now everybody says it. they don't remember the previous name of the bad deal. commonly known as nafta. no. if you add the words -- if you add the two words middle east at the end of it because that's a big source of problems. and nato-me, doesn't that work beautifully, john. he's not -- obvious he's not getting it. he's not smiling. before i ran, he was smiling. now he's not smiling. >> reporter: more nato personnel in the region -- >> as opposed to us. this is an international problem. and we can come home or largely come home and use nato. this is an international problem. we caught isis. we did europe a big favor. we got 100% of the caliphate. we have thousands and thousands of isis fighters are killed and tens of thousands are in prison

right now and europe doesn't want them. it's not right. they want to go to france. they want to go to germany. they want to go to the countries where they came from. that's their home. the u.s. is not their home. they want to go. it's not fair that we're holding these people and that other countries aren't taking because we're bearing the cost. i think that nato should be expanded and we should include the middle east. absolutely. and we pay for a big percentage of nato. by the way, if you look at and speak to secretary general who's doing a terrific job, by the way, he will tell you that i raised $130 billion more than they were getting. it was going down from past administrations every single year. it was down to a very low number. i came in and said you got to pay. we're working with you. we're protecting you. you got to pay. we don't want to be the fools like we have been for so many years. we had a meeting with all of the

countries. i said you have to pay. i can imagine they don't like me as much as obama and other people. but they got to pay. we're protecting. you got to pay. we have 130 billion more. in fact my biggest fan in the whole world is the secretary general because he can't believe it. now he just announced $530 billion we've gotten under my watch and so we're in great shape with the that whole situation and i think nato should be helping us now with the middle east. having an international flavor there is good. plus you had a deal signed with many of these countries that are in nato. the economic deal with iran. so i have actually -- i have actually said that i think the scope of nato should be increased and they should be looking for isis. we'll help. right now the burden is on and that's not been fair. we've done a great job on isis.

isis was all over the place. it was a disaster. and now the caliphate, a 100% of the kacaliphate is gone. we have hundreds of thousands of prisoners in prison. they should be taking and europe should be helping with the burden. i like the idea of nato expanding their views. >> reporter: since the environment is the issue we're talking about today -- since the environment is something that is on the table here today, what is your position on global warming? do you think it's a hoax? >> nothing is a hoax. nothing is a hoax about that. it's a very serious subject. i want the cleanest air. i want the cleanest water. the environment is very important to me. somebody wrote a book before this. they wrote a book. i would like to get it. i'll bring it to my next news conference, perhaps. i'm sure you'll report all about it.

i'm a big believer in that word, the environment. i'm a big believer. but i want clean air. i want clean water and i also want jobs. i don't want to close up our industry because somebody said, you know, you have to go with wind or you have to go with something else that's not going to be able to have the capacity to do what we have to do. we have the best employment numbers we've ever have. we have the best unemployment numbers we've ever had. that's very important. one more. >> reporter: how much of your own money are you prepared to spend on your re-election. >> i haven't thought about it. i spent a lot on the first one and i did the primaries and obviously that came out to be very successful and i have not thought about it. i will say this, because of the impeachment hoax, we're taking in numbers that nobody ever expected. you saw the kind of numbers we're reporting. we're blowing everybody away. nobody has taken in the money that we're taking in from the public. it's good because it's an

investment they're making that investment. it's better than the big donors. we're taking in numbers that nobody has ever seen before frankly and it's a great thing. >> reporter: saying you wouldn't take donor money. >> i put in a lot. do you know the number i put in for the primaries and for the first election? do you know that number? it's a big number. >> reporter: i don't have the total. >> and i say i wonder if it mattered. i never noticed myself get any credit for that. i did. i spent a lot of my own money. tens of millions of dollars times a lot. but i spent a lot of my own money and i always asked the question, i said i wonder if it was necessary because i don't think anybody even knew that i was spending it. i mentioned it every once in a while. first it's i give up my salary, approximately 450,000 presidential salary. i give it up. it goes to -- usually i give it to drugs.

