i'll see you again tomorrow. "deadline white house" begins right now. ♪ it's 4:00 here in washington. i'm peter alexander in for my friend, nicole wallace. as donald trump's story unravels on the strike against soleimani after days of shifting explanations for the attack, which sparked ongoing tensions with iran, the administration's credibility crisis culminating this weekend in an admission from the president's own secretary, esper, that he has not seen any evidence to back up the explicit claim on friday there was an imminent threat against four u.s. embassies that led him to order the strike on soleimani. >> well, the president didn't say there was a -- he didn't site a specific piece of evidence. he probably, he believed. i didn't see one with regard to four embassies. >> and as the president's aids

and advisors rush to defend president trump against accusations he made up intelligence, here's a reminder of how specific and definitive president trump has sounded in just the last 12 days. >> soleimani was actively planning new attacks and he was looking very seriously at our embassies and not just the embassy in baghdad, but we stopped him and we stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold. >> they have large-scale attacks planned for other embassies and if those were planned, why can't we reveal that how to marecon people? wouldn't that help your case? >> i can reveal i believe it would have been four embassies and i think that probably baghdad already started. >> today new reporting casting even more doubt over the contention from immediately after the soleimani strike he posed an imminent threat. their words led to the trump

administration taking him out. the president authorized the killing of soleimani as far back as seven months ago. if any americans were killed as parted of iran's aggression. and reporting from the "washington post" over the weekends that adds this. two senior officials said they were aware of vague intelligence about a plot against the embassy in baghdad and that the information did not suggest a fully formed plot. neath orfici neither official said -- and as the resolving stories begin to hit a breaking point, the president responding in a defensive tweet that once again is raising questions. here's what he writes, the fake news media and their democrat partners are working hard to ktermine whether or not the future attack by terrorist soleimani was imnntd or not. and it doesn't really matter because of his horrible pasts. as if to say he was just a bad

guy. here's here to talk with us about it all, carollee. and correspondent for boston news radio, kim atkins and white house reporter for the "los angeles times" and from the white house bureau chief at the "washington post," phil rutger and david jolly. we've got the whole team gathered today. the president has put some of his top aids, top cabinet secretaries in tough positions. i got into it with mike pompeo trying to back up some of what the president said before on friday. then over the weekend esper effectively tried to back up what some of the comments had been. he was put in a position where you could lie, i guess or break with the president. >> that's right. we've seen over the past week the machinery of government, the

top officials in the military and national security space for this country have been scrambling to adapt to change their story too, evolve too, match what the president has been saying publicly. his narrative of why he decided to order the drone strike that killed a top iranian general has been evolving day after day after day and now you have an administration with a credibility problem in part because of the president's long history of false hoods and misstatements and because the president has been imprecise with his language. you saw where he talked about the embassies for the first time. the president says i believe it was four embassies. it's unclear whether he's saying he saw intelligence to suggest four embassies, which by the way, the defense secretary says he never saw. or is the president just speculating what he personally

thinks might have been happening? very unclear, imprecise and leaves the administration with not a lot of credibility trying to convince the american public about why he did it. >> that puts this president, this administration in a bind. not new one, mind you. he said to fox news, i think they were probably going to -- they generally believe that's a declaration of fact. obviously, circumstances have changed in this administration. even this president, he said these media posts will serve as notification to the united states congress that should iran strike any u.s. person or target, the united states will fully strike back. that was a formal declaration. but when he was speaking publicly, he's riffing. what does that do to the credibility on the issue? >> it gives congressional

republicans and democrats reason to ask for justification. and if he says we're going to be strike, we'll strike back, that's within the powers of his office and would be supported by congress. the justification resolves around the question of whether an attack was imminent. as far back as seven months ago that donald trump had authorized the killing, that lets us know this is a change in national security policy. not necessarily a reflexive change of decision on january 3rd. but the decision to execute that command if you will. the question was, was it just because he's a bad guy with a horrible past as donald trump says in this tweet that would justify it or because of an imminent threat to four embassies? when he dropped the four embaegs line, people caught that because it was inconsistent with the

messaging that came out initially and now the white house has lost the benefit of the doubt. congressional democrats are not saying they need permission, but they are due justification. and that justification is becoming increasingly illusive. >> so the reporting this goes back as far as seven months, they were considering killing soleimani, came from our friend, carollee and courtney at the pentagon as well. walk us through your reporting and why it's so significant against the back drop we've been talking about. >> we spoke to five former and senior official whose said last summer when, as you'll recall, iran was really ratcheting up its aggression, doing various nefarious activities and then national security advisor john bolton urged the president to respond to iran's strike, shooting down a u.s. drone by killing soleimani, which has

