defending the killing of the top iranian general but offering no evidence of an imminent threat. >> if you're looking for eminence, you need to look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against soleimani and you have what we could see were efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more americans. it was the right decision. we got it right. >> coming up here, reaction from the chairman of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff. iraq war veteran, tammy duckworth and angus king. and the culture wars. the secretaries of defense and state both say the united states will not attack iran's cultural sites contradicting the president. >> i'm wondering whether you would push back in your role -- >> you're not really wondering,

andrea. you're not really wondering -- i was unambiguous on sunday. it is consistent with what the president has said. >> but the president has -- >> every action we take will be consistent with international rule of law. >> coming up here, former secretary of state leon panetta with his reaction and attack mode. bernie sanders unloading on joe biden saying he doubts he can defeat trump as joe biden gets ready to defend his record. >> joe biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy plunder in the modern history of this country. i don't think that that kind of record is going to bring forth the energy we need to defeat trump. ♪ and good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington where secretary of state mike pompeo now says the so-called imminent threat that prompted the air strike killing

qassem soleimani was iran's previous aggression. this raises more questions about why the administration has still not revealed what it claims is the new intelligence justifying the killing, not revealed to congress or anyone else. pompeo is refusing to acknowledge the conflict because the president's repeated vow to target iranian cultural sites if iran retaliates with his claim that the u.s. will obey all international law. >> the president said on air force coming back, after you had been on the sunday talk shows, that they're allowed to kill our people, they're allowed to torture and maim our people. they're allowed to use roadside bombs and we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites. it doesn't work that way. i'm wondering, whether you would

push back in your advice or in your role -- >> you're not really wondering, andrea. you're not really wondering. >> the president is saying -- >> it is completely consistent with what the president has said. we will take every action we take will be consistent with international rule of law and the american people can rest assured that that's the case. let me tell you who's done damage to the persian culture, it's not the united states of america. it's the ayatollah. if you want to look at who has denied religious freedom, and denied the capacity for that culture to continue, if you look at the holidays, they've not permitted people to celebrate. they've not allowed people that they've killed, that qassem soleimani killed, they've not allowed them to go mourn their family members. the real risk to persian culture does not come from the united states of america. that -- there is no mistake about that.

>> california congressman adam schiff chairs the house intelligence committee and joins me now. first of all, let's talk about what mike pompeo just said pushing back on the justification of imminence for the killing saying that it was the actions that iran had taken leading up to the killing of soleimani. what was the imminent threat in that case, and what about the president's repeated comments -- first on twitter, then to the air force one reporters traveling back on sunday night -- that it's justified to go after cultural sites? >> well, that was really kind of a breathtaking display, that interaction you had with secretary pompeo. the president is threatening to bomb cultural sites which would violate the law of war and secretary pompeo is saying that he -- well, i don't know what he's saying. he seems to be saying that up is the same as down. black is the same as white. you can't have it both ways. either the president is ordering

him to do something and he's going to disobey the order or he's going to violate the law. and i think what you saw there is mike pompeo unwilling to contradict, unwilling to stand up to the president when the president is saying things that would constitute war crimes. in terms of the justification, the rationalizations for killing a top iranian official continue to shift. they're different than what you hear publicly, from what you see in the classified submission they made under the war powers act, and i think that what it shows is a national security process that is either nonexistent or dysfunctional. the president making decisions by the seat of his pants and the result is that war with iran is more likely. our security is, i think, jeopardized and one last point, andrea, the fact that we have to pull back now and our military

has acknowledged that we've pulled back from the fight against isis tells you all you need to know whether this is improving our security if we have to retreat from the fight against isis, if we have to plead with iraq to maintain our forces there, then clearly this is a strategic setback for us. >> and the iraqi prime minister is -- or he's the stand-in prime minister until they reconfigure their government, they're saying the u.s. withdrawal based on that letter, that very confusing letter that came from the u.s. commander in iraq that was then disavowed by the pentagon. >> well, that's exactly right. that letter is not some drafting mistake. that letter expresses the conviction that they expect to be forced to leave iraq. and it's one thing to make a decision that it's in our national interest to leave iraq. that has not been the decision by this president or his predecessors because isis remains a threat there and we have security interests there. but soleimani may achieve in

