in baghdad. you saw that happening. you saw it with all of the men, very few women circling it and circling it very strongly and very viciously knocking out windows and trying to get in, and they were close to getting in. >> did they have large scale attacks planned for other embassies and if those were planned, why can't we reveal that to the american people? wouldn't that help your case? >> i can reveal that i believe it would have been four embassies, and i think that probably baghdad already started, but baghdad certainly would have been the lead, but i think it would have been four embassies. could have been military bases. could have been a lot of other things, too but it was imminent, and then all of a sudden he was gone. >> well, it's unclear if alerts were sent to the embassies that president trump claims were being targeted as is normally done, and despite trump's assertion, a senior administration official and a senior defense official tell "the washington post" that they were only aware of what they

called vague intelligence about an unfully formed plot against the baghdad embassy and not ability multiple embassies. joining us now from tel aviv is foreign correspondent matt bradley, from toronto nbc's erin mclaughlin, and daily beast political reporter and an msnbc contributor. matt, let's start with you in the region. what's the latest reaction to iran's admission that they accidentally shot down that ukrainian plane and what kind of response should we expect in the coming hours? >> i think here in the middle east, obviously this has really pulled the carpet out from under the iranians as far as they're getting the upper hand morally and tactically against the united states. say what you will about president trump's impetuous decision to assassinate qassem soleimani, but no civilians have been killed, at least not in this latest rounds. now the iranians, not only were

they embarrassed by the lack of damage their counter strike did against american targets in iraq, but now they have to explain themselves for the killings of 176 innocent people. they definitely came out much, much worse here. but now we're starting to see as you mentioned in your introduction, geoff, this interesting kind of cascading explanations on both sides of the atlantic. we're hearing in iran that they're trying to kind of climb down. they're still saying that they take responsibility for shooting down this ukrainian jet, but at the same time they're heavily implying that well, it's the u.s. that raised tension in the region, and it's their fault. we had to shoot them because we had ten seconds. we didn't know whether or not this was an incoming missile because the americans had put us on high alert with their threats. all of this is going to fall with a loud thud here in the region. nobody is going to believe the iranians, but now that they've come clean, we've heard today from boris johnson, the prime

minister of britain, britain lost some civilians on that flight, they're saying this is an important first step. what everybody here really wants to hear is a full and total address of culpability by the iranians. they want them to say, we're at fall. we're to blame and no one else, and that might be a long while in coming, and it's just like what we're hearing out of washington when it comes to the explanations for why there was an imminent threat. we started to hear it first that there was an imminent threat against american targets. then it was an embassy. now it's four embassies. now it's we're also hearing that it was basically that the protests outside of the u.s. embassy, remember last week when this all was getting going, now that's tantamount to the threat that was imminent that was about to take lives even though those protests outside that embassy were well finished by the time the u.s. launched their attack in iraq, and now we're hearing in yemen. so a lot of these excuses, a lot of these explanations are going to start to sound a little bit

weak here to people in the region. >> erin, over to you in toronto, how is canada reacting to this news related to that ukrainian jet liner that was shot down? you have 57 canadians who died and a number of other victims appear to have been iranian students studying in canada. >> reporter: well, in the overnight hours, we did hear via twitter from the communications director for justin trudeau say that the canadian government is going to continue to push for justice, transparency and accountability. but as for the victims, we have yet to hear from them. they're waking up to this really tragic news still working to deal with their own pain and their own haunting stories. yesterday nbc's miguel almaguer sat down with dorsa gisemi who lost her cousin kianna to the

plane crash. he was recalling how kianna's father was trying to convince kianna not to get on board the plane, that he had a bad feeling, that he was worried about the events that were unfolding at the time in the region. he wanted kianna to postpone her trip. she insisted saying she wanted to be back in canada for her first day of classes. take a listen. >> she had the biggest dreams that anyone could have. >> 19-year-old kianna gasemi had just been accepted to college in toronto overjoyed to start classes this week. >> i want the world to know that she had so many beautiful dreams. >> reporter: so many haunting stories that we're hearing like that one, and it is also recalling painful memories for the victims of another plane crash.