i give some to elaine for transportation. but every quarter, i think it's paid on a quarterly basis, i give up 100% of my salary that i make as president. i don't think anybody has written that story. you guys don't want to write that kind of a story. i'm going to ohio. some of you are coming with me. we look forward to it. i want to congratulate all of you because i think this is going to make a tremendous difference in your unions and for your workers and for your investments and for everything. this is going to be a fantastic thing. we'll bring numbers down from 20 years to less than two. we'll bring them down from ten years. i think you'll hit much less than two even more major projects and i want to thank everybody for being here. it's a great honor. thank you very much. thank you, thank you, thank you very much. [ applause ] >> you've been watching the president from the roosevelt room answering questions. president trump with a stunning new line of attack from the white house moments ago falsely claiming that because congress is raising the issue of congress's power to be consulted on military action, that house

speaker nancy pelosi and the democrats are defending the iranian general responsible for killing hundreds of americans. >> you know what bothers me, when i see a nancy pelosi trying to defend this monster from iran. when nancy pelosi and the democrats want to defend him, i think that's a very bad thing for this country. i think that's a big losing argument politically too. >> here is actually what speaker pelosi said earlier today. >> not that we have any confidence in the goodness or the good intentions of iran and we certainly do not respect and i know just how bad soleimani was. it's not because we expect good things from them. but we expect great things from us. >> peter alexander and kasie

hunt. peter, first to you, because this -- the president's line of attack against pelosi and the democrats was so strong and it is so contrary to what they are saying in their war powers argument. kasie, we'll talk to you about what's being voted on today. he clearly sees this as a political play. >> yeah, that's exactly right. to expand on some of the comments from her own news conference within the last hour as well, she also said that soleimani was a, quote, terrible person who did bad things. so the president's suggestion that the democrats including pelosi are defending him or standing up for him is obviously not true. i was struck by a couple things in the president's comments there that require a little bit of fact-checking. the president said that we did this in his words because

soleimani was, quote, looking to blow up our embassy. that was a striking statement because obviously as we have heard throughout the course of the last week here from mike pompeo and mike pence earlier today is that it was because of an imminent attack. the president would say it was because of what soleimani did trying to attack our embassy in the last several weeks. but earlier we heard from pence himself saying that they didn't want to compromise sources and methods behind the reasoning for this attack. andrea? >> in fact there's a lot of intelligence that soleimani is not involved directly with the militias that were attacking the embassy. i have to go to tom costello very quickly on new information about what caused that incredible plane crash killing so many people, the ukrainian plane, the 737 in iran. tom? >> reporter: u.s. intelligence sources are telling nbc news that it now -- the u.s. intelligence community now has confirmation that this plane

with 176 people on board was in fact brought down by iranian missiles. likely fired by mistake as of course iran had just fired those missiles at u.s. bases in iraq and many on the ground in iran were fearing u.s. reprisal attacks. this happened at about 6:14 in the morning when this ukrainian jet liner took off from tehran. two minutes into flight, suddenly it lost all coms and video from the ground shows a fireba fi fireball streaking across the sky. u.s. intelligence suggesting that spy satellites have now confirmed that in fact the plane was brought down by iranian-based missiles. it was a ukrainian airliner with 176 people on board. by the away, iran thus far has denied that missiles brought

down the plane. they've suggested some sort of a mechanical error is to blame. but the ukrainians for their part, and one of their planes, ukraine has all along been concerned about a possible missile strike just based on the timing brought down this passenger plane with 176 people on board. >> tom, just to reprise this, you've been raising questions about this since the moment it happened. it happened within an hour or so of those missile strikes against the iraqi targets from iran. >> yeah. >> this is a three-year-old 737. it had been inspected two days earlier. among those victims were a number of canadians. and among those canadians were foreign students, iranians who had been home for the holidays.

