percent. oil is stable. anything above 50 bucks. gold is at five-year high. this is what happens when people are worried about what goes on in the world. i'm going to see you back here with stephanie wool and 3:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for watching. "deadline white house" begins right now. it's 4:00 in new york as the shock waves ripple from donald trump's deadly strike from iran's brutal leader. there is tectonic plate shifting impeachment news. john bolton, who reportedly described the ukrainian pressure campaign as a drug deal, and rudy giuliani, the president's lawyer, who remains in the middle of the effort to push the ukrainians in the bidens as a grenade to blow everybody up.

announcing today he will testify in a senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed. bolton playing for the history books or both. has in the absence of any ruling forcing his testimony, examine the separation of powers questioned himself and off to testify before the senate. 71% of americans would like to hear from americans like bolton. and only takes four republicans for a vote to subpoena him to pass the senate. knowing bolton for the better parted of two decades, it's a deepen bet he might know where they may be hiding. from bolton's stunning announcement today, quote, the house has concluded its constitutional responsibility by adopting articles of impeachment rela related to the ukraine matter. it now falls to the senate to try impeachments.

and it does not appear possible at the a final judicial resolution at the is sti resolution that a still unanswered constitutional question can be un# obtained. since my testimony is once again at issue, i've had to resolve as best as i could based on careful consideration and study. i've conclude fd the senate issued a subpoena for my testimony, i'm prepared to testify. and reporting indicates at the testimony might pose a threat to donald trump's standings. quote, former white house officials and people close to bolton have indicated his testimony would likely be damming to mr. trump and put additional pressure to consider convicting him. at the bombshell is where we start with some of our favorite reporters and friends. the aforementioned carol lee, who broke this news, the white house bureau chief for the "washington post."

former cia and -- jeremy bash is here. former spokesman for the chief of justice is back and carol lee, we'll start with you. take us through the origins f you will, of this john bolton decision. >> well, if you want to go back to when this was still under consideration of whether or not the house would subpoena bolton and he would testify there, his position is i will not testify unless subpoenaed and a court rules in my favor saying i have to testify. at the same time what we heard from his lawyer was this tantalizing bits about -- at the suggested he wanted to testify, at the he knew things at the hadn't yet come out publicly. he was present for things at the the house intelligence committee was unaware of as yet. so he was waiting for this court decision but all the while

saying i'm here if you want to talk to me and the house decided thanks but no thanks. and he then went back and looked at these constitutional issues himself and decided at the he can testify and at the the only one at the has absolute immunity is the president himself. and so he is now saying he's willing to do at the. and he's -- and that he would essentially serve as a witness in the senate trial. i got tatell you has the white house a little on edge for all the reasons you've said. they really feared his testimony because of everything he knows. and so the real question is a, whether there's several, whether mitch mcconnell actually subpoenas bolton and this will come to pass, and b, if he does, what will he say that's new and persuasive enough? or is it just the optics of

having john bolton testifying to the fact at the we've heard ulgters testify to and does at the have an impact on some of the more moderate republicans? those are the questions we want answers to right now. he's willing to do it. >> you covered him and sort of his sphere of national security issues. for a long time. but he is to conservative foreign policy what scalia was to judicial conservative thought and policy. the idea he could be smeared, dismissed as hysterical the way they thought yovanovitch and fiona hill. it's not the case with bolton. he is a conservative conservative. he is in good standing with fox news hosts, with the exception of tucker carlson. and the idea at the he examined -- i mean, there is a three-year record now of stone-calling congress.

there is more, sort of cover, for not showing up on capitol hill than ragtional or legal or political. what other than national security interests and concerns about donald trump's foreign poli policy conduct would propel a decision like this from bolton? >> john bolton is someone who has a lot of interest in and he's kind of an article two nerd. he like -- constitutional questions are things he's thought about for some time. there's also the piece at the he saw things we all know, according to people at the spoke to him about it, at the he was uncomfortable, disagreed with and thought were wrong. and some were by people he didn't like in the white house. and namely, acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney and mike pompeo.

