thanks so much for watching. i want to thank our team member who invited me to the event last night. i talked so fast, i didn't get that in. alex witt has the latest. >> i do. you deserve that award. if any two fabulous people will help you get through the door, it's tremaine and jenny. i think you stole jenny from me but that's another story, my friend. >> we steal between friends. i love you so much, i take, a borrow. >> we share, it's in the family, it's all good. congrats, my friend. high noon here in the wiest, 9:00 a.m. out west. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." no regrets. speaker nancy pelosi on the sunday talk shows defending her decision to hold onto the articles of impeachment. >> we have confidence in our

case that it is impeachable and this president is impeached for life. the american people have been very fair about saying, yes, we do want to see witnesses. that wasn't part of the discussion three weeks ago. demonstrators in iran risking their lives to protest while new messaging emerges from the trump administration. >> what the president said with regard to the four embassies is what i believe as well, i believe that as did other national security team members. what the president said was he believed, he said he could have been targeting. all those things i believe as well. he believed and i believe it too. i believe. serena williams' incredible gesture after ending her title drought. we begin with breaking news on the fallout from the iran crisis, growing protests in the capital of tehran, students raising their voices against the government, accusing officials of covering up the downing of a passenger plane that killed 176

people. there are reports this hour iranian riot police are fanning out across the city in preparation for more demonstrations tonight. meanwhile the trump administration once again defending the killing of qassem soleimani without disclosing intelligence that led to the deadly drone strike. >> i'm not going to discuss intelligence matters here on the show. the important thing is this. soleimani orchestrated, resourced, directed attacks that killed an american. he orchestrated the siege on the u.s. embassy in baghdad and he was planning this much broader plot in multiple countries that would be bigger in scale and that likely would have taken us to open hostility with iran. >> i have not yet been able to ascertain really specific details as to the imminence of the attack. the briefers and the president had the basis for believing there was an imminent attack. i don't doubt that. it's just frustrating not to get the details behind that. >> why weren't those embassies

alerted and evacuated if there was a threat? >> listen, we're not going to cut and run every time somebody threatens of. >> cal perry, as you join us from qatar, in doha. the trump administration was referring to an imminent threat. what's the latest on all that? >> reporter: we heard from more officials inside the u.s. government. let's listen to secretary esper who will tell us about the meaning of the word "imminent." >> was the threat imminent? >> in my definition, yes. the attack was days away. he had a proven track record of killing americans. what the president said was he believed it probably could have been attacks against additional

agencies. >> probably could have been, that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence. >> the president didn't cite a specific piece of intelligence. >> are you saying there wasn't one? >> i didn't see one, with regard to four embassies. >> reporter: obviously there is a lot of fudging going on amongst u.s. officials as the president continues to say things off-the-cuff. while all of that is going on in and around washington, protesters in tehran for the second day, chanting that we usually don't hear from protesters including "death to khamenei." the protests seem to be centered around two universities. protesters in iran are usually killed, so these people are literally taking their lives into their hands.

we've seen videos leaking out to social media including videos of security forces fanning out across the country. that has prompted the u.s. president to of course tweet. his most recent tweet, quote, to the leaders of iran, do not kill your own protesters. thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you and the world is watching. stop the killing of your great iranian people. it is worth mentioning for context, of course, that in the first month of his presidency, donald trump put a ban on iranians, trying to put a ban on iranians coming into the country and in the last month threatened to bomb iranian cultural centers. so i don't think the iranian people will take solace in those tweets. you can protest the iranian regime and protest u.s. involvement in the middle east, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. that's what seems to be

happening right now, a vulnerable moment for the region and for iran. >> cal perry, we appreciate that. nbc's kelly o'donnell is standing by at the white house, good sunday to you, kelly. the trump administration is today trying to clarify the president's assertion that iran was targeting four u.s. embassies. any success getting that message across? >> reporter: the complicating factor of this is that the president has put himself out front divulging in a rolling fashion over a period of days what he has described as the threats that general soleimani and the quds force and iran more broadly pose to military interests and u.s. bases as well. what makes this complicated, to carry out the strike originally that caused the death of soleimani, the administration used the doctrine of self-preservation, kind of a self-defense in national terms. an imminent threat is a legal definition within that that