there were infants and toddlers as well. there were a lot of young people as well on that plane. >> it was a plane made up almost entirely of iranians, ukrainians and 63 canadians. 63 many of them some connection to the university of alberta. many of them had been at a wedding in iran and were going back to canada after having been at a wedding. from the moment this happened, my aviation sources were saying all the evidence here would suggest that this in fact was some sort of of a missile, some sort of a bomb. and then as the hours progressed, the evidence continued to mount for the aviation sources that this was a missile. and now u.s. intelligence sources saying in fact it does appear to have been a missile that brought it down. and the irony here is that iran fired the missiles, didn't hit any americans, didn't cause any casualties in iraq when they fired those missiles at u.s.

bases, and yet through an unbelievable tragedy and a miscalculation, 176 people, many of them iranians, were brought down by one of iran's own missiles. >> and just to also add another detail, iran has refused to hand over the black box. >> that's changed a bit. iran's language has changed on how much it will cooperate with international investigators. today it's been a little confusing as to whether they are going to release the black boxes and to whom. but it does now appear they're going to provide international investigators access to the black boxes, even some suggestion that they might allow the ntsb in on the investigation. boeing may or may not be. it of course made the plane. but under u.s. sanctions, boeing may not be allowed to even set foot in iran. iran's language on how much it will cooperate with international investigators has changed slightly today. >> and of course those sanctions can be waived for the purpose of

this investigation by both countries because iran is part of that international agreement, the long-standing agreement for investigating these kinds of -- any kind of crash. i want to play for you, tom, if you can stand by for a moment, i know you have more reporting to do. this is what the president had to say just moments ago when asked about this. very cautious response. >> somebody could have made a mistake. some people say it was mechanical. i personally don't think that's even a question personally. we'll see what happens. >> reporter: do you think it was shot down by accident? >> i don't know. that's up to them. at some point they'll release the black box. >> and this just after he had announced new sanctions from treasury today against iran because of the iranian missile strikes strikes as well. any other details? >> i would make the point that every single aviation source i've talked to, and these are people at the top of the food chain not only in the commercial business but also in government,

every single one of them said this looks like a missile strike. and we were waiting for some sort of u.s. confirmation that that is in fact what brought it down. and the scenario here would be that, listen, iran had just fired off those missiles. you may recall we had our own reporter in iran, ali arouzi, everybody was afraid of a possible retaliatory strike from the united states. you can imagine that everybody in iran was on pins and needles afraid of a retaliatory strike and then the question is, did somebody have a very quick happy trigger finger or was this a tragic automated mistake that brought this plane down. >> and you and i were together that night because we were covering the missile strikes and the potential for a retaliation by the u.s. and you were going up and down the hallway and we were talking about this saying how suspicious this was.

it was two minutes into its flight. a new plane. and i don't know what the elevation was. but then you had some video that we saw the next day where you saw the plane breaking up in the air and a fireball rather than coming down which would have been an engine failure -- >> it was the size of that fireball. it was too big to be an engine failure -- an engine fire. the iranians immediately suggested an engine failure of some sort. if you had an uncontained engine fire, if you had a single uncontained engine failure like that, you would not have that kind of fire. secondly, one engine failure would not prohibit the plane from flying. it is highly unlikely that one engine failure would knock out the gps and radio communications.

whatever happened with this plane, and we now believe it was in fact a missile strike, immediately caused the plane to go dark, to go back at 7900 feet, two minutes into the flight. so it was instant. it was catastrophic and simply engine failures don't cause that kind of a catastrophic emergency. >> just to repeat, unlike the twa horrible crash and other crashes in the past, the redundancies in these modern planes prevent exactly that kind of catastrophic crash. >> you're absolutely right. these planes today have so many layers of redundancies and computers upon computers to ensure that if something goes wrong, it doesn't cascade into something else. in fact there are two separate power generators on each side of the plane for these engines. if you did lose one engine, you have a generator on the other side of the plane. so all of that made aviation

experts very, very skeptical that this was an engine failure, all the signs pointed to some sort of a missile strike. just like the malasian flight. but all the evidence suggested that was a russian-made missile and this also suggests this may have been a russian-made missile fired from iran. >> that's what i was thinking about immediately. your reporting on this has been dead on for days now, all of the questions you've raised. thank you. >> thanks. standing by is democratic senator chris van hollen. your reaction to this and what you expect to hear from iran? >> an awful tragedy. any time you see this terrible loss of incident lives, all of