death what he couldn't achieve in life and that is forcing u.s. troops out of the region. so this is a serious issue and one that was imminently foreseeable and was foreseen, if we took a step like this, a provocation of this magnitude, that it might result in our expulsion from iraq and now that has become tragically much more likely on terms that are not terms the united states would seek to leave, but rather those that would be imposed on us by iran and now the iraqi government. >> did mike pompeo seem to be walking back the imminent threat claim that they made or was there an adequate imminent threat in the classified war powers notification that you belatedly received? >> there certainly wasn't in the notification that we received through the war powers act. i don't think there was really anything in that submission that ought to get people confidence that it was either days or weeks

or months. it just was really not i think fleshed out at all in that submission. in terms of their justification, their rationalization, it does continue to shift back and forth. it was either imminent or it wasn't. there's a big difference between something that may take place in days and something that may take place in months and the idea that, well, no, this was a retaliatory strike against past conduct, which is it? and i think the shifting explanations make it difficult to explain. it does give credence i think to the reporting that this was the most drastic option provided rather than one that was proportionate to the threat that we faced or one that was likely to remove that threat. this is also i think a deep hole in the rationalization of this killing of this top iranian official and that is the proof that removing him from the battlefield was going to make whatever plotting he may have

engaged in go away. and so at the end of the day we're more likely to go to war with iran than less as a result of this action and i don't think this is improved our security in so doing. >> is the united states right in its move not to grant a visa to the foreign minister zarif to come to the u.n. or new york or to the united states on thursday, it's not clear whether they've denied it. they may not have acted on it. but in any case, they're not permitting zarif to come to the u.s. >> i don't know what basis they've given from this apart from claiming that it's a bureaucratic delay own one hand and others says we didn't think it was the right time for zarif to come to the united states. it's one or the other. it doesn't betray much confidence in the u.s. position that they would preclude someone from going to the united nations. i have no fondness for zarif or

the iranian regime. i think it's a malignant regime and soleimani was a dangerous character, but that's a separate question from whether these actions of taking out a top iranian official, preventing an iranian official from attending the united nations are going to isolate iran or they're going to have the effect of isolating the united states and the reaction we've gotten from our allies, the cold shoulder that secretary pompeo has received i think says this is having the effect of isolating us, not iran. >> and finally, john bolton has said hel said he would testify. would you go ahead and subpoena him before the house? >> we haven't taken that off the table. i think what makes the most sense, though, frankly, andrea, is for him to testify in the senate trial. the senators are going to be effectively the triers of law

and fact. they should hear directly from one of the key witnesses and for senators to say, no, they would rather move to dismiss the case than hear from people who have first-hand information tells you a lot about their impartiality. they're not living up to the oath they've taken of being impartial jurors. we see mcconnell working hand in hand with the president to cover up the president's misconduct. when you have something who was in the room like john bolton, somebody who has described this as a drug deal, effectively, and they don't want to hear from him, it tells you a lot about where they're coming from. one final point i would make on this, andrea, is mcconnell keeps saying, let's use the clinton precedent. the clinton precedent was all the documents were provided to the house. they were provided prior to the trial. so if mcconnell really wants to

follow the clinton precedent, then he should be demanding all the documents be provided now. of course he isn't. he wants to have it both ways. he wants to give the appearance of having a trial when all they want to do is dismiss the matter so the president's misconduct can be covered up. >> don't you think, though, it is time for the articles of impeachment in any case to go to the senate? >> well, that would be a decision of the speaker. i do think that the pause in sending the articles has had an an effect in fleshing out mcconnell, fleshing out where the moderate republican senators are and whether they're willing to demand a fair trial, demand to hear from these witnesses and it has brought out john bolton's willingness to testify in a senate trial. up until this point, that was not clear. the only thing that was clear from john bolton up until now was if we subpoenaed him, he would sue us and it would take years in court before we could secure his testimony. so i think the pause has had a