so, clearly, he would have a lot to say about whatever role those tw two-had and whether there's anything new, we don't know. but presumably there's a real possibility there is. in terms of just him and being who he is and unable to be smeared by the republicans in the same way. john bolton has a super pack and at the super pack is supporting some of the senators who will be jurists in this trial. his ties with the party are deep. he's not somebody they're going to easily be able to distance themselves from. what john bolton would intend to do is simply tell the truth of what he saw and what happened. and as we've seen, when you get other individuals who have witnessed these sorts of things w the ukraine matter, when they say it out loud, when the

cameras are on, it can be quite damming for whoever he's speaking about. and to have john bolton do at the, takes it to a totally different level. >> so, just telling the truth would include either corroborating the testimony already on the record from multiple bolton deputies or basically calling them liars and describing their testimony as false, which serves no indication in anyone's reporting that's his plan. so it's already on the record from fiona hill and others really goes to concerns about the illegality of the ukraine scheme. it's been corroborated in all the recent reportings from new york, recent reporting from "new york times." let me play some of the legal concerns at the have been testified to. >> specific instruction was at the i-to go to the lawyers to john eisenberg, our senior

counsel for the national security counsel to basisically say you tell eisenberg at the i am not part of this whatever drug deal at the mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal at the mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> did you tell ambassador bolton about this situation? >> i did and requested his availability for a secure phone call. call the lawyers. >> so we know what kind of lawyer donald trump wants. he wants his roy cone. he seems to have at the in the attorney general. it certainly brings the lawyers, at the all the national security folks who john bolton sent upstairs to the lawyers on the second floor, into this conversation as well. and if john bolton is willing to

say absolute immunity isn't the thing, i wonder how many people will follow him up to capitol hill. >> that's a really good point and something we should keep in mind about john bolton's potential testimony is at the bolto bolton had so much more intimate access to the president. those who testified before the house had a lot of information, vivid detail and yet their access to the president was somewhat limited. bolton was around president trump for hours every day. had lengthy conversations with him about ukraine and other topics. if he were to come forward, he could not only corroborate what people like fiona hill and gordon sondland and others said in their testimony in the house, but he could add new information and, importantly, fill in dialogue with things

specifically president trump said or directed to his lawyers and the other people in the room and at the could be very explosive to the white house. and i think is one of the reasons why there has been so much concern in trump's orbit about bolton coming forward and testifying. >> did anyone from the white house see this announcement from bolton coming? >> it's unclear at this point how the white house is going to respond. they could take action to compel or restrict bolton from testifying. they've made it very clear in the previous weeks they did not want boltn to testify and did not want other senior officials to testify. remember, the house wanted mick mulvaney to testify and he was blocked from doing so. same with pompeo and other key witnesses. but if bolton were to break with the white house, that's significant. we don't know what the white house is going to try to do to stop him. >> so the mueller investigati -

investigation-had access to advisors. don mcgahn basically narrates the second volume of the mueller report. but no one has appeard before congress in at the capacity. >> so one of the things you've seen throughout the house impeachment is a complete stone walling of documents and witnesses. and what you've seen in the last few days is remarkable. because just at the end of last week you-security a blog head reveal documents at the had been with held from the department. it's a showing at the president actually was behind holding the aid. and it's explicit there. and blow number two is today with bolton saying i'm willing to testify. even if mcconnell's going to

stick to his guns and say we're not doing it, this puts so much pressure on the senate to -- and the few senators thinking you know what? i care about not just appearance but actual fairness. the first principal is you want to get at the truth, then documents and witnesses are what you'd use to get at the truth. >> and the entire argument were there weren't any first-hand witnesses. >> absolutely. and i think will hear from bolton, according to other witnesses, at the he went to the president to lobby him to say this was a bad idea. >> you're right. >> he is clearly going to be able to say this was the president's decision. something that's obvious because the idea this happened without the president knowing about it seems beyond far fetched. but you will have a witness willing to say it. it's a win win for the democrats.