us have to send our prayers to the families of the loved ones. it's an example of what can happen during the fog of war, the kind of miscalculation that can happen and could, you know -- under certain circumstances lead to escalation. a terrible tragedy and i hope that the iranians will work with us and provide us with the black box so everyone can get all of the details. >> should u.s. treasury provide waivers so that the boeing investigators can work with iran as would normally happen if they were not so sanctioned? >> yes. this is a humanitarian crisis, loss of innocent lives. this is exactly the kind of circumstance where we should provide exceptions under the sanctions law. >> how much does this complicate our relationship with iran at such a difficult time. we've come as close as we have ever come in 40 years to military conflict with iran.

>> well, that's right. we're closer to war with iran than we have ever before. the president's so-called maximum pressure campaign that he launched three years ago had brought us to the brink. we're still at the brink as of today. the president's actions in iran and the actions he took recently have made us less safe. it has made the region less stable. and it has turned many of our allies in the iraqi government against us and we're now having to focus more on iran than the real and necessary fight against isis. so we're at a very difficult moment. i was just listening to some of the president's press conference that you were airing. he does seem in many ways more delusional than ever on all sorts of issues related both to iran and to the impeachment trial. >> and i want to play for you

what mike pence said to my colleague savannah guthrie on the "today" show, rand paul, republican senators, of the classified briefing by the top cabinet officials yesterday. mike lee, as you well know, said it was the worst briefing he had ever seen in nine years. he said it was insanity for them to suggest that you could not have a war powers debate right now, congressional debate on use of force because it would be encouraging the iranians. this is what mike pence had to say on the criticism that it was not -- not a briefing that had real, hard facts. let's watch. >> why not in a classified setting can our briefers from this administration share what it was, this threat that you talk about, in a classified setting? >> well, some of that has to do with what's called sources and

methods, savannah, that -- if we were to share all of the intelligence. and some of the most compelling evidence that qassem soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against american forces and american personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have, it could compromise those sources and methods. >> you were at that briefing. you've been at briefings for years on capitol hill in both houses. for him to say that you could not share classified intelligence with people who are cleared to hear classified intelligence, what about congress's role of oversight on military action? >> andrea, you're right. and that's why this was a disastrous press conference -- a disastrous briefing. it was not just democrats saying that as you've reported you included two republican senators. the reality is they provided very little facts and the facts clearly did not establish their

claim of an imminent threat. and so now you have the vice president making statements like that. this is the same vice president i want to remind people who within the last ten days tweeted out one of the biggest lies regarding intelligence. he made the totally debunked claim that iran was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks on the united states. iran had done a lot of very, very bad things. there's no argument there. but they were not involved in 9/11. that's been established. and so the same vice president who lied about that in his tweet the other day is now making this claim today. so i say american public beware. we saw what happened when administrations try to manipulate the intelligence and fabricate the facts in order to justify a predetermined

decision. in this case a decision to take us one less step toward war with iran. not a war of necessity, not a war required by any kind of imminent threat. but by a war of choice, that many in this administration have been wanting to press for a long time. >> senator, i know you've got to go. quickly, the president also suggesting that in that news conference that soleimani was planning to blow up the embassy in baghdad. have you heard that from any of your official sources? >> no. and none of the facts presented at the classified briefing supported that claim. and so now you have the -- them saying, they can't provide this kind of information to senators in a highly classified setting but the president is going to say that today the country. it just shows how they're making this up as they go. they would have presented that kind of evidence yesterday if they had it. and as i say, the evidence is

not there to support their claim of an imminent threat. what we do know is the president's actions have made this area a lot less safe for americans and the prospects of war much higher. so a very dangerous moment and to listen to the president give that address just makes me worry ever more that he's more detached from reality. >> senator chris van hollen, thank you very much for being with us. ali arouzi is our tehran bureau chief. how will iran react to this news that perhaps from some mistake either automatic or human error or judgment error of some kind, according to our sources, u.s. intelligence satellites have picked up tracks that show that a missile brought down that commercial airliner. >> reporter: that is right, andrea. iranians are going to be very,

