"deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace begins right now. hi, everyone. it is 4:00 in new york. donald trump's national security team today appearing to be waiting -- wading through a messaging fog of war around their own shifting responses and explanations around questions about bombing iran's cultural sites and troop withdrawal from iraq and what killed iran's number two as the "new york times" described a direct and proportional attack on american interest, openly carried out by iranian forces, the trump administration stumbles over the messages in the wake of the killing of general soleimani. president trump today forced to back down after his secretary of defense and secretary of state openly contradicted his threat to target those iranian cultural sites which would be a war crime. today trump expressed frustration over the constraints

of international law. >> it is very interesting, they're allowed to kill our people. they're allowed to maim our people. they're allowed to blow up everything that we have and there is nothing to stop them. and we are, according to a various laws, supposed to be very careful with their cultural heritage and you know what, if that is what the law is -- i like to obey the law. but think of it. they kill our people and blow up our people and we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions but i'm okay with it. it is okay with me. >> that is your president, ladies and gentlemen. donald trump's concessions that he'll refrain from ordering war crimes follows a dais day of discord in trump administration that his secretary of defense was asked if he might resign if given that unlawful order and he tried to suggest that trump never threatened those cultural sites at all. >> the president said on air

force one coming back after you had been on the sunday talk shows that they're allowed to kill our people and torture and maim our people, they're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people and we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites. it doesn't work that way. secretary esper made it clear he would not follow an order to hit a cultural sites, which would be a war crime and i wonder if you would push back in your advice or your role. >> you're not really wondering, andrea. you're not really wondering. >> well the president is saying -- >> that was unambiguous on sunday consistent with what the president said. we'll take every action we take will be consistent with international rule of law and the american people could rest assured that -- >> would you resign from office rather than violate the law? >> barbara, i'm not going to get into hypothetical. i'm confident that the commander-in-chief will not give

us an illegal order and as i said, the united states military will as it always has, obey the laws of armed conflict. >> that messaging crisis of the president's own making follows confusion over news that broke during this hour yesterday. about a letter recognizing the sovereignty of iraq and requesting that the countries vote that u.s. troops leave the pentagon coming up with a new-new explanation, the letter was a draft and mistake from the a.p. which describes that debacle as bungled and a chaotic day at the pentagon this way, after a few hours of denials and frantic phone calls top pentagon leaders tried to do damage control stating flatly that the u.s. had no plans to leave and saying that the letter was a poorly-worded draft that never should have gone out. nbc's rich engle tweeting in the last hour about the iraqi response to that embarrassing mess of public messaging. quote, exasperated iraqi prime minister can't understand how

usa could send a letter clearly talking about withdrawal and then say it is a mistake. prime minister's overall message is, how disorganized is the u.s. administration. at this hour the president's national security team is expected to brief the gang of eight, the democratic and republican leaders in the house and senate on the intelligence leading up to last week's strike. another topic that is been confused by the president and his advisers shifting public declarations. the credibility crisis at home and abroad is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. with us at the table, former aide to george w. bush house alise jordan is back. former editor for time is rick engle and frank figliuzzi from capitol hill and senior writer jake sherman and peter baker. we haven't seen you in a while. you've been writing unbelievable news stories and analysis pieces about this moment in the trump

presidency and it would seem at very least, at the very least, the public messages is egg re e reegeously -- egregiously inconsistent between one moment and another and between one press account and another. >> yeah, even if the pentagon doesn't know whether it is coming or going in iraq. it is hard to blame the rest of the world to be confused about what the strategy right now. you have a situation where the strike on soleimani last week was executed with brutal efficiency and then the aftermath has been anything but clear and consistent. the president said as you point out, one day he will tackle -- attack cultural sites and the next backing off in the defense secretary saying no can't do that. the explanation of the origins of the attack, whether it was imminent response to previous attacks or actually trying to forestall an imminent attack seems to be kind of muddled there. we haven't gotten a lot of