allows the president to lawfully take out an official from another government without consulting congress and so forth. that's why there has been so much if you can on whfocus on w specific timeline and what is the specific evidence. the bipartisanly-accepted view is that general soleimani was a longstanding threat against the united states. the evidence has evolved between the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the president himself. the officials take care to say they support what the president is saying. what we are not hearing and what we're not likely to hear is what was specifically told to what's called the gang of eight on capitol hill, the senior leaders in both parties and intelligence committee chairmen and ranking members who always keep the most sort of closely-held secrets separate from other kinds of briefings that many members of congress would get. we are not going to hear that

information because that's typically never shared. so what they learned is something that might be different than what we're hearing now. we just don't know. that adds to the confusion as the president is trying to justify this. let's play a little more of secretary of defense mark esper today as he was appearing on the sunday shows that might help people to see how this is a hardbahard ball to follow at times in the administration's justification for the action it took. >> the president never said there was specific intelligence. >> he said he believed it. >> and i believed it too. >> four embassies, you believe that? >> i believe there was a threat to multiple embassies. >> is president trump embellishing? >> i don't think so. there was specific intelligence shared with the began of eight. the briefers told me that most, nearly all of the gang and eight felt the evidence was persuasive and should not be released

because it would reveal our sources and methods. >> reporter: part of the sell an semantics is, did they have evidence from a human source, those kind of things. we don't know the answer. in the absence of knowing the specifics, it has filled the void with questions from lawmakers and parsing between officials about what the president has been saying and what is known to be fact or speculation at this point, alex. >> okay. thank you for that, kelly o'donnell at the white house. i'm joined now by arizona representative rubin gallego, a democratic member of the armed services committee. welcome back to the broadcast, happy new year to you. >> happy new year. >> secretary esper said there was no specific evidence

regarding a plot against four u.s. embassies. instead he said the president believed, and he believed as well, that iran was going to go after our embassies, he said due to information that soleimani was planning a broader plot in multiple countries. does this all add up to you and can, and should, belief taken with as much weight as evidence? >> well, look, it doesn't really add up to me. soleimani, let's be clear, was a horrible human being and we're probably all better off with him being dead. but in terms of our national interest and whether or not we should have taken this risk, according to the threat scenario, i don't know if that's the case, because if it was the case, why did it take you days to inform the gang of eight? if it was imminent, you should have at least talked to us before. that's part of the problem here is that you took away the power of congress to be part of the consultation to this which probably would have actually cleared up a lot of these issues and given more credence to the

actual attack or the attacks that they were describing. this is where we're trying to convince the administration that they should just include us in this process, that's what our founding fathers wanted to do and we as a country would be better off if they did that. >> to that exact point, whatever this information was that led the president to his belief, it's very clear that he's telling it to fox news but apparently not sharing it with members of congress. take a listen to what senator rand paul told to "meet the press" about his briefing. >> i think we've heard contradictory information. we've heard that the -- from the secretary of state that they don't know where or when but it was imminent. that to me does seem inconsistent. throughout the whole briefing they were dismissive of congress, they said, we don't have time to come back, we're too busy to take questions from the rest of us. so it was very dismissive. >> what kind of message does that send to you and your fellow members of congress? >> what it sends to me is that

they don't respect the constitution of the united states. what we worry about, obviously, is that this can lead us to a full level escalation that we don't want to see or that the american public don't want to see without us having some consultation and actually talking about this. this is the problem we find ourselves right now, we're now involved in a 19-year-old war. we're in two areas right now that they're so old, they could start voting this year. this is why we want to be involved in some of this process. obviously it's not every day, if it's imminent, just talk to the gang of eight. but we need to reclaim this power that has been eroding since bush, even into obama and now into this administration which really can do some dangerous decisions and this is why we want to be part of the process. >> that's the moniker of seemingly endless, forever wars. your colleagues, representatives luria and rose, who served in the navy and army respectively.

