrorist. he's a designated terrorist. he's someone who's inflicted

many deaths on americans, over 600 in iraq and countless other places. he was even connected to what happened in beirut so many years ago. you would know this too, chuck. this was different. in the sense of we had seen recent deaths, reason killing on december 27th, a strike, an operation conducted by hezbollah, orchestrated by soleimani himself, killed an american. we could see he was continuing down this path, that there were in fact plots that he was working on that were aimed directly at significant harm to american interests throughout the region, not just in iraq. president trump made the decision this was the time to stop this reign of terror tromthis guy who was the glue, who put this all together, who was the irgc leader for, goodness, a couple decades, and had put so much pain and suffering on the american people. and frankly, the people in the region too. hundreds of thousands of deaths in syria. millions displaced in syria. this is a bad guy and it was time to take him out. >> why are you confident that

they have already promoted his deputy, the ayatollah has already basically, you know, pumped this guy up, his replacement. why are you convinced if there is an imminent operational attack getting put together against american interests, why are you convinced that taken out soleimani has done anything to stop it? >> we would have been culpably negligent had we not taken this action. the american people would have said we weren't doing the right thing to protect and defend american lives. president trump has been crystal career. >> is it that imminent? was it so imminent and so big it would have been seen as that kind of negligence? >> we made the right decision. there's lots of intelligence. you've seen some of it out in the public. the death of the american december 27th. we had intelligence on a go forward basis of risk as well. the president made the right decision. we will reduce risk. i think general milley said, is there still risk of attack? of course there is. we're doing everything we can to make sure we take that down and protect american lives. when the president laid out his national security strategy three years ago, this is all in the context of a larger american

strategy to create peace and stability in the middle east. a key element is taking down qasem soleimani who has been a destabilizing force in the region for so long. >> okay. so was the justification that he's been this destabilizing force in the region or was the justification this imminent threat? >> chuck, it's never one thing. you've been at this a long time. thuamerican people are smart, too. it's never one moment, one instance. it's a collective, a full situational awareness of risk and analysis. i am confident and the intelligence community presented us a set of facts that made clear that the risk from doing nothing exceeded the risk of taking the action that we took. and we made the right decision. we protected and defended the american people. president trump has said repeatedly as he tweeted again last night we will take all actions necessary to preserve and protect america. >> can you confidently say america is safer today? >> absolutely. >> how do you square that statement with the fact that we're bringing -- you're advising american citizens

essentially to leave the region, particularly iraq. we have the homeland security department bracing americans for cyber attacks, saying that we know the iranians have been through our infrastructure. it is likely to happen and there won't be a warning from it. it doesn't sound like we're safer today after this. >> yeah, chuck, we're definitely safer today. 100% certainty that america is safer today. >> then why did we put out that warning after the soleimani -- we do expect retaliations against american citizens now, correct? >> chuck, you're concentrating on the second and the moment. president trump is focused deeply on keeping americans safe over the long haul. preserving and protecting, defending america is the mission that we have. it may be that there's a little noise here in the interim that the iranians make the choice to respond. i hope that they don't. president trump has made clear what we will do in response if they do, that our response will be decisive and vigorous just as it has been so far. but we're going to take all actions necessary, not only in iraq but throughout the region to protect americans, american

citizens as well as my diplomats and service members who are serving overseas. we're always going to do the right thing to protect america. i am confident that the decision we made to take down this terrorist, this designated terrorist who had inflicted so much harm over such an extended period was the right course of action to reduce risk to america. >> during the state department briefing on friday, the aides -- there was a lot of confidence being expressed without a lot of evidence that you thought the iranians aren't going to -- they likely won't retaliate. why do you think they won't? why do you have this potential confidence they may not retaliate? >> chuck, we're prepared for everything. i'm not going to get in the game of predictions. we have intelligence, lots of reconnaissance, good observation of what's taking place. what we're doing is preparing for all possible courses of actions that the iranian regime may take and we are driving, we are driving a strategy that we have had in place now for three years diplomatic, economic, now