information about that. this is a president who prak -- who makes his decision in impulsive and seat of the pants kind of way the process doesn't follow the decisions in the way to help explain to the public what he wants them to understand. remember, this is a president who ran for office on the idea he's getting out of the endless wars in the middle east and now we're sending more troops to the region. he has yet to kind of give one of the major speeches that your boss used to give, that president obama used to give which they try to explain their thinking about how america should be handling its role in the middle east going forward instead you get the quick encounters with reporters in the oval office or air force one or twitter without kind of a comprehensive explanation to the public of how he sees and what he wants to do in the region. >> peter baker, i want to pick up on something that you said and push harder because i think it is central to what from the outside looks chaotic and haphazard but from the inside

makes sense. president obama had any underlying philosophy and don't do stupid bleep and it was a response and his election was in reaction to and viewed as some of the mistakes of the administration in which i worked, george w. bush had a clear and stated foreign policy and principle and view after 9/11. this administration, i think you just alluded to it, in the troop surges to the region, this president has a stated foreign policy -- and he lost his secretary of defense over it of yanking troops out of far away places and wars that donald trump doesn't understand or support. yet his decision to strike soleimani has the result of endangering u.s. troops and embassies and diplomats there and so the push to surge troops everywhere. how would they explain that if they wanted to, peter baker? >> it is a good question. and that is what we're missing

here. we've not heard a pulling it altogether kind of explanation. i remember when president bush decides to sort of go out to the public and help him understand and he gave four speeches in a row, boom, boom, boom, boom, to tell the country where we are going. and the president here, president trump has some pretty formidable figures around him, mike pompeo being prime among many in the national security area but we don't hear sort of a comprehensive explanation for how that inconsistency you laid out works. are we pulling out or getting out of the region or expanding because we need to. now vice president pence i think is supposed to give a speech in the next week and be interesting to see what he has to say about it. but there is real confusion out there. people overseas are trying to put the puzzle together and figure out where the united states is leading us at this

point in the region and they can't figure it out either. >> frank figliuzzi, there would always be a moment where the haphazard way that foreign policy was not just carried out but conceived in donald trump's head on twitter and based on his gut reaction to tv images colliding with the reality in the agencies that you would work in responsible for keeping people safe around the world. what is the reality for the men and women in national law enforcement or any national security agency? >> well, i could only tell you what has happened in the past and what is supposed to happen and that is as decisions like this are being made, the intelligence community and law enforcement community is actually contacted ahead of time. i've experienced this in my own career. you have the ability to get -- to gear up and get ready. the fbi, for example, would under normal circumstances be advised that you should prepare for potential retaliation from hezbollah inside of the united states. identify all of your suspected

hezbollah cells, identify your sources, reach out to them, hunker down and get pro-active and get ready. there is no indication that any of that happened. in fact, watching this administration try to deal with what is now their most dangerous scenario they've ever faced is like watching a slow motion train wreck. you know the train is going to crash and it has disaster written all over it, you just don't know how bad it will be and it looks like this train has lost its brakes. it looks like there is no one around this president who could convince him that he's doing something really, really dangerous. and we've lost the hearts and minds of the iranian people. from my counter intelligence perspective, we had them on the ropes and we had the government of iran where we wanted them and now we've come in and injected adrenalin into them where the country is unified against us. it is the opposite of what we should have been doing. >> frank, i want to hear more about that. let me tack on a follow-up

question. it would appear that when a -- a number two inside a government like general soleimani who had the blood of american soldiers on his hands and ran terrorist operations all over the world, is taken out it would seem more urgent than ever to line up the natural supporters of such an action. are you surprised and does it make us more at risk that the international response has been muted at best? >> well again, under normal circumstances we'd line up our allies. they would be brought into the picture. they would be polled and warned and cautioned and all of wouse be collecting intelligence on the threat and risk and that simply is not happening. i think they're stunned. i think in some ways they're shocked but not necessarily surprised this has happened. but here is the thing. it is the risk of the unknown. everybody is talking about retaliation and we're ready for it and we have missiles