come up here and there over the course of the presidency. the president said no, obviously and said that's not something that's proportional to shooting down a drone, but if they kill an american, he agreed he would take that step. and there were conditions. and one of them was this wasn't the kind of order where the military just had you find them, get them. if they take this step and cross a red line . and if that does come to pass, you have to come back with a specific operation, which is what we saw last week. the point is that undermines the argument this was done because of an imminent threat, this was in the moment. this has been thought out for months. >> and the white house as we heard last week. they said it on the sunday shows and as we hear from officials is it doesn't matter. we've got bad guy.

let's all rally around the idea we have a bad guy. but it does matter when it comes to law that dictates -- >> but it's not the first time he's disguarded what the constitution says on the limitations on executive power. you're right. it is consequential, obviously. and if the president perhaps had started there and said we have a bad guy, end of the story, that's an argument you can maintain. trying to reverse engineer this idea there was an imminent threat, when you're going to brief congress, you don't have evidence to present to congress and you send your surrogates to entertain that. wasn't just the fox interview and when he was talking about invoking this -- another benghazi, saying you saw what was happening to that embassy,

referring to the television images of the protests outside that he saw and saw another benghazi on his watch. he said, you know if we let that go there would have been hundreds of people killed. siting the president being speculative and imprecise. he's painting a picture trying to rationalize. that's another explanation and whether something is imminent, that's just been in the eye of the beholder. you had pompeo getting up. not knowing when or how this attack was going to take place somehow qualifies as imminent attack. >> it's hard to keep track of a lot of this. among those trying to keep track is democrats and not just democrats. republicans have been frust freighted, a small number of them.

>> i doernlt thi -- you should have informed the gang of eight inned a vansz of this, this leadership and the chairs of intelligence committee and ranking. you had to keep it close? what you're saying is you don't trust the congress of the united states with sorgss and methods and timing? we had to keep it close. that's wrong. that is wrong. >> we also learned mike pompeo declined an invitation to testify before them tomorrow. how concerning is it this administration is basically stiff arming congress and saying no thanks? >> this isn't the first time that has happened either. whenever it comes to military a, it's import tonight know we hear from congress that the white house should come to congress and we've seen the new

discussion about aumf. >> even some of the president's allies are making that argument. >> and there's no more politically perilous vote to take. these aren't votes they want to take. but there is this issue of trust and transparency, not just with members of congress but the american public. polling shows the majority of americans are at least concerned about the potential war with iran. the white house should give them a clear justification for why they did this in doing that really stirs fear among the american people they're not sure why the strike took place and why we were potentially brought to the brink of war. >> let me bring you some reporting for the "washington post." with this new national security team that demonstrated the lack of boundaries the president facing internally.

the "post" writes the following, the president floated the possibility in the spring of 2017 when iranian-backed rebels in yemen shot a missal at saudi arabia's capitol. but then dfsz secretary jim mattis resisted any action. consider the expulsion of national security figures in this administration. mattis, mcmaster, john bolton is gone as well. what do we make of the lack of boundaries or pushback? >> mattis in particular we're seeing as guardrails for the president. people who took a lot of care to c convince the president away from his impulses and restrain him. the president has not only brought in people much more enabling of his wishes, but the president himself has become

more confident about his own instingi instingtss and desires, especially in the realm of national security. you're seeing mike pompeo play an out sized role in helping guide the president. he's much more trying to bring the president to a yes and find ways to do what the president wants done, than resisting him or trying to stop him the way mattis would have. >> it creates a difficult bind, right? you can go along and goet along with the president. it does pose a real challenge for the way we address these issues of national security. >> and i think there's something else going on behind the scenes. he spoke to the president's implsz we have seen those that tried to rain in the impulse. the flip side of that coin is there is a large group of establishment republicans who have figured out how to play to

that impulse. they figured out this could be our vehicle to get things we wanted for a generation. mitch mcconnell is getting his judges and the neocons could possibly get a war in the middle east. this change in foreign policy that says yes, we will strike soleimani if we need to in response to the taking of an american life. that is a change in national pallacy that the neocons want. and what's clear is donald trump has continued to rattle and saying iran f you escalate, we will as well. what republicans would tell you is it may be working. iran perhaps telegraphed they would have a non-lethal strike. but what we know is we have an increasingly unstable situation in the middle east that is being administered by an unstable hand in the oval office. and that is the anxiety and fear the american people feel and