they voted against the war powers resolution a couple of days ago, they said it merely restated existing law, calling it a, quote, symbolic law that did more to distract from the real challenges we face. they say if congress wants to assert its power to declare war you must take on the task of debating a new authorization of military force. as someone who voted for that resolution, what are your thoughts on that op-ed? >> look, i appreciate their service. all of us veterans have a certain point of view on these endless wars. i actually have introduced bipartisan legislation to withdraw the authorized use of military force and have for a couple of years, and included some language into the defensive budget to actually end some of these wars. the problem is that we recognize real politi realpolitiks. this resolution was pushed by

representative slotkin who also has great experience in the middle east. i respect what they're saying. but we can only do certain things, and being in power just in the house, we have to do what we can to push this issue even further, especially giving a strong message to the president that his action were inappropriate and in my opinion against the constitution of the united states. >> speaking of the president's actions speaker pelosi insists this resolution from this week has, quote, real teeth. but it is not binding on the president, it does not require his signature. do you believe he's going to abide by it and if not, is there anything congress can do about that when the time comes? >> certainly, no, i don't believe he'll abide by it, this president believes he's above the law at all points not just in regards to when we send him something. i do think it sends the sense of congress that we are unified in our position which does matter, because we still control the

power of the purse and we are about to go again into another defense budget negotiation, so that's another area we're trying to talk to. but we have to continue to push him where we can and i think this president is you know trying to act and we'll continue to find ways to push back. if he docile legal aces illegal believe are against the constitution of the united states and more importantly, endangers the united states, we always have more articles of impeachment to go to. i don't think this scenario has risen to that point. but, you know, that's one of the few powers we still have as congress. >> right. and i do want to remind our viewers, and thank you as well for your service as a marine in iraq as we have this conversation, quickly, with regard to impeachment, three weeks, longer, actually, of holding onto the articles, speaker pelosi says they'll be handed to the senate this week,

due agr do you agree with the timing and was something gained, did the strategy of holding on to the timing, did to work? >> it would have been not beneficial to the public good if we had released the articles over the holidays when nobody was paying attention. number two, in holding on to the articles, we had the opportunity with ambassador bolton potentially coming to testify to the senate. we also know that there is a bunch of other co-conspirators out there, for example parnas who is already talking to the federal government and we believe, i believe at one point will be part of this conversation. so i do think there's been a good strategy. i don't think we should be sending impeachment articles to be swept under the rug by mcconnell. if we get a more transparent outcome, then at the end of the

day speaker pelosi did the right thing. >> congressman ruben gallegos, thank you very much. coming up, how serena williams has joined the cause to help australians fight against the flames. plus three weeks before the iowa caucuses, the battle intensifies. how much does that first vote really matter? ally blind. ally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. iand i don't add up the years. but what i do count on is boost high protein. and now, introducing new boost mobility with collagen for joint health. when taken daily, its key nutrients help support joints,

muscles, and strong bones. new, boost mobility. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed.

and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

breaking news, 28 people now

confirmed dead in the raging australia wildfires. the latest victim was a 60-year-old fireman. here is one farmer describing how the weather has been erratic, making the fire harder to track. >> we had raindrops on the windscreen one minute. it swings pretty bloody quickly. yeah, it's doing some unusual stuff that you don't see all the time. >> and experts believe over a billion animals have died so far, some species may have been wiped out totally. nbc's janis mackey frayer is on kangaroo island off australia's southern coast with a report on how people and wildlife are handling the devastation. janis? >> reporter: here on kangaroo island, the fires continue to burn, having already ravaged the island. it's around the size of delaware and nearly half of it has burned. there are veterinarians, volunteers, even the army has been deployed to try to help the wildlife population, literally plucking injured koalas from the

trees. the army also much-needed supplies like hay to farmers who have been hard hit here. it's the story across southeastern australia as the fires continue to burn. and the danger that's still posed to firefighters. another one losing his life today. there is mounting pressure on the government in australia to do more, that it did not do enough and that it did it too late. the prime minister today even admitting that. >> there are things i could have handled on the ground much better. >> reporter: meanwhile there has been an overwhelming outpouring of support from around the world. millions of dollars flowing this way to help wildlife, to help firefighters, to help australia get back on its feet. janis mackey frayer, nbc news, kangaroo island, australia. >> among those donating, tennis champion serena william is taking her latest win to help australians recovery.