very upset about this. they're going to say that they're being framed again for something they haven't done from the very beginning they were saying this was an accident. there were no rockets fired from iran. they've been refuting all the claims that have been swirling around in this sort of rumor mill that a rocket or bomb went off on the plane. they said they had some of their most highly prized students on board that plane and why would they shoot it down? the ukrainian authorities are saying that this was possibly a russian-made rocket that hit that plane. we know that iran had a very close relationship with russia and they buy a lot of their military hardware from the russians. this is, again, becoming a very foggy situation. a blame game between the iranians and the americans. but the iranians are denying this is going to happen. i think the important thing is, andrea, now is if we get imagery from that spy satellite to see

exactly what happened. we haven't seen any imagery here of a rocket hitting that plane. the iranians have released some eyewitness footage from their telephones. they didn't show anything hitting the plane. but, you know, it could have been only part of the footage. we have to see how the investigation unfolds and what imagery is released. this is obviously going to raise tensions much more between iran and america while iran is undoubtedly going to say that the united states is trying to frame iran for something i didn't do. >> ali arouzi, thank you very much. coming into us from iran joining me now is jeremy bash. tom donilon, national security adviser to president obama and former deputy secretary of state. welcome both. jeremy, first to you, from your

intelligence and military background and your intelligence background as well on capitol hill before that, what do you make of this information that u.s. intelligence believes it was a missile that took out that commercial airliner? >> andrea, the very same intelligence systems that would detect iran's ballistic missile launches against u.s. forces in iraq may well have also picked up iranian anti-aircraft activity on that same night. and i think it's important to distinguish, i don't believe what the reporting suggests is that iranian ballistic missiles somehow by coincidence intercepted the aircraft. i think what they're suggesting is that iranian integrated air defenses were on a very high state of readiness, high state of alert and they either mistook this commercial airliner for a u.s. military aircraft or there was some painting of the target by radar and the missile went

off automatically as you suggest. i think what this all points up to, andrea, is that during the fog of war, when there's an exchange of fire, terrible things can unfold. and what happened here is that we came to the brink of a military conflict and i don't believe we're out of the woods yet because iran will turn to its surrogates and proxies, it's terrorist cells, it's cyberattacks, and we remain at a very dangerous moment here. >> and, tom donilon, if iran's response as has been reported was a relatively modest response to the death of soleimani, does iran now after this horrific accident, let's assume accident, get more aggressive or have to do something else to save face? we're really in a -- >> we're in a period of escalation and really dangerous period with iran that we've launched. i agree with jeremy, we had this

initial back and forth which provided an opportunity to pause. but i don't think that's the end of the game at all. i think iran will continue to press its escalation through other means, all manner of other capabilities that they have. i really worry about our vulnerability in the region. we have some 50,000 troops in the persian gulf region. we saw the other night in the attacks which didn't result in any deaths at the erbil or al asad air base, but we saw real vulnerabilities there. on the shootdown that jeremy was just talking about, it's a spectacular tragedy. as jeremy said, it's one of those anticipated things that happens when you unleash an escalatory war typeset of dynamics. if it was iranian responsibility here, accident or not, they need to cooperate with the

transparent, credible, internationally based investigation and should do so promptly to get to the bottom of this and they should do things like allow the ntsb to go in and do a complete investigation so we know what happened here. but this is what when you unleash these kinds of things. we had a series of unanticipated coincidences. we have taken the pressure off isis. the coalition has announced that it's suspended its operations because it has to engage in force protection -- >> where the president is announcing he wants nato to take over and be more involved in the middle east at the very moment that nato is standing down against isis because it was not alerted in advance to the killing of soleimani and now has to protect its troops. >> we had a coalition that has been operating quite effectively against isis and now because we have to move into the kind of force protection that we're talking about here, we've taken the pressure off isis. the president keeps on saying