identified and our military is bigger than their military, it is the nontraditional battlefield. iran is a force to be reckoned with in the cyber battlefield and we don't know what that is going to look like and it is that risk of the unknown that is most trouble some. >> jake sherman, i want to play you something chairman adam schiff said today to andrea mitchell about mike pompeo's role in all of this. >> either the president is ordering to do something or potentially ordering him to do something and he's going to disobey the order or violate the order of law and you saw mike pompeo unwilling to stand up to the president when the president is saying things that would constitute war crimes. >> usually, even in my administration and peter baker referenced four speeches, the idea that four speeches that

bush gain was in 2005 was to regain credibility by acknowledging mistakes, there are people like a secretary of state, in our case it was colin powell and condoleezza rice when a president is getting dinged for doing things unpopular could maintain open channels on capitol hill, it would appear that pompeo's ability to do that is greatly imperilled by what is viewed as a willingness to echo any ludicrous utterance from the president. is that an accurate read of pompeo standing up there. >> my understanding of pompeo, which is shaped by knowing him up here on capitol hill quite well when he was a member of congress, he doesn't see his role as secretary of state to create policy. he sees it as to channel what the president wants to do and help him try to achieve that. again, this is not a quote from him. this is my understanding from reporting and talking to people around him and people on capitol hill. but i will say and it is so true what peter and you were talking about, is that the president here -- it is not very difficult

to make members of congress feel like they're worthwhile and the president and the administration for some reason. >> and it is not clear why, did not talk to members of congress and build coalitions on capitol hill before this incursion or this assassination or killing or whatever you would like to call it. they had the opportunity to go to people on capitol hill of stature, republicans and democrats and bring them in the fold, tell them what they were going to do. either shortly before or shortly after it happened. they pointedly decided not to do that and kellyanne conway said on the record on the white house driveway or at the white house that adam schiff in her estimation would have run to the cameras. well we know from history that that's not the case. these are people, the gang of eight and the larger leadership on capitol hill is quite adept at keeping secrets. why? because they've done so for decades and nancy pelosi has been on the intelligence committee as she frequently likes to remind people and so has adam schiff. they might disagree -- this is

the real gulf here. i think on capitol hill they'll be here -- they were here before trump and will be here on trump. they don't view this as a partisan exercise for the most part. some might. but they, i think, could be trusted with secrets and would give feedback. i remember mitch mcconnell said today at a gaggle i was at about an hour ago he didn't know in advance about the bin laden attack. but he might not have but there were people on capitol hill, i remember senior republicans and democrats who did know shortly after or right before or were aware of the planning. so this is not unheard of. and just like the speeches, and building coalitions and building an argument, building a narrative about what you're trying to do, what you're trying to do with the power that has been given to you by an election, i don't understand why the trump administration doesn't want to do that. it is out of some irrational fear that people will leak it. i don't quite understand the strategy here and it seems to me based on my reporting to be an

opportunity squandered for the administration to build good will and to build a narrative and a coalition with people on capitol hill. >> just to be crass about it, the best way to mute criticism from people you're afraid might criticize your policy is to read them in on as much classified stuff as you can so they have some ability even if they didn't reach the same conclusion, they understand why you did that, not that we were guilty of that during the bushes. let me talk about the briefing, i believe gina haspel and mark esper, chairman of the joints chiefs and pompeo. are they up on capitol hill and any word? >> i don't think it is pompeo today. the gang of eight is getting briefed today. that is the leadership. and the ranking member and chairman of the house and senate intelligence committee, again these are people who have been read into state secrets not nor weeks but for longer than donald trump has been in office. so they're getting ready now and

tomorrow there will be a classified briefing with mark esper and in a classified setting. that is the thing. what you said is so right. a lot of people were caught off guard but don't disagree on the merits, republicans and democrats, that soleimani should have been taken out. so if they had an understanding of what haspel and pompeo were thinking, not the entire congress but a small group of people, he could have haddys or people willing to vouch for the wisdom of eliminating this person, this person that everyone agrees is a terrorist from the battlefield but instead they learned about it from a.p. reports and other news reports as everybody else was learning about it which is discomforting for congressional leaders who, by the way, take pride in the fact they are a co-equal branch of government. this is an institution that is prideful if nothing else and they don't like to be caught on guard. >> so rick, you both had seenor