she's donating her $43,000 prize to relief efforts, it is her first win since her daughter olympia was born. congrats on both fronts. house speaker nancy pelosi says her caucus will vote tuesday on when to send the impeachment articles and also taking note of the stain on the president's legacy. >> i will be consulting with my members this week on tuesday morning at our regular caucus meeting, that we would vote to send them over, and will determine in our meeting when we send them over. we have confidence in our case, that it is impeach sxhable and president is impeached for life, regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of mitch mcconnell. >> joining me now, claudia rosales from npr and charlie savage from "the new york times." welcome to you both. a lot to unpack in that interview. i want to start with the

timeline. she did not give us a specific date on precisely when she is sending over those specific articles. are there any murmurs, whispers, claudia, on when that might happen? >> the expectation is we could see those articles move this week. that caucus meeting tuesday morning for her party will be critical in terms of that timing on when that vote happens. but the expectation is it could happen as early as later tuesday or wednesday. but soon after that meeting, we should see a vote, is the expectation. >> okay. so speaker pelosi was also asked if she had any second thoughts about waiting to send over the articles. she said no, adding that the delay produced a positive result. claudia, is that what democrats believe they got out of this hold? because they were not able to get the assurances they wanted from mcconnell, certainly. >> right, mcconnell was pretty clear that he was not going to shift his plans on how this senate impeachment trial would go and that the speaker would

not have input. that said, democrats have argued they want more time for more evidence to be uncovered, for the former national security adviser john bolton to say he would like to testify before the senate. and perhaps this was part of the strategy or not, but now the senate is poised earlier this week, perhaps by tuesday, to vote on a war powers resolution. they'll be pointing to details like this and saying they had some wins during this time. >> regarding john bolton, charlie, pelosi did not eliminate the possibility that her chamber could still subpoena him. how critical is his testimony and could he end of testifying? >> he certainly seems to increasingly want to tell the congress and the public something. he's been coy about this, saying he knows something but didn't want to testify on the house side unless a judge told him he had to. >> can i ask you real quick, charlie, is it presumed he

definitely has evidence that would damn the administration? is anyone suggesting he might support donald trump? >> well, we've had other witnesses who did testify out of the white house, defying president trump on the house side, who said he was clearly against what was happening in ukraine. i think fiona hill, and someone else as well, both quoted him internally as saying he wanted nothing to do with this drug deal that giuliani was dreaming up and so forth. and so all of that has pointed towards the direction of that he might have some negative information about what happened. and we also know that he in august had some private meetings with president trump as he, john bolton, was trying to get that military aid released that trump was holding up during when all this was happening. so the question will be, what did trump said to him when bolton tried to push him and say you have to let this money out and trump was refusing to do so. >> the president said he wants

to invoke executive privilege with an executive order. would that stop john bolton from testifying? >> the president can't stop john bolton from testifying, he's a private citizen, he can do what he wants. he can go to court and ask for an injunction to block bolton from testifying, that's a theoretical option that's never happened in american history but law professors talk about it being a possibility in other situations like this. we heard a little about that in 2017 when private citizen james comey after being fired was going to testify before congress. it didn't happen then. >> the president tweeted at george stephanopoulos saying, i'm going to read it without the disrespectful monikers, ask nancy why she allowed adam

schiff to totally make up my conversation with the ukrainian president. the speaker was asked to respond. >> it's sunday morning. i would like to talk about more pleasant subjects than the erratic nature of the president of the united states. he has to know every knock from him is a boost. i don't like to spend too much on his crazy tweets because everything he says is a projection. when he calls somebody crazy, he knows that he is. everything he says, you can just translate it back to who he is. but again, it's sunday morning. let's be optimistic about the future, a future that will not have donald trump in the white house one way or another. >> your reaction, claudia? >> so it's clear that the speaker just does not take the president's tweets seriously at this time. that tweet, for example, called her crazy nancy, and she said it reflects back to him. so this is just a continued battle between this president

and this house speaker. the president continues to focus his ire on her and in a sense blame her for the impeachment. >> do you remember back in the day when he talked about how much he respected nancy pelosi at the beginning of her tenure as house speaker? those days are gone. good to see you both, thank you so much. president trump's national security adviser today said the maximum pressure campaign against iran is working. really? i'll ask a leading member of the house foreign relations committee about it.

do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

i've always loved and i'm still going for my best, 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.

