tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN January 10, 2020 8:00am-9:01am PST
i watched the president rely on the work that the intell jens community did for the entire time i served as the head of the central intelligence agency. i watched him rely on the capable men and women delivering exquisite information to the executive branch, watched the president have confidence in that nchk that information. we all challenge the work. the intelligence community is not flawless. we get it wrong. in this case the intelligence community got it fundamentally right, even the reflections we have seen after the strike that qassem soleimani took has demonstrated we were quite right. there was an imminent act that was active plotting and we took an action that we thought was likely to create less risk for the american people and confident that we did that. >> thank you this question is for secretary pompeo. there are reports that the iraqi prime minister has asked you to start negotiating with the withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq immediately. is that the case? can you comment on that? >> didn't quite characterize the
conversation correctly. but to the larger more important point, we are happy to continue the conversation with iraqis about what the right structure is. our mission set is very clear. we're there to perform a training mission and to continue the campaign against isis. the counter daesh campaign. we'll continue that mission. as times change and we get to a place where we can deliver up on what i believe and the president believes it our right structure, with fewer resources dedicated to that mission, we will do so. we also have today nato team that is here at the state department, working to develop a plan which will get burden sharing right in the region as well so we can continue the important missions, to protect and defend and keep the american people safe, while reducing our cost, our resources and our burden and the risk to our soldiers and sailors who are in the region. >> secretary pompeo, if i can,
here you said the imminent threat was a threat to u.s. embassies. didn't know precisely when or where. last night the president said threat to embassies including to our baghdad embassy. why can you say that at a rally in toledo, but nobody said it to lawmakers behind closed doors in a classified setting as multiple senators have since said. >> we did. >> the senators are lying when they say that -- >> we told them about the imminent threat, all the intelligence we briefed that you heard today, i assure you in an unclassified setting we provide in the classified setting as well. >> to be clear, you told them that embassies were the source -- were to be targeted. that was the imminent threat. >> i won't talk about the details of what we talked about in the classified setting but make no mistake about it, those members of congress who want to access the same intelligence can see the same intelligence will reflect what i said and what the president said last night. >> is the threat now gone with soleimani gone. >> threats are never gone. a lot of danger in the world. always a lot of danger in the
world throughout the region. nobody believed that a single mission in any respect took down the risk of terror, terror from al qaeda, terror from isis, terror from al shabaab. no one believes that. the president doesn't. look at the list, look at the achievements. we took way the caliphate in its entirety. we took down al baghdadi, we took down castqassem soleimani. we're very proud of what we accomplished. we're going to stay the course. >> why don't we take one more over there. yes, thank you. no, no. next to you. right there, yes. >> the trade deal, the chinese side will be here next wednesday to sign phase one part of the deal. china is a big importer of iranian oil and minerals and that's a big part of their economy as well. how do you balance -- are you concerned about the iran issue coming up in either the signing of the phase one deal or the negotiation for the phase two
deal? >> let me just comment, i had no idea you would ask that question, that's a good last question to end on. so let me first say that we are looking forward to the chinese delegation coming next week. phase one is very significant. it includes very significant components of changes to technology issues and intellectual property issues and $50 billion of purchases for our farmers. i would comment, don't agree with your comment that china is a big buyer of oil. the china state companies are not buying oil from iran and i would say we are having conversations with china as well with any other counterparty on sanctions. so thank you very much. thank you, everybody. >> all right, hello, everyone. i'm katebolduan. thank you for joining us. announcing new sanctions against iran following the attacks this week. let me first go to cnn political
correspondent chief political correspondent dana bash, she joins me now. quite a few headlines coming out. >> reporter: that's right. the biggest were, first of all, pompeo pushing back on the notion that these -- that the intelligence that led them to kill soleimani didn't necessarily show that attacks were imminent. he said flatly in his words full stop, there were attacks that were imminent and he insisted that does not -- it is not contradicted by the notion that they didn't know exactly where the attacks were planned for and against exactly whom. so that's number one headline. number two, is a big one, which is that what we have been reporting all morning, that they believe that it was iran that shot down the commercial airliner that killed, you know, over 100 civilians.