if the senate doesn't subpoena him, he's willing to testify. and i think for fair minded republicans, that's a pretty good argument. >> jeremy and matt miller are going to get in on this breaking bolton news. but we have other breaking news having to do with american troops in iraq. a letter reveals they may be in the early stages of withdrawing american women from at the area. "washington post" is reporting general sealy sent a letter to the iraqi military saying u.s. forces will now prepare for onward movement. we respect your sovereign decision to order our departure. a decision at the was ratified

in the iraqi parliament over the weekend. we're getting a very different story from the pentagon though. and courtney, what are you hearing? >> so, nicole, this letter came from general sealy, the commander of task force in baghdad. basically the operational control of all of iraq. he sent it to the deputy at the ministry of defense. he's basically in charge of the conjoined center in baghdad. he's warning him of an uptick of movement in helicopters. more and more movement out of the base where they are in baghdad. these are, as he's explaining it, the beginning of u.s. troops starting to leave. many aren't really needed. they've suspended the counterisis operations. the more u.s. troops, the more

at the need be protected. it's no doubt this is him notifying the iraqis of the beginning of this movement to reposition forlss. now, as you said, secretary of defense mark esper just came down to the press core and denied at the, at this point, there's any plan to move u.s. troops out. saying in fact they are repositioning forls forces throughout the region but at this point, there's no plans to leave iraq. we heard from secretary esper for the first time, since the president has spoken over the weekend, about potentially attacking cultural sites in iran, first via twitter and then on the flight back from mar-a-lago last night. secretary esper, when asked whether the u.s. would strike cultural sites, he said the u.s. would act within the bounds of the law and would not violate the geneva convention ppt said

we will fall thouollow the lawsd conflict. and also general milly, he really defended, in the aftermath of the strike against suleiman suleimani, there's been a number of media reports and members of congress questioning the intelligence. general milly saying it was compelling. he said the threat was imminent and at the he said the intelligence he saw, he will stand by it. i have to point out he did not provide any specifics about at the intelligence. >> i have 37,000 questions for you. but i'll start with one. i mean, what is the chance that your reporting this morning, i saw you in the 6:00 a.m. hour on "morning joe" talking about troops deployment. they're heading to the region because of the increased threat from iran. there's some sort of smoke and mirrors going on.

they're moving troops but the real story is so politically damaging at the they're speaking out of multiple sides of each of their mouths. >> we know one of the brigades, the 173rd, about 150 u.s. soldiers. they've been ordered to deploy to the middle east as well. the u.s. military is not talking about specifics. we reported last week at the they were alerted to go to lebanon for msnbc security. and the expectation was they will be brought in if in fact at the embassy in beirut is under threat for attack. i'll be honest with you. last week when the u.s. decided to send in a battalion of the 82nd airborne. they're the ones supposed to be prepared to deploy to an emergency around the world within about 18 hours. i was surprised by at the decision.

i asked secretary esper and general milly last week about it. in fact f they were bringing in for embassy security, you'll recall after benghazi, they created new structures, called a special purpose marine ground task force and they're stationed throughout parts of europe. it's marines. they're quickly deployable and specifically there to be able to quickly respond to an embassy threat or an evacuation of the u.s. citizens out of the country. so this would be the exact mission at the they would be called in for. i just couldn't figure out why the soldiers were being sent in from the 82nd u.s. airborne. part of this is to show at the the yoougs has the capability to quickly mobilize. but what we have to remember is

if the u.s. military was to go to war with iran, it would not be infantry soldiers fighting it. because iran has capable air defenses, because of the geography of iran, frankly, this fight would begin from stand-off weapons. they'd fire from the sea into iran, firing stand-off weapons from the air. this is not the 82nd airborne invading iran. >> mark, viewers can't see but i can see you looking down at your blackberry. >> from the big picture, iran's capabilities have grown a lot more dangerous. first, iran is now essentially broken out of the nuclear agreement at the we pulled out sof and they're again developing their centrifuge and nuclear capability. secondly, they proved they have

