that does it for me. i'll see you back here next weekend. up next, "meet the press" with chuck todd. this sunday, iran fallout. >> stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold. >> president trump cheers the killing of qassem soleimani, but what's behind the administration's shifting explanations? >> the threats included attacks on u.s. embassies, period, full stop. >> so you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and you didn't know precisely where? >> no, completely true. those are completely consistent thoughts. >> now anti-government protests have erupted across iran over the downing of that ukrainian passenger jet. my guests this morning, president trump's national security advisor robert o'brien and republican senator rand paul. plus impeachment trial. after a month of jockeying

between senate leader mitch mcconnell -- >> i'm going to take my cues from the president's lawyers. >> -- and speaker nancy pelosi -- >> i'll send them over when i'm ready. >> pelosi finally moves to send articles of impeachment to the senate having won no republican concessions. >> she should have sent them a long time ago. >> what will the senate trial look like? i'll talk to one of the jurors, democrat michael bennet of colorado. and 22 days to iowa. >> iowa. >> iowa. >> iowa caucuses. >> will the impeachment trial hamstring the senators running as a new iowa poll shows what now looks like a four-way sprint. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news chief correspondent andrea mitchell, "time" magazine columnist david french, yamiche alcindor, and steve inkeep, host of npr's "morning edition." welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running

show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. think of this as a three i morning, iran, impeachment and iowa. on iran, you can argue that president trump's killing of qassem soleimani was either reckless or bold, but they find themself struggling to explain whether soleimani posed an imminent threat. protests broke out in iran after officials admitted it was the iranian military that shout down a jet, killing 176 people. next, there's impeachment. house speaker nancy pelosi moved finally to send over articles of impeachment for a senate trial that could begin this week. that was a victory for mitch mcconnell who resisted pelosi's delay tactics. >> and on iowa, des moines register poll released this weekend shows one more reshuffling add the top of the caucus race. now just three weeks away.

bernie sanders has jumped to the lead for the first time in this poll, with elizabeth warren, pete buttigieg, and joe biden within striking distance. by the way, each of those top four candidates have led the des moines register's poll at least once at some point in the last year. that gap between first and fourth, as you saw there, well within the margin of air. . typically, iowa would be our lead story three weeks before the caucuses, but this race has been overshadowed by events in overseas. after a three-week delay and grumbling from democrats, pelosi signaled she would send articles of impeachment to the congress this week. >> we're concerned senators will not live up to the oath they must take to have an impartial trial. >> and she denieied democrats we divided over her delay. >> absolute total cooperation. >> the will be no haggling with the house over senate procedure.

we will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. >> several republican senators are joining with democrats, pressing mcconnell to allow some witnesses to testify. >> at this stage, i would like to hear from john bolton and other witnesses with direct information. >> i am working with a group of republican senators and our leaders to see if we can come to an agreement. >> president trump is promising to block bolton's testimony. now tying impeachment to iran tensions. after the killing of iranian general soleimani. >> we have to take this guy out. we're not going to have another shot at him maybe ever again. but i can't make it now because i'm trying to impeach trump. >> and highlighting new protests in iran, braising its braf long-sufferring people after iran's admission saturday that human error brought down a ukrainian plane while they were on high alert for a possible

american attack. that's after shifting explanations to justify the soleimani killing. >> we did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. >> he was looking very seriously at our embassies and not just the embassy in baghdad. >> i can reveal that i believe it would have been four embassies. >> that claim contradicts many of secretary of state mike pompeo's explanations. >> there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by qassem soleimani. we don't know precisely when or where. we had specific information on an imminent threat. and those threats included attacks on u.s. embassies. period, full stop. >> you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and where? >> no, completely true. those are completely consistent thoughts. >> on capitol hill, where senators were briefed by top military and intelligence officials -- >> not one word was mentioned. >> probably the worst briefing i have seen on a military issues in the nine years have i have

served in the senate. >> this is a moment that requires strong, steady, stable leadership. >> president trump's actions represent a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to yet another disastrous war in the middle east. >> and joining me now is the national security adviser robert o'brien. welcome back to "meet the press." >> great to be with you, chuck. >> let me start with the imminent threat situation, because no one in the administration had talked about specific embassies at all. it was a very vague explanation that we got from various officials, all it was yourself, secretary pompeo, secretary esper, but here's what the president said friday evening. i want to play it and get information on the other side. here it is. >> i believe it would have been four embassies. and i think that probably baghdad already started. baghdad certainly would have been the lead, but i think it would have been four embassies. could have been military bases or a lot of other things too.