many of them iran's own citizens. this is the first time we have seen and heard an american senior official say that publicly. we had a lot of reporting from colleagues that that's what they believe behind closed doors, standing at the white house podium, the secretary of state said that flatly that that's what they believe and that is a really big deal. >> sure is. let me bring in jim sciutto. jim, what did you hear? >> listen, interesting to hear the secretary attempt to thread the needle on the intelligence that led to the soleimani strike. he said it was specific and imminent and including u.s. embassies, as the president has said. but he again said as he said in interviews earlier that they did not know where and when typically when you talk about an imminent attack, credible and specific, it does not appear that they had that specificity there yet he is saying that from his perspective and the president's perspective it was imminent enough to order this
killing. also interesting because he was pressed as you heard there, kate, on why a president who is repeatedly dismissed intelligence, say for instance on russian interference in the 2016 election, would also going back a couple of years on the fact that iran was complying with the nuclear deal, that's what u.s. intelligence showed, the president denied that in public, why when in the past he ignored to dismiss the intelligence and in this case he listened. and secretary pompeo said in this case, the intelligence community got it right. little bit convenient, perhaps. the final thing i would take note of, there has been this back and forth as to whether iranians intended to target u.s. forces with their missile retaliation. he says in his view they had the full intent to kill u.s. forces there. is that the definitive answer from the administration, i don't know. there is some contradiction. the secretary of state saying that's the iranians intent. >> to the briefing room, kaitlan collins was there asking
questions. kaitlan, what did you think? >> reporter: well, there is still a lot of questions about exactly this attack on the u.s. embassy. and explicitly whether or not how imminent these attacks were that you heard then, the threats that the administration has been talking about. and the reason that these were the main questions here in the briefing room today had a lot to do with what the secretary of state said last night during an interview on fox news, he said he couldn't say precisely when or where these attacks were going to happen. so i asked him to define his definition of the word imminent since that's the word that secretary pompeo primarily has been using. you heard it sound from the president, some from the vice president as well, but not as much from the department of defense, mainly from the secretary of state and he said simply just that this was going to happen. of course, the question is whether or not that's going to satisfy lawmakers who say they have not gotten enough information about how imminent the threat was. the reason that plays a factor, they argue this has been a threat coming from this top iranian commander, so they want to know why this administration
made this decision now and, of course what the long-term effects of that are going to be. now, of course, they walked in here at the beginning, announced the new safrnnctions, he's goino focus with an economic response and they are talking about these eight iranian senior officials. they said they're going to sanction. we're still waiting to see what the details of that are going to be when we get the text from treasury, something we have not gotten yet. haven't checked my inbox in the last few minutes. and the overarching question, what is going to remain are the questions about u.s. intelligence here. that is what you heard from lawmakers, even some lawmakersa administration, we have seen shifting explanations for whether or not they were trying to hit u.s. troops during those attacks, whether or not there was a bomb plot attack on the u.s. embassy, or any u.s. embassies plural and whether or not this attack was imminent or not. those are been the big
questions. we're waiting to hear more from that. you hear different things when you ask different people in this administration about that. they did announce, they are going to be sanctioned these iranian officials going after the iranian economy even further. >> kaitlan, real quick, on the explanation of the imminence, pompeo said something that you -- tell me if you heard any administration official say the same that it wasn't just an imminent attack, he said they're plotting a broad large scale attack against american interests and those attacks were imminent and it was embassies and beyond. i feel like he's gone further than i heard. >> reporter: and that could be because the president went further than what we heard yesterday, saying they were plotting to blow up a u.s. embassy. last night he said plural, embassies. the big question about that is were members of congress told about these plots to go after u.s. embassies with explosives? he signaled that, yes, they were, he wouldn't say it outright, yes, they were.
you heard from people like val demmings say, no we were not, we did not hear about that. i believe tim kaine said similar. that's the big question. people want to know more about what it is that was this widespread plot that they have been alluding to time and time again, and of course there are potentially reasons for not saying that publicly here from the podium, but there is a difference when members of congress in closed door sessions who have security clearances are not getting more details on what the plots were. >> we have one of those members coming up later in the show. i'll ask about this latest coming from pompeo. kaitlan, thank you so much. to the state department, kylie atwood is there, the sanctions, what you heard from pompeo, what does this mean for diplomatic efforts going forward? >> the message the trump administration is sending with these sanctions coming just days after this iranian missile strike that happened on those iraqi bases where u.s. troops were based is the fact that the u.s. knows who these people are.
now, secretary pompeo said they're going to be eight iranian senior officials who are going to be targeted with these sanctions. so the u.s. is coming out and symbolically saying we know who you are. that's really really important here because the economic impact may not be as obvious. these folks likely do not do business with american companies, but the fact that the u.s. knows who they are is important. the u.s. is also going to be sanctioned additional iranian manufacturers, having to do with medals and other sectors, so they are continuing to use sanctions. as the primary tool in their maximum pressure campaign against iran here. as you have been discussing, the trump administration is also using the platform at the white house to defend this decision to strike soleimani. and secretary pompeo said that the intelligence community fundamentally got it right.