i was on the phone last night with the father of the only american who died on board mh-17, the malaysian airline flight that was downed by a missile over five years ago over eastern ukraine, and he was telling me that watching all of this play out was like watching his own tragedy play out again, and he was telling me just how horrifying, how difficult it is to come to terms with this tragedy. he's still working to come to terms with what happened to him and saying that the mh-17 foundation that has been formed in the wake of that tragedy is offering support to the victims of this plane crash saying that the best way for the families to get through this is to band together. >> the grief is really unimaginable. thank you, erin for that. betsy, let's turn back to something that president trump

said in that interview last night on fox news. he said he believes there were four embassies that were in imminent danger as he put it. if that's the case, clearly he's the president, he might know things that lawmakers may not, but you know, we put this question to lawmakers yesterday, and none of them said that they were told, but the president now says he was told about these four embassies in imminent danger. >> it very much strains credulity. beside what the president said on fox news, the public hasn't seen any evidence, and it appears capitol hill hasn't seen any such evidence too. there was some incredulity at foggy bottom when the president made these comments. one person reached out is and said this is not something that the state department had been bracing for over the last several days. again, the president knows more than we do. he has ultimate declassification authority. he gets lots of intelligence, but in this instance, it's very much a wait and see situation to

figure out if the administration is willing to release any more information corroborating the claims that the president said. and this is also a moment where the president's history of making claims that are wildly disaligned from the facts has such an enormous consequence because when countries are going through crisis moments the way the u.s. and iran are going through right now, having credible people in government who can lay out basic facts in a way that the populous and capitol hill can take seriously is such -- is such an important asset, and right now for many americans, including many people on capitol hill, that's not something we have. >> words matter and credibility matters, especially in times like this. matt, there are new reports as you well know, that indicate the u.s. unsuccessfully tried to target and kill another senior iranian military official on the same day as soleimani, only this time it was in yemen instead of iraq. so tell us what more you know

about this, and i should also say that the state department earlier this hour released a new travel warning for americans in iraq. so bring us up to speed on those two fronts, please. >> yeah, well, that travel warning isn't new. that's a renewed travel warning. there's always a travel warning for americans going to iraq. it's still very much a dangerous country for americans to travel around in. as for the yemen attack, you know, that is really fresh information, that is just coming out. but you know, that yemeni situation, the officer who was attempted to be killed, you know, he was a member of the quds force. he was a senior member just like qassem soleimani who was successfully assassinated in iraq. the iranian operations in yemen are a little bit different. it's less of a seamless connection, like the militia, the shiite militias in iraq enjoy with the iranian regime. in yemen, it's the houthis, and they enjoy less backing slightly than the militias in neighboring

iraq. so they are, you know, they're fighting against the saudis and the emiratis, they've been going -- doing that for years and years. it's been a very bloody and very difficult conflict. i would imagine -- and i'm speculating here -- that the united states had support from the saudis and from the emiratis, probably some intelligence about where this man was when they tried to attack him. it turns out that that was an unsuccessful operation. i'm sure that the details as to why that was a misfire are going to be coming out in the coming days, but right now what that points to is that this wasn't necessarily an imminent threat from qassem soleimani himself. it looks more like this was a larger, broader operation that might have been trying to kneecap the entire quds force. remember, that's the outward looking part of the islamic revolutionary guard corps, but they are actually trying to get rid of many of the leadership within the quds force. that says that that was a different intention for this operation than was originally

stated by the trump administration that there was that imminent threat. with both of these targets combined, it looked like this was a broader operation that might have had more profound, more far reaching political goals. >> in the minutes we have left, the administration says they want to deescalate. what might that look like in real terms based on your reporting? >> i think the big issue for them is going to be whether or not the administration engages in more aggressive counter iran military activity. right now at this moment, we don't have information indicating that they're doing that. however, the announcement of increasing of u.s. sanctions on iran that came yesterday from secretaries pompeo and mnuchin is something the iranian government will see as an aggressive act. the sanctions regime the trump administration has been rolling out ever since the maximum pressure campaign on the iranian government was started has made the domestic political situation for the iranian regime much more