very important impact. it will be up to the speaker when the time is right to transmit those articles. >> adam schiff, thank you very much. thanks for being with us today. >> thank you. and kristen welker is at the white house where you've been talking to the national security adviser. kristen? >> reporter: that's right. before your exchange with secretary of state mike pompeo, robert o'brien, the national security adviser, was here talking to reporters also trying to make the case that the threat was imminent from iran's top general and of course as you know, lawmakers have been pushing the administration to declassify the intelligence that proves that. they're saying essentially show us if that is the case. i pressed o'brien, is the administration willing to declassify the evidence? here's what he told me. >> strong evidence and strong intelligence and unfortunately we're not going to be to get into sources and methods at this time. it was very strong.

>> is the administration going to declassify the intelligence? >> i don't know if we're going to be able to do that or not because we don't want to put our sources at risking. the evidence was strong. >> reporter: so there you have the national security adviser saying we're taking a look at that and it echoes comments that we've heard from president trump in recent days and yet still no specifics, still no affirmative answer that that is in fact what they're going to do. now, amid these calls for more information, we know the trump administration officials are going to brief top members of congress, the gang of eight later today and tomorrow the full congress will be briefed. and that's going to be the crux of it, the focus of it. what if any proof can they deliver in a there was an eminent threat. >> thank you so much. i look forward to hearing from you later today. misfire, the u.s. commander in iraq wrongly indicates the u.s. had agreed to withdraw all u.s. troops from iraq.

we'll have a report from richard engel in iraq and leon panetta coming up next. stay here on msnbc. and the wolf huffed and puffed. like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe.

so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better-starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! ask your doctor if symbicort is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. if you can't afford your medication, 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.

secretary of state pompeo earlier today laughed off reports that general soleimani was heading to baghdad on what could have been a diplomatic mission including saudi arabia's

secret diplomacy to reach a truce with iran. >> is there any history that would indicate that it would possible that this kind gentleman of great order, soleimani, had traveled to baghdad on the idea of conducting a peace mission. >> joining me now is richard engel who's on the ground in iraq. none of us are suggesting that this man declared a terrorist by the united states government and guilty for killing -- ordering the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of iraqi -- of american soldiers in iraq during the war you covered, was any kind of a diplomat. but there was a report, a credible report, according to many of my sources that he had been ordered back to tehran to discuss this saudi diplomatic mission. >> reporter: i've heard that report as well. we have not been able to confirm it.

but it has easy for secretary of state pompeo to sort of laugh off the situation here that things are going very well. there is an enormous amount of confusion in this country. there's an enormous amount of trepidation already that act, the killing of soleimani, has cast an enormous shadow over the political future of iraq. you remember last night we were all scrambling to try and figure out what this letter meant, the commanding general here in iraq sent a letter to his military counterpart, a letter that was leaked online and the letter, if you read it, quite strongly suggested that the united states was pulling out its troops from iraq, which is something that the prime minister himself had requested, which is something that the parliament in this country has also requested, and it was something that the prime minister only hours before this letter emerged had officially

asked the u.s. ambassador in baghdad to implement. and now "the washington post" just a short while ago is reporting that the prime minister here is accepting that letter even though the u.s. military says it was sent by mistake, it was poorly worded. it was just a draft. the prime minister according to "the washington post," and we're working to get a comment from the prime minister's office as we speak, the prime minister says, nope, that was it. that was the notification. the process has begun. secretary of state pompeo can laugh off that soleimani was a bad guy and that we got him, that everything is under control. but there is significant political chaos in this country. officials don't know what the future american troop presence is. one country after another keeps announcing, the germans, the canadians, the united states, announcing that they're reducing their military footprint in this