>> four embassies. if they were talking four embassies did you guys see that as a declaration of war by iran? that's a big thing. what four embassies are we talking about? >> we were very concerned about the situation. we the exquisite intelligence. the intelligence showed they were looking at u.s. facilities throughout the region and they wanted to inflict casualties on american soldiers, airmen, marines, as well as diplomats. the threat was imminent. i saw the intelligence. there's been a lot of discussion on intelligence. i would love to have the intelligence out there now. unfortunately, if we declassify it, we could lose that stream of intelligence that allows us to protect americans going forward, but the president's interpretation of that intelligence is very consistent with it, and so look, i think this has been a washington thing. i think when we tell the american people there was exquisite intelligence and there was going to be an attack on americans, we had to stop that. >> let me get you to respond

this. this is what "the washington post" is reporting. the embassy in baghdad did not receive an alert commensurate to the threat that president trump describes. when the u.s. government has specific information about threats to embassies, warnings or alerts, they're often sent to embassy personnel to be vigilant. no one in baghdad was told. why is that? >> soleimani was traveling around the region plautding against the united states. as soon as it looked like there would be some sort of action against the u.s. embassy, the president was decisive and bold in his action. we moved a marine company in, an army platoon in, and we put apache helicopters in the air. this was not going to be 1979. >> that was for one embassy. what dud you do for the other three embassies? >> we took measures with respect to other embassies. i'm not going to get into the details of those and give up our playbook on the other side, but we were concerned about embas embassies throughout the region.

>> there seems to be a disconnect. i mean, is it the definition of imminent? is imminent months, not weeks? are people misinterpreting that word? >> i think imminent generally means soon, quickly, in process. i think those threats were imminent. and i don't want to get into the definition further than that, but we took the measures necessary to protect american diplomats and our soldiers and sailors, and marines. and what you see because of the prompt action we took, both with respect to the embassy in baghdad which they would have attempted to overrun and storm, and with the bases hit by the ballistic missiles, there was no loss of american life. >> why if you were so concerned soleimani was about to launch an imminent attack on perhaps as many as four embassies, why do you think the iranian response was so muted? >> i don't think it was a muted response. they fired off 16 ballistic missiles at iraqi bases where american coalition forces were. >> you're accepting it as a muted response because they seem

to issue warnings, they let everybody know in advance. we were able to protect ourselves. it seemed as if they telegraphed this on purpose, no? >> they issued warnings they were going to retaliate. they didn't issue warnings of what they were going to do. we have fantastic systems that can pick up launches of ballistic missiles in space, early warning systems. because of our diligence and vigilance, we were able to make sure the american soldiers were dispersed. it's a serious thing when you fire off 16 ballistic missiles. because no americans were killed, the president showed great restraint in responding. we're putting additional economic restraints on the iranians. >> what is our posture? the u.s. government and the trump administration's posture, if iran right now, it looks like they're trying to at least expand their nuclear capabilities. the president said no nuclear weapon. what does that mean if he's saying that? i know some senators have asked, if stopping them from getting a

nuclear weapon is a top priority, then why -- don't you need to go to congress to essentially get authority to do that? >> well, there are a number of ways to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. the president made it very clear, when he walked out and gave his speech which i thought was a great speech the morning after the missile attack, the first thing he said before saying good morning, is iran will never have a nuclear weapon. that is u.s. policy. right now, we've got a maximum pressure campaign that is strangling the regime, their economy is contracting dramatically. the people of iran are upset, protesting. they have been brutally put down, and tiananmen square style massacres the press has not been covering, and we think the regime is in real trouble. >> not to sit here -- press does everything it can to cover. it is a very difficult country to cover. in fairness. this is not a press trying to omit things there. i would like that not to be a shot at us. >> a difficult place to cover because they have authoritarian regime, and they shut down the internet.