military, to convince the iranian regime to simply behave like a normal nation and to raise the cost if they inflict harm on america if they do. >> you talked about a maximum pressure campaign. you just outlined it now, you just went through what we've been going through the last three years. the fact that you've had to go to military, doesn't that tell you that sanctions haven't worked and the maximum pressure campaign is not working? >> just the opposite, chuck. we suffered from eight years of iranian support from america. we gave them billions of dollars. we gave them resources. we allowed countries to trade with them, to build up their economy. what we are now having to correct for is the enormous economic activity that took place during that iranian nuclear deal that president trump rightly got out of in may of 2018. it's taken a little time and will continue to take time but we are going to restore deterrents. we had a big hill to climb up, chuck. we had seen hundreds of thousands killed in syria, millions had to depart the region. we've seen lebanese hezbollah,

hamas, the pij in gaza strip, all of these terror organizations, the shia militias which we are challenged to push back against, all underwritten by american policy in the obama administration. we've flipped the switch. we're draining those resources and going to protect america and keep american people safe. >> i'm curious, how do we get out of a cycle of escalating violence? the president tweeted we have targeted 52 iranian sites representing the 52 american hostages taken back in 1979. and he said to iran those targets and iran itself we'll hit very fast, very hard, even noted there were cultural sites being targeted. is that -- is that already being lined up at the pentagon? we have our response ready for whatever iran -- we have target sites here, these 52 target sites? can you confirm that? >> chuck, the american people should know that we have prepared for this, that we are ready. >> we're going to target cultural -- >> that our responses are lawful and that the president will take every action necessary to respond should iran decide to escalate.

we hope that they don't. we've communicated clearly and crisply as to what we have as an expectation and communicated clearly and crisply what we will do if they choose another path. we hope they will not, but we're prepared in the event they choose to do so. >> what do you tell the families that have americans held hostage by this iranian regime. what do you tell americans who have been working with you at the state department, those families who probably look at this and think, okay, whatever progress we were making, no more progress. is that what these families have to prepare for, that maybe their loved ones will be there longer, not shorter? >> i love these families. they are suffering greatly. they're suffering from the very iranian regime we're seeking to counter. most of these folks were taken during the previous administration. it was a policy that was designed to guarantee that the iranian regime would have power, authority, capacity to take americans and other westerners too. those families should know that

we built out a coalition, we're patrolling the straits of hormuz with that coalition, there's an air defense strategy attached to the coalition and we have multiple countries now to sanction them. we have built a strategy to put america in place where the iranian regime will no longer threaten american hostages. they should know this, too. we have worked diligently to get those held in iran back. we had one returned just within the last several weeks. we continue to work on that process, to get every american held anywhere in the world, including by the kleptocrates and theocrates in iran, to get them to return american hostages. we will never give up on that mission. >> last question. if targeting soleimani is not regime change, then what are we advocating, if not regime change? >> as i said before, we clearly stated our strategy for three years. we want the regime to change its behavior. ultimately the leadership in iran will be determined by the iranian people. we saw the protests. i am confident we will continue to see protests. they weren't protesting against

america. they weren't protesting saying death to america. they were demanding that the iranian leadership behave in a way that takes care of the iranian people. i am confident that we'll continue to support the iranian people in their quest for freedom. >> secretary pompeo, i have to leave it there. thank you for coming on. i appreciate it. joining me now is the vice chair of the senate intelligence committee, democrat mark warner of individual individual. welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you, chuck. >> you're one of the few democratic lawmakers that has been briefed after the fact. >> after the fact. >> nobody other than lindsey graham may have gotten a briefing before the fact. i want to focus on this threat. you heard what the secretary of state said there. you've been briefed about what this threat was. how imminent does it seem and is it any different than what soleimani has been doing over the last decade? >> i accept the notion there was a real threat. the question of how imminent is something that i need more information on.