the important thing is this. soleimani orchestrated, resourced, directed the attacks, escalating up to the december 1 that killed an american. he orchestrated the siege on the u.s. embassy in baghdad. and he was planning this much broader plot in multiple countries that would be bigger in scale and that likely would have taken us to open hostility with iran. >> new today, defense secretary mark esper defending the intelligence which led the president to launch that air strike that killed iranian general soleimani. joining me now, maryland senator ben cardin, democratic member of the foreign relations committee, awfully good to see you, sir.

thank you for joining me. you were critical of the president's decision to carry out that delight, you wrostrike is no imminent threat. has anything you've heard since changed your mind on this? >> first, alex, it's good to be with you. we shed no tears for the death of soleimani. he was a person who caused a great deal of damage to the united states. he supported terrorism. he killed innocent people. there's no sorrow about his death. but the president does not have authority to use military force against iran. he used justification of an imminent threat. and as we heard today from the secretary of defense, there has been no details at all about a specific attack being planned against the united states. so it's hard to understand where the justification is for an imminent threat. secondly, it's in our national security interests to use

diplomacy, not military, to resolve the problems with iran. and this attack makes it less likely we'll have a diplomatic path forward. >> according to the trump administration, and we should point out at this point there is no all-out war at this point with iran, but national security adviser robert o'brien says the trump campaign's maximum pressure campaign is working. let's take a listen to what he said. >> iran is being choked off and will have no other choice but to come to the table. if iran wants to maintain a modern country, a modern economy, they'll have to come to the table and negotiate. >> do you think that's what will happen, they will come to the table and negotiate, or do you expect iran becomes more aggressive and potentially retaliates further? >> i think the maximum pressure campaign has not worked. witness the fact that we're on the brink of a war, and the fact that the united states has been isolated from our allies. our allies do not support our policy in regards to iran. iran is the country that should be isolated. instead we're finding that

american foreign policy in the middle east is becoming more lonely as a result of president trump. >> senator, i just want to ask you to comment on something we're just getting in here, coming into nbc news, there are eight rockets, sir, that have hit iraq's ballad air base. an iraqi military spokesman says four iraqi soldiers have been injured, no u.s. soldiers have been injured. nonetheless, sir, what does this say you to, eight rockets having hit iraq's ballad air base where u.s. forces are housed? we do not know where they've come from or who is taking responsibility. nonetheless, sir, this has just happened. >> well, we know as a result of the fact that diplomacy has not been really pursued, that we not only have a direct threat against our interests, whether it's the iraqis or the americans that are in iraq from the iranians directly as a country, but also from the shia militia

in which there is less formal control by iran, but they are supported by iran. so the shia militia which operates in iraq very much has made the iraqi military facilities and the united states their target. so we don't have the information, but clearly we're at a higher risk today. senator, let's turn to impeachment, sir. the stage is beginning to be set for a trial. days ago speaker pelosi was facing growing pressure from some of your fellow democrats in the senate to go ahead and send over the articles of impeachment. by the end of the week, though, those senators were walking it back. do you have any sense of what put everyone back on the same page? and i'm also curious on the mood among senate democrats as these articles being sent over are imminent. >> i think the senate democrats, and i would hope all the members of the senate would want to have a fair trial in the united states senate.

the house has sole responsibility on impeachment, the senate on removal. we want to have a fair trial and that requires us to hear from witnesses who have direct knowledge about the president's participation in the two articles of impeachment with the president of ukraine and obstruction of congress. those individuals have never testified. they didn't testify in the house because the president prevented them from testifying. so i think we've been able to put a spotlight on the fact that in order to have a fair trial, the senate must hear from these witnesses and receive the documents that are directly related to the factual allegations. and i hope that what we've seen over the last two weeks since we've gotten back from the holiday break is that more and more americans understand the importance for us having a fair trial and listening to the witnesses and getting the documents. >> senator, how confident are you, though, that even though there may be a growing sense among americans that they would like to have a fair trial, that that message is not being translated effectively to mitch

