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 killed qassem soleimani shifted again.

on impeachment, nancy pelosi could transmit two articles of impeachment to the senate as early as tomorrow, triggering the beginning of a senate trial. and on iowa where just three weeks before the first nominating contest of 2020 another candidate is bowing out as another new poll shows the race tightening among the top four candidates. but we begin tonight with iran and new questions about the shifting explanations from the trump administration justifying the strike that killed soleimani. nbc news reports that five current and former senior administration officials say president trump authorized soleimani's killing seven months ago. if iran's aggression led to the death of an american. that would appear to contradict the administration's justification for ordering the strike on soleimani. officials have said he was planning imminent attacks on americans. president trump himself said he believed those plans included

attacks on four u.s. embassies. a claim that defense secretary mark esper appeared to contradict yesterday. >> well, the president didn't say it was a tangible -- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. he said he probably -- he believed -- >> are you saying you didn't see one? >> i shared the president's view that probably my expectation was that they were going to go after the embassies. >> so more than ten days after soleimani was killed the white house continues to waiver on what attacks he was planning, how imminent those attacks were and when the u.s. first decided to take him out. this is the latest credibility crisis for an administration that has disregarded the truth since day one. according to "the washington post" president trump has made more than 15,000 false or misleading claims during his first 1,055 days in office. a reminder for you. with me now is nbc news white house correspondent kristen

welker and nbc news pentagon correspondent courtney kube, a reporter that broke the story about the president authorized soleimani's killing seven months ago. kristen, they have had shifting explanations for why they were going after soleimani when they did. are we going to get another one? are they worried about all the contradictions? >> reporter: well, look. i think that they're on defense and you can tell they're on defense because you have a number of senior administration officials out over the weekend trying to make the case that, look, there has been so disparity in these range of comments that you just laid out and then president trump again just moments ago, katy, trying to make the case part in justification of killing soleimani has not shifted around. take a listen to what president trump had to say moments ago. he was departing for a college football game in louisiana. >> we killed soleimani, the number one terrorist in the world, by every account, bad person, killed a loft of americans, killed a lot of people. we killed him.

and when the democrats try and defend him it's a disgrace to our country. they can't do that. and let me tell you. it is not working politically well for them. so we killed the number one terrorist in the world. soleimani and it should have been done 20 years ago. >> reporter: now, of course, president trump has argued everything from the fact that he killed him because the threat was imminent to targeting four embassies as you mapped out. and has also spent a fair amount of time, katy, really focused on his background. the fact that he has as the president said blood on his hands and all of this has intensified calls from democrats and frankly some republicans for the administration to declassify the intelligence that led to the president's ultimate decision and courtney and carol have this fantastic exclusive reporting that undercuts the argument of an imminent threat even more but bottom line, katy, i think you hear more calls for this administration to declassify

that intelligence. >> not only potentially from democrats. there are republicans who have felt that the briefings were not good enough. i'm looking at senator rand paul and mike lee. you have the seven months ago presenting soleimani as a target. it was just a matter of when, not if. >> you know, i think it is more the fact that they were considering as an option, it means a couple things. they had already sort of what the military might call red team and war gamed out the possible implications of this so when secretary esper went back to the president, the end of december, several -- within literally within hours of the contractor killed in kirkuk, the contractor, they had a sense of what some of the implications were and the strategic imply kags, not just the tactical ones there on the ground in iraq and in the region but the larger

strategic implications of this and it was last summer that they first started to look at him on the target list and president trump according to the sources who -- the officials who carol and i spoke with he said that this was something to consider in some -- in a more extreme case. if americans were killed by iran or proxy groups or militia groups, this is an extreme option to consider and as evidence of that after the iran shot down the u.s. drone last summer in june ambassador john bolton pushed for this option and president trump decided not to do it. we, of course, december 27th when this american was killed in kirkuk, that was when the option was really revamped again and started to look at it and, of course, when president trump decided to go forward with it. also important to note that this option presented a real -- it was a real target of opportunity for this specific strike in that they knew that soleimani was going to be arriving at the

airport with a small group of people, it was the middle of the night. not a lot of civilians and called a clean strike in that there isn't the potential for a lot of civilian casualties around them. >> interesting. kristen, when we're looking at credibility and the shifting explanations and you coincide that or put it up against courtney's reporting, does the administration feel like they need to bolster the credibility on this subject and if they do, if they do feel that way, why would they not put mike pompeo or tell mike pompeo that he should testify in front of the foreign relations committee in the house? >> reporter: right. why would they not give briefings more fullsome that they would say we got the information that we needed? that continues to be the key question. of course, the administration saying, look, they can't put forward all of that information. they need to protect sources and methods. but again, katy, i do think the