nuclear guided bealistics. they fired at a saudi oil facility, striking with precision. and they've shown the ability to deny us access to their airspace. the first time an adversary nation shot down an american aircraft since the korean war. nothing about what the trump administration has done has abated the iranian threat. in fact, it's emboldened. our lack of response to the drone shot down was viewed as abandonment. we let turning turkey invade syria. now we're over rotating. we're having to kill their general, decapitation. surge troops in the region. we're a lot closer to military conflict than we have ever been with respect to iran. >> your analysis matches with

people like david petraeus at the have made the observation at the removing general suleimani from the face of the earth is a good thing. he has the plud of american soldiers on his hands but parts of the justification for president bush and obama passing on an opportunity to take out suleimani, which you just articulated, a definite escalation on the part of the iranians. in reporting from the "new york times" over the weekend, we're presented with small, medium and extra large military options to respond to some of the iranian provocations. the pentagon was shocked president trump went to the most extreme measure. why would the pentagon put it on there if it was something at the would shock them if he picked it? >> i was always reassured they did not seek a military confrontation with iran.

first of all, it's unnecessary, needless and some were skeptical this white house, this national security team could handle it or should handle it. i have to say i've also heard from individuals there is some important, sensitive intelligence, at the we're not privy to and may never be privy to, at the showed a specific plot suleimani was engaged in. until we understand some as spect of at the, whether it's brief to congress or declassified through a declassification process through the intelligence community, i think it's hard for us to understand exactly why this highly escluatory step was taken. but nothing is more important than the fact at the we're surging troops into the middle east. we're closer to military conflict and on the brink of a very significant national security crisis.

>> to put your crystalizing magical skillset on this news at the broke this hour, there's a letter from high-ranking u.s. military official in iran saying we will respect your decision to have us leave. at the report denied by secretary of defense, esper. what are we to make as the public on the outside looking in at this very confusing picture from within a single agency and administration? >> iraq is going to want us out. and the net result of this decision and other decisions is we're out of syria and iraq or we're going to have to put a lot more troops in the region to confront the threat. donald trump is so unpredictable, maybe by design, maybe by incompetence, who

knows. he could decide during your show at the we're out of iraq totally. so nobody is going to make any bets. america's foreign posture in the middle east is fundamentally unpredictable and that's scary. >> thank you. plus, my thanks to carol lee, congrats on your scoop. we didn't get to your reporting, even though i know you're not able to stay with us any longer. but thank you. new news on the frantic battel for credibility at home and abroad. and pentagon shocked at the president trump chose at the most extreme measure when he opted to kill iran's brutal number two. new fallout among the president's thinning national security team over his decision to strike suleimani. and twin crisis. the threat of retaliation from

iran and a offer from the former national security advisor, life-long republican in good standing too, testify in the president's impeachment trial. de president's impeachment trial. (whistling) (whistling) it's red lobster's new three-courfor $14.99.east choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today.

we're going to multitask for you this hour. continuing to follow the news out of the middle east. it's a situation trump's critics have warned about for years. reckless abandoned about matters large and small and matters very, very small. facing a credibility of crisis and abroad. a potentially dangerous

confrontation with a dangerous adversary. quote frrks three years president trump's critics have express said concerns over how he would hand algenuine international crisis. reminding at the a chief might overreach. the angry and frenzied aftermath of the american drone strike at the killed iran's top general, mr. trump confronts a decisive moment that will test whether the critics were right or they misjudged him, adding to the feeling at the things could spiral out of trimp's control. as we mentioned, cultural sites would amount to a war crime under international law. they're forcing to put daylight between them selves and the white house as they attempt to deescalate. writing this "the powers of an american president to wage war have grown stronger for nearly two decades, ever since the