complicated simply because it's done so much damage to that country's economy and to civilians lu civilians living there. by amping up those sanctions the impact of that campaign is going to be more acute, more destabilizing on iran. that's by design, that's the aim of the trump administration and something iran's leaders are going to see as an act, very much of aggression even if it's not specifically military or kinetic action. >> my thanks to you this morning for your reporting and insights. president trump can talk tough with his threats of military action as we've seen, often answering apock liptically when asked about how he would respond to certain situations. but the president also has a habit of creating excuses for u.s. adversaries. compare these responses from this week and last summer after iran downed an american drone. >> somebody could have made a mistake on the other side, could have made a mistake. >> i think probably iran made a

mistake. i would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down. >> are you saying you think it wasn't intentional to strike the drone? >> i don't know. i find it hard to believe it was intentional if you want to know the truth. i think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it. >> and we should note that iran actually claimed responsibility for last summer's drone attack before president trump said it was a mistake. all right, joining us now is congressman and member of the house foreign affairs committee, congressman adriano espaillat. it's good to see you. >> good morning. >> first, i want to ask have you been shown any evidence that there were imminent threats against four u.s. embassies posed by soleimani as president trump said last night? >> i've seen no evidence, no compelling evidence that there was an imminent threat. what we've seen is -- what we've heard from the president is that probably there was four embassies.

we know that there was some action against the embassy in baghdad, but we also know that those -- that crowd that gathered there was backing away from it, so we have no evidence whatsoever that there was an imminent threat. and as such, we feel that the president should come before congress before he engages in any further military action or future military action in iran. >> and as you say that, the house as you well know passed a war resolution that attempts to rein in his options if he were to take action against iran. that resolution is non-binding, it has no legal force, what was the intention behind that vote you took? >> meaning it doesn't require the signature of our president, it does require the senate and of course the house to be on the same page, and it's really a statement, a strong statement from an equal branch of

government, the legislature, the congress that we have vested in the constitution the powers to declare war, to have the president come before us and show us if, in fact, not probably, but if definitely there is an imminent threat against americans anywhere in the world, against our allies, if there's been any threat that would harm the men and women in our armed forces, and that has not happened. it did not happen for some time. that constitutional power vested for congress has been reduced time and time again, and we want to reclaim it back. i think this resolution sends a loud statement that that's the future for us. >> yeah, the administration says they want to deescalate, even as they're introducing new sanctions against iran. what do you think should be the next steps here as president trump looks as if he's getting pulled further into this middle east tinderbox that he's said for so long that he wants to avoid. >> well, clearly the region is a

powder keg, and we should have a coherent comprehensive international plan, and we should have -- foreign policy should be coherent. we don't have that in the region. we see, for example, how soleimani has had a great relationship with putin in syria. in fact, he collaborated with the russians in syria. we don't know really what our future plans for the region. we don't know what are immediate plans for iraq. we don't know whether we're going to stay there, whether we're going to pull our troops out. what we do know is the american people do not want another war, and we don't have a path to ensuring that that will happen. >> congressman adriano espaillat from the great state of new york, thank you for your time. still ahead, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has put his gop colleagues on notice saying president trump's impeachment trial could start soon. plus, the president is weighing in on his own senate trial and

who he'd like to see can called to testify. can called to testify if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, now might not be the best time to ask yourself, 'are my bones strong?' life is full of make or break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva. serious allergic reactions like low blood pressure,

trouble breathing, throat tightness, face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen. or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping, skipping or delaying prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones. (mom vo) we got a subaru to give him some ato reconnect and be together. and once we did that, we realized his greatest adventure is just beginning. (vo) welcome to the most adventurous outback ever. the all-new subaru outback. go where love takes you.

looking to get your business off to a fast start in the new year? it's go time! switch to comcast business and get fast internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. plus, complete reliability with 4g lte backup. and, cloud-based security to help protect the devices on your network. greenlight your business in 2020 with fast internet and voice for $64.90 per month. switch now and get a $100 prepaid card when you add comcast business securityedge. call today. comcast business. beyond fast.