administration knows this is an ongoing issue for them and ongoing controversy and the questions are not going away and so the question becomes will they start to give more evidence about what exactly was behind this decision? >> certainly must be feeling more pressure because not just democrats but republicans, as well. kristen, thank you so much. ko courtney, as well. with me now is susan delpersio and zolina maxwell. first off, guys, before we go anywhere, i want to play this shifting explanations from the white house on the killing of soleimani. let's listen. >> soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on american diplomats and military personnel but we caught him in the act and terminated him. >> if you're looking for

imminence, look no further than the day that is led up to the strike taken against soleimani. >> we caught a total monster and we took him out and that should have happened a long time ago. we did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. >> i can reveal that i believe it would have been four embassies. >> i didn't see one with regard to four embassies. i'm saying i shared the president's view that probably my expectation was to go after the embassies. >> i just get the extraordinary that the secretary of defense, gabe, says i didn't see that to what the president of the united states says. they have shifted the explanation at least four times on this. there's got to be -- that's got to be significant. got to be important. >> i think one of the reasons that you are seeing even some republicans on capitol hill saying, hang on, let's hear more, is because of the shifting explanation or response from the white house and comes within the context of a white house essentially no credibility when it comes to issues like this,

explaining its internal machinations and trump with a public history of lying while in office and also i think reflects that the american public and those on capitol hill learned lessons of the lead-up of previous wars. if you look at the misdirection of previous administrations, those on capitol hill weary of this and you have this administration already known for not exactly being fulsome as you said earlier, that's why you have those on capitol hill and referring to senators including republican senators saying we need vastly more information here and saying we can't take you at face value. we need to see the raw materials. >> i wonder if the president feels like he needs to rewrite the past, as well. he tweeted this. the fake news media and the democratic partners working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist soleimani was eminent -- he means imminent or not and was my

team in agreement. the answer to both is a strong yes. it doesn't really matter why they did say it was imminent? >> it does matter because of laws. right? you cannot go into a sovereign foreign country, kill a person and not justify it at least by saying, look, here's specific intelligence of an imminent threat that is meant to further the interests of our national security. that is something that the leaders of countries normally do. we are in the trump era where the norm is so far away from what is happening in front of our faces and in some ways i've said this before, this is worse than the iraq war. at least in that case they had intelligence and lied about it and told us something that turned out not to be true in the end. whether or not some of those people intentionally lied or whether or not they were going along with the administration line, that's a debate for another day. >> i don't know. we are living in the aftermath

of that terrible decision and part of what's going on is the aftermath of that decision. >> i'm saying the reason why we are having this conversation is living through iraq and the real life and death consequences that resulted. you can't just walk into the full pledged war without presenting specific evidence to the american people so that they can then tell their represent is, yes, we would like to go into a military conflict or not. i mean, why don't we ever talk act not? >> there are two paths here. there's the credibility that we have overseas, the credibility we have in iraq where we are being hosted. or with anyone that we want to have diplomacy with in the middle east and then as she was saying the credit here at home with the american public and i keep going back to this. it's surprising i guess surprising is not the best word but it is something from trump who campaigned on not getting into these foreign wars, not getting into these foreign

conflicts and this is something that could easily lure people maybe into a foreign conflict. >> the thing as far as trump at home, his supporters kind of take his word and go wherever he's going to go. >> what does it mean for the support of the american government? >> that's a different story and what we are seeing some republican pushback on is because we're not talking about the president said he gave a tax cut and you get $800 back and you get $1,000 and you get $1,500. this is about going to war. this is not just kind of fiddling around for different messages where you think it's best. in the last ten days, we have seen the president watch television and try to fix the problem by himself. this is what happens when you have a disciplinary problem in the white house meaning the president has none. he's never taken the time to learn the briefings, to learn the substance, to be able to talk to the american public in an intelligent, satsz isfying