so, again, you know, coming out and backing up their decision. now, of course, secretary pompeo, however, would not say any he specific name of any specific embassy that was targeted. even though we heard president trump say that there was a plan to attack, to bomb u.s. embassies and he mentioned baghdad, secretary pompeo said that embassies were involved, u.s. facilities were targeted, but didn't specifically put a point on anyone. kate? >> kylie, thank you so much. to iran now for reaction, fred pleitgen is there. fred, how is all of this likely to be received? >> reporter: you were just asking kylie about the potential impact on any diplomatic efforts between the u.s. and iran, that's the fundamental impact the sanctions are going to have. one thing that the iranians have been telling us again and again, even after this latest flare-up of tensions between the u.s. and iran, they're saying that the
fundamental problem that is preventing diplomacy between these two nations is the fact that you have this maximum pressure sanctions campaign. the iranians are saying that is basically the root cause of why these sanctions continue, why the tensions continue. and why these tensions keep flaring up. the iranians have said from the very beginning, and continue to say that they are not going to budge as long as these sanctions are in place. not going to sit down with the u.s. i spoke to iran's foreign minister a couple of days ago and then there were other iranian politicians who came out as well and said, look, if the u.s. really wants to talk, they should get back to the nuclear agreement, they should drop the safrns sanctions and they might be able to talk about the nuclear agreement. of course, they are under a lot of pressure. there is no doubt that the maximum pressure campaign that the sanctions have done a great deal to harm this country's economy, unemployment very high, and the currency in a tail spin, jobs very hard to get by, it is a very difficult economic
situation. and certainly you have indeed seen over the past couple of months protests erupt, they're cash strapped at the moment. that doesn't however mean that the administration has endeared itself to iranians. the opposite is the case. there is a lot of anger toward the trump administration among iranians and also, of course, among iranian politicians and iranian leaders. it seems like the sanctions are moving any sort of chance of diplomacy further away than bringing it closer, kate. >> fred, thank you so much. leading to the question that has hung over all of this, what is next? really appreciate it. coming up for us, still, president trump, he was impeached by the house three weeks ago and speaker pelosi is not buckling to the pressure from republicans and some in other own party to send the articles of impeachment over to the senate. so what is her time frame? what is soon? the latest next.
my cholesterol is borderline. i can worry about it, or do something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique there is news on impeachment. house speaker nancy pelosi telling reporters a short time ago no votes today on naming the impeachment managers in the house. those are the house democrats who would be kind of the prosecutors of the case in the senate, which is a key step, a vote on it, in getting the senate trial started. so what signal is she sending in the weeks long standoff with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell? manu raju is on capitol hill, jeremy diamond at the white house. manu, we'll start with you. what is pelosi saying here? >> reporter: she's making it very clear that there is not going to be a move today that would transmit those articles of impeachment over to the senate that would begin the trial. the house members have just left town for the weekend. they would have to have the vote to name those impeachment
managers who would prosecute the case before the articles would be transmitted and the articles are the ones that would prompt the senate trial to begin. what pelosi has been demanding is mitch mcconnell detail the senate procedures from unveiling the actual resolution, that would be approved, that would set the trial in motion. but mitch mcconnell told me last night, he's absolutely not going to do that. he said she knows full well what the impeachment trial would look like. and she needs to send over the articles so the staring contest continues. the question is will she be able to keep her own caucus in line and if she will see more defections in the ranks. i caught up with a one time critic of nancy pelosi and now at the moment he is on her side. >> it is what it is at this point. it should go soon. ask me again in a week or two. i think we all agree it should be going soon. >> i think she's being smart in holding them up to make sure we
get a fair trial. mitch mcconnell has shown no interest in fulfilling his constitutional duty to have a fair trial. and if this is what we need to do to get that to happen, then she's right on the money and she's right on the constitution. >> reporter: so most of the democrats are in line. you heard some raise concerns, one democrat from utah, freshman, in a tough race, ben mcadams told me yesterday it is time to send those articles over, but another democratic tough race, joe cunningham, freshman, told me he's going to let the speaker deal with this issue, he's focused on other issues, he casts his vote to impeach and he's ready to move on. it is clear she has her caucus in line, but we'll see if pressure grows as this impasse does as well. >> oh, what a difference a day makes. thanks so much. to the white house, jeremy, are you hearing anything from there yet about this? >> reporter: well, look, this is a white house that is largely in wait and see mode at the moment, kate. it has been for several weeks now, waiting to see whether and when the house speaker nancy pelosi will transmit those