country while iran next door is unified in a way like we have never seen that country in decades. i do not think that things are going as smoothly and according to plan as the secretary of state was trying to confidently present in that press conference a few hours ago. >> the ground truth from richard engel who has so many years of experience there. thanks for your report. speaking of experience, leon panetta is a former cia director and joins me now. mr. secretary, thank you. have you ever seen anything like a marine general notifying the iraqi government that troops are withdrawing under their demand, that we are being expelled from iraq and giving the terms of our withdrawal that you'll see, helicopters, that doesn't mean we're putting people in, it's an orderly withdraw and being said

it's a draft mistake from the pentagon. how does that happen? >> it normally doesn't happen and it shouldn't happen that a general would go off and draft a letter like that without clearing it with the secretary of defense and making sure that it truly reflects u.s. policy. so there's a tremendous amount of confusion, obviously, about just exactly what has happened. but the problem is that it creates a situation now where the iraqi prime minister is saying that that letter is in effect and that therefore the united states should begin the withdrawal process. i think that really is a dangerous step if the united states in fact is going to react to the prime minister's request. >> what about a u.s. withdrawal from iraq and nato suspending training missions in iraq, other countries, obviously, were nato

partners. the war against isis has now been damaged by the reactions to an event that the current administration says made us safer, not weaker. >> well, that's a -- that's a real concern in terms of our national security interests. the reason we were in iraq, the reason we've been there is to basically go after terrorists, to go after al qaeda, to go after isis and try to protect our security. that's the reason we're there. and those bases in iraq are critical not only to dealing with terrorists but also in dealing with terrorism in syria as well. if we walk away from our presence in iraq, we are going to undermine our ability, obviously, to deal with isis and isis will have the opportunity to regroup and to mobilize and

to, again, become a threat. we've gone through this before when we left iraq, isis resurrected and established the caliphate state and we had to go back in. we ought not to repeat that mistake again. >> the defense secretary, one of your successors has contradicted the president on targeting cultural sites which would be a war crime. secretary pompeo is saying the president never said that, but he did say it twice on sunday, once on twitter and once to reporters on air force one. did you ever with your drones when you were cia director, with your, you know, fighter jets and drones were secretary of defense, did you ever target a cultural site and should any defense secretary target a cultural site? >> no, never. and, you know, the united states has always abided by the rule of

law. and to have the president say what he said in terms of cultural sites and to have the secretary of state somehow imply that the president didn't say that is just sending a signal to the world that the united states instead of standing by the values that make us the country we are, a country that abides by the law, a country that operates by a higher standard, we do not operate by the same standard as terrorists do. that's part of our strength as the united states of america. i think it's a tragic situation to even raise the prospect that somehow when we -- if we have to respond, we're going to attack cultural sites. they ought to just put that aside, say it is not going to happen, the secretary of defense basically said he will not follow that order. they ought to do what's right here instead of continuing to try to justify something that

can't be justified. >> are you persuaded -- i know you don't see intelligence now, is it convincing that there was an imminent threat when the secretary of state says today that the imminent threat was the things that iran had done aggressively in leading up to what happened with soleimani? >> as always with this administration, the rationalization for doing something doesn't make a lot of sense keeps changing and that's what's happening now. they're basically suggesting at first that it was an imminent threat and now trying to suggest that somehow it was the larger threat coming from iran. you know, if it was an imminent threat, it was going to happen imminently and obviously if that's not the case, then that doesn't justify what happened. the other thing that concerns me is if it was an imminent threat,

then what was the relationship between killing soleimani and the threat itself? was there in fact a direct tie or did it have nothing to do with the fact that the threat itself still continues? there are a lot of statements here that i think raise questions for the congress and for the country. >> very briefly, did you in your different cabinet roles ever have an opportunity to target soleimani and pass on it? >> no, we did not. and, you know, there never really was a serious discussion about doing that because frankly we were focused on the terrorist leaders who had conducted the 9/11 attack. soleimani, make no mistake, is a bad guy, a bad actor, and somebody we were concerned about. but we never felt that targeting

a general in iran made an hell of a lot of sense because of the kind of reaction you're getting now as a consequence of that. we are, as a result of what happened here, closer to war than we have been in 40 years with iran. >> leon panetta, thank you very much. thanks for being with us. coming up next, the burn notice, how bernie sanders is using joe biden's support for the iraq war to go after his judgment on foreign policy. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here