roles, senior seats at table where decisions of were were made by presidents and communicating them to the congress as jake is talking about and to the public. what is your take of how this rolled out the last five days. >> there is that old expression when you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there. that is why they don't have any -- any parallelness with what they're saying because there is no policy. the irony is if you walk in the state department and say take me to the room where i see the foreign policy of the united states, there is no such thing. but presidents had principles and when president obama was in office, you knew what his principles were. when president bush was in office you knew what his principles were. you wouldn't have the secretary of defense and state saying different things because they don't know what is going on. the principle is anything that serves donald trump and anything that rebuts barack obama. but in the day-to-day basis because he doesn't read position papers and maybe not prepared,

he's reacting to everything de novo, when it comes up. what his instinct reaction is. that is not a policy, that is a frightening mass car aid. >> joe scarborough has a great piece about it, if you turn it out it looks like spaghetti. >> you can't start to try to understand the trump administration's policy because they can't present one. just like you were saying. there is no strategy. there is no policy. it's ad hoc, whatever is transactional and feels good to donald trump at the moment. think about the selling of the iraq war. critics of the war would probably argument -- argue there was too much effort put into that but facts were sent to the american public, i'm not talking about the decision to go to the war, the decision to go to war and the series of speeches, president bush did that pretty much every year when he had to talk about the surge and explain the surge and the strategy.

you have the stakeholders from all over government who know what the goal is supposed to be. and have a set of facts that are vetted and agreed upon. and you see none of that right now. >> frank figliuzzi, let me give you the last word again as the leaders are being briefed on the situation, what is first in your mind and what your question be in this briefing in terms of u.s. national security and threats we face here and around the world? >> well, there is two questions i think. how did we make this decision, why did we make it, right. and then what is the plan moving forward? those are the two central questions. we keep hearing this is an imminent threat. i'm very curious as to what the imminent threat was and what is being planned. we heard secretary pompeo back off and try to talk us out of thinking about it in terms of imminence but now let's move forward. we did it. it is a bad dude and he's dead and now what. what is the plan for a cyber retaliation and attack and who is in charge and what are the

ground rules here moving forward and where is the transparency and no more deep state or decisions with lindsey graham at mar-a-lago and get it out and make a team approach. >> frank figliuzzi, it is good to hear your insights in a news cycle like this one. thank you for spending time with us. when we come back, only mitt romney puts hi toe in the water on hearing from firsthand witnesses to donald trump's pressure campaign against ukraine, as republicans get ready to go it alone with a sham trial for donald trump. but the democrats are still holding a few cards of their own including the articles of impeachment. the public support for hearing from witnesses sitting at 70%, how will democrats ensure that the public hears from donald trump's former national security adviser who described the pressure campaign as a drug deal and yesterday offered to testify. and joe biden lashes out at donald trump on his reckless foreign policy and the first look at an exclusive look at an interview with lester holt, all

those stories coming up. 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

woi felt completely helpless.hed online. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. vo: take control of your online reputation. get your free reputation report card at reputationdefender.com. find out your online reputation today and let the experts help you repair it. woman: they were able to restore my good name. vo: visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555.

why do you need a witness? the whole point that we're trying to make is that in every trial that there is ever been in the senate regarding impeachment, witnesses were called. the big problem i have if we don't get to call meaningful witnesses, direct witnesses to the point, is that you're basically changing impeachment. impeachment in the house is not the trial. you could have three days of lawyers talking to each other on both sides, 16 hours of questions and basically bore everybody to death, talk everybody to death, but when you have a witness who was there, who was engaged in it, who was