welcome back, house speaker nancy pelosi hasn't been mincing words about when she'll send articles of impeachment against president trump to the senate. she has been under fire from both parties for her ongoing decision to hold onto them. that's going to change because just yesterday she released that letter to democratic lawmakers revealing she's set to meet with colleagues on tuesday to talk about next steps while also signaling she would second the articles to the senate as early as next week. republican senator susan collins says she's working with a small group within her party to ensure that witnesses will be called at the trial. it's all unfolding as president trump continues to revise his views surrounding all things impeachment now saying he would support witnesses testifying but only the ones he wants. >> well, i'm going to leave it to the senate but i'd like to

hear the whistle-blower. i'd like to hear shifty schiff, i'd like to hear hunter biden and joe biden, you know, so yeah, if we do that, i would like to have those people, plus others testify. >> all right, joining us now live in washington, two of the greats washington congressional reporter for "politico" kyle cheney, whose twitter feed i keep a constant eye on, and former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, glen k kirschner. >> president trump has been saying all along he wants a spegt kl. there's a real danger brings live witnesses into a senate trial and the mountain of evidence democrats have amased only points in one direction. >> after 30 years of trying criminal cases, geoff, to hear somebody, no less the president of the united states say i would like all of the witnesses who i think can either help me or turn

this into a circus, but i don't want any of the witnesses who can provide sharply incriminating information about the drug deal i was cooking up inside the administration is in a word insane, and frankly, in every senate trial on articles of impeachment, there are witnesses. there have always been witnesses, particularly in presidential impeachment trials. there should be witnesses, but you know, you can't set up a false equivalency. the witnesses should be relevant to the issue at hand, not the bidens and the whistle-blowers and maybe we'll find hillary clinton's server and put that on the witness stand. i mean, that's not the way any of this is supposed to work. >> and kyle, based on your incredible reporting, do you think there will come a time where mitch mcconnell will actually take a vote and there will be 51 democrats and republicans who vote to hear from witnesses? he says we'll make that decision

later. will later ever come? >> he keeps talking about the clinton precedent, and i've been reviewing the clinton precedent. they actually took a vote on a motion to dismiss before they ever considered whether to call witnesses. that motion to dismiss was defeated. if they overcome that hurdle, then, yeah, they would have the debate and a vote on calling witnesses. are there republican senators that would vote against the broader republican conference there to call witnesses? that doesn't seem likely either, so while they're kicking the can a little bit on the decision about witnesses, it doesn't seem like they're this a position where they're actually eager or excited to hear any new evidence that might be presented. >> explain to us what this motion to dismiss actually is. when the house speaker was saying for weeks i want to know more about the arena in which this senate trial will unfold, it turns out one of the things she wanted more information about is this motion to dismiss, which we should say is what it sounds like. it would allow senators to say, you know what? we're done here. >> i think one of the questions was could they just do a motion

to dismiss before any part of the trial happens, and if they want to go according to the clinton precedent, there'd at least be these opening statements which were actually pretty lengthy, 24 hours of argument per side, which in the clinton era took three full days per side of arguing. so we may get a pretty fulsome argument presented before that motion to dismiss comes if they do adhere to the clinton standard, but that would still be ahead of any sort of discussion about witnesses, any new evidence that could be entered into the record. >> yeah, can you set the record straight on this john bolton stuff. he says he'll testified if he's second peri subpoenaed. if he wanted to he could testify on monday, we've seen former administration officials who have testified under their own free will and this notion that president trump is going to claim executive privilege that would block his testimony totally, that's not quite how it works? >> yeah, and don't forget the fiona hills and the lieutenant colonel vindmans and the ambassador yovanovitch's were

also told not to testify, and through their lawyers they said, yeah, we're not going to have any of that. we're going to get up there and tell the american people the truth about what we know. listen, bolton has already been told not to testify, just as his deputy kupperman had been told not to testify. what did kupperman do? he filed suit to try to get the courts to figure out who he should listen to. the house who says testify or the president who says don't. listen, bolton already knows all that. he's already been told by the president don't testify, and what has he done? he has recently said if subpoenaed i will testify. so i think that puts a lot of pressure on mcconnell and on the republicans to make sure the man that we all know has sharply incriminating information about the president needs to be called as a witness, and if he doesn't, if mcconnell somehow turns this into a sham, a witness list trial, then what i think that does is that is mitch mcconnell sending nancy pelosi a signal