manner and then the people working for him backing into whatever he's saying. here's a simple question. you hear that there's maybe four embassies. a coordinated attack? is that an imminent threat? that is not revealing state secrets but a simple question -- >> defense secretary esper said they don't have intelligence on that but he believed it could have been in the future. >> you have to take the people working for president trump as an extension of him. that you cannot -- you can no longer trust the people speaking from this administration on face value and that is extremely dangerous when they're giving briefings to the heads of our government. >> let me ask you this. if president trump gets re-elected is this an endorsement for lying or misleading or not coming up with the facts and the evidence to the american public? >> endorsement? i don't know if i would use that word. i think that we are normalizing and basically saying it's okay. >> okay for him or say that we have lost trust in the american

governmental system? >> not only fundamentally lost the trust but the mechanisms that check and hold people accountable in a democracy when they step over the line of what the law says, regulations say or at least norms. >> did we lose them because of the -- how congress has not pushed back? >> yes. that is why this is happening. the reason is not only donald trump, it is because the republicans are accomplices in his conduct. >> when something like this happens, what is the president doing starting to get his back against the wall? he tweets out a picture of chuck schumer in muslim garb. all he does is make it us versus them and then boils it down, nancy pelosi is bad, democrats are bad and we are standing up for what's right. that falls on the american public for buying into that simple argument. >> i think it is important to note that it's easy to talk about this in a partisan way but listening to the candidates running with a serious shot at this basically without any exception the way that they talk

about this specific issue is the united states on the international scale no longer has credibility. it is not about trump himself but talking about rebuilding the credibility more broadly. >> four or six years or five years it could be someone else. who knows what that will be like? ahead, slash and burn. bernie sanders is taking a much more aggressive approach to his top 2020 competitors. but first, we are finally going to get some answers on impeachment. speaker nancy pelosi could send the articles to the senate as soon as tomorrow and she says she does not regret the standoff. >> any second thoughts of holding on for three weeks? >> no, no, no. we feel it's very positive result in terms of additional e-mails and unredacted information that's come forward. amanda's mom's appointment just got rescheduled - for today.

amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course! tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go. look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

>i spend a lot of time sin my truck.y? it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

welcome back.

in just a few minutes, speaker nancy pelosi will be meeting with democratic leadership team ahead of what is expected to be a historic day tomorrow. that is when pelosi will huddle with the full democratic caucus for transmitting the articles of impeachment and finally expect to have some answers about the next steps for the senate trial. this afternoon, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said speaker pelosi's hold on the articles achieved absolutely nothing. >> the speaker's efforts to precommit the senate to carry on an investigation with which her own house lost patience concedes that the house case is rushed, weak and incomplete. house democrats have already done enough damage to the president, to national unity and to our institutions of government. the senate will not be sucked into this precedent breaking

path. we will fulfill our constitutional duty. >> nbc's garret haake on capitol hill and joins me now. obviously we get spin from both sides here but mcconnell said that nancy pelosi achieved nothing by withholding the articles of impeachment. do democrats feel like they got a win with the withholding? what do you think? >> reporter: i think we'll have a better idea in another week or two when the senate ultimately takes its vote on whether or not to call witnesses. democrats feel like the last couple of weeks they've been able to put a spotlight on the question of what constitutes the fair trial. do you need witnesses? to have attentional documents by the white house? while they did not win the fight up front to get the senate to guarantee that those elements would take place later in the trial there may yet be enough republican votes to get the things later on at a week and a half into after the presentation from the impeachment managers and the president's team.

you may yet see that. we have to come back to it to determine whether or not that hold is helpful for the democrats long term or not. >> what are you hearing from sources on capitol hill about the way senate republicans are leaning? there's talk of maybe a few siding with the democrats and wanting witnesses. chuck schumer has sounded more confident to have more republicans than we know of right now who are open to having more witnesses. what are you hearing? >> reporter: open is a good way to put it. it takes four. democrats need to pick up four republican senators to win the votes on witnesses and i think there are two votes already at least for john bolton. that's collins saying she is talking to other senators and mitt romney saying a number of times to hear from john bolton. getting the other two might prove more challenging. senators have suggested to be open to this. lisa murkowski and lamar

alexander. he said he's keeping an open mind and wants to hear the case presented to him first and this is job one for the impeachment managers. yes, they try to convince the public, trying to make a broader case on impeachment but they need to convince at least a handful of republicans maybe a tiny bit more information is useful, whether it's useful in convincing them one way or the other on convicting or letting this president off the hook or whether it's merely politically useful for them to appear as if they're taking it seriously, either one is good enough on the front end to that call. >> do senators feel this is a political exercise, a partisan exercise or are they looking at it for not just history but for precedent going forward for any other administration that might follow? >> reporter: every senator will tell you from either party that they do see this as a solemn