in the middle of it, telling you about what they were doing and why, it is a totally different case and it is the difference between getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> it sure is. it is hard to argue with 1999 lindsey graham on calling witnesses but he and the rest of the republicans seem to be trying. today mitch mcconnell and his colleagues in the senate appear ready to move forward without any democratic support on a set of impeachment trial rules. they have to wait, though, until the articles are delivered to pass the blueprint for the trial. but rather conveniently politico notes the plan, quote, leaves the question of seeking witnesses and documents until after opening arguments are made. the obviously suspicion is that the plan makes it easier for mcconnell to potentially ignore calling witnesses altogether. that would include testimony from john bolton who announced yesterday he would be willing to testify before the senate. but the trial rules supported by republicans today raise

questions about whether bolton will ever get his chance. not to mention there didn't seem to be much of an appetite for demanding his testimony among moderate republicans. at least not publicly and not yet. none of them have called for subpoena. now mitt romney has only been firm about wanting to hear from him but even romney is okay with mcconnell's plan. >> it is an impeachment process allowed for witnesses to did he determined after the opening arguments. i'm comfortable with that process. at this stage i would like to hear from john bolton and other witnesses with direct information. but that process will accommodate that. >> joining our conversation, former prosecutor paul butler. paul butler, it is always dangerous when nonlawyers say isn't it normal in any sort of proceeding to hear from witnesses but isn't it normal in any sort of proceeding to hear from witnesses? >> it is normal in any sort of proceeding and it is vital in an impeachment proceeding, one of the most solemn responsibilities

of the congress. so remember the important information that bolton has. he described what trump was trying to do in ukraine as a drug deal. he said that rudy giuliani was a hand grenade. witnesses have testified that when he heard military aid was being held he reacted angrily. his own lawyers said back in november that bolton has vital information, crucial information that hadn't been shared with the congress. and so when we think about whether his information needs to be heard, i don't think there is any question. >> you know, i want to go back to what the chief complaint was among house republicans for you, jake, sherman. it was all about, wait for it, a lack of firsthand witnesses. let's see. >> officials alarm at president's actions was typically based on secondhand, third-hand and even fourth-hand

rumors and innuendo. >> and the evidence is hearsay on hearsay. >> well we're not in a court gentleman and if we were the sixth amendment would apply and so would rules on hearsay and opinion and most of your two testimony would not be add miss able whatsoever. >> i would say, to those three gentlemen, john bolton solves all of the problem, doesn't he? >> he is a firsthand witness but from the top the clinton impeachment rules, we haven't seen what mcconnell will put forward yet so we don't know exactly what he said today that it is something like the clinton impeachment rules. they allowed for a trial of a certain number of hours, 24 hours of presentation and 16 hours of questioning from both sides. and then a motion to dismiss that the senate could take to dismiss the charges. and a motion to call witnesses. and, again, we discussed this on the show, the senate is a majority institution so at that

point if 51 senators want to call a witness, they will be able to. now chuck schumer said he will force votes on all sort of witnesses to put republicans and democrats on the record about who they support to testify in depositions and closed depositions presumably. that will also be hashed out in the rules. i don't see at this point for people -- right now just talking today, four people who would vote to bring john bolton to capitol hill. especially after two weeks. again, i don't want to be too certain because this is unpredictable business and we get in trouble when we predict but right now only mitt romney wants to hear from john bolton. so this question is likely to come up on the senate floor, calling witnesses and whether john bolton is the person they want to hear from. 51 people and you need four republicans, right now we have one. even if you give susan collins and lisa murkowski who want to hear from bolton, who is the fourth. i don't see that person coming forward at this point.

so we'll have to see how this plays out but right now it is just one. >> peter baker, you covered john bolton and i worked in the bush white house when he was recess appointed. john bolton knows thousand count republican votes in the senate better than i do. probably better than anyone on this panel with the exception of jake sherman so i want to hold up his reporting as one side. the other side might be that in the statement that he put out that he called mcconnell and was trying to work collaboratively with the republican leader. any sense as to whether or not john bolton and i know you're on theon beat as well, has made contact with a republican or before he took this dramatic and politically perilless step of offering to testify in congress about the things he was going to write in his book that he had done and any outreach on capitol hill or had idea if 70% of americans that want to hear from witnesses were represented by four republican senators in congress? >> don't know that he did that