that bolton was willing to testify. i wasn't willing to let the american people hear what he wanted to say, so madame speaker, you might want to subpoena him in further house proceedings to take his testimony. >> and then even if his testimony had nothing to do with impeachment, at least with the senate trial, it would at least have something to do with the court of public opinion in an election year. what's your best guess? based on your reporting what do we know about when this senate trial might start and more importantly when it's going to end. >> if the speaker sits down with her members on tuesday and they say we're ready to go, this trial could start middle of next week. once the house presents its impeachment managements, the people who argue the case in the senate and the articles themselves, it automatically triggers the trial within 24 hours. what really happens, though, then, is the chief justice comes in. they swear in the senate, and then there's kind of another delay where both sides sort of file their actual official arguments on paper, so that could be another sort of several days wait. so the real trial is probably late this month, but it would

start the whole process as soon as next week. >> my thanks to you both. thanks for coming in this morning. all right, we have breaking news out of puerto rico this mornin morning. an aftershock measuring 6.0 rocking the island's southern coast, it's one of many aftershocks that have hut the territory following the 6.4 earthquake that struck on tuesday. previous quakes toppled homes in the region. more than 2,000 people remain in shelters afraid to return to their homes. joining us now is patricia mazzey, miami bureau chief. thanks for joings on the phone. what's the latest? >> well, there was a strong aftershock last night, and then -- i think it was 6.0, maybe 5.9 magnitude aftershock this morning that really has unsettled everybody again. everyone seems spooked for more than two weeks now with these

tremors and we're getting early reports of new damage because of this quake, you know, more landslides and some cracked roads, and maybe some damage to historic buildings. it's going to take a while to figure out what the -- what has happened this morning and what has been affected in light of the latest sort of increase. >> as you've been speaking we've been looking at pictures of people taking shelter under tents. i mean, they look like party tents, the kind of thing you would see at a weekend picnic. this by no way is a real relief effort that seems to be underway yet here. this is a region that hasn't fully recovered from the hurricanes. so how have these earthquakes really just complicated the dire situation there on the island? >> well, people are outside --

>> i think we've lost patricia. all right, so we'll continue here and talk about the explosive week it's been for the british royal family as we keep an eye on the developments there in puerto rico. queen elizabeth ii has been spotted for the first time since prince harry and meghan, duchess of sussex, their surprise announcement that they were stepping back from their royal duties at buckingham palace. she reportedly wants this settled in days and has directed prince charles and william to make a negotiation with harry to get a deal done as soon as possible. meghan markle has returned to canada as i understand it, to be with their son archie and left harry to go work out whatever he's got to work out with his family, and we know that there were issues about how to pay for their security, if they were to leave the uk, so what's the very latest here?

>> well, there's so many unresolved issues, geoff, and that's just it. it's really thrown the royal family into some surf moil, atu. they're hunkered down, trying to come one a resolution, trying to come up with answers to this question. what will this new role look like? what is this progressive path forward they see for themselves? will they keep their titles? will they be able to stay in windsor? all of these things are questions that need to be answered, and there is a certain urgency to answer those questions as long as this story draws out and the interest draws out, i think there is a certain tension and intensity that surrounds this issue. so obviously the queen putting that pressure there trying to get some of this resolved as quickly as possible. a lot of closed door meetings. a lot of discussions, and also answering the question, what will their service to the queen look like? they've said it's their intention to continue to serve. harry sort after beacon for the royal family in terms of recruiting younger interest in the royals, and now what will

that be? what will that look like as they share time between the uk and north america? those questions are currently being hashed out. we don't have all of them credit, but we were told in the next few days we will. >> nbc's catie beck, great to see you. >> joining me is senior editor for the economist and columnist for the evening standard. ann, this controversy with the royal family is getting some major attention, even from president trump himself it seems. here's what he had to say about this last night. >> i think this was a blind side. she was blind sided by this whole situation, and i think it's too bad. she's never made a mistake if you look. she's had like a flawless time. >> think harry should go back and fix -- >> i don't want to get into the whole thing. i have such respect for the queen. i don't think this should be happening to her. >> how do you see this rift between harry and his family playing out, and have they to

our best knowledge taken any responsibility for the reasons why harry and meghan would want to leave in the first place? >> well, that's the big question here. i think what is certainly the case and your correspondent described the situation and the mood very well, is that it can't go on as it was a couple of days ago when this was being communicated by instagram from the sussexs as we call them, the dutch a duke and duchess, to kind of wield it as a bit of a cud jal with the royal family and the suggestion you want to set up an alternative court, an alternative vegan court that would be run from somewhere across the atlantic. that's not really credible, and i think that is the strength of the queen's position, and the fact that clearly the palace has taken over now trying to force the pace. the queen is saying she wants to come to an arrangement, but she wants it done in days.