constitutional duty to examine the facts thinking that the president might have committed an impeachable act or republicans will say they're defending against a partisan impeachment, what they'll say is a purely democratic effort to remove this president. but make no mistake. this is washington, d.c. everything goes through a political lens ultimately an enwhile history and posterity judge the senators in time the voters judge them first. >> garrett, thank you. let's turn to this congressman serving on the oversight and intelligence committees and will be in the meeting tomorrow with speaker pelosi and the democratic caucus. congressman, can you tell us what we should expect next? >> well, i think that speaker pelosi made it very clear she intends to transmit the articles very soon. and once that happens obviously it will be within the senate's jurisdiction to take next steps with regard to the trial.

>> if the senate decides not to call witnesses do you believe that the house managers can present a compelling case that the president should be removed? >> well, i think that it's very important that the trial not just be a show trial and as you can tell from public sentiment the vast majority of american people want a real trial, something that comports with the constitution, so i'm hopeful that in the senate they will be calling witnesses. if it ends up just being a one-day trial with no witnesses or no additional information or something akin to what mitch mcconnell talked about earlier that's not going to serve anyone well and that would really discredit the whole process. >> if no witnesses are called and this administration is successful in blocking all administration officials, blocking a good portion of them, especially the ones close to the president that could give you one on one information or direct information about conversations the president had, they blocked

document requests, what precedent will this set for administrations going forward on how they have to deal with congress? >> i think it sets a dangerous precedent. this particular administration as outlined in article ii of the articles of impeachment completely blocked all congressional inquiry into the scandal at issue. whether a -- military assistance basically held up in exchange for the announcement of political investigations of the president's political rivals and i think that if it were to go the way that you had just described i think it would invite future administrations an maybe even this one to continue down a very dangerous path where we invite foreign countries to interfere if our elections and we really do great damage to the

constitution. >> what do you think nancy pelosi achieved by withholding the articles? >> at the outset mitch mcconnell envegsed walking quote/unquote lockstep with the white house to devise the rules of the senate trial and that would have potentially involved a trial that would have lasted maybe a day or two with no witnesses and no additional documents. now nancy pelosi has shown a spotlight on the issue for the need for additional witnesses and information. and that's going to put some pressure on mitch mcconnell and fellow senators to deliver a trial that meets with the expectations of the american people. >> okay. i want to foe if you feel that congress has ceded the authority as a coequal branch of government from war powers resolution, even if it gets to the president's desk will be

vetoed if it does get there, likely vetoed and for administration officials flat-out refusing to come out and testify when they're called or subpoenaed, same thing with documents. do you think that the legislative branch is a coequal branch of government today in 2020? >> well, as you know, the constitution envisions it to be a coequal branch. however, you are correct that if the senate allows the president to basically dictate how the senate is going to conduct its trial if the senate is a subsidiary of the white house then absolutely the congress will no longer think b an equal branch of government and i think that's as much at stake as anything else in the proceedings to come. >> do you trust in administration in matters of war or matters of conflict? >> well, this is a very

important question. with regard to iraq, we went to war on false pretenses. and false intelligence claims. now unfortunately we're learning that potentially this current white house is making false intelligence claims with regard to the killing of soleimani. what i really fear is that we are going to stumble into another war and, katy, my constituents are overwhelmingly against the prospect of war with iran and another endless war in the middle east. >> congressman, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you so much, katy. thank you. ahead, more evidence today of just how tight the race really is in iowa. as another candidate calls it quits. stay with us. my age-related macular degeneration could lead to vision loss. so 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. wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. 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 eh, not enough fiber- chocolate would be good- snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar.

glucerna. everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. 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.

♪

welcome back. tonight in 2020 vision with exactly three weeks until the i ka caucuses and the latest polls there show a clear top four and a jump-off for first place. a monmouth university poll out this afternoon has biden in the lead with 24% of the vote followed by bernie sanders with 18%, pete buttigieg with 17% and elizabeth warren with 15%. the top four are all within the margin of error so it is really a four-person race. that crowd at the top echos what the poll that came out on friday what it said with sanders with a

slight lead and with all of the top four within the margin of error. a lot of iowans said they could change their minld. less than half of respondents said they're firm in the support of their candidate and we now know there's one less candidate for iowans to choose from on caucus night. new jersey senator booker suspended the campaign today citing fund raising challenges and the upcoming impeachment trial keeping him in washington. booker had memorable moments on the debate stage but could not get the traction he needed in a crowded field. catch him tonight with rachel maddow here on msnbc and we will be back with much more on 2020 and a potentially new divide between bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. still looking for a dry skin solution?