and we get -- there are more questions about what the united states is doing to try to help the people of iran than necessarily what the regime is doing, but i agree with you. it's a tough place to cover because of the regime. >> let me ask you to respond to former senator jim webb, who was a reagan secretary of navy. he's got very, very interesting views when it comes to war and peace and the constitution. he writes this, it is legally and logically impossible to define one part of a national government as an international terrorist organization without applying the term to the entire knumpt. the revolutionary guards are part of the iranian government. if they're attacking us, they're not a terrorist organization. they're an attacking army. we took out the commander of another country's army. to call him a terrorist at that point, if you're calling him a terrorist, isn't everyone in that regime a terrorist by definition? >> in this case, the kuds force, which operates outside of iran and fomentes terror in lebanon

with hezbollah, in iraq, that organization has been designated legally as a terrorist organization. soleimani was the head of it. he's not just been designated by us. he's under a travel ban from the u.n. he shouldn't even have been outside of iran. this was someone who was a leading of an organization that was engaged in terror. he was involved in planning imminent attacks against the united states. the president made a very difficult decision but a bold decision december. >> let me ask you this, if he had not been designated officially as a terrorist, would he have been targeted on the battlefield? >> that's a hypothetical, what i will say and what the president said is if there are folks planning to kill, maim, and harm americans, that's a red line for us. you have to be careful. if you're out trying to attack the united states of america, you better be careful. >> let me ask you one final question on the issue of troops in iraq. here's what president trump said on friday to a fairly provocative question by laura ingraham, who said why not leave?

>> why not leave? >> i'm not so bad with it. when i heard that, i said hmm, i have it down to 5,000 troops. we had many, many troops there in iraq. and we're there only in training. we train them. but if they want us to leave, but they speak different publicly than they do privately. >> there's a bit of confusion sometimes. president trump seems like somebody who wants to leave iraq sooner rather than laterer. secretary of state pompeo and others in the national security team are concerned about the strategic vacuum that could leave and seemed to push back. is our official policy that we're trying to get out of iraq or not? >> we would like to get out of a lot of countries if we could. we want to bring american soldiers, sailors, and marines home. we have been there for 17, 18 years now. it would be great and i believe the president believes it would be great to get folks home. we want to do it in a way that preserves the victory we had against the caliphatcaliphate. when president trump came into office, it was as big as great

britain. we're working with the iraqis to maintain a solvent country. >> are you concerned in the four years that president trump has been in office, it seems as if we have sent more troops to the middle east that we have removed? >> i think our goal is to have a middle east that's stable, secure, with independent countries that their sovereignty is respected and americans can come home to the extent possible. that's what we're working on. by the way, curtailing iran's terrorist activities around the region will allow us to bring more troops home. >> ambassador o'brien, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> joining me frame bowling green, kentucky, is republican senator rand paul. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning. >> let me start with what you have heard from the administration. you heard from the ambassador, i think, just now. you have had other briefings. do you feel as if you have got enough information to make you feel comfortable with what

president trump did? >> you know, i think we have heard contradictory information. we have heard from the secretary of state that they don't know where or when, but it was imminent. that to me does seem inconsistent. he thinks he can square the circle, knut it seems pretty inconsistent. there's a bigger question, too, and this is what really infuriated me about the briefing. they maintain both in private and in public that a vote by congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after saddam hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in iraq and do whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from iran. and i don't think that's what congress meant in 2002, nor do i think one generation can bind another generation. so my point in being for the war powers debate is we really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in iraq or afghanistan and there needs to be authorization from congress. >> i want to get your reaction to something president trump says, because he makes no

apologies for not informing congress. let me play for you the explanation he gave. >> i am worried about it. can you imagine, here we are split second timing. executed like nobody's seen in many, many years. on soleimani. can you imagine, they want us to call up and speak to crooked, corrupt politician adam schiff. >> i know politics is high and polarization is high, but if that becomes a standard, where presidential administrations decide they're not going to inform congress because they just don't like somebody who is in line to receive that information, where does that leave us? >> well, you know this is not a new trend. this started probably very aggressively with truman in the korean war. lbj and the vietnam war. president obama did hundreds and hundreds of targeted killings without asking for permission. i think presidents of both parties have been trying to usurp the thauthority, but our