let's step back for a moment and look at what's happened. america always has to be strong, but also smart. strong in the sense that we always need to protect our people and our interests and soleimani was a bad guy, there's no question about that. but we also have to be smart. there's three things that i didn't hear from the secretary and i have not heard from the administration. first, over the last month, we've seen across the region great pushback against iran, not only in iran itself from the people protesting against the regime, in lebanon where people were on the streets saying too much iranian influence, in iraq even where people were protesting against the iranian-backed militias. that anti-iranian effort now seems to have transformed as we've seen the images over the last 24 hours into anti-american. >> you're concerned soleimani is being used to rally. >> a rallying force, not only within iran, but as we may hear later today, even in iraq where

we may be now asked to leave. >> by the way, there's breaking news. the prime minister of iraq is recommending that. >> again, how does that make us stronger? secondly, there is usually a congressional consulting process. it's both constitutionally required, but it's also important because, one, you potentially get members of congress to buy in ahead of time and, two, they may ask that hard question that's not asked in an insular group. three, you consult your allies, because we don't want to go at this alone. what we've already seen by not consulting particularly with our nato allies, we've seen that the nato forces in iraq have already stopped training the iraqi troops. that again does not make us stronger. >> how do we get out of this now? the reason i say this, it's sort of -- it's broken. soleimani has been killed. the iranians are going to retaliate. can you imagine us not retaliating against that retaliation? and would that be prudent? >> again, soleimani, taking him out was a big thing. this is one of the top three leaders in iran.

thinking through all those consequences, if you take this action, that's what i want to hear from the administration that i have not heard so far. i know the secretary of state is trying in his own words to de-escalate. i'm not sure the president by his kind of taunting tweets is necessarily trying to de-escalate. i'm not sure how we will be seen as both stronger and smarter if we have our iraqi allies asking us to leave, if our nato allies don't feel like they're going to be informed before we take this kind of action, and frankly if the people in the region that were against the iranian regime all across the region are now rallying against america. >> let's say there's a democratic president coming next. how does the next administration -- iran is not going to deal with any presidential administration for a while. they're not going to trust anything. it feels like we're going to get backed into a military conflict whether we like it or not. >> i hope and pray that's not the case. how we get a path off this in a

way where you can bring the american people, you can bring allies, you can bring people in the region, those are the questions that i think we all, democrats and republicans, need to ask the administration this week. >> i know diplomacy is never supposed -- it's never too late for diplomacy, but with this iranian regime, is it? >> well, there was a reason why under regime -- under administrations democratic and republican alike in the past, president obama, both president bushes, president clinton, you go through that process of working with your allies, you go through the process of consulting with congress. you don't always get it right, but you always try to be both strong and smart. taking out soleimani may have some short-term benefit but the smartness in terms of in the region with our allies and bringing along the american people, i think the jury is really out on that. >> let me ask you a question for any of these senators right now. there's supposed to be an impeachment trial at some point.

we've got this situation with iran. what should be the focus of congress right now? >> i think congress has to do both of our constitutional responsibilities. one, protect the american people and be a co-equal branch of government with the administration to make sure we keep americans safe. secondly, we also have to take on the responsibility of what's going to come over at some point from the house and that's to conduct a full and fair trial. >> you said at some point. should speaker pelosi send these over tomorrow? >> i think -- i still have hopes that as we all step up and take that oath to be impartial jurors that there can be agreement amongst the senators, all of our colleagues, that we ought to make sure we get the facts. part of the facts ought to be let's make sure we hear from people with direct knowledge of what happened in the case of the situation with ukraine. we've seen already in the last couple weeks over the holidays where information has trickled out with additional documents. why wouldn't we want to have that information before we

hear -- this could actually exonerate the president, but you've got to be able to have that information and these individuals come forward. >> right. do you still advise -- do you think the speaker should withhold the articles until she gets some assurances on what the trial looks like? >> i still think when the senators come back and take that oath to be impartial jurors, that the responsibility that will put upon us, we'll find a path to get the information we need. just to have that full and fair trial. i want to get this behind us, but we've got to have the information. >> do you think this is a good strategy or not? >> i'm going to let the speaker decide. i will also say i think the seriousness of this, particularly when we've got these issues involving iran and the protection of americans at stake, i hope we'll all take a deep breath and say let's go through this in a full, orderly, responsible process. that's going to require frankly access to some of these own documents and letting the pred's own men come in and have a chance to tell their story.