that isis is 100% taken care of. that is not true. government reports have come out repeatedly showing a concern even before he pulled off northeast syria about an isis resurgence. and we have the nuclear program. the third is that we have anti-iranian sentiment building in the region. it's turned anti-u.s. sentiment. we may have destabilized the iraqi government and also despite the president wanting to get back into a coalition, we took apart that coalition through our actions on the iranian deal. >> and jeremy, let me ask you about congressional notification. you worked for a cabinet secretary, leon panetta who was also a former member of congress. you were involved in briefings. you worked on the house side on intel. this is what -- this is what mike pence said today -- well, are we going to play the mike lee -- excuse me, mike lee's

criticism. i want to ask you about mike pence who was suggesting that there's no need for this kind of congressional notification, that they can't be trusted to learn about sources and methods. this was mike lee as you know a republican from utah, blasting that briefing yesterday. >> what i found so distressing about that briefing is that one of the messages we received from the briefers was do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against iran. if you do, you'll be emboldening iran. we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public. i find that absolutely insane. >> so the president today has now blasted democrats and nancy pelosi saying that they basically are embracing soleimani by wanting to debate the war powers and debate this resolution today.

your experience, you've been a recipient of briefings and a briefer. >> yeah, tom donilon and i used to talk about this all the time when we both served in government. the constitution which says that congress under article i has an oversight responsibility and ultimately has the responsibility to declare war, that constitution is a source of our strength. it's not a source of our weakness. and i think executive branch agencies gain a lot when they brief congress. after all, they have to seek funding and authorization -- policy authorization for many activities from congress. and i think it's in the interest of our government to brief congress. i don't think it's a sign of weakness. and i think the questions that congress in return should be asking our intelligence agencies are, number one is what was the nature of the imminent threat? is it true that iran is standing down? i bet that at this hour our intelligence agencies are putting together intelligence products for our policymakers that suggest that iran is not standing down.

that they are in fact going underground, using surrogates and proxies, using terrorism, cyber, developing their nuclear capabilities. and third, i think another question is, whether or not all of this has made us safer or whether or not we're entering a much more dangerous period with the rise of isis and iranian unification in the face of these recent events. >> it's in the administration's benefit to do a briefing of the congress and explain this to the american people and the assertion that you can't share classified information in a classified setting with people responsible for overseeing the administration and indeed making the administration better in terms of its presentation is just wrong. it's a mistake on the part of the administration. >> you've all had a lot of experience. yours is in government. mine is as a journalist. i've never seen a leak from the gang of eight and nancy pelosi was ranking on intelligence for years before she became speaker.

thank you very much. i can't think of two better guests to have right now with so much broad experience. jeremy, thank you, and coming up next, don't mess with pelosi. why are senate democrats backing off of demands for the speaker to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. stay with us. even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop.

seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. hey frank, our worker's comp insurance is expiring, should we just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. wow, that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, no no, i'm good. uh, yes please. oh. ho ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3

minutes at easyaspie.com.

we are reaching a point

where the articles of impeachment could be sent. what i've heard from my colleagues is not only a sense of urgency about impeachment, but a trust in the judgment. and i think she will make the right decisions at the right time. >> so that was then, this is now. senator richard blumenthal and others walking back their pressure for nancy pelosi so send the articles of impeachment. joining me now editor of "the washington post" and author of "supreme ambition" and john lemire. and kasie hunt. kasie, great to see you. let's start with you. you were at the speaker's news conference and help us understand her strategy here. what is the hold up on sending

over the articles? >> reporter: andrea, that's the question everybody here is asking and she today said it was the smart, strategic way to go about this. those who are defending the special circumstancer speaker's strategy, they believe she is stretching out this conversation about impeachment, that soong she sends over the articles, republicans will move quickly in seven to ten days to acquit the president, allow him to be out on the campaign trail saying he's been exonerated, and that doesn't serve democrats well. even though they will try to underscore this isn't about politics. at the end of the day everybody is making political calculations behind the scenes here. there's really no way around that. but she will also argue that it serves the country and that more information has come out in the time that we have been waiting for this trial to begin, that there have been more documents that have come to light, more people willing to testify and