founding fathers wanted to make it difficult to go to war. that's why i'm willing to stand up. not because i distrust president trump? i think he has shown remarkable restraint, but i'm willing to stand up even against a president of my own party because we need to stand up and take back the power. we also need to debate whether we're going to keep sending kids over there forever. >> the numbers tell the story. it does feel as if we have sent more troops to the middle east. look what's happening in saudi arabia, which i know you have been against, then we're bringing them home. what kind of message does it send to the american people? >> i think it's a mixed message. president trump has been consistent saying he doesn't want perpetual war, but i have pushed back and said if you keep sending more troops, you will have perpetual war. the troops are merely targets. i'm going to be having a hearing in the next coupling weeks about the afghan papers. it troubles me in private commanders and generals have been saying for over a decade there's no mission in afghanistan. we had two young men die this

week. i have friends who will be sending their kids there in the next six months. i don't want to send these young men and women to war if there's no mission and if the generals are privately saying it can't be won. >> is there a way out? it's my understanding during the briefing, according to george will's reporting that senator chris coons multiple times asked whether would seek congressional approval to deal with iran if iran got a nuclear weapon. to deal with iran in a military way. they kept dodging the question. how important to you think it is to get that essentially on paper? >> i think it's incredibly important. and throughout the whole briefing, they were dismissive of congress. they in the end said they didn't have time to come back. we only had about eight senators ask questions. they said we don't have time, we're busy, about coming back to brief the rest of us or take questions from the rest of us. it was very dismissive and it's also arrogant to say a vote from congress, 16, 17 years ago, that vote now binds another generation and another

generation to war in iraq. it was against saddam hussein, for goodness sakes. this is a completely different government. this is not even the iraqi government we're now fighting. it's iranian generals that happen to be in iraq. but here's the great irony of the iraq war, this is something trump gets incredibly right, and that is that since the iraq war, we now have an iraq that is more aligned with iran than us. we're trying to force them to keep our troops, the irony of that is glaring. and i think we really need to have a full throated debate in congress. the majority of american people want to come home. they don't understand why we're still there. i want to have that debate and bring our kids home. >> it's interesting. you have, and i think in some ways you believe president trump's instincts comport with your instincts when it comes to national security and foreign policy. but his advisers are in a different place. how much do you think that -- does that bother you or is that healthy? >> i'll give you an example. i am on the foreign relations

committee, and all his nominees come before me. i warn them in private, i'm going to ask you, do you agree with president trump that the iraq war was a mistake? most of them don't agree with him. he keeps appointing people to represent him that think the iraq war was just great. they would love dick cheney's position and don't admit it was a mistake, so that's why he keeps getting policy that isn't his policy. i do think his instincts are pure. he's been saying it since 20, 30 years. he's been saying it for a long time, that the wars has drained our treasury and he's not in favor of these wars. then they convince him, if we leave, we'll look weak. this a time of strength now. soleimani is dead. the leader of a lot of the mayhem is dead. this is a time to come home. the iraqi government wants us to come home. we should come home. >> i was just going to say, you think the president should take him up on this offer. you want us out, let's do it? >> absolutely. only way people become stronger is when they stand up. in afghanistan, when the soldiers and police fight the

talaknan, they'll do better. when iraq says iran is overrunning us or the sunni extremists are overrunning us, they have to stand up and fight. if they can't fight, why are we the patsies sending our kids there? >> senator rand paul, republican from kentucky, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. i appreciate it. >> when we come back, how much power will democratic senators have in an impeachment trial? i'll ask one of them who is also trying to run for president add the same time. senator michael bennett of colorado joins me next. 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. whatever happens out there you have the hilton app.

will the hilton app help us 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. i had no idea why my mouth was constantly dry. it gave me bad breath. it was so embarrassing. now i take biotene dry mouth lozenges whenever i'm on the go, which is all the time. biotene dry mouth lozenges. freshen breath anytime, anywhere. laso you can enjoy it even ifst moyou're sensitive. se. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit! sleep this amazing?