try eucerin advanced repair lotion. it helps stop dryness from recurring by going beyond ceramides

with natural moisturizing factors found in skin eucerin advanced repair lotion for healthier looking skin. of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever. at "progressive on ice." 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.

welcome back. as we mentioned earlier

democrats have a four-way race -- tongue twister. four-way race in iowa with three weeks to go before the caucuses and a top four candidate is going on the attack against his fellow front-runners. bernie sanders' campaign taking aim at joe biden's campaign saying it was the policy appalling that biden refuses to admit he was, quote, dead wrong on the iraq war. and on race, one of the sanders' campaign co-chairs wrote an op-ed that biden repeatedly betrayed black voters. same time politico reports sanders' campaign is instructing volunteers with a script to hit fellow progress elizabeth warren on elect bltd. but sanders himself is feeling heat, as well, today. multiple news outlets reporting that sanders told warren at a 2018 meeting he did not believe a woman could win the white house in 2020. nbc news has not confirmed the

report and the sanders campaign is denying it calling the story ludicrous. the warren campaign has yet to comment. joining me from the campaign trail, a couple nbc news colleagues, ali vitali and vaughn hilliard. hearing that the campaign is not commenting on that, it can feel to folks like a non-comment approval or a confirmation without saying it. is that what we should read into that? are they talking about this behind the scenes? >> reporter: well, look. after repeated requests for them to comment on this they're not commenting and they're also not knocking it down. contrast that, the non response of the warren campaign with what we hear from the bernie sanders campaign. the manager saying that this story is a lie and saying that we need to hear from elizabeth warren on this. that sets up a debate stage that was already going to be contentious but we didn't necessarily expect that it was contentious between these two

progressives who have been allies of each other on the debate stage on progressive policies and there's a back and forth in the press and chasm between the two senators but then also the larger implication for the progressive policies that they have long defended on the debate stage and throughout this race so that definitely presents a new obstacle to people who want to see medicare for all, for example, have a strong push behind it from two champions in the 2020 field but there's something interesting to see elizabeth warren doing over the course of the last few days here in iowa and in other states. it's the way that she is pitching herself as a candidate who can unite multiple parts of the party. we know that the support doesn't just come from what was the sanders wing, the progressive wing in 2016. warren's pulling from other candidates in the race, as well and telling me on saturday when i asked her initially about the reports from bernie sanders going negative on her here in iowa she brought up pretty deliberately this idea of looking back at the factionalism

she called it of 2016 and how bernie sanders played into the race with hillary clinton. talking to voters mean folks in the democratic party there's simmering resentment of that from 2016 and talking about who can unite the party against president trump elizabeth warren said it's her because there's lingering questioning of bernie sanders in 2016 and everybody is against everybody at this point. >> vaughn, easy question or maybe not so easy, simple. why now? >> reporter: i think if actually looking at this from the bernie sanders campaign, this is the moment that they had been waiting for. 21 days out. if you look at how their weekend unfolded, hundreds of folks at campaign events across central and eastern iowa and two campaign advisers did take a shot at a certain candidate and that candidate is joe biden. adviser nina turner wrote an op-ed in a south carolina

newspaper pushing back against the policies joe biden pushed for over the previous decades that she contended hurt black americans. and then another adviser jeff weaver released a statement late saturday night knocking the biden iraq war vote and i asked bernie sanders yesterday why he was having advisers take these strikes and he said essentially that he looked forward to doing it himself and that candidates should be able to address contrast in records but when i asked about elizabeth warren and the memo or the talking points that were leaked from the campaign he was clearly frustrated and uncomfortable calling elizabeth warren a frenld. he had no interest of talking to the press initially yesterday before we found our way to him on the rope line because this is the position that he wanted to be at, clearly saw from the des moines register poll over the weekend him and in that top spot looking to grow on 2016 and