september 11th attacks at the led the u.s. into an era of potential conflict. those powers are in the hands of the most volatile president in recent memory." joining us is former republican strategist, steve schmidt. go. >> we're ien dangerous hour in this country. this was a major escalation by president trump. what's clear is there is no plan. no plan, no thought about what would happen next. s there rr been no strategizing. and second, is the reality that the country goes to war, not a political party, not a faction. so donald trump, through three years of constant gaslighting of the american people has no credibility. we're a few weeks away from seeing the western leaders of our most important allies laughing about the president of the united states. so, we sit at a moment right now

looking at the most volatile region in the world, at the most dangerous hour in the region in many, many decades. >> you know, the topic of lies is almost something this white house treats like pesky questions from the liberal left. i think steve and i can speak with authority, sadly, for us and the country, at the when you lose your credibility on matters of war, you lose the public, the congress, you lose your global partners. this administration starts there. >> they start there because of what they've done for years. i was kind of off the grid last week when this happened. every time i look up they're asking two questions. one, are they telling the truth there was an imminent attack? and two, is there a plan for the next day? is there one major initiative at the donald trump has told the truth about in the last three years? of course there isn't. one strategic plan to follow

through? no, not a single one. and the ramifications are not only do our allies not trust us, but what were they trying to achieve here? you see secretary pompeo saying the iranian people will welcome this. if so -- if our plan was to galvanize the airanian people and turn against their leaders, why is the president out threatening to attack iranian cultural sites. why didn't we notify or consult with them? if the goal was to galvanize the american public, why are they telling lies at the are being disproven by reporters and congressional official whose were briefed after the fact. adam schiff says the intelligence he's seen shows no change in posture, no imminent attack. donald trump can't lead the country to war. he can't lead international lives because he's offended all our allies.

the only people he can lead are the sick fantic republicans in congress. they don't trust him either but they at least pretend to. >> it would seem there should be a natural adversaries of iran who should have publicly, if we are to believe the trump administration's line, celebrated the move. even israelis quite muted. fair to call him donald trump's closest allies, other than putin, on the world stage. not a high-profile victory lap or celebrations of the american action. can you tell me what at the means behind closed doors inside the pentagon or the cia when even the people at the should be pleased at the a menace to their own countries is dead, do not come out and loudly or enthusiastically aflaud american action? >> i was in the middle east about 60 days ago.

what i heard consistently is we don't want america to take destabilizing actions against iran because they will turn around and attack those allies and partners in the region. and we don't fundamentally believe the united states has our back. we don't fundamentally believe the united states is coming to our rescue. because they look at the october 6th phone call in which president trump said over to you guys. we're out. so there is a feeling of abandonment, american weakness, american vasilation. i think at the pervades all the approaches. so when america takes an extremely escluatory effect -- and as long as we've been talking about his activities. when we do that without a plan for follow up, a plan about how to manage the escalation, at the

is highly dangerous and that is highly scary. >> and to bring it back to the reporting from the "new york times," this idea of volatility and instability on the part of the president's conduct is now out in the open. both those reporters from washington write about at the being from the -- as jeremy's describeing it a clear escalation. and as everyone can see plain as day, a volatile and irattic american president. >> i think he is volatile and irattic. but i don't think his actions in this case are. i think they're entirely predictable. looking at the ukraine issue, every issue is he, over and over again acts in his own political interests. looking at impeachment. er for what he did, for sure is survey the situation and understood at the with this action, with this strike, at the he would create a jientd smoke

screen at the clouds and distracts around the issue of impeachment. this is a political act at the has endangered the country. once again this is donald trump acting in the international arena detrimental to american security interests. now exceeding the outragesness in ukraine by an order of magnitude for self. and the result of this is a more dangerous world where americans will be killed at the otherwise would not have been killed. and to jeremy's point, this was a bad guy. and we should all be happy that he's gone. that being said, we have watched over the last 20 year as republican administration we worked for take down the iraqi regime with no plan for what came afterward. we watched the obama administration do precisely the same thing in libya with disastrous consequences. and now, again, we see a president who is, by orders of

magnitude, more incompetent by the most incompetent officials in either administration, do the same. and the consequences will be felt for many, many years. so we're move nothing to the consequences stagesf having an inept, selfish, borish, incompetent president of the united states and blood will be spilled, american blood, because of it. >> i'm going to let at the sink in. a terrifying thought. after the break, questions swirling about the intel, the administration's struggle to keep their stories straight. at the part. at the part. cold sore? only abreva can get rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too.