that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. >> 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. ♪

welcome back. so what do you do if you're a democratic presidential candidate looking to spend as much time as possible in iowa and new hampshire but you have to be in washington for what is among the first trial of this century, president trump's impeachment trial. if you're any one of these people, you're going to have to figure that answer out very soon. if you're my next guest, senator mike bennet of colorado who remains in the race and joins me from manchester, new hampshire. senator, welcome back to "meet

the press." >> thanks, chuck. great to be back. >> other than scouring airlines to find out how many nonstops exist after the impeachment trial, how disruptive to you expect the impeachment trial to be on the campaign, and should it be? >> i think it is going to be disruptive and there's nothing i can do about it so i choose not to worry about it. we have, all of us, a constitutional responsibility that we have to fulfill here and i take my oath seriously, and i will. in the meantime i'm spending every single second i can in new hampshire trying to fulfill my commitment to hold an additional 50 town halls here. i've already spent more time here than any other candidate. i'm just going to continue to do that. >> you're a guy that has spent a lot of time reading federalist papers, unlike many u.s. senators. so what do you believe -- what power do you believe you have, even though your party is in the minority, at a senate trial in order to force a fair trial? >> you know, i think the stakes could not be higher here because

i've been listening to the program, chuck. this is a president who's holding the american people in contempt and holding the constitution in contempt. when it comes to war powers, decision to provoke a war potentially with iran, his stonewalling of the house, and now his stonewalling of the senate. so i think these stakes are really high. and i think the framers of the constitution would demand of the people that are sitting in judgment that they put the constitution in front of the president and that they use this as opportunity to remind the american people why the rule of law is so important and why nobody, including the president, is above the law. >> where does public opinion fit into this as far as you're concerned after the trial? the reason i say this is at the end of the day it was a small d democratically elected president by our rules, the electoral college. if two-thirds of the public isn't there, does that matter to you?

>> i think it's important for public opinion to at least understand that what we are trying to do is hold the president accountable. and we may not have gotten in the end a conviction of the president, but maybe what we did was re-establish the standard of ethics that we expect out of a president and the standard of constitutional law that we expect from a president. i think that's important in and of itself. >> do you expect to find four republicans to join with the democrats to get john bolton to testify? >> i don't expect anything, but i don't think it's impossible. i've seen, i've been in rooms where people have heard somebody say something and they say, you know what, i want to hear more about that. let's bring the witnesses. i hope my republican colleagues will be open to having witnesses. the american people want witnesses and want to see the records from the white house as well. >> i want to talk about the presidential race and iran a bit. the way the president made his decision and the way it's had an impact i think on the democratic

electorate, are you concerned in some way the president's actions has inadvertently strengthened the sanders wing of the party over say the biden wing or the moderate wing where you reside? >> i think what he's strengthened in the hard-liner wing of the iranian government. that's what he's done becoming president and what he's done with the action that he's taken. rand paul mentioned it, the afghanistan papers that "the washington post" have published demonstrate after the first six months of that war we not only didn't accomplish the objectives we told the american people we were accomplishing, but we may have made matters worse on a whole range of things from corruption to drugs to the rise of the taliban. in iraq, our own war college tells us that there was a winner of the iraq war and it was iran. so, chuck, i think this is a moment where heightened congressional scrutiny of the president, no matter who the president is, is critical.

but when you have a president who's as lawless as this one seems to be on the international stage and the domestic stage, i think it's important for not just democrats to come together, but americans to come together and say we're going to put the constitution ahead of this president. >> is it harder to unite the democratic party if you voted in favor of the iraq war? >> i think it is much harder to unite the democratic party if you voted in favor of the iraq war. i think it's much harder to take on donald trump, who takes every single position, including a position that the iraq war was a mistake. >> i just described joe biden. does that make him less electable than say a bernie sanders? >> i think many people would say that was not his finest hour. and i think from my vantage point there's a question in my mind as to whether any of the leading candidates can take on donald trump, which is why i've stayed in this race. chuck, voters in new hampshire are more undecided today than they were six weeks ago or six months ago because they know how much is at stake and they know

we need to nominate somebody who can beat donald trump. i think i come from the right kind of state with the right kind of agenda to do that. by the way, i would invite congressional participation in these foreign policy decisions. i would invite congressional participation in evaluating whether my work was consistent with the constitution, as previous presidents have done. >> let me ask you this. is there a point not only for your own campaign but for a lot of campaigns that you have to coalesce around a leader if there is an obvious leader at, say, the end of february or the end of march? >> yeah, i definitely think that's the right timeline. i think we will have to coalesce around somebody. my hope, chuck, is to come in in the top third of new hampshire and i'm slogging it out of a venerable tradition of people who have put one foot in front of the other, trying to get to storefronts and town halls and see if we can make progress here. but at some point the most important thing for us is to come together and make sure donald trump is a one-term president.