whip counting in advance. i think he had to pick one witness that you would want to hear from that we have not heard from so far, he would probably be the the one. it is stunning that democrats in the didn't subpoena him, try to force his hand more than they did. it is stunning if the republicans in the senate don't want to hear from him because this is the one person in the room more than almost anybody else with the president of the united states on a day in, day out basis when it comes to foreign policy. as you just played, we know that he called the -- the idea of this pressure campaign on ukraine a drug deal. we know that he had objected to rudy giuliani's involvement. we don't know is what he and the president specifically talked about. we know that john bolton objected to the suspension of the security aid and tried to get the president reverse it but we don't know about their conversations about that. did the president link the security aid to the investigations he wants of the

democrats in john bolton's hearing and what would he tell us and the idea that we could go through this whole process without hearing what he to say is a rather remarkable one. >> and everything you could say that about everything these days. peter baker, thank you for spending time with us and all of your reporting on this front. after the break, all eyes on that senate trial as adam schiff punted about questions about whether the house intel committee would call bolton to testify before them. that part of the story next. st.

john bolton said he will testify, it is unclear whether mitch mcconnell will allow witnesses. but will you go ahead and subpoena him before the house? you could do that right now. >> 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 the triers of law and fact. they should hear directly from one of the key witnesses.

>> that is the chairman of the house intel committee punting to his colleagues which is an interesting strategy. as jake sherman points out, writing if you're house democrat want to hear from bolton and why not subpoena him. by not subpoenaing him you're betting on the republican senate. jordan, is that a good bed? >> i would never bet against john bolton in a battle of wits and bureaucratic machinations and maneuvering. i wouldn't bet against him. i might disagree with plenty of his foreign policy views but i wouldn't want to go against him. he's a formidable foe. everyone knows how successful he could be on the policy battle front and now he's dealing with his legacy as a republican foreign policy adviser to the president is up for grabs in terms of where he chooses to land and so watching him

navigate this complex political environment where if he is too eager to testify, republicans are going to crush him. but he can't not testify. and it seems like he kind of wants to, i don't know. >> i'm going to make one larger point that will then lead to the point. so this idea of the clinton precedent is a flawed precedent and i'll tell you why. because the clinton impeachment trial had a special prosecutor report that took millions and millions of dollars and lasted two years and had every tiny detail in the prosecution, it was there. that is the indictment. in this case, there is no special prosecutor. there is a phone call. there is a cursory house investigation. they need to produce the evidence in a senate trial. john bolton would be the testimony number one to reveal the stuff that wasn't revealed in the prosecution. now, the other thing that

bothers me about this and as people who have worked in government and written books and i know you're writing a book now is what i don't like is do the american people like the idea that somebody is cashing in on their service in government without responding to requests from testimony from a senate or house committee when you signed those -- >> bolton wasn't subpoenaed. he didn't ignore a subpoena. >> but i'm saying in those documents that we all sign, it should say, you know what, you can't get a book advance and cash in on that book advance if you don't respond to a subpoena or a request from a house or senate committee to testify about something that will be in your book. because this is all just speculation. publishers like to protect the information for when the book comes out so it is a big deal. but the american people deserve to know what is going to be in there. >> and it would sound based on john bolton's statement yesterday that he agrees with your assessment and offering himself. >> i don't know. >> the aforementions jake sherman. >> there is something really easy john bolton could do.

if he has information pertinent to this investigation, he has a mouth and a keyboard and he has many cable networks and other networks that will take him on to talk about this. he does not need a subpoena. he's welcome to -- he's a free person living in a free society where we're guaeed the right of freedom of speech. he's able to say anything he has at any time or give -- or give hints to what he has. the idea he needs a subpoena to say anything doesn't line up with what we know to be reality. so by the way if john bolton were to give a clue as to what he -- and i'm not doubting he knows things that are pertinent to this investigation, fine let's stipulate that. he's welcome to give clues and say i have something relating to x that senators might be interested in and senators might say, hey, we are interested in that. here is a subpoena. so this idea that he needs a subpoena is ludicrous. absolutely ludicrous. >> agree. >> paul butler -- let me get your response and just tack on a