saturpain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

so, with the justification that he's been a destabilizing force in the region for so long? or was it he's an imminent threat? >> it's never one moment, never

one instance. it's a collective. a full situational awareness of risk. >> how imminent were they? days, weeks? >> you're an american in the region, days and weeks, this is not something that's relevant. we have to prepare, we have to be ready and we took a bad guy off the battle field. >> secretary of state mike pompeo making his rounds yesterday. here's how one u.s. official described the threat to the "new york times" over the weekend. quote, the new intelligence indicated a normal monday in the middle east. this amounted to business as usual. the official described the intelligence as thin and says general suleimani's attack was not imminent showing the ayatollah-not yet approved any plan by the general for an attack. pompeo also proclaimed america

is now safer than before. but suleimani's delgt has forced them to halt its fight against isis. and a banner weekend in at the "new york times." congratulations to your colleagues on these stories. unbelievable reporting coming out. they basically put this most extreme option on the list. if they get something bigger, he'll choose in the middle. there were people inside national security agency saying intel was raiser thin. >> one of the reasons -- and thank you on behalf of my colleagues. i wasn't involved in this story. but one of the reasons i am proud of at the reporting is i'm old enough to remember, i was in high school during the iraq war in 2003. and i'm old enough --

>> i need something stronger than water. >> fair enough. but i don't think at the we, as journalists, did our job as well as we could have that time. and i think the actual evidence wasn't there and wasn't presented to the american people in the way it should have been. and this time we're at least getting this part of the story right. daily briefings, for example, are especially missed at a time like this. this is not a normal situation. and when -- if we are at war, i mean it's up to journalists to get those answers and to force the administration to make the case. and you saw how thin at the is and having surrogates come on tv and oh, well, it's not just one thing. we just took out a bad guy. these are talking points.

they're not an explanation why the u.s. should invest blood and pressure on the battlefield. >> you and i have both worked in the executive branch of government and you've probably seen the kinds of threats at the do mobilize government officials and it is good at the they're held to account by journalists. you don't always feel at the way when you're in the government. i don't know if it's scar tissue after 9/11 or holding two thoughts in their head at the same time. he's a horrific figure on the world stage. by placing, in many cases, those fabricated and -- the world might be more dangerous after the move this administration took. >> absolutely. the this is an example of the incompetence in the way this was handled making it more dangerous.

we might all agree this was an appropriate step to take under certain circumstances. but those would include complying with international law. not because it's a nicety. but it would be nice when you have iran and iraq thinking about retaliatory steps too, have the world on our side. so we are, at this point, the prime target. if you think about trump saying america first, we're america first in terms of retaliation. and having the world on our side would have been a very useful thing if you have a confidence administration. >> i'm not asking about this one. the more isolated you are, the more at risk, the higher the probability that american targets are the priority? >> and the fbi would bow one of many players. the secretary of defense, national security counsel all doing at the assessment. and it may sound very bureaucratic.

at the that is actually what will make this country safer. you don't send drones to kill all the of them. you have to do it when you've made an assessment and taken all the necessary steps to do it responsibility. i think what we're seeing is an administration that mumbles its way through. it's unclear this is going to make us safer as opposed to the situation we're in now. when we come back as the president faces two of the biggest stressors in his presidency, democrats maintaining. presidency, democrats maintaining. saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me.

but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women. all with great taste. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you.