mcconnell? >> well, i'm extremely disappointed that mitch mcconnell has not reached out for a bipartisan organizing resolution. i think it's likely we're going to have a partisan resolution when we start the trial. i think that's very, very regrettable. i know that there are several republican senators who understand the importance of having witnesses and documents. we hope they'll join us as we offer amendments so that we can in fact hear from those just a few witnesses but they have direct knowledge of the information and the documents. we're hoping we'll get republicans who will join us when we have votes on the floor of the senate in regards to witnesses and documents. >> but senator, once speaker pelosi hands over the articles, first of all, how quickly might a trial begin, and then would your party still have any negotiating power left in regards to getting witnesses and documents? >> the point that you raise is very valid. once the articles are

transmitted, the trial will start. it will be one or two days of ceremonial procedures including us taking the oath as independent jurors, and the chief justice assuming the chair of the chamber and the house managers formally making the articles of impeachment, laying them before the united states senate. at that point it's up to 51 senators as to what the process will be. and we understand that mitch mcconnell will be able to dictate how we get started on the trial. that's extremely regrettable. but if he has 51 senators that support him, that rules the day. of course every senator is going to have to answer the question as to whether this is a fair trial, whether they were objective in reviewing the information. and how can you have a trial if you don't have the witnesses and documents? and that question will be asked of senators who do not support bringing in the witnesses and

documents. >> senator ben cardin, i know you have a lot on your plate, i very much appreciate your time and seeing you on the broadcast. thank you, sir. everything you want to know about the iowa caucuses but were afraid to ask. my next guest knows the politics of the state inside and out. what she has to say about the sanders surge, next. corner of your growing business. from finding out what's selling best... to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence.

>> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ now to campaign 2020. the democratic race rounding up

with 22 days to go before the iowa caucuses. many candidates are capitalizing on their greatest hits, slamming the president. take a listen. >> there's two ways countries get inspired. they get inspired by great leaders who their rhetoric and their leadership raises people up, from abraham lincoln to john kennedy to barack obama. there's a second way you do it. the second way you do it is you have a really bad president for a while. >> the practical facts of this is that the affordable care act that i think we should build on and make better, the affordable care act is now ten points more popular than the president of the united states. >> you're on top of the leaderboard in iowa. >> polls go up and down. what's important to me is the kind of grassroots support that we have. some days are good, some days they're not good. but i think we'll win here in

iowa because we have an extraordinary grassroots movement. >> a measured response there from bernie sanders. joining me on the phone is the editor in chief of "the iowa capitol dispatch" former an editor and columnist at "the des moines register." let's start with this new cnn/"des moines register" poll. bernie sanders first with three weeks before the caucuses. how is he separating himself from others in the pack, especially the progressives? >> first of all, i think that the comment we just heard from him is right on point in terms of a measured response about the polls. a lot can still happen in the last weeks before the caucuses. and you've got to get through a debate. but bernie sanders has a very strong ground organization. we have seen candidates outperform their poll numbers if they have a great ground organization and have supporters

who are enthusiastic and will turn out no matter what for the cause. i think he is in a very good position going into the final weeks. and you don't want to peak to early, some of the other candidates have found that out. he is just really differentiating himself by being so consistent. bernie sanders is bernie sanders is bernie sanders. you know what you're going to get with him. and he delivers that very same message every time. >> you make a good point, and you have to say, turnout, nothing can be accomplished without it. i want to go to your article in the "iowa capital dispatch" where you write that pete buttigieg's wine cave event was broken out of proportion. why do you say that? >> pete buttigieg is trying to make the argument himself that the reaction to that was over the top. he was the one who is making that argument.

and, you know, i think what he is saying is that the purity questions within the party, those things about if you don't offer free college for everyone then your plan to offer free college for a lot of people isn't good enough, he's trying to make the argument will lose the general election. >> kathie, is the leadup to the iowa caucus playing out as it has in the past and do you have a prediction on who wins? >> frankly, here is my prediction, because of the way they're releasing the results this year, you could have a winner of what we would call the popular vote, people going in the door of the caucuses. you could have a winner of the second vote which is after you eliminate candidates. and then you could have what we call the delegate equivalent

vote, sort of like the electoral college, how many delegates. there could be several winners. and a lot can happen between now and february 3rd. >> you make good points, though. kathie, thank you so much for your time on the phone with us. coming up, belief or evidence. new questions about what the president knew for sure before he took action on iran. were republican lawmakers the last to know? it's red lobster's new three-course shrimp feast for $14.99. choose soup or salad.