>> mark warner, thanks for coming on and sharing your views. happy new year, sir. >> thank you, chuck. when we come back, the rising tensions with iran have added quite the wrinkle to the presidential race. up next, democratic candidate elizabeth warren. elizabeth warren like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in.

you're having one more bite! no! one more bite! ♪ kraft. for the win win. a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. cascade platinum.

welcome back. perhaps no one has had a more up-and-down run for the democratic nomination than elizabeth warren. the senator from massachusetts started the race in single digits. after strong debate performances, she was at the top of some national polls. since then warren has slipped a bit into third place nationally behind biden and sanders, though not very far behind. after coming under attack for how realistic her plans are. joining me now from dubuque, iowa, is elizabeth warren. senator warren, what are we, 29 days from caucus day, right? >> that's right. everyone counts. >> everyone counts and every hour and second counts. before i get to the campaign, i want to ask you about the situation in iran, what the secretary of state claimed. he said not acting, not taking

soleimani out, that it -- the consequences would have been worse than not acting. so far from what you've learned, what do you believe was the right call here? >> look, we are not safer because donald trump had soleimani killed. we are much closer to the edge of war. the question is why now? why not a month ago? why not a month from now? and the administration simply can't keep its story straight. it points in all different directions. the last time we saw this was this past summer over ukraine. when people started asking questions about what had happened on the phone call between donald trump and the president of ukraine and why aid to ukraine had been stopped, the administration did the same thing, they pointed in all different directions and give a whole lot of different answers. of course what it turned out to be is that donald trump was doing what donald trump does, and that is he was advancing his own personal political

interests. and i think -- >> do you think that's happening here? >> i think the question people reasonably ask is next week donald trump faces the start potentially of an impeachment trial. and why now? i think people are starting to ask why now did he do this? why not delay and why this one is so dangerous is that he is truly taking us right to the edge of war. and that is something that puts us at risk, it puts the middle east at risk, it puts the entire world at risk. >> look, you brought up the impeachment trial. you're right, two weeks ago if you'd asked me what would this show have been about, i would assume we would have been previewing that trial that might have been starting tomorrow or tuesday. it is not now. it sounds like you believe you want to investigate and find out

if this is a motivation? >> well, i think that people are asking why this moment? you know, as i said, the administration can't keep its story straight, and in the case of ukraine, it was all about protecting donald trump's skin. we know that donald trump was very upset about this upcoming impeachment trial. but look what he's doing now. he is taking us to the edge of war. we've been at war for 20 years in the middle east. and now he's talking about expanding that war. this has been something that has cost thousands of american lives. it has cost us enormously in many ways, both at home and around the world. and at the same time look what it's done to the middle east. millions of people who have been killed, who have been injured, who have been displaced. the job of the president is to keep us safer. the job of the president is not to move us to the edge of war. >> let me turn to the campaign. you came out in favor, surprised some people, you came out in

favor, somewhat reluctantly in the way you put it out there, for usmca, nafta 2.0. here's what you said about it a year ago. let me play that. >> trump's deal won't stop the serious and ongoing harm nafta causes american workers. it won't stop outsourcing. it won't raise wages, and it won't create jobs. >> what changed in your mind? >> the deal. democrats got in and negotiated a very different deal than we had a year ago. i really want to give credit to people like jan schakowsky who got the whole giveaway to the drug industry pulled out and rosa delaura, sherrod brown, who made sure we actually had some enforcement of working protections in the deal. look, this is not a great arrangement. it's a better -- it's an improvement over where nafta stands right now. look at the box the president

has put us in with farmers. farmers have just had their legs taken out from under them in one trade war after another that donald trump has initiated on his own. farmers need help, they are in real trouble and they get some help from this arrangement. same thing with workers. workers are in trouble, they need some help. >> as you know, senator sanders still is against this deal. using similar rhetoric that you have. let me ask it this way, you have backed off a bit on your medicare for all plans, meaning you want to let the public sort of get traction on it first. you've reversed course a bit here on nafta from where you were to where you are now. what should voters take away from this about you? >> i want to be practical on the trade deal. if we can get some improvement for our farmers who are suffering, if we can get some improvement in enforcement for our workers, then i want to see us do that. and then as president i want to