she's obviously told prince charles that he has to also come to the table. there's been a spat between the two brothers. she's wielding the power she has. she may be an elderly matriarch, but she's still the monarch, and i think that is where it is going to end, whether they can come to that agreement that keeps the sussexs halfway happy and doesn't leave them somewhere mid-atlantic, which i don't think would be sustainable for very long as a model. >> yeah, hey, ann, our producers found a detail that caught my eye. in june, the sussexs applied to patent more than 100 items under the name sussex royal. you're familiar with that. i wasn't, but do you think this is part of their plan to be financially independent as they say they want to be, and how much do you think it would take for this couple to fund the kind of lifestyle they had when they were living on the grounds there? >> well, hey, thanks for asking me to the cost of meghan

markle's shoes and more. can we say ka jillons, you guys say. i think the problem is not how much it would take. this is a couple who could command an a-list celebrity, they're very well seen among progressive communities around the world. i've interviewed meghan markle about girls education and her commitment to feminism as well. i think it's very real. i think the problem if you start to patent things, which sound a bit royal but not quite royal, is what does that mean? is there accountability, can the palace say now? can the next king charles say no? it sounds like they think he can or the present queen can. that is too difficult. the very people who would want to give them a lot of money will in some cases be asking for things that it may not be seen in london and you don't have to be terribly stuffy to think this might be the case. you don't want to get into a wallace simpson situation in

which they're after the abdication, they're taking money from sources that look a bit devious. >> thanks for your time this morning, we appreciate it. still ahead, a majority of americans in the new "usa today" poll say the president's killing of general qassem soleimani has made the country less safe, we'll talk about the threat iran still poses to the u.s., and what could happen next in the standoff coming up next. the standoff coming up next. ton apps pick the starters? great question, no. but it can help you pick your room from the floor plan. can the hilton app help us score? you know, it's not that kind of thing, but you can score free wi-fi. can it help us win? hey, hey! we're all winners with the hilton price match guarantee, alright? man, you guys are adorable! alright, let's go lose this soccer game, come on! book with the hilton app. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton.

breaking news out of the middle east this morning where two u.s. service members have been killed in afghanistan. they were conducting operations as part of a nato support mission when their vehicle struck an ied in the kandahar province. we're going to keep an eye on that as it develops throughout the day. despite the u.s. and iran moving towards deescalation, concerns continue over regional conflict and the role america might play. the implications of the u.s.'s decision to kill iranian general qassem soleimani are reverberating throughout the ree region. the u.s. and ally iraq clashing earlier this week over the future of america's presence in the country with iraq pushing for the u.s. to withdraw troops. the world continues to watch as the tragedy of the downed ukrainian airliner unfoldings, the irgc taking full responsibility after its aerospace commander gave a press

briefing. joining me is a retired four star general and msnbc military analyst and a nonresident fellow with the atlantic council. my thanks to both of you. general, i want to start with you. the u.s. has basically refused to leave iraq for the time being. is there precedent for that, and does iraq have the ability to put its foot down on this? >> well, to be blunt, i was astoni astonished. apparently secretary pompeo said we're not going to leave, and we're not going to discuss the terms under which we might leave. that would imply that a tiny number, 5,000 u.s. troops are an occupation force and would have the ability to circulate around the country and ignore the 165,000 members of the iraqi armed forces who might be told to cut off their access or seize them or it just doesn't make any sense, and if secretary pompeo, if that's his objective, why would he have said it in public? it's a very bizarre situation.