ultimately that does serve the interest of the truth and the constitution. now, for those democrats who are perplexed about her strategy here, i think it really goes to how the politics of it are playing out here in the senate. if you think about what you may be accomplishing with those moderates who make a difference, you think, maybe they're going to get more nervous as this drags out. but i think the political wins here in the senate, my sense is it's putting some more ground under those moderates, giving them more space to say this is entirely political and therefore pushing them towards mitch mcconnell and his overall strategy of trying to move this as quickly as possible with as few witnesses and extra documents as possible. those are the winds that are blowing right now. and you can really see -- you did a nice job setting that up there with then and now with senator blumenthal. you saw it from senator feinstein, one of pelosi's own

chairman this morning. democrats who have said in public we are worried about this strategy have been turned around by the speaker's office and have said i'm on her side. >> from the looks of your shot, i think you're in the basement or somewhere close to the subway. you're waiting for lindsey graham, perhaps, or someone else? you're on stakeout duty. >> reporter: that would be the idea. fingers crossed. >> earlier you were on the house side when nancy pelosi said this. >> you all keep asking me the same question and i keep giving you the same answer. as i said right from the start, we need to see the arena in which we were sending our managers. is that too much to ask? i hear that they might want to -- you probably heard one way or another some of them have suggested they might want to

dismiss. dismiss equals cover-up. >> ruth, you're the harvard lawyer. i am not. senator mcconnell keeps saying those were the rules of the clinton impeachment. pelosi is saying this isn't the clinton impeachment because the whole evidence gathering procedure was very different. >> it was a completely different situation. when people like then house manager lindsey graham and others were arguing vehemently for as many as a dozen witnesses actually during the clinton impeachment and they got three, all of those witnesses including the president of the united states himself had already testified extensively before the grand jury and in other venues. all the facts were known. the argument was that the senate still needed to hear from witnesses so they could assess demeanor and they ended up getting three. this is a completely different situation and so the argument that we should have the evidence and opening arguments first and only then decide whether or not

to go for witnesses, from my point of view is just completely illogical. at the same time it strikes me that the pressure, no matter what people are saying today in public in terms of retrenching on their desires to have the speaker send over those articles of impeachment asap, that pressure is still there behind the scenes. and so i expect it's going to happen sooner rather than later. >> jonathan, the president is just completely focused on this. as you can understand. it's a very big deal. but he -- the tweets, the storm, the anger, just screams at you. >> right. the anger has not faded whatsoever. obviously there are other news stories dominating the headlines right now, the standoff in iran being chief among them. this is something that he's deeply focused on. as much as he's bought into this, believing that the impeachment is a political win for him, they point to poll numbers that show that impeachment, about half the

country is for it, but they have internals that suggest that the independents have soured on impeachment. they think this can help them motivate their own base to come out and turn out at a higher number this fall when the president faces his re-election challenge. but he knows it's the first line of his obituary. maybe that first line is the first president to be impeached and be re-elected, but impeachment is there. he feels like it's an unjust process. as much as his instinct is to have this showy trial, at this point it seems like he's willing to go along with others who want to take care of this matter of factually. senator graham said, we know the verdict. don't mess with the process. >> you've got a lot going on because later this afternoon the house will vote on the war powers issue in an attempt to restrain the president's ability to go after iran without some congressional authority. there is obviously going to be

democrat support in the house. what happens in the senate? >> andrea, that's the question. i think you saw it take a turn for the worse. and it's the trump administration's own fault after that briefing yesterday with the speaker -- the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, other top national security officials to have republicans coming out and saying this is pushing me towards democrats. what do you guys think you're doing in here? mike lee calling it the worst he's heard in the nine years in the senate. i think you can see that in the president's rhetoric saying that -- trying to say that pelosi was saying nice things about soleimani. simply not the case as you pointed out at the top of your show, andrea. >> kasie hunt, thank you so much. thanks to all. coming up, more on those war powers. mike gallagher on whether the administration should brief congress on the iran intel.

you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. reports" on msnbc. these are real people, not actors, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch.

that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent.