many on capitol hill as well. >> i was struck by the fact mark esper said he wasn't talking about intelligence. and i agree it probably would happen. and esper a couple of days earlier when he said we will follow the laws of armed conflict. you got to wonder what the white house is thinking. the president is thinking he has the same guy who's gone against him in the last two occasions. >> when you work for the president, you're stuck with that choice. you have to go along with what he says or very lightly bring him back within the boundaries. the cultural sites was an instance, where without rebuking trump directly, made it clear that's not what the united states is about. by and large, they are there to stand up the things the president says and put their weight behind thoiz things.

doing something like this with iran, having a shifting red line, this is something that makes him formidable. because other countries have no idea what to make of him. other countries say iran has to recalculate and that may be true, but the longer term effects certainly with allies and other countries where you just don't really know where they stand, they're not consistent. the things out of the president's mouth are hard to hang a hat on. that has a long-term effect. where other people around the world don't trust the united states. >> the only thing that matters is look tougher than everybody else. we thank you for spending time with us right here. coming up when we come back, we're learning more about the president's call to take down iran's top general and it's becoming more clear appealing to his base contributed heavily to this decision as well.

will his base back him up, even if it keeps him in the middle east? plus, impeached for life. and the president suggesting a full senate trial and dismissal. and a very tight four-way contest means 2020 is still anybody's game. year going to look at the state of the race and on the eve of another democratic debate, someone has lost a. debate, someone has lost a 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

the obama, clintden

interventions will be confusion. a mes. we will pursue a new steady foreign policy that seeks toed a van -- advance the national security interests in the united states. not a reckleglobalism that has failed us so badly. this destructive cycle must come to an end. >> there you heard it. the corner stone of donald trump's prepresidentancy platform. keep america first. but his fleuritation with armed conflict raise as crucial kwaegz. can he make the same promises in 2020? trump has struggled to reconcile

inconsist eenss leaving people to wonder is he a really a commander and chief. or a volatile decision maker who ordered troops to pull out of syria and deploys thousands more for a possible conflict after taking out one of its top generals in a drone strike. does this iran conflict, does this complicate the arlgument? >> yes, and if you froze in time the situation right now, rilgit different situation knowing he's the president who's going to bring troops home and the ones he pulled out of syria a lot were redeployed.

they weren't coming home to be with their families in the way he said. there was the wall, his trade issue and this and the endless wars, starting his campaign. a lot of his supporters agree and agree with him on that. he, the president still has not reconciled this. bomb the hell out of isis and saying we're going to end the wars. and it's a very long game. while they took action last week and said they're done for now, that's now. and i think the closer we get to october, we'll know more. >> he's effectively putting his campaign -- and the president's

handling nof situation, 43% of americans approve, 56% disprove. and specifically about the strikes on soleimani, do they make the united states less safe? 52% say they make us less safe. 25% say imore safe. which is the core of the argument the president is making right now. we need get this guy whose rar bad guy and we're safer for it. this is a challenge for the administration. >> this is something different than fighting isis. fighting isis had the goal of protecting americans because you may have terrorism. this is something different. this seemed to be bringing us towards war, which is very scary and his ultimate deployment of more troops are people putting -- sending their loved

ones away in yet another war. this is scary stuff they don't like and a lot of people voted for donald trump because they wanted someone to bring the troops home and it seems to me -- >> to you, do you think there's interesting polling with the following. a state and county said significantly more votes inplases with high casualty rates. it's this not only helped mr. trump, they concluded, but could have decided the race, if casualty rates were lower in places like pennsylvania and michigan, the model determined all three could have voted for hillary clinton. the president is so focussed on politics here t drives almost every one of the decisions,

behind the scenes here. this one could put him in a bind. >> it is. look, he's successfully woven this canvas of populism. we are the greatest nation on earth and if they take out a contractor, i'm going to take out one of their generals. i know we aren't going to have our troops deployed overseas. it's very politics drivenen and it doesn't recognize the foreign policy in the middle east. when he messages to them around this is he prevents the issues, if you will or within a finite contect. so the notion iran took the life of an american contractor, he presents that as the entire through line. there is no before and no after. the complexity of the middle east we know is there was a before and there will be an after and that is where his base has decided to follow him.