>> senator michael bennet, you are right about history. there's plenty of people who have been in your position who have taken off like a rocket in new hampshire. we will be watching. >> i'm still waiting. thanks, chuck. >> thanks for coming on and sharing your views, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> a lot to get to this morning. the three is, iran, impeachment, and iowa. our tremendous panel is next. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help

support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women. all with great taste. it's red lobster's new three-courfor $14.99.east choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath.

excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind.

welcome back. panel is here. steve inkeep, host of nbr's morning edition, so you'll reign recognize the voice, and the authder of imperfect union. yamiche alcindor, white house correspondent for pbs news hour. andrea mitchell, and "time" magazine columnist david french, who is also senior editor of the dispatch. congratulations on the launch of that. good friends, mr. goldberg and mr. hayes as well. andrea, you heard all of this. you covered a bunch of these back and forths, whether it's between congress and an executive branch over military strikes or what we're seeing today in the middle east. where are we now, and is this administration being bailed out by iran's incompetence with the passenger jet? >> for sure, the administration had angered the european allies.

all of the nato allies, by not giving them any notice. the only government we know was notified in advance that i have been told by my sources was israel. they and lindsey graham at mar-a-lago had the advance notice. the gang of eight had not. mike pence telling savannah districtry, it's sources and methods and we don't share that with congress. we don't know of any leak from nancy pelosi and the top members, even going back decades. other administrations have always notified congress, the top leaders. iranians who had been protesting for months against the regime were suddenly all unified against america. and the iraqis were ordering us out, who had been protesting against the iranians. so it was a nightmare scenario. and the fact that it was done at baghdad airport. all of that was happening, but yes, to your answer, the fact that the air force component of the revolutionary guard took

down a civilian plane and it's arg arguable whether zarif and even the iaatola were aware of it, my experience, and direct information from iranian officials in the immediate aftermath was no, this didn't happen. they were repeating what the minister, the air force minister was saying. it's very, very possible that they were not told, and then had to, when the evidence became clear, and this also, you know, undermines the europeans. and now they have today arrested the british diplomat. but that is only going to unify europe with donald trump. >> this has brought back the strain of iranian discontent that was muted for a few days. >> look at those protests. >> exactly, and recent months, there have been many protests, and in truth, people have been protested for many years in iran. when i have been there, when i have interviewed people on the

streets, there's something about the protests. people will speak frankly about their problems with the government, they may even march in the streets, but they do it with an attitude that it's going to make no difference, it will fail, and they will say it will make no difference but we're going to do it anyway. the question is whether some event has happened here, some moment has been reached where people would go that extra mile. >> david, it's amazing. i'm sorry, i'm shocked that iranians fessed up so fast. that's, i mean, it doesn't happen very often. >> the evidence was overwhelming. you could look at the videos of the actual crash. there were -- of the actual impact of the missile. you could see the vid eos of th crash with the plane breaking up midair. the evidence was all over the place. but going back to the trump justification for the soleimani strike, can i tell you what is confusing to me? >> okay. >> there was no need for a low-trust administration to provide a low-trust answer as to why they did this. no need at all.

we had almost 20 years of a record of soleimani's activities against american interests. >> in your mind, that would have been enough. >> it was enough. we just had an attack on an american base that killed an american contractor. we just had iranian-supported militias attack our embassy. he was an enemy combatant commander in the theater of war meeting with enemy combatant commanders. under the laur of war, under congressional authorizations, he was fair game. to say oh, wait, there were other imminent attacks, completely unnecessary. >> this waw jeh johnson's comment last week. he said this was lawful. making the enemy combatant argument, would the president have a better time on capitol hill if he had just been more honest about this? >> yes, because you heard democrats and republicans really saying this was a bad person. no one is really saying he was a good person. there were a couple people that were getting pushback like senator bernie sanders and elizabeth warren who were calling it an assassination.