see us negotiate very different kind of trade deal. and the kind of trade deal that we should be negotiating is one that starts with the fact that everybody wants access to america's market. that means we should be using that leverage to raise environmental standards all around the world, to raise labor standards around the world. we should negotiate for a better deal, not just to back out of this box, but we should also provide relief right now to the farmers who are suffering, to the workers who are suffering. that's how i see it. i see the same kind of thing on health care. we need to make improvement. you know what i'll do on day one as president? i'll defend the affordable care act against the sabotage of the trump administration and i'll reduce the cost of prescription drugs that have been jacked up by the pharmaceutical industry. i'll reduce the cost of epi-pens and insulin and hiv/aids drugs.

the president has the authority to do that all by herself. doesn't need congress. that's what i'm going to do. i want to get as much relief to as many people as quickly as we can. i think that ought to be the job of the president of the united states. >> senator elizabeth warren, democrat from massachusetts coming to us from iowa, thanks for coming on and sharing your views. stay safe on the trail. >> thank you for having me here. >> you got it. when we come back, the growing tensions with iran, impeachment, the democratic race. how's that for a 2020 kickoff? the panel is next. virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ here's another cleaning tip from mr. clean. cleaning tough bathroom and kitchen messes with sprays and wipes can be a struggle. there's an easier way. try mr. clean magic eraser. just wet, squeeze and erase tough messes like bathtub soap scum... and caked-on grease from oven doors.

now mr. clean magic eraser comes in disposable sheets. they're perfect for icky messes on stovetops... in microwaves... and all over the house. for an amazing clean, try mr. clean magic eraser, and mr. clean magic eraser sheets. (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly) when the food you love doesn't love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. ♪ tum tum-tum tum tums

with tums smoothies. here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

welcome back. the panel is here. former homeland security secretary jeh johnson, betsy woodruff swan, host of kasie d.c., kasie hunt, your first appearance since having a child. >> thrilled to be here. thanks for having me. >> your child is out of this world, and the former republican governor of north carolina, pat mccrory. i'm going to start with a little campaign rhetoric from candidate donald trump. take a listen. >> the current strategy of toppling regimes with no plan for what to do the day after only produces power vacuums that are filled simply by terrorists. enough endless war, it's time to have a real plan for victory. they have dragged us into foreign wars that make us less safe. >> all right. i want to get into the substance in a minute. pat mccrory, i'll start with that political -- does the

president have a potential long-term political box he may be in now with iran and that he may have -- he may end up in a war, whether he likes it or not? >> well, any president dealing with the middle east is put into this situation throughout my lifetime. but the fact of the matter is there's a lot of hypocrisy. one u.s. senator just two weeks ago called the president and our country impotent because of not responding to the attack against our embassy. and yet when the president killed a terrorist who was hiding behind the iranian flag but he was really a terrorist who was only 15 miles away from our embassy, he's then called by democratic leaders incompetent, unstable, act of war, terrorist. just verbal attacks by our democratic leaders. and that's making him more weak because i think the democrats at this point in time went too far in their rhetoric in making our country weaker in responding now to the iranians' possible

counterattack. >> are you implying that the president overresponded because of these democratic attacks? >> no. no, i'm saying the president when he did respond, now the democrats have made these very personal attacks. in fact they could almost be speaking points for the iranian regime. we can't make our president the villain in this. we can disagree with our president. i have no problem with that. but i think the democrats are playing this wrong at the same time. >> what's the appetite on capitol hill here, both sides of the aisle? >> well, i think for the republicans, the challenge here is they do not want to be seen not defending this president, so even if they have reservations, they are holding back those reservations. the republicans i've talked to behind the scenes are focused on making the argument that this was legal, that this was a lawful attack, that it was -- that this man was a terrorist. i think the distinction that you made about the flag is the important one from a legal perspective. was this person an actor of the iranian state. >> the secretary of state kept saying the word terrorist,