ironically i joke donald trump will maybe succeed in bringing peace to iraq because he's going to get us kicked out of iraq. becausef how he's handling foreign policy, but he'll be able to sell that to the base we're not meddling in the middle east. >> and how terrible that is for the effort to defeat isis. the caliphate is gong but isis could regroup very quickly. they said mr. trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with soleimani from gop senators he views as important in his coming impeachment trial in the sewnt. the president was making this decision to satisfy people he needs to help him in the impeachment trial that begins any day. >> was there any question they

weren't going anywhere? this is about as believable as i think there were going to be four embassies line. this is another explanation the president was throwing at the wall after the fact. this whole thing -- he is basically out there talking about we did baghdady, took out a bad guy, now we took out soleimani. he is learning the lesson from approving these sorts of attacks, targeted strikes. they work for him, they play a political divdnd. i was talking to someone last week. the risk to that just because it's calmed down, does not mean it's over. when the president looks at things in the shorlt term and how they benefit him, he's looking at this and seeing that was smart so let's do this again. a former pentagon official

likened this getting the wrong message after playing russian roulette. do you keep playing and doing it over and over just because the outcome is okay does not mean it was the right decision to undertake. >> this roulette could be played out before the election and well beyond that as well. >> the timing is obviously not up to him. >> stay with us right here with the impeachment trial heading to the senate any day, how can the president's defenders protect him even when he doesn't clearly state what he wants. doesn't cly state what he wants. when you shop for your home at wayfair, you get more than free shipping. you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that

make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! the good news? our comfort lasts all day. the bad news? so does his energy. depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®.

we have confidence in our kies its impeachable and this president is impeached for life regardless of any gamesmanship on the poort of mitch mcconnell. however, that could still come too bear. but we're confident in the

impeachment and think it's enough testimony to remove him from office. let's be optimistic about a future a future that will not have donald trump in the white house one way or another, 10 months from now, we will have an election butted again he will be impeached forever. >> speaker nancy pelosi noting the permanent stain. why should i have have the stigma oaf impeachment when i did nothing wrong. the speaker obviously does not believe he did. with her confidence tomorrow to discush the next begin as early as next week. robert kosta.

and lelt me ask you about the president's mixed messages about wanting a trial. n he said many believe that by the senate giving creed nance thoo trial, it gives the partisan democrat witch hunt credibility it doesn't otherwise have. i agree, he writes, with an exclamation point. and own the he said he wanted adam schiff and pelosi to be witnesses in the trial >> it's what senate majority leader mitch mcconnell makes of it all. senator rand paul who want to move to dismiss once it starts and then others pushing for witnesses. the white house would like to have a quick f not no trial at all. at the same time if collins and

other moderate senators push have a guarantee. then you could see the white house making their own ask of having vice president biden on the list. >> the likelihood is we see a few but not the one that includes adam schiff and hunter bidens to testify? >> the talks at this moment are pretty fluid. i'm hesitant to say there's likely going to be witnesses. what we're going to see based on my own conversations with sources is a push a push with senator collins, perhaps romney and others, and lamar alexander is someone maybe on the fence when it comes to witnesses in the trial. what they say is going to matter as to whether mcconnell is pressured or not. >> they said, when asked about whether john bolton should

testify, by 66% margin. 66% overall among all voters said he should testify. they would like the see him testify and among republicans, notably, almost four in ten said they wanted to see him testify and then whether they approve the house votes by margin of 51 to 46%. americans approve the decision to impeach. 46% say he can be removed here. the numbers do demonstrate shifting, as it relates to nancy pelosi's desire to hand over articles. looks like she did herself good in that john bolton came forward to testify before the senate. >> and perhaps the attention that would occur in the senate is something nat maybe pushed the numbers up more. mcconnell is not going to look at one poll and say we need witnesses.