for the most part, people were angry about the process. what we saw with this white house is what we have seen in the past. you're describing a layup almost for president trump and they don't take layups. what we have is a white house that often boggles their own communication message. we saw an evolving description of why this was imminent and what we saw also was top national security officials go to congress and infuriate both democrats and republicans. mike lee said he was insulted by the fact that national security officials were saying don't even debate, don't even ask us essentially why we can do what we're doing in iran because you're emboldening iran. add to that the fact that you have now the president saying on fox news and saying before thousands of people in toledo, ohio, all this information that he wouldn't share with lawmakers. so i was on capitol hill talking to all sorts of lawmakers after the briefing, and all of them are coming out saying we don't actually understand anything more than when we walked in there. what we have now is the white house and president trump talking about embassies, talking about the diplomats being

targeted and they didn't tell congress, which is pretty remarkable. >> two vital phrases to look at. had the president said four embassies were targeted, he actually said i believe four -- >> it's his new construction. you can't fact check a belief. >> exactly, and robert o'brien when he was tacking on npr the other day, acknowledged they don't know the precise time and place of these attacks, although he did say the intell jjs was very strong. >> exquisite. >> how do you have imminent attacks if you don't know the exact time and place. >> defense secretary esper is saying that he did not have specific intelligence. look, there's a 1990 law that says if embassies are warned of a threat, that you have to warn the public. you cannot give the personnel something different from what you are telling the world and the american people. >> clearly, there have been no warnings. >> there are costs this. so here you have a person who is blood of hundreds of americans on his hands, including some men i served with in iraq.

this guy has been an open enemy of the united states for years. he bragged to general petraeus via a text message in a famous story that he's in charge of things with these iranian-backed militias. ? stead of uniting the country at a moment when an actual enemy is killed and when we're on the knife's edge of a larger conflict, which requires public support, he's more interested in owning the libs than uniting the country. >> ironically, i'm going to close it here. some leaders like chuck schumer, eliot engel, these are people that are very much iran hawks. you could have built a bipartisan coalition for something like this. >> when we come back, how the world views us three years into the trump presidency. i'm your 70lb st. bernard puppy,

and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling,

and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪

we are back. data download time. recent tension with iran is a reminder of the massive role the united states has on the world stage and of president trump's own reputation around the world. this week the pew research center has a new look at how much trust people have for the president to do the right thing. no world leader inspires that much confidence. not that surprising. the most trusted leader in these 33 countries is angela merkel sitting at 46%, followed by france' emmanuel macron, and then vladimir putin. it is in fourth that president trump comes in with only 29% of people believing he would do the right thing regarding world affairs. he's only one point ahead of china's xi jinping. mr. trump's low numbers appear to be more about him personally than about the united states.

three years into president obama's first term he was getting high marks in the uk. 75% of people there had confidence in him. compared with 32% for trump at this same moment in his presidency. and canada in 2013, president obama was 53 points ahead of where president trump is now. in germany in 2011, president obama was a full 75 percentage points ahead of president trump's current 13%. but while donald trump's election surprised many, the rise of populist conservative movements from brazil to italy to israel suggests 2016 may have been less of a fluke here and more of a harbinger of right-leaning electoral success around the globe. in france, there's a 21-point difference in trust in president trump to do the right thing between french liberals and french conservatives. it's a 30-point gap in canada, a 35-point difference in italy. trust in president trump among populists has gone up as well. canada has seen conservative faith in trump to do the right thing climb by ten points in just the last year.

in italy confidence in trump has grown by 11 points among conservatives. and in france, conservative confidence in president trump to do the right thing has climbed 17 points. now, we should all keep all of this in mind this election year. sure, american elections aren't often decided on foreign policy nor on the president's popularity abroad. but there's a difference between a u.s. president who is disliked versus one who isn't respected around the globe. when we come back, end game, and are we really down to a four-candidate race in iowa and beyond?

i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪

and with the sxfinity stream app, screen is your big screen. which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. whether you're travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app and watch all the shows you love.