that decision to kill the quds force commander at the baghdad international airport has a cascading effect that's simply unbelievable. 65% of iran is shia. they're going to dominate the government. the sunnis and the kurds won't want us to leave, but it's astonishing that we'd be in public defiance of this caretaker iraqi regime. >> holly, pick up there. what about that, the u.s. being seen even more as an occupying force in iraq. what are the consequences intended, unintended and otherwise of that? >> well, i think the reality here is we saw recent protests in iraq, and it wasn't just against the iranian government, but it was also against the u.s. the iraqi people want their country back. they do not want iran in their country. they do not want the united states in their country, and so with what's been happening in the past couple of weeks, the fact that iraqi air space was

violated not just by the united states and iraq -- and iran, excuse me, there's this sense that with this statement made by the iraqi government that it seems like they're more willing to actually side with iran on this, the fact that they're actually focusing their attention on the united states government and their push out of iraq versus actually talking about iran leaving the country. >> yeah, let's talk about iran because over the past couple of weeks we've seen pictures, thousands of people pouring into the streets there in iron, aan, was a couple of weeks before that, a couple of months ago where the u.s. government had the iranian government on the ropes, and now you have it seems the tiranian people now agreein, basically rage against the u.s. so what is the -- sort of the counter intelligence consequences of that, holly, first to you and then to the general? >> well, the support we saw or

the pouring out of people at the funeral procession for quds force commander qassem soleimani wasn't just people that saw qassem soleimani as a war hero that led the fight against isis. it was actually many iranians who didn't support him that were angered and frustrated by u.s. president donald trump's tweet that he would target 52 iranian sites, including cultural sites which constitute a war crime, so that wasn't necessarily about support for soleimani per se, but that was actually the fact that they felt that their sovereign tiy was going to be violated, that they would be at war with the united states, and that they would be losing their over 2,500 years of culture and history because of an unnecessary and endless war that could come. >> and general mccaffrey, what's the risk of the u.s. losing the hearts and minds, to use the phrase, losing the hearts and minds of the iranian people at this point? >> well, look, we can't lose sight of the fact the iranian

government is a corrupt, cruel, and modestly incompetent lot, and that our national security objectives solely revolve around their terrorism activities throughout the middle east, and also the possibility they'll end up as a nuclear power. that's the problem at hand. i don't actually think iran wants a war with the united states, nor does mr. trump. the problem on the united states' part is we have no national security thoughtful process, so we've got these bizarre impulsive announcements out of the president bombing unesco sites. by the way, the u.s. armed forces would not have carried out that order, so we're really flying blind on this whole thing. iranian people are in a terrible economic situation. they've got to break out of that box. they're using every tool they have to provoke us to get back

to the negotiation table. so we've got to open up talks with the iranians. it probably has to be in private. it probably needs third-parties to assist us in opening a dialogue. we've lost our european allies. we've alienated the iraqis, and we're noting it very well at this whole issue. >> general barry mccaffrey, and holly dag ris, my thanks to the both of you. >> coming up, 23 days until the iowa caucuses, and the newest poll out of the hawkeye state makes it clear this is still anybody's race. we'll talk about who has the edge and what role undecided voters could play coming up next. you won't want to miss it.

what's going on? it's the 3pm slump.

should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts. this is msnbc live. i'm geoff bennett. turning now to the race for the white house. with just 23 days and counting until the all important iowa caucuses, there's a new leader in the hawkeye state when it comes to the battle for the democratic nomination. the des moines register's headline reading sanders ahead. this latest polling has bernie sanders out in front with 20% followed by elizabeth warren at 17%, pete buttigieg who had been the front runner dropping to third with 16%, while joe biden is the only other remaining candidate in double-digits at

15%. that said, 45% of surveyed caucus goers say they could be persuaded to support smblts. joining me now is republican strategist rena shaw, arena shad former spokes person for the house oversight committee and think contributor at nbc news. does it come to you as a surprise as we're just a couple weeks away from iowa? >> i can't say much surprises me anymore buzz this field is not at all looking like what democrats thought it would look like. where did the diversity go and it's very wealthy. let's not forget that. is this a republican primary? i mean, so when i saw the surge for sanders a little part of me is oh, this is not going to go well for democrats. it's not going to go well if sanders is still your guy. >> the lack of diversity, do you think there's a certain amount of pattern matching that

democrats are saying in order to be old white guy in white house we need an old white guy to take him on? i had the coverage to come out and say you know, i think like versus like gives voters a touch choice and when you remove those demographic elements and you boil it down to policy, decency i think you get joe biden and i frankly think that would be the best matchup still. i've been looking at the polling coming out of nevada for their democratic caucuses that don't get that much attention but they should. and nevada is looking very diverse these days and biden is poll polling well there ahead of sanders. >> eatless talk about bernie sanders. if you are 78 years old and you're running for president and there are questions about your age and you have a heart attack that cltypically would be a bad thing but his campaign has