he's going to do the thing he thinks protects his majority and members and whether that's allowing for some sort of trunkated trial or whether there are no witnesses, he's going to make that determination at the end of the day and not -- because there's growing public pressure on him to do a long, drawn out trial with a bunch of witnesses, although that plays into the equations a little bit. >> not because i'm worried about me but because i'm worried about future presidents. the altruism that has defined his presidency until now. if he wants to erase this asterisk, why not allow these individuals to testify and clear the record? >> because it's pretty clear if they come to testify, particularly john bolton, who described the effort to ukraine in search of information on the bidens as a drug deal t probably isn't going to go entirely well

for the president. we've seen the president do this at the same time. he proclaims his innocence. sure, i'll testify. i don't mind. i'll wait. my lawyers are telling me i shouldn't do this. there's no appetite to participate at all. which is why he's been saying this is a witchhunt, illegitimate. but it would be problematic to bring these witnesses in. the best bet is to have this over as quickly as possible and that's what mitch mcconnell has all but stated to that effect. >> and they proposed a unique idea, effectively sending one article to the senate. they write the following, separating the two articles, our preferred approach would make perfect sense. all the information is a matter of public record. the second article is right for trial. although there is plenty of

evidence demonstrating trump's guilt, his obstruction has prevented all the evidence from coming to light. any chance that happens? >> i think it's a brilliant idea and what the nation and congress is wrestling with is we have a president who's been impeached who may engage in impeachable behavior before november and how does the house continue its investigation and how do they responsably transfer them. and due to this possible motion to dismiss vote will be the inflection point. understand that would be someone offered an amendment that the first vote is to dismiss the trial altogether. i think withit would be a long to get all the republicans. but the fundamental flaw and failing of senate republicans is

they've sucomebed to the battle mindset as opposed to being the fair arbiter. it would be so easy to act in line with the majority of opinions and say we are going to have a fair trial, witnesses. and when it's said and done we'll vote to acquit the president. but that does not mean he does not have his fair day in court. it's how we saw the facts. but they refuse do so. >> that's a strong point you make. thank you. we thank you for spending time and sharing some of your reporting right here. three weeks separated us from the iowa caucuses, believe it or not. guess who's surging? guess who's surging? thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer,

which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills,

or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from using feedback to innovate... to introducing products faster... to managing website inventory... and network bandwidth. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. this melting pot of impacted species.

everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. so believe it or not to we're just three weeks away from the iowa caucuses. they're almost here and it remains skbb's game. poll released today has joe

biden with the rests of the top four, clumped up there. you see them all behind. but all of them within that poll's margin of error. it is a reordering of another reliable poll that had sanders and warren on top. recent friction between these two candidates reaching new heights today. multiple news outlets are siting unnamed sources who are accusing sanders, before she was a candidate, that he did not believe a woman could win the presidential election. sand urz adding of course a woman can win. also the democratic fields got smaller with senator cory booker dropping out of the race. joining us now from iowa, where there will be another consequential debate. john, some of the numbers out of iowa are remarkable, including this one.

the fact the des moines register found only 2/5 of respondents said they-made up their minds. a much smaller number this time around than past caucus cycles. what do you make of that? >> well, first of all, i don't think i heard you say go cats. >> go cats northwestern. >> thank you. very good. thank you. i've been here. i spent a bunch of time in december and now my eighth cycle in iowa. i'm all too familiar with the ups and downs of inrace. this is not like one i've covered before. when you look at the poll here in iowa, you have this mown mgt poll, forget about the order. as you pointed out, they're both margin of error polls. in both cases, you have a four-way statistical tie for

fourth place. it is the case that has a lot of signs out there, bernie sanders has moemtdm. there's been consistency to suggest both elizabeth warren and pete buttigieg air could be coming out of the tires. and allegedly the number one spot. the reality is no one here that doesn't think any of those four candidates could win the caucuses. we have safour-way jump ball and the last parted of your question, which is this debate, a whole bunch of them in 2019. they had impact less and more. but rifrlg but it's always the cases when the calendar turns and the debates come fast and furious around the contest, the people in the states focus. so people in iowa are going to look at this debate and the few, the five on that stage, they understand the pressure and the stakes are really high tomorrow night.

>> and almost on cue you have this growing feud between bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. attacking joe biden, as he's done for his vote on the iraq war in 2003. it's stunning, just three weeks out, all the sudden bitterness between these two who said they'd never say a bad word about each other. >> the gloves are off. we've been waiting to see when this would happen. they're closely aligned and some other views . as you said elizabeth warren's been fading a little bit where bernie seems to have momentum. it may happen to learn about a conversation the two of them allegedly had more than a year ago. and that seems very -- if -- as john said, if iowa voters are zeroing in now, all this is playing out at time when people are paying the most attention.