back now with end game and the other two is, and that's impeachment and iowa. we shouldn't even presume the outcome. i know a lot of people probably presumed last night's outcome of baltimore and tennessee. the fact of the matter is i'm going to put up two polls in ohio. top four in iowa. the difrence between first and fourth. margin of error stuff. let's put opnew new hampshire poll that came out, nearly the same percentage numbers. just a slightly different order. two of those four candidates are sitting u.s. senators. the clinton trial took 47 days from start to finish. at this point, it looks like

we're going to have a summer trial during iowa and new hampshire. now what? >> if you're looking at what might make the difference in the small thing? it may be because you had longer times to sit in the living room of iowa. so if senator sanders and warren are taken out of that, of course they're going to be worried about that. but when i talked to aids for both of the people and aids for joe biden, they're making this point that they're making this idea is it's about who feels for them. it's an emotional connection for them. it's not just that bernie sanders was the last person to stop by your firehouse or school. they make this point he has fiercely loyal support. i've covered 2016 and bernie sanders and president trump. i think what they have in common, or at least their supporters, iss there rr a visceral connection to their candidate. when i look at who could

possibly be the person favored, bernie sanders could be the person who could sit out part of this and retain his support in a way warren wouldn't. >> what i'm trying to get people to visualize is we're going to have six weeks of the senate trial. we don't fully comprehend how that's going to impact things. >> i guess a lot of breakfast meetings in iowa. >> i'm guessing they should plane pool. >> i think you're exactly right sanders and warren are brand names. known by the people who support them. the media environment is effected. i'm not sure we fully understand that. this senate trial could be dramatic and could be quite boring. i'm interested, as a citizen. i don't know if tv networks are going to be as interested. >> also the foreign policy issues aren't going to give

bernie, i think, some advantages. having campaigned against the iraq war and taking on biden. i think that bernie verses biden on the war and peace issue is -- iowa has always cared about that issue. >> and the ulkter thing i'm interested in is, let's say the tuesday debate is framed on war and peace. you have buttigieg and klobuchar. klobuchar is on her own tier. they could get swallowed up by the debate and it just becomes biden and bernie. >> don't sleep on buttigieg. he served. >> do other people who have served, how important is it that he wore that uniform too? >> it's important but when a

politician says i've been to afghanistan six times. youvr rr been on a guided tour. you've seen what people want you to see. when it's boots on the ground, it changed the way i viewed many things in the iraq war in the middle east. being the only one who can bring it to the stage is going to be important. he's shown an ability to stand up for himself in a way perhaps people didn't anticipate. >> biden aids say he thinks he is playing to his strings talking about foreign policy. i remember "washington post" saying they weren't forthcoming with the afghanistan war. that, in some ways, give as lane for warren and about jeej to talk. >> john kerry, hillary clinton, barack obama. two voted for the iraq war, one

didn't. who won and who lost? >> barack obama was the senator from illinois, the illinois state senator who came out against the iraq war. and that is what really propelled in iowa and iowa propelled him. however boring, unquote, without witnesses, the impeachment trial is, it's going to be wall to wall. and it's going to be hard for this 2020 race to get focus. >> there's also other parts of this campaign that matter in the impeachment campaign. what would you do if you were cory gardner? >> i don't think people truly appreciate the situation these republican senators are often in. if they say i'm open to impeachment. i want to hear from john bolton.

pipe who pipal who might be motivated to turn out -- but when they don't say i want to hear from available witnesses, like the national security advisor, at the time, then you have people on the fence. they say this guy is just in the tank for trump. i'm not electing an independent thinker at all. >> mitch mcconnell, is he prioritizing and protecting trump or the senate majority? >> senate majority, although he certainly supports the president and his party. believes he's doing it within the traditions of the senate, although people looking from the outside would see it differently. >> if it is really 37 days t means we go to to the nevada caucuses. that's all we have for today. we'll be back nexed week. because if it's sunday, its "meet the press." ♪

♪

welcome to kasie d.c." . new intelligence around the killing of general soleimani. plus republican congressman dan crenshaw, who says you don't have to choose between isolationism and full-scale war, when it comes to iran. speaker pelosi gets ready to send them to the senate.