it would all depend on the circumstance. i don't have to, you shouldn't have to be able, you have to make split second decisions sometimes, sometimes you have to move very, very quickly, john.

in certain cases i wouldn't even mind doing it. >> president trump says he doesn't need congressional approval for action against iran, he is correct in some circumstances he does not have to, but the house is preparing to vote on a resolution to the war powers act to try to restrict his actions on iran. wisconsin republican congressman mike gallagher serves on the armed services committee, an iraq war veteran and marine. congressman, good to see you. thank you very much. where do you stand on the war powers debate? the president was arguing that nancy pelosi and the democrats are embracing soleimani, which i don't think is a fair charge, just by raising this issue, and the briefers yesterday said to the senators that even having the debate would empower the iranians. >> reporte >> so i think it is a bad idea for a few reasons. one, the text of the resolution seems to suggest that the u.s.

military is responsible for escalation, when we know the iranians themselves are responsible for systemic escalation that's been going on for the better part of the last year. furthermore, this is a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution, which is a fancy way of saying this is a legislative veto. since the ins first had the decision, we know legislative vetoes are at best constitutionally suspect. if the democrats were serious, would not have gone down this route. we should all be suspect that they were going to introduce this prior to viewing intelligence. what a seer yugs approach would look like, and i am more than happy to work with democratic colleagues, we should repeal that 2002 aumf. >> the use of force. i understand. >> considered legal position of the obama administration when they reintroduced troops back into iraq that that was one of the authorities that allowed them to do that, and it is now

ironic that the trump administration is using the same authority. furthermore, we should revisit, reviews the 2001 aumf for the military to have the authority to counter isis and al qaeda. even in that scenario, they retain the ability to take necessary self defense actions to defend themselves, and i believe the president in this case had inherent authority under article two to do just that. >> i take the point that there's an argument they should wait to be briefed on the intelligence, but they haven't been briefed more than a week on intelligence, and the briefing on the senate side was woefully inadequate. >> i can't speak for what happened on the senate side. i was surprised when i heard comments from mike lee and others. i walked out of the briefing in the house more confident this was the right thing to do. furthermore, had extension i have discussion in the white house where they were

forthcoming about the intelligence picture. as an intelligence officer myself by background, i understand intelligence is never 100% and certain, you always have to make a difficult call in real time. in this case, the white house certainly had authority to act. i am glad they submitted war powers notification. to tie these together, i think we have to confront the uncomfortable fact that since the war powers resolution was passed, it has failed to achieve its noble purpose. that's why we need to step back, think of a better construct to get congress back in the game. presidents of both parties, president obama was one of the worst offenders of this, abused the war powers process and submitted notifications without notifying congress in the process. >> you raise a lot of points. i look forward to continuing to discuss this with you. sorry for the interruptions today. we had a lot of news. congress up at 3:00, tim kanz joining alli velshi.

stay with us. we'll be right back. lshi stay with us we'll be right back. i wanted my hepatitis c gone. i put off treating mine. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, epclusa could be your kind of cure. i just found out about mine. i knew for years epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i had no symptoms of hepatitis c mine caused liver damage. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up, and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b, other liver or...

...kidney problems, hiv, or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness. ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure.

which is why xfinity mobile data,is a different kindent. of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70.

click, call or visit a store today. and just to end a very difficult news day on a happy note, news from justice ginsberg that she has beaten cancer for the fourth time and she is cancer free. ruth bader ginsberg. we wish her well as well.

that does it for this edition of andrea mitchell reports. follow us online and on twitter. here is stephanie ruhle for "velshi and ruhle." >> that's great news about justice ginsberg. great news. andrea, have a great day. we have a lot to cover beginning with breaking news on that tragic plane crash in iran that killed a total of 176 people, everyone on board. u.s. sources are now telling nbc news that the plane was shot down by iranian missiles, this according to spy satellite evidence. meanwhile, iranian investigators have said the ukraine international airlines plane was on fire moments after takeoff and was apparently trying to turn around. iranian officials attributed the crash to mechanical trouble immediately after it went down, after initially agreeing with iran's umbrella conclusion, ukraine