finish it off in the last three weeks. >> let's play from an ad in iowa that the sanders team is putting out. >> so many candidates say we can't guarantee health care for all, make college affordable for all, combat climate change or create a world at peace, remember, america is best when we strive to do big things, even when it's hard. >> so he invokes jfk in that, as well, going back to talking about landing on the moon. he's clearly, vaughn, trying to distinguish himself by saying no half measures here. i'm just curious. do you have any sense of what he is planning for the debate tomorrow? is it going to be a free for all? everybody's fair game? i know you said he was uncomfortable talking about warren but do you think the advisers is pushing him saying now's the time to different yate yourself because she is everybody's number two pick and

if you don't have a strong showing or if she is edging you out you might lose out down the line? >> reporter: look at this fall. the one policy distinction that he is willing to draw really between himself and elizabeth warren was on health care, medicare for all and expect tomorrow night for him to say he's the one true candidate in the race calling for medicare for all in week one of the administration. elizabeth warren as ali covered extensively essentially added on saying initially we'll provide a medicare for all public option in the first few years and then year three ultimately to phase out private insurance and bernie sanders has pushed in saying that that needs to take place in the first act there. the one number to really push back and draw out from this weekend from the des moines register poll is voters here, democratic voters in iowa asked to what extent were they extremely enthusiastic about the first choice.

50% of individuals naming bernie sanders as a first choice said that they were extremely enthusiastic. compare that number to 42% for elizabeth warren in just 26% for pete buttigieg and joe biden. bernie sanders right now is riding high and to what extent is elizabeth warren able to land the punches tomorrow? >> the question is, though, going into a caucus room and looks like the first choice is no longer winning, who do you go to next? does that put a candidate like elizabeth warren above the margin? who knows? we find out soon enough. vaughn, take a tip from ali and do a live shot inside. that jacket cannot be warm enough. >> we were left up on this hill top. >> i thought it was java jones before. >> come on over. >> maybe i will. >> warm up for us. we are coming to you, ali. >> thank you. the eyes have it tonight.

up next, how impeachment could affect iowa. this is the all-new chevy silverado hd. it's beautiful. you want to take it for a test-drive? definitely. we're gonna go in that. seriously? i thought we were going on a test drive. we are. a heavy-duty test drive. woo-hoo! this is dope. i've never been on a test drive like this before. this silverado offers a 6.6 liter duramax diesel that can tow up to 35,500 pounds. awesome! let's take these logs up that hill. let's do it. wow! this truck's a beast. are you sure there's a trailer back there? this is incredible. best test drive ever. [chuckle] best test drive ever. their medicare options...ere people go to learn about before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything.

only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today... to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm.

if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >i spend a lot of time sin my truck.y? it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked...

my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ welcome back. gabe, susan and zalin 15 back. does bernie sanders go after elizabeth warren tomorrow night on the debate stage? gabe, you say no? >> i don't think it -- it would be out of character for him to start going after her on this specific issue that we have been talking about. he might as vaughn said talk about medicare for all but time

and time again people around bernie sanders said this is the time to attack various people in the race and he's done it against joe biden, sort of against pete buttigieg. he refuses to with elizabeth warren and every single do it w elizabeth warren. and ever time he is asked about her and is given an obvious opportunity to do it, he has passed. there is reason for that. >> why? why does he not want to separate himself from her? does he like her so much? >> there is a genuine friendship between these two. they're not going to go out and have beers, but they do like each other and have long seen each other as allies in the senate there was a time before he decide he was going to run, he was calling her my favorite senator. when they sat down to talk, the thing they agreed is they were not going to go after each other. let's not forget, in 2016, bernie sanders we know was not going to run for president if elizabeth warren was going to. so he does see them as ideological allies. all that sherksd is very clearly upset by these stories that are coming out. so i couldn't be surprised to see him talk about it. he has called this a lie.

the question, though, if he is going to go after warren specifically and say how dare you put this out, he has already blamed 80 about a staffer of warren, and there is no actual evidence of that. >> she is so many people's second choice, which could put her over the edge. it's a four-way race right now in iowa. is she -- i know the polls have dipped for her. but is she still a dangerous force for the rest of the candidates in the field? and is she the most dangerous for bernie sanders? >> yes. i think she is probably the most dangerous for bernie sanders in that their supporters overlap. to gabe's point, one of the reasons why he hasn't attacked her is because some of his supporters might be upset by that, depending on what the context is, obviously. i do think there is a moment where we can have a conversation about the different ways in which we're judging bernie sanders and elizabeth warren because they overlap so much on policy. >> i think it's fine to differentiate yourself. >> i'm not saying -- but what i'm -- >> i'm agreeing with you. >> i'm making a different point, though, i think. >> okay, go ahead.