>> and cory booker is now out of the race. cory booker only had a small following but four or 5% in iowa is not that small. what do the booker supporters think on a day like this? >> it's a big deal for the remaining candidates. you look at the numbers and they're all within touching distance of one another. when those will be a big priority to all of these candidates. we've seen elizabeth warren reaching out to supporteders of other people that have left the race. it's an important jostle but in a place like iowa, it was tough for cory booker to get beyond a reasonable doubt 4%. the voters don't look like the voters in the rest of the electorate in the country and it's a tougher race for them and the inability to raise money,

made it difficult for him to stay in. >> you said, as i was asking, your prognostications. you said remember how much energy, how much fuel iowa or a new hampshire right now. at the end of the day in iowa does that still hold? the top person get it is fuel or a muddle where there's like everybody does okay and perhaps someone gets credit for being a surprise? >> i'll tell you, peter. the point i was making which you remember well is we spend a lot of time covering the races, maybe overcovering them in the year before and then the night of the iowa caucuses someone wins and the amount of free publicity they get dwarfs a year of the coverage of the previous year. do i think that will come happen this year? even with a tight grouping around the number one slot, i do. in the end there's a winner. someone will come in, there's by four votes or one delegate,

someone is number one out of that group of four and get a big boost and then the other three scrambling trying to argue why they finished surprisingly good second or third but ultimately the winner of this race gets a huge boost. >> yeah. john, we appreciate your expertise from there in iowa. when we come back, mayor bloomberg gets a new nickname from the president. y. fidelity now has zero commissions for online u.s. equity trades and etfs. and fidelity also offers zero account fees for brokerage accounts, plus zero minimums to open an account. and only fidelity offers four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. with all of those zeros, there are zero reasons to invest anywhere else. fidelity. ♪ so maybe i'll win ♪ saved by zero ♪ so maybe i'll win {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. my age-related macular degenso today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision... because he said a multi- vitamin alone may not be enough. and it's my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandson's beautiful face. only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. it's how i see my life. because it's my vision... preservision.

(worried) i'm not picking it up. you pick it up! i'm not picking it up! i'll pick it up! they're clean! (raps) 'cuz my hiney's clean. oh yeah i'm charmin clean. charmin ultra strong just cleans better. enjoy the go with charmin.

we're back now on deadline white house about the new nickname for mayor bloomberg from president trump. mini mike bloomberg is spending a lot of money on false advertising. might have anxiety with the pocketbook as bloomberg with billions and billions of dollars more and even if not the nominee he is willing to spend it to defeat donald trump. what do you make of the prospects as we head into the iowa caucuses? >> thus far democratic voters have not responded to bloomberg the way he hoped so and said i'm in with the team and providing staff and resources to make sure whatever is needed to defeat donald trump is going to be there and that is why donald trump is so upset and he leaps to this conjecture. he knows that he can loods to a democrat in 2020 and mike bloomberg could have a hand in that whether or not he's a

candidate or not and this behavior of donald trump reminds many independent voters how he continues to strip at the decency of the office just about every day on twitter and at his rallies and it's why you saw a number of particularly suburban women voters in '18 say i'm tired of this man in the white house. let's return adults to be in charge and gave 2018 to democrats and i think they could give it to democrats in november 2020, as well. >> quickly, eli? is skipping iowa, new hampshire, nevada, south carolina an option to still become a nominee? >> i don't know. it's never been done successfully before and the president stayed at the white house and watch playoff football yesterday and see the bloomberg ads on health care and why the president said i saved preexisting conditions which is obviously false. his administration is suing to overturn the provision of obamacare and you can see the president trying to get out in front of it. >> stunning. bloomberg is all over the air

waves in virginia, this area. see him on the air, as well. >> number of commercials yesterday. i don't know that the president this time around with the nicknames is is as effect at 2016. >> thank you very much. kim, eli, as well. we'll be right back. and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ don't get mad. get e*trade, dawg. whoh no, that looks grossit. what is that? you gotta try it, it's terrible. i don't wanna tray it if it's terrible. it's like mango chutney and burnt hair. no thank you, i have a very sensitive palate. just try it! hey guys, i think we should hurry up. if you taste something bad, you want someone else to try it. it's what you do. i can't get it out of my mouth! if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. dog, dog, dog.

remember, you have out the hilton app. can the hilton app 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 find your coach, come on! book with the hilton app. expect better. expect hilton. 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. seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. my thanks to david, carol, kim and eli right here. that's going to it for us this hour. "mtp daily" with the katy cur in for chuck todd starts right now. ♪ welcome to monday, "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in new york in for kuk todd. the ayes have it on iran where the white house's justification for the strike that