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. introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family.

new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy. ♪

joe biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in iraq. the most dangerous foreign policy plunder in the modern history of this country. joe biden voted for the disastrous trade agreements like nafta and normal trade relations with china which cost us millions of jobs. do you think that's going to play well in michigan, wisconsin or pennsylvania. >> senator bernie sanders

ramping up his attacks on joe biden, going after the former vice president for voting for the iraq war when biden was a senator. joining me now is peter baker, and ann garren. peter, first to you, there are so many parallels here, but what about bernie's attack and bernie sanders has been raising more money than anyone and rising in the polls recently, he's really going after joe biden on foreign policy which is joe biden's signature calling card. >> yeah, exactly. the first time really in this campaign that we've seen foreign policy take the dominant role on the campaign trail and it's an important topic, obviously. it's something that any president is going to have to deal with and has not gotten the kind of discussion in most of the debates and most of the, you know, campaign swings that we've seen. it's interesting to watch. you're right, the divide between bernie sanders and joe biden is

a pretty significant one in this democratic party. there's a difference between the left which shares what president trump said he believed in in terms of ending these endless wars and the more established kind of moderate democrats like joe biden that have been in office and used force to some extent over these last two decades, supported it when it came to the case of the iraq war. joe biden came to switch his position on that, came to oppose it said it was the way george w. bush ran it that was so bad, that he regretted giving george bush the authorization to go to war in the first place. it's been an issue for him over the years. here we are 12 years later, it's come back on the campaign trail. >> and, ann, we both saw in 2008 and again, actually, in more recent campaigns how the iraq

juar war resonated against hillary clinton. >> absolutely. and continued too. bernie sanders used it against her in 2016, the fact that she had voted as biden did to authorize the war. biden has to, however, own this more than anyone else. he was the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. he was someone who himself had long experience in that part of the world. he knew all the players and he wanted to, you know, back the president. he did clearly then come to a different view later but not until after we had had a long period where he was running back and forth to iraq and at one point he wanted to divide the country into -- >> three parts. >> ethically and so he has a very long history of involvement in what has come to be what both

sanders and trump agree on, you know, widely consider, the biggest foreign policy plunder of the last half century. and it's funny to hear bernie sanders say exactly the same thing about the iraq war that president trump does. >> elizabeth warren has mentioned this on the trail and with maddow, the whole wag the dog scenario. you pointed out that two decades ago, the house impeached the president even as he was bombing iraq. his opponents used him of wagging the dog to distract attention. he was accused of undermining a commander in chief, sound familiar, you asked? >> yeah. echoes from 20 years ago continue to play out today. it is interesting of course. and this is the challenge of course any time you have an impeachment battle is that everything else looks suspicious, whether it should be

or not, whether there's reason to or not. we're always going to question the actions of a commander in chief who is using military force at a time of political crisis. what is the real motivation here? we haven't heard anybody from the inside say that president trump took this action in order to shape the conversation with regard to his impeachment and yet, obviously, you know, that's the context in which it's happening and it's ines escapable that this conversation would happen. he would rather talk about impeachment. he enjoys talking about it. in some ways you see that from his twitter feed. but it creates this odd and difficult challenging split-screen moment. >> and he's beginning to tweet things like i'm so busy running national security, how can they do this to me? we have to leave it there for now. great to see you both. thank you. and in the line of fire, iran and its allies threatening american military targets throughout the middle east.

tammy duckworth joining us next. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. reports" on m. 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!