articles of impeachment over to the senate. and waiting to see as well what the trial rules will be from senate republicans, from the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. this white house -- the white house counsel's office has been busy already crafting that legal strategy for the president, even much of that legal strategy will be dependent on how the format of this trial will be and who the house democrats will appoint as the impeachment managers to go make the case against the president in the senate. and one of the debates raging among the president's inner circle is whether or not he should bring in the more fiery house conservative lawmakers to come in and help the president make his case in the senate, join the president's legal team. that is something that the president has really been going back and forth on here. and we also know that the president has really wanted to see witnesses in this trial, despite the fact that senate majority leader mitch mcconnell tried to convince him against
it, the president seems to be leaving it up to him. president was calling for witnesses. so, again, all of this still very much dependent on the trial structure that comes ahead, so waiting to see that from the white house perspective. >> jeremy, thank you so much. manu, thank you. i love that chase camera when all the members are running down the stairs, heading out to their districts. thank you, manu. good to see you. thank you. coming up, we just heard a short time go from secretary of state pompeo that the threat posed by qassem soleimani was a threat to u.s. embassies. so that is also what president trump said last night. is that what lawmakers were told in their briefings? we're going to ask a democrat on the house intelligence committee next.
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. >> that was the president last night, is that the imminent threat the president said convinced him to order the strike to kill iran's qassem
soleimani. i ask because last night as well secretary of state mike pompeo said they did not know when and where the attacks were coming. asked about that apparent inconsistency, just now at the white house, mike pompeo said this. >> mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and didn't know precisely where. >> completely true. those are completely consistent thoughts. i don't know exactly which minute, we don't know which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear, qassem soleimani himself was plotting a broad large scale attack against american interests and those attacks were imminent. >> something so serious as this, why is this still a week later now so confusing. joining me now, democratic member of the house intelligence committee, congressman eric swalwell. thank you for coming in. >> thank you for having me back. >> you were briefed in a classified setting and since the president put this out there, and mike pompeo has said that -- said that the threat was two embassies including embassies,
did they tell you there was a threat to u.s. embassies in your briefing? >> so it is not confusing to me, kate, so i can't go into specific details, what i can tell you is consistently in the multiple briefings i received on this, they have not shown imminen imminence, but they have also now consistently shown that the president, whether it is on russia, ukraine, or iran, with this recent wall street journal reporting, puts his interests above america's interests. it is wall street journal reporting seems to be more consistent with who donald trump is, over the holidays, gop senators who would be crucial to him for the impeachment trial were urging him to take actions in iran and that's connected to what he did. that is -- >> congressman, congressman, since the president has talked about it, said there was a threat to u.s. embassies, and mike pompeo said just now soleimani was plotting a broad large scale attack against american interests, and it includes attacks on u.s.
embassies, period, full stop. that would mean that that -- that detail is declassified, right? so did they give -- do you know that detail? >> i am not going to rely on the recklessness and the confusion of the president to, you know, warrant how i talk about classified information. >> do you dispute their characterization -- let me play this for you then. mike pompeo said you all were told about what he's laid out here. let me play that for you. >> we told them about the imminent threat, all the intelligence we briefed that you heard today in an unclassified setting we provided in the classified setting as well. >> mike pompeo says -- go ahead. >> what you played earlier with mike pompeo saying i can't say precisely when or where, that aligns with the lack of evidence that i have seen consistently
and every brief i received in last week. i've been briefed multiple times from multiple briefers on this. >> can all of these things be true? they did not lay out when, they did not lay out where, but they did lay out that it was -- that the threat included two u.s. embassies? >> i'll say that's not imminent then. the justification was that this was an imminent attack. imminent means now. that's what imminent means. and they have not justified -- >> mike pompeo was asked specifically by kaitlan collins what is his definition of imminent and he said it is going to happen. that's exactly what he said. is that your definition of imminent? >> no, because that's also the definition of, you know, new year's eve. new year's eve, 2020 is going to happen. it is just 350 some odd days away. that's not imminent. and so that was the justification they gave, it is not adding up now and now as the wall street journal and others start to report, i fear this president acted out of his own
political interests and jeopardized the national security of the united states, escalating the conflict. >> i'm not trying to be nitpicky. are you disputing the -- what mike pompeo said, the detail on the threat was toward u.s. embassies, are you disputing that detail? >> i'm not going to go into the specifics that i was told, other than to say i have not seen and others including chairman schiff have not seen evidence of imminen imminence, so that means they took a senior military official off the battlefield, very bad guy, a terrorist who no one mourns, but dramatically escalating and putting in harm's way american troops and if it wasn't imminent, well, now you're looking at what does this mean? there is a lot of bad guys in the world. do we start picking them off every time they need a political justification or political support at home. that's what i fear this wall street journal reporting is starting to show. >> let me ask you about impeachment very quickly, so much is happening. house speaker nancy pelosi made