bounced back after he had his heart attack. >> this is nothing about bernie's politics, nothing about the campaign, it's organized it's impressive across any standard but my issue is this. one in five people who suffer heart attacks are likely to suffer a recurring heart attack and i don't know of any doctor in the world who says if you have a heart attack it is the most important thing to run for the most stressful position in the united states. i want to know what the plan is if the democratic nominee is bernie sanders and he suffers a heart attack on the campaign trail, what does that mean? >> what was the word from the sanders campaign after you wrote that? >> they went nuts. i mean, i'll tell you on twitter, this is the more alarming things about our poll onesie, their tone and tenor

reminded me very much of what it does for donald trump and we have to have an environment where it's okay to ask legitimate questions. if if a candidate who's almost 80 has a heart attack -- >> trump is old too. this guy can have anything happen to him but he points a finger at hillary clinton or joe biden just looks old. what about him? but it boils down to the sexism is that america generally wants something very strong. he actually physically puffed out his chest in the iran remarks. i noticed that. he understands this is the optics. the optics lands on americans eyes and ears far better than anything else. >> hillary clinton had an issue where she stumbled and fox news dedicated hour after hour programming questioning her sanity, questioning her health. i mean, relentlessly. >> let's talk about mayor pete,

not his health but his standing. his political health because he's down 9 points. he had a 9 point drop after polling in november. so what is he not doing right? a poll is a snapshot of time. the margin of error but for the sake of this conversation on a saturday morning what does he need to do to get to the top of that poll. >> we have seen every time there's a debate his numbers go up. he has been the most consistent performer from start to finish to where we are now and every time he has a strong performance it starts to go up. i think his raw intellect really shines through on that stage. and more than i think a lot of the other candidates he's not burdened by the same expectations that elizabeth warren or joe biden have been. you weren't expecting much and all of a sudden this guy is smart, he is eloquent, he is concise, he is precise. those things really resonate with voters. >> he's got that and he's

canvassing iowa as are a number of candidates now. >> yang is still here, i think youth also lends itself so how they present themselves but i this what pete need to do to your question is be more authentic. he is just somehow not very real in my opinion. he can be solid during those debates but what about that connectability? he wentz to the black church and that seemed like all smoke and mirrors to me. i didn't walk away seeing that that mayor pete was this real guy who had an aha moment. that's what politicians do. he's at least not conveying that to the public. >> all right. my thanks to the both of you this morning. coming up, insulting and demeaning is how some lawmakers are describing this week's iran briefing and that's just from the republicans. how the president and mike pompeo are trying to save face on iran.

that's next on a.m. joy with joy reid. joy with joy reid ials, with jaw-dropping savings. vote for your favorites at: geico.com/sequels ahhh, which way do i go?! i don't know, i'm voting for our sequels. with geico, the savings keep on going to a screen near you. not the leg! you dang woodchucks! geico sequels. vote and enter to win today! not the leg! apps except work.rywhere...

why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. to learn more, visit paycom.com tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. unlimited carryover data! $20 bucks. what are you doing? i want to ask you about your data. oh, i thought you said dating. this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control.

that's it for me today. thanks for watching. a.m. joy with the great joy reid starts right now. >> we know it was imminent. this was an intelligent based assessment that drove our decision making process. we know what happened at the end of last year in december. ultimately leading to the death of an american so if you're looking for imminence you need

to look no further to the days that led up to the strike against soleimani. >> there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted by soleimani. we don't know when or where but it was real. >> good morning and welcome to a.m. joy. so which is it? was it super secret imminent but so secret we can't tell you imminent or backwards imminent because the bad thing already happened which really isn't what imminent means or the imminent imminent because it's not cloea from that migrating answer field that you have a justification for killing one of iran's top military officials and making america less safe. you are the secretary of state so you're supposed to like, know the answer right? not that your boss is doing any better at keeping the whole just fi occasion story straight. >> soleimani was actively planning new attacks and he was looking very