so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.

the most common sif you have moderate. to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill?

otezla. show more of you. today top iranian leaders are threatening revenge against what they call legitimate sites including the u.s. military even as iraq is threatening to expel u.s. troops from iraq. one of those who bears the wounds and the burden of that

conflict is senator tammy duckworth who flew combat missions in iraq and was injured when she was hit with an rpg. senator, welcome, thank you very much. what's your reaction to whether we are safer now in iraq, iran, with the possibility of retaliation elsewhere in the region and the world after taking out general soleimani? >> we are not safer now. we are in greater danger and my initial reaction was i cannot believe president trump has allowed himself to be led into a decision that really at the end stage is what the iranians wanted. they want this. they want americans pushed out of iraq. they want greater influence in the middle east and they got exactly what they want. they may not have wanted this man dead, but they got at the end of the day in terms of the situation and they've grown as a

result of this. >> should they target cultural sites or follow the rules of war as one would hope the secretary of defense should follow? >> they should follow the rules of war. and i cannot believe that he would target cultural sites but this is also a man who has pardoned war criminals. >> as someone who fought along side so many soldiers who died in iraq and suffers the wounds of that combat, how do you feel about us potentially withdrawing from iraq, completely in response to the iraqi demands? >> well, you know, my first concern is about the national security of the united states and frankly we're not more secure by pulling out of iraq. would i love to get american troops out of iraq? yes, of course.

but the bottom line is we need to keep america safe and america being there is part of a coalition keeping america safer than it is today when the iraqi parliament has voted to expel the united states presence there. that's not acceptable. just earlier this summer it was actually iraqis demonstrates against iranian influence. with this one rash decision, the president has turned the tables around so now america is the one being forced out, not iran. >> how can you reassure the families at home, some of whom are veterans themselves, that they're being well led given the mixed signals coming from our national security leaders? >> well, that's the issue that i'm facing here in the united states senate. i hope all of my colleagues and i can agree that we need to retain control of the war powers act and the decision of whether or not to go to war rests here. it is not the decision of the president of the united states.

and so we need to do our job and my message to our military men and women is that i would do my job, i would do my constitutional duty and i will make sure that i will not allow the president to get us into another war that jeopardizes our national security and we will safeguard the brave men and women who wear the uniform of this nation who are willing to die to protect us and we will not expend them recklessly as this president is choosing to do. >> senator tammy duckworth, thank you for your service. thanks for being with us today. >> thank you. the new warning from homeland security about the potential of iran retaliating here at home on cyber. senator angus king joining us next. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc.

less safe today than we were one week ago? >> oh, i think we're more safe. >> in spite of the things we're hearing from iran? >> over the past four months, the two greatest terrorist threats in the world, al baghdadi and soleimani have both been taken off the battlefield. >> president trump's newest national security advisor robert o'brien denying that america is less safe after killing

soleimani when asked by peter alexander at the white house today. despite the fact that iran's people are now unified against america, its leaders are vowing revenge and iraq is threatening to expel u.s. troops. today, department of homeland security and cyberand, possible attacks against finance, energy, and technology companies. senator angus king serves on the armed services and intelligence committees. i understand you were at a cyber-conference just now. how serious do you think the threat of a cyberattack from iran is? >> of course, it's impossible to tell what they're contemplating or discussing. but i think it's got to be high on their priority list. they've already demonstrated a capability to penetrate our financial system. they have a very sophisticated cybercapacity. probably not equal to russia or china but -- but pretty significant. and i think that is probably one of the things that they're contemplating. in fact, if i were betting, i'd