two-headed question for you on that. he's already appeared. his actions, his mindset, his belief about illegality of donald trump's conduct and concerns about being involved in anything illegal or resembling a drug deal are already in the record from the testimony of fiona hill and colonel vindman and countless others. >> that is right. and if he had anything exculpatory to say, donald trump would be encouraging him to testify fast, quick and in a hurry. so clearly he has incriminating information which is why trump doesn't want him to testify. guess what? the house should subpoena him. again, they have the power. he's got vital relevant information. he doesn't have any excuse not to obey the subpoena. he said he was waiting for a court case that was resolved last week involving his deputy, whether the deputy had to

testify. judge dismissed the case and said it was moot and now yesterday bolton said, the ball is in my court so i'm going to testify if subpoenaed. it shouldn't matter whether the subpoena comes from the senate or the house. if he doesn't end up testifying, nicolle, history will not judge him kindly. >> paul butler, thank you for spending time with us. when we come back, vice president biden sits down with our own lester holt for an exclusive interview on trump, iran and joe biden's case for replacing the current president next november. that's next. next november. that's next. it's not some foreign thing that looks like something we're fighting in the war on terror. it is actually fundamentally as american as anything. and it is an exist shall threat to the multi-racial and

pluralistic that we've been dying for on the battlefield in a civil war. in a civil war.

former vice president joe biden is weighing in today on donald trump's decision to kill iran's top general. the democratic front-runner sat down late this interview with an exclusive interview with lester holt. >> it takes us a heck of a lot closer to war. we're putting 18,000 more troops in the region. have they planned ahead of time to make sure they secure the bases we have and all of the areas that americans are, in fact, more vulnerable because of

proxies of iran. >> you mentioned you spent time in the situation room. do you give a president, this president the benefit of the doubt when he said there was intelligence of an imminent attack. >> i don't give him the benefit of the doubt for anything. >> you don't believe him. >> he could be true but i don't give him the benefit of the doubt because he's lied so much about virtually everything. >> so we land at this moment where we started. credibility crisis that donald trump faces is real. that is when the former vice president who sat in the situation room and knows that when you take the country to war, and inch it closer to war, all you've got is yours and the country's credibility. there are some ominous, ominous warnings from him. >> and it is not like joe biden has gotten every foreign policy right and alise is laughing. >> at least not one of us have. >> but he has to assemble the process to reach the best possible decision with the best

possible minds and the best possible experience. you were saying there is no process in the trump administration. what biden would know how to do on day one is i'm going to get everybody who knows about this in the room and we're going to talk it out and we're going to try to make this decision. and that is the thing that doesn't happen in this trump administration. and we were talking about this before, the part of the problem with trump is had a -- is he has no context, he doesn't have people to help him or understand the proportionality or one city compared to another. he's reacting to things in realtime the way a toddler does when he makes decisions. >> and i would back the process up ten steps before that. it is not that donald trump doesn't have a process. donald trump doesn't believe in the institutions that would run the process. he doesn't read a pdb. he said the intel chief should go back to school because he didn't agree with him on iran or north korea or russia. so he wants us to trust him when he doesn't trust any of the people that would help him take the country to war. >> donald trump said i alone can

fix it and you see how trying to do that with foreign policy. whether it is a critical flash point that he outsources to his son-in-law or it is an ambassador post that he doesn't fill and he said he doesn't really see the need for ambassadors all around the world when he can do everything. yes, we see where he doesn't respect anyone and their subject matter of expertise. and you look at the contrast with joe biden, who is giving the kind of interview that donald trump should be giving to try to explain what he's doing, to try to explain why he took this risky step and how it is making us safer, if it is. but instead you just get some tweets and a ton of conflicting information from everyone in the administration. >> jake sherman, joe biden there saying that he does not give donald trump the benefit of the doubt. those are the kind of moments in the biden candidacy that tend to rally the most democrats behind him when he takes the case