clear this week there is going to be no moves of presenting the articles over to the senate. you have supported her in her strategy there. the speaker has said you were not going to be voting on house managers today. so this extends into next week. have you had any conversations with the speaker's office or anyone quite frankly about the idea of you being one of those house managers? >> the conversations i this is that we want a fair trial, we have been talking about this all week and we believe that since we voted on the articles, while urgent to hold this president accountable, it is just as important to not send these articles into a rigged outcome. since we held on to them, john bolton has come forward, we have gotten new information from just security in the documents that sbrn produced and i think the public sentiment shifted against mitch mcconnell in their demands for a fair trial over in the senate. >> do you know if she made her decision on house managers? >> i don't. >> congressman, thank you for coming in. appreciate it. >> my pleasure.
thank you. still ahead, for the first time secretary of state mike pompeo says it is likely that the plane that crashed near tehran killing all 176 people on board, mike pompeo said publicly it is likely that was shot down by an iranian missile. there is also new video showing the moment that the plane crashed. this has just come in. that's next. your artwork is amazing! my what work? you need a website! very soon you're gonna be very famous! lady that is the last thing i would ever... huh? stop! put those away!
trumpand total disaster.mplete let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy can get those medicines. nurse: you should know,
new video just in of the tragic plane crash in iran that killed all 176 passengers and crew on board. a warning, the video may be disturbing. it shows the moment the ukrainian jet crashed, shortly after takeoff from tehran's main airport early wednesday. and how horrific it was. hours after iran launched ballistic missiles at bases where u.s. troops were housed and this morning secretary of state mike pompeo says the administration believes missiles fired by the iranian military is what is likely brought down the plane. iran is disputing that. in ukraine, investigators there just said that they now have access to the black boxes and recording of communications between the pilot and flight control in tehran. among those killed in the crash, 63 canadians, family and
friends, understandably at this moment struggling to make sense of it. >> words cannot express the sorrow and pain that we are going through. it is just unbelievable. how are they going to respond to the parents of the children, of the loss of the sons, daughters, husbands, wives? it is -- this is so surreal. >> joining me now is cnn's richard quest. so, richard, we just heard secretary of state mike pompeo for the first time publicly saying that they believe it is likely an iranian missile that brought down the plane. in addition to the new video, that and the new video out there, reports that iranians are already beginning to clear the debris field, just two days out. how unusual is that, how important is the debris field here? >> oh, the debris field is crucial. in many ways when we're talking about an explosion, it is more
crucial than the black boxes because the suddenness of the event, we already know that this plane lost data very quickly. now, what -- if you take mh-17, the malaysia plane blown up by the russians or russia missile over ukraine, in that one, the data just stopped when the missile hit. now, in this case, we don't know. it might show the plane going all over the place. but much more important is the data is -- is the debris field because every piece of fuselage near where the missile would have gone off will have shown perforations from the outside in. there will well be shrapnel both in the aircraft and in the remains, which will indicate explosive residue. so the securing of the site, the proper collection of the wreckage and the dignified handling of the remains is very
important. when you hear that -- i cannot think -- i cannot think of an incident where there has been questions about nefarious activity and missiles where the site has been cleared, wholesale, within 48 hours. >> we now have u.s. officials saying that iran has invited the ntsb to join the investigation, it is not clear if that means they're going to be traveling to iran though. boeing will participate as well. what role do they play? is it possible that the world does never gets a full accounting here from iran? >> reporter: so here you have the theory and you have the practice. the theory is annex 13 of the chicago convention, it sets out the rules, it sets out who does what, and it gives rights and responsibilities to other states, including the ntsb representing the united states, the state of manufacture and
design. but annex 13 gives huge discretion to the state of occurrence, which is iran. so yes, they can all turn up, but if iran, which has custody of the wreckage has already dealt with it, then you don't get very far. and i'm afraid we are very much in the hands of iraq in determining the truth of what took place. >> richard, thank you so much. we'll be right back. feeling sluggish or weighed down can be a sign your digestive system isn't working at its best. taking metamucil every day can help. its psyllium fiber forms a gel that traps and removes the waste that weighs you down. it also helps lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption, promoting healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. take the metamucil two-week challenge, lighten up. just take metamucil every day for two weeks. available at your local retailer.