think that's where they're going to hit us. >> in terms of the -- the posture of the senate, mitch mcconnell, i want to ask you about impeachment because our colleague kasie hunt on the hill just talked to mitt romney. and mitt romney indicated -- i think we have that sound ready -- that he is ready to vote with mitch mcconnell on the procedures which would be opening arguments first. and then a decision on witnesses. let's watch. >> the clinton impeachment process allowed for witnesses to be determined after the opening arguments. i'm comfortable with that process. at this stage, i'd like to hear from john bolton and another witnesses with direct information. but that process will -- will accommodate that. >> are you still open to voting to convict the president? >> i'm remaining impartial, as my oath will require. assuming that impeachment articles actually reach the senate, i intend to do impartial justice. >> so with that, senator king, it seems that mitch mcconnell

has the four republicans he needs to determine the rules of procedure for a senate trial. if that's agreed, is it time for nancy pelosi to send over the articles of impeachment and go ahead with it? >> i think it is time for the speaker to send the -- the -- the articles over. i -- i think -- i don't think her holding them puts any particular pressure on -- on mitch mcconnell. i think the key vote will come in the middle of the trial. apparently, if as according to senator romney, if mitch has the votes to block witnesses at this point, there certainly will be a motion to call witnesses. most obviously, john bolton, who essentially has volunteered to come in if subpoenaed. in the middle of the proceedings. the important thing to me is getting to the facts. and how anybody -- i -- i think it's going to be very hard for somebody to vote against calling witnesses. particularly, again, someone like john bolton who's indicated

willingness to come in. basically, then saying don't confuse me with the facts. i don't want to really know what happened. i don't really want to know what the president did and why he did it. and i don't think that's an easy vote for anybody of either of the political parties. so i think we're going to have that vote one time or another. it appears now, based on your reporting, that it's going to be in the middle of the trial instead of at the beginning. but the point is, we've got to have the information that's available. >> i also wanted to ask you about iranian-americans because obviously maine borders canada and your colleagues in washington state are saying, you know, hundreds of iranian-americans, people with u.s. citizenship, have had trouble returning to the u.s. after trips to canada. we're hearing reports, you know, cpb is not confirming that there's some new policy. there is certainly detaining and questioning iranian-americans trying to get back into the u.s. have you heard anything from maine? and are you concerned? are you following up?

>> i have not heard anything from maine as of this morning. that doesn't mean it hasn't happened and i don't want to say categorically that it hasn't. but i haven't heard that. and i think we need to get to the bottom of whether this was some kind of routine matter that the cpb took on themselves at the washington/canadian border or whether this is national policy that's been handed down. i think we deserve to know what the policy is. what the basis of it is. it's a little disturbing that something like that would happen, particularly to people who are u.s. citizens or legal u.s. residents. to suddenly have this kind of questioning, it -- it -- we got to be prudent but that doesn't seem to be appropriate. unless there's a clear policy that we have some understanding of what the basis of it is. >> and finally, i want to ask you as a member of the intelligence committee, whether you are satisfied. mike pompeo today was indicating that the, quote, imminent threat

was the past attacks by iraq -- by iran rather against sites in iraq. >> well, i'm -- i'm headed for an intelligence committee meeting this afternoon where we're going to see that data. and i have seen some of the intelligence. i think the word imminent is the key word. and it's hard to argue that because attacks have been taking place over the past almost 20 years, that suddenly there was an imminent attack that would imply, to me and i think ordinary people, within a matter of hours, if not days, and that was the reason for this strike. there's no question that getting rid of soleimani is -- is a positive thing for the middle east and for the world. the question is the timing and the manner and the location and whether it's created more problems than it has solved. and made americans actually less safe than they were the day before that strike. >> senator, thank you very much. and we'll be right back. >> thank you. ht back. >> thank you for $14.99. 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. mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c,

or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪ without asking your doctor >> 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. ♪

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

and here are ali velshi and stephanie ruhle for "velshi and ruhle." >> andrea, have yourself a great afternoon and hello, everybody. it is tuesday, january the 7th. coming up this hour on "velshi and ruhle," today american troops are bracing for retaliation as iran calls for the revenge over the killing of their top general and what the trump administration is now revealing about qassem soleimani's death. >> plus, president trump growing increasingly atdd