directly to donald trump. >> reporter: yeah, and he has in his estimation and in his team's estimation the only -- he's the only person with this kind of experience who has been there, who has the relationships around the world. again, his view, a lot of democrats privately will say actually what richard said which is that he has not been perfect in every decision he's made. and but i think what the biden people are banking on is that this steady kind of presence on the foreign stage is what we want. i would push back on one thing. i do think that the president does hash things out with people around him. i don't think that there is no process. what i would say is it is not like any process that our country or this government has ever known. ever. so i think -- i don't think that -- that there is no process to be honest. i think mike pompeo, the secretary of state, who is presumably in charge of diplomacy is the main face discussing war which is quite

bizarre, which gives us the read that he has been and the reporting indicates that he's been incredibly involved in war decisions. so there is a process, but that is just one example of how the process. that's one example of how the process under donald trump is unlike any other process ever that we've ever seen. and it's for voters to render judgment. it leads to people being left in the dark and caught off guard. >> i think the guests at mar-a-lago would agree with you. we get to watch it all unfold. >> when we come back, the bloomberg campaign admitting to buying a $10 million attack ad against donald trump for the

express purpose of trolling the president. the new normal when we come back. ident. the new normal when we come back ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. if your adventure... keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips. you may have overactive bladder, or oab. not again! we're seeing a doctor when we get home. myrbetriq treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions, like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure,

common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation, back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. looking for a destination that isn't always the bathroom? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

mike bloomberg is making a big buy for the big game. the former new york mayor will spend $10 million for 60 seconds of air time during the super bowl in order to reach about 100 million people the day before the iowa caucuses. not to be outdone. a trump campaign spokesman says

they will buy 60 seconds of air time. this is trolling at a billionaire to billionaire level i'm not sure we've seen before. >> the interesting thing to me, they said they were doing it to get under trump's skin which is when you're trying to capture a nomination in a crowded field to spend $10 million of his own money granted, seems to be a interesting strategy. this is what you do when you've been in public life for a long time. you could spend $10 million on a super bowl ad. president trump doesn't have to run a primary. he has a lot of money on him he could spend. and he's willing to spend $10 million on this.

this is what bleep you money looks like. it's a conversation for another day. donald trump goes after his opponents this way. it will bother trump for 100 million people to see the message about him. >> mike is opening his wallet and spending the money. >> trump is not spending a dollar of his money in part because he doesn't have it, in part because he doesn't like it. it's pointed against trump, so he's like a blocking back for the whole democratic field. mike bloomberg is in fifth place in the latest polls. you're pete nocchio? oh, the pic? that was actually a professional headshot.

i'm sure that's it, yeah. i, uh, i think i've lost a few pounds recently too. i'm actually doing a juice cleanse. wait! you don't... (glass breaking) (gasp) ah! oh...! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. set yourself free with fleet. gentle constipation relief in minutes. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. feel that fleet feeling. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. it looks like this. for heart failure look like? ♪ the beat goes on ♪ entresto is a heart failure pill that helps improve your hearts ability to pump blood to the body.

don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. ♪la-di-la-di-dah don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪the beat goes on yeah! seventh platton, 40 seconds! filmmaking at its best. 1917 is... a visual miracle. 1917 is... come on! a pure adrenaline hit. 1917 is... piercingly alive. one, two, three. jump! 1917 is... the best picture of the year. proof i can fight moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. proof i can fight psoriatic arthritis...

...with humira. proof of less joint pain... ...and clearer skin in psa. humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. humira is proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage,... ...and clear skin in psa. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. there's still time to thank my guests today, jake sherman

who's stayed on the line for us. most of all, thanks to you for watching, that does it for our hour. mtp daily starts right now. welcome to tuesday. it's meet the press daily. i'm jeff bennett in washington in for chuck todd, on a jam packed day on capitol hill. we have late breaking news and two developments on the breaking stories on politics. that's impeachment and the threat of war with iran. the white house is briefing a key group of congressional leaders on the killing of iran's top military commander, qassem soleimani. the briefing coming amid the