terrorist, terrorist over again and that wasn't an accident. we've got a counselor over here. >> for democrats, this, and you heard this from mark warner, this is a tricky line to walk. you know, they have to see the intelligence, most of them haven't. i thought the fact that warner was willing to acknowledge that there was a threat. he said, okay, i buy that, is telling. now, the question, of course, is it imminent or not. but for this president from a political perspective, i mean do you want democrats a month out from iowa to be talking about how we shouldn't be going after iran? >> betsy, it did seem as if the secretary of state did back off a little bit on how imminent this threat was. >> that's right. what he didn't say but what's important to know in the context of how the administration thinks about iran is the way the president's advisers who supported this iran move are making the case for it behind the scenes. they're saying, look, obviously it's not proportional to kill a military commander in response to the killing of a u.s. civilian.

they know they're vaulting multiple steps up the escalatory ladder. that's very much by design because they want to change how iran's calculus toward the united states is working. whether or not that bet pays off is very much up in the air, we don't know. but it's a dramatic change from the prior administration. >> jeh, before you were homeland security secretary you were counselor at the defense department. >> right. >> explain for viewers why does mike pompeo keep saying terrorist? there is a legal reason he keeps saying terrorist, isn't it? >> no, not necessarily. >> okay. >> if you believe everything that our government is saying about general soleimani, he was a lawful military objective and the president under his constitutional authority as commander in chief had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that

was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective, but that's not the only question here. for a very long time the bush administration, the obama administration had been engaged in what we refer to now as shadow warfare with the iranian government. last thursday night was what we refer to as a decapitation strike where we've taken out a very high-profile member of the iranian government. that is a provocative, in your face act, where you kill a senior member of the iranian government and say, yes, i did it. i hope this administration has carefully considered the second and third effects of that. one very plain second order effect which any foreign officer could predict is the reaction in iraq with the growing shia political influence in that country. >> right. >> we face the very real prospect that the iraqi government will want us out of the country. >> one piece of feedback i got

at the charlotte airport last night outside the beltway from some citizens, what took us so long. this guy was only 15 miles, only 15 miles from the embassy that was attacked just days earlier. and i think people are now going, wait a minute, this guy was -- they keep using the term proxy. this guy was running proxy. now, that means he was running terrorist groups under, again, being protected by the flag of iran. and i think he was walk -- this general was walking a fine line and a rather arrogant line. >> nobody is arguing that this man was a good actor on the world stage. >> no, i'm arguing that he wasn't just iranian. >> was the risk of taking him out worth it for americans? >> what are the implications? >> that's a fair question and we don't know the answer to that and won't know for maybe a long time. >> we might know pretty fast, though, because the response from the iraqis is currently under way in parliament in baghdad. it's front of minds to american intel and defense officials exactly what's happening in this 24-hour period. when they gave a briefing

classified behind closed doors to senate staff on friday, there was an extensive discussion, according to my sources familiar with the briefing, specifically about how the iraqi parliament was responding and how to dissuade them from voting to push out u.s. troops. >> jeh johnson, very quickly, your former department put out a very alarming alert last night. >> it was very candid. >> the iranians' ability to cyber attack us. could they temporarily cripple cities? >> we have to prepare for that very distinct possibility. the national threat advisory put out last night said that the iranian government could strike with little or no notice on a moment's notice, and that hezbollah has demonstrated the capability and intent to strike the homeland. that's a very candid statement. >> and they put that statement out after the soleimani attack. when we come back, the 2020 census gets to determine which states gain or lose house seats and, therefore, electoral votes. how both parties see promise and

peril in the new battleground map that is coming. that's next. we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic.

so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health. quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big.

start stopping with nicorette that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. welcome back. data download time. 2020 isn't just a presidential election year, it's also a census year. and this is what is going to determine how many electoral votes each state gets. we already have a pretty good sense of where things are headed. first, the losers. the firm election data services found these ten states are likely to lose a house seat and, therefore, an electoral college vote after 2020. five states that went republican

in 2016 and five that went democratic. all right, tie game so far. there are some clear winners here. all of these states are gaining one electoral vote after the census is done. three of them are red states in 2016, and two of them are blue. but the biggest winners, perennial battleground state florida, will get two electoral voters. they'll be sitting at 31. and then there's texas gaining the most with three. that means texas will have a whopping 41 electoral votes in 2024. a huge development in a red state where demographic changes are inching it toward swing state status. 72 electoral votes just for florida and texas. throw in california and you get the picture. if texas is in play, it would mean not a whole new map but a whole new battlefield. >> when we come back, end game and the number of the day. 29, that's how many days are left before the iowa caucuses. and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon.