call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. i told him, john, if too many people, you are not getting along with people, a lot of us including me disagree with some of your tactics and your ideas, and i wish you well but i'd like you to submit your resignation and he did that. and i really -- i know he's going to do well. i hope he's going to do well and i wish him well. >> so it turns out john bolton disagreed with some of president trump's ideas and tactics when it comes to ukraine. john bolton offering himself up as a witness, something 71% of the public including 64% of clins would very much like in

this impeachment proceeding against donald trump. >> well, i think clearly, nicole, he has to be able to testify. the senate's role here in this constitutional process is to be the trier of fact. in essence, to hold a trial, bring forward witnesses, evidence, including some that's presented in the charging phase, the indictment or impeachment phase and potentially new evidence, new information, that is now available. john bolton has said very clearly now publicly he is willing to testify. he has a story to tell. he has firsthand information. i don't know whether or not it vindicates the president or in some ways makes life harder for the president ultimately. i don't know but i do know that the american people and the senate as the trier of fact should hear his testimony. >> look. every time we discussed bolton before on the show i'm the john bolton skeptic and remain so somewhat. i don't know what's different of a house subpoena than the senate

subpoena. that said the motivations don't matter. what matters is he comes forward and tells the truth. we have no idea what he would say. i find it hard to say he would give expull tori evidence. we haven't seen it yet in this entire thing. you said earlier on the show that john bolton can't be smeared, dismissed like the other witnesses. i think he can be ignored by senate republicans and ignore all kinds of facts inconvenient for them. but he raises the political cost for them. he raises the political cost in terms of not invitding him to not testify and if he does testify and giving damning evidence against the president he raises the political cost for them to vote to acquit at the end of this trial. >> mark? >> i think that's right. i think that in coming out and making intention clear he is put the ball back in mitch mcconnell's court and the court of the senate and just added that much more pressure to ensure that this is a serious

process and i think that's frankly the best to hope for right now. >> he's got soldiers on the battlefield. fiona hill was his deputy. i believe he recruited her to run russia for donald trump. donald trump is already under investigation by the mueller team when john bolton joined this white house. colonel vindman smeared by fox new hosts and donald trump and ores. i'm disappointed in people i knew all the time and john bolton could have hung out on twitter and worked on the book. >> he has something he wants the country to know. and look. i think the other thing about john bolton is he's been in the public eye and the center of the arena. he is a tough guy. he is not going to be intimidated, not going to be victimized by the smears, by public servant who s who have n been under the lights before.

he is a tough customer and a different type of foe for donald trump in this and i think it's also true that it's politically untenable for these republican senators in contested races, in close races, to say that we don't want to hear from john bolton, that we don't want to know whether incriminates the president. it is a tough vote for them to take and i think lisa murkowski certainly all indicators is she would be a yes vote with the democrats and need a couple more to move the subpoena forward and will see that happen i think. >> in terms of credibility, the fact there's skepticism of whether he will be some sort of boon for democrats, if he does as they said tell the truth, if there's anything exculpatory i think someone at the white house would have leaked it by now. >> you don't stonewall because you think they're helpful to you. >> keep this good stuff for trump in a safe. >> exactly.

so you can be pretty sure. we have an inkling because we have people who testified about his actions and what he said. fiona hill gave chapter and verse making bolton look great and what is interesting is two days ago people talked about is impeachment dead in the water in light of the fact in a potential war situation and oempbeveryone focusing on iran and iraq and with this news i think it isn't dead. this is still very important and you're really concerned about is the president really just out of control? >> you know what's interesting? i wondered the same thing. i looked at the polling this weekend. the public support is higher than it was the week that fiona hill testified and the week before bill teller testified and i thought sitting through that dramatic coverage that would be the high watermark. it's 56% of the american public like to see donald trump

impeached and removed and out of the headlines for a couple weeks for the holidays. never a dull moment. we'll sneak in a last break. 4.9. 4.9. choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. fine, no one leaves the tablefine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win.

amanda's mom's appointment hello mom. just got rescheduled - for today. amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course! tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go.

look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home. dealing with our finances really haunted me.ttle cranky. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change.

one of those days where i am so grateful to have a smart friend like jeremy, matt and andrew, most of all thanks to you for watching. mtp daily with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. ♪ welcome to monday. it is "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in for chuck todd. the u.s. is facing new threats of of iran today sparking spheres of all-out war as iran vows revenge after the u.s. kill