>> my point is we waive he's mistakes and missteps when we're talking about elizabeth warren a lot more than with the male candidates, frankly. for bernie sanders, his campaign for him to deny this happened and for him to deny that this happened, i want to have the question asked tomorrow night at the debate. i would like elizabeth warren to speak to this as well. i would like to know more about this conversation, and not -- >> why does it matter? if he did say it, maybe he said it 2018, two years ago. if he did say it two years ago, does that -- would that disqualify him for you? and do you think it would disqualify him with other women? >> for me, yes. because i'm a feminist and women are the majority of the country. the majority of the electorate. that's very complicated. women of color obviously vote way more democratic than white women do. but to say that a woman can't win the election, when a woman beat you by four million votes in the primary in 2016 and also beat donald trump who is the current president by three million votes, that is a lie, and he needs to call it that.

>> do you think it's disrespectful? >> it is, but i also think that this is exactly my biggest concern about the democrats and who they pick is they're getting into this fight. and if it's going to be on a debate stage, this is not what they should be talk about, frankly. i agree that should differentiate themselves. but what bernie sanders does so well is he pivots and attacks either donald trump or makes a big difference between him and biden on policy. and that works. and that shows the difference. and it also frankly shows the candidates on the democratic side are prepared and able to take on donald trump. >> i want to just throw something else in there, because iowa could come smack in the middle of a senate impeachment trial. and one of the candidates, michael bennet was on with the "meet the press" over the weekend talking with chuck about it. here's what he said. >> how disruptive do you expect the impeachment trial to be on the campaign, and should it be? >> i think it is going to be disruptive, and there is 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. i take that seriously and i will. >> here is the reality. klobuchar, bennett, warren, sanders, all off the trail. butte and biden could be owning iowa for the last two and a half weeks. >> there is one reason right there that cory booker dropped out. he said explicitly he is going have to take this seriously. bennett is not really competing in iowa at all. he is in new hampshire. same thing holds. he does have new hampshire to himself right now, even though he is trailing by a lot. all of these candidates are really worried about this. there is a reason, though, that you see bernie sanders relying a lot on surrogates. you see elizabeth warren ruling out julian castro who is going to be out there a lot for her. amy klobuchar told me she might skype into iowa during this. bernie's campaign has looked at chartering airplanes late at night so he can do late night rallies. they're going to try to find ways around this.

but no doubt they're worried. >> andrew yang has an opportunity to own iowa as well because he is not in the senate. skyping, which will be interesting. >> it will be different. >> how effective can surrogates be? are not all surrogates created equal? >> that's a good way to put it. there are some surrogates that can be very effective. i think in 2016 the surrogates that can speak with authenticity to constituencies that maybe the principle cannot. if you're an older white women and trying to reach out to black millennials you might send a surrogate that would resonate better with that group of people. this does put a damper on the last couple of weeks for the candidates. >> we'll see how that goes. gabe, susan and zerlina and more, thank you. guys, ahead, an exciting plot twist. (whistling)

(whistling) that's unnecessarily complicated. make ice. making ice. but you're not because you have e*trade which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad get e*trade. a clear plan for retirement to help cover the essentials, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you have a retirement partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. who gives you clarity at every step, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.

oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here.

bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.

finally, tonight, the academy award nominations are out, and three films from our "meet the press" film festival are nominated for best documentary short subject. in the absence focuses on the aftermath of the deadly sinking of a south korean ferry. st. louis superman tells the story of a rapper and activist inspired to run for office after the unrest in ferguson, missouri. and learning to skateboard in a war zone if you're a girl shares the inspiring story of young girls coming to age in afghanistan. you can check out the previews from those films and all the ones we feature at

nbcnews.com/mtpfilmfestival. and congrats to all of the nominees. that's really exciting. and that is all for tonight. chuck is going to be back here tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." in the meantime, you're in the very capable hands of ari melber and "the beat." hey there, ari. >> hey, katy, and congratulations to "meet the press." speaker pelosi sending the impeachment articles to the senate this week. we have a special report on the key figure presiding over that trial. donald trump already called him an absolute disaster. you may know him as chief justice john roberts. and later tonight, we report on his powers, the pressure he might put on senator, and what we can all glean from his record thus far. also, later tonight, donald trump's own cabinet contradicting his iran claims. but our top story right now is actually months in the making. we are on the verge of the formal transfer of the house's impeachment to the senate. this is the closest thing you can see under our