how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ - do that are degrading?ideo tapes, film reels, or photos, legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off. {tires screeching} {truck honking} [alarm beeping] (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances.

but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network...

only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today. there is a presidential race taking place in 29 days. i thought it was interesting at the she decided to go right there with iran. >> the wag the dog allegations are not a surprise but still significant for her to suggest the president engaged in this for underhanded political motives. one thing warren's rivals

noticed was at the she basically put out two different statements. first she said suleimani, terrible person and the following day calling it an assassination. a term at the has significant legal weight. her rival campaigns are saying it's an example of her struggling to keep both ends of the democratic partee happy. >> bernie is going on the attack. and he said it's a lot of baggage joe takes into the campaign. that's the iraq war vote. i want to vokes on sanders via biden. we don't know if voters are going to look at this on the democratic side and say steady hand joe biden? or how about the guy who was always against the interventions here. >> i was talking to sources about this great question

yesterday inside the campaigns. i think it depends on who you're trying to talk to. if you're joe biden, you're thinking about voters who like the strong posture. and the arguments they're make rg you go with a guy that's a steady hand. a return to a more normal version of this. i think the question is going to be how much do the base voters remember and think through iraq as a motivating factor? that's what swept obama into office in 2008. are people past at the? or are they seeing at the in this context and willing to make a bet with bernie sanders over it? >> i mean biden's positions and bernie's positions are different for a reason. >> yes, and foreign policy, as you know, does not typically loom large in an election in a

primary debate but it did because of at the iraq war vote. and obama was on record opposing the iraq war at the time. democratic primary voters, as i think casey has said, focus on who's going to be stable, thoughtful verses somebody who is completely dubbish. who's going to be careful about getting us into anath other arm conflict. >> the hit of the wag the dog hit on the president here, how concerned should he be about at the perception? half the country doesn't believe what comes out of the president's mouth. >> because at this time i think our country's got to have one voice on foreign policy. i don't mind the criticism. it's the type of criticism and accusations. >> didn't he bring this upon himself because he doesn't choose to speak with one voice.

let me put up old tweets of citizen donald trump in 2012. this is what he said about iran and barack obama. watch out i predict at some point president obama will attack iran to save face. there's always a point he behaved in a way he's upset people behave towards him. >> and people signing pledges they'll never get into a long-term war. this always happens until you get to office, you don't know what you're going to confront. the two democrats i saw millions of ads for, stieer and ploombering. steyer showing us pictures of him growing up i don't know where he's going. bloomberg was interesting seeing his ads. he's bringing up a whole issue

of headaclth care in new york c. >> i was struck too. you're like what? tom steyer? and bloomberg? >> i came back after four months away at the looks different than september. i will say at the when you look at the actual process and, chuck, you know this better than anybody. there have been campaigns at the got in late. rudy giuliani knows this better than anybody. you look at how to win the democratic nomination. there are not many plo bloomberg/biden districts out there. >> tlatshat's the part i never understood is bloomberg. >> he was governor. >> thank you for watching. this is going to be an incredibly important month, if not year in politics.

because if it's sunday it's "meet the press." ♪ the following is a list of snow day closings due to inclement weather... all two-wheel drive cross-overs should close for the day. wannabe suvs should close for the day. regular four door sedans should close for the foreseeable future. all jeep 4x4 vehicles will remain open- despite the harsh weather conditions. ♪ creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy.

better hurry in. 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!

[ suspens♪ ul music ]

♪ welcome to "kasie d.c. "responseible for the deaths of hundreds of americans. but what will iran do in response? now iraq wants american troops out, as thousands more to the region. and i'll talk to republican congressman and former cia officer, will hurd, about how little we know about intelligence. and talk to representative