one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. {tires screeching} {truck honking} [alarm beeping] (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

what the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. the president didn't say -- cite a specific evidence. he said he believed -- >> are you saying there wasn't one? >> i didn't see one. the president never said there was specific evidence. >> he said he believed it. >> i believed it, too. >> mark esper raising questions on the president's reasoning for launching attack that killed soleimani and whether the

decision was made from specific evidence or what was believed to be the case. joining me now, chair of south palm michigan and republican strategist and political analyst. jumping off on the sound we heard, is belief the same as evidence? >> no, clearly not, especially when it's coming off of the lips of somebody we know to be a liar. step back. the credibility gap of this president is huge. it's clear when his own int intelligence community says there's fact that russia meddleed, meddle meddled, he took us to the brink of war. >> when esper is using the words believe or could have been, is he helping or hurting the administration's defense today? >> donald trump is the one who hurts his own case. he said he couldn't talk about

the specifics of what the knowledge was. then he went on a conservative news show ansa and said it coule been four embassies under attack. donald trump messes it up and everyone tries to clean it up. that's what we saw today. we have -- it has become clear from republicans and democrats, there has been no evidence of an imminent threat, which is the language used by the president and the language leading up to this from pompeo, which was i think they were trying to start a legal argument that this would be an acceptable attack because it was imminent. the president has no credibility. his staff is constantly just trying to get themselves into some kind of place where they can help him out at least. >> challenging to say the least. let's listen to a bit more of what secretary esper said and

add in the voice of adam schiff this morning on the sunday talk shows. >> the bottom line is, we had intelligence that could only be shared with the gang of eight. i understand the frustration of many members of congress. >> i think he is wrong. there was no discussion in the gang of eight that these are the four embassies being targeted and we have intelligence that shows these are the specific targets. >> how frustrated should lawmakers, including the gang of eight be, that they are not receiving this intel from the administration? they did hear the president talk about it on fox news. >> they should be extremely angry as should the american people. what's more concerning is not only do they not receive the necessary intel that the president used to make his decision, they were not notified beforehand, which they absolutely should have been. to me, that's the biggest division that donald trump has been putting on our country is saying that somehow he can't trust the democrats on intelligence because he is

afraid they will talk to tv cameras, which is atrocious and so damaging for how we should be continuing on foreign policy. >> i gotta tell you, i can't tell you how many time s i have pressed democratic lawmakers and i get the pushback saying, we can't talk about that specifically. it doesn't seem like they're going to do that. the president tweeting overnight the support for iranian protesters in english and farsi. what do you make of that? >> look, it's clear that if you step back from where we are right now, that this was a bit of a wag the dog operation. it blew up in the president's face. he didn't have the necessary evidence to do what he did. the american people have spoken in poll after poll. this does not make us feel safer. he is trying to point at iran once again to try and wag the dog on the fact that there's a fourth co forthcoming impeachment hearing coming. he makes us less safe because of

his incapacity to tell the truth. he knows that right now he has several messes on his hands. >> you mention polls. i want you to respond to this, the usa today poll showing 24% of americans think that the killing of soleimani has made them feel more safe. 55% feel less safe. how do you think this plays out for the president in the long run? >> i think that poll has the president running a bit scared. i don't think he expected to see that. what you typically see on an issue like foreign policy or foreign affairs is a 50/50 split where the country is. this is really bad news for the president. it means his attempt to change the narrative did not work. more importantly, people don't believe him. >> you guys, great to talk with both of you. thank you so much. why whatever happens in the impeachment trial could be a big defeat for president trump. what to expect when britain's royal family meets

tomorrow to sort things out. tonight, our experts break down the latest tensions and the impact of the conflict in the middle east. watch our special, iran crisis, at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on msnbc. c. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh i can breathe again! ughh.. vicks sinex, breathe on 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. i wanted more from my copd medicine that's why i've got the power of 1, 2, 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved once-daily 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy ♪ the power of 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy ♪ 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy man: with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3,

i'm breathing better. trelegy works three ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation, for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3. ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 man: save at trelegy.com. here, it all starts ♪withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?!

a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. good day, everyone, from right here at msnbc headquarters. a busy morning on the sunday talk shows with the two i