i am not for ignoring the first sign of a cold. i am for shortening my cold, with zicam! zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal. it's a lifelong adventure finding all of these new connections all the time. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com.
pelosi now? >> reporter: the impasse appears to be over. the president's impeachment trial is going to begin in a matter of days. in a letter that nancy pelosi just sent to house democratic colleagues, she makes very clear that they plan to move to appoint the impeachment articles of impeachment that were approved by the house last year and submit those over to the senate as well. that had been an impasse for weeks as democrats said pelosi withheld turning over those articles of impeachment and the senate said we will not hold a trial until we get those articles. in the letter she makes it clear they are moving to get the articles to the senate. she says in her letter here that she's asked her judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint those impeachment managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate. she says she'll discuss this
matter with her colleagues on tuesday. it's not clear the exact day in which that will happen, but once it is submitted, that's when the process will begin. it will take several days, then we'll begin opening arguments in the senate where each side will make their case. what the democrats have been demanding all along is some agreement up front in which witnesses will come and testify, including john bolton, the former national security adviser, and documents will be provided. that's what democrats wanted in an agreement. mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, said no, he will not agree to that up front, and at a later point they can decide whether to subpoena additional witnesses. now it appears that mitch mcconnell is essentially going to get what he wants. they're going to send the articles over. it's going to do -- it's going to lead to the trial and then they can worry about those witnesses later, but a significant development here, kate. it looks like the president's impeachment trial finally will begin. >> yeah. next week is when things are going to start happening. that's what nancy pelosi is making clear right here. one more thing that also is in, manu. doug collins, a top republican
on the judiciary committee, he is apologizing just now for comments that he made. let me play first what doug collins said earlier this week, and this has to do with democrats in reaction to the iran crisis. listen. >> they're in love with terrorists. we see that. they mourned soleimani more than they mourned our gulf star people that died under soleimani. that's a problem. >> what's he saying, manu? >> he puts out in the first part, let me be clear. i do not believe democrats are in love with terrorists. i apologize what i said earlier, then he goes on to explain his position on the matter. this, of course, came in the fight whether or not to limit the president's authority in dealing with further military escalation in iran, a measure that passed the house yesterday. but collins had come under withering criticism from democrats and republicans alike, and republicans are having a hard time defending him, but he makes it very clear here he
believes he shouldn't have said that. >> an apology. you have to give him credit for that. new jobs numbers out there this morning. good news for the economy and the president. the december report showing unemployment remains at its lowest level in more than half a century. 3.5% employers added 100,000 jobs. that marked the final jobs report of the year, and for all of 2019, 2.1 million jobs, all of what the economy has seen in the last five-plus years. president trump's senior trade policy adviser peter na v navarra. a lot going on for sure. what do you think of the report? >> big picture perspective. this is the best labor market in five decades, and it's a blue collar boon.
what you have essentially is people without college degrees seeing their wages rise faster than those with bachelor's. you're seeing workers' wages rise faster than managers. you're seeing african-american wages rise faster than whites'. these are trends that were not this high during the obama administration. 7 million jobs created since president trump took office. what you're seeing is the transformation of the republican party into the party of the working class. there is no bad number in these numbers. it's going to be a great 2020 looking forward. i predict that we're going to move over 30,000 on the dow fairly quickly, particularly if we get usmca passed. by the way, we have a window before those impeachment articles go in the senate to get that done. every day that goes by is a day we don't enjoy those great benefits. in terms of the economy, it's doing great. the stock market is doing great,
and blue collar america is doing the best it's done in five decades. >> let me ask you, you mentioned wages. i want to know what you do -- it's somewhat, from a lot of folks' perspective, a real mystery of this economy, wages. you've got big job growth, but with job growth so consistent, why are wages only growing at 2.9%? there is a recent analysis from brookings that found -- i think it was 53 million worngekers ine key wage range and they have barely enough to live on. the wages come out to be about $18,000 a year. that makes me wonder, when are they going to feel the effects of this economy when we see these reports? >> if you look at the trends, the trends are up for folks in the lower ends of the income distribution. and it's about time. when i talked about like five decades of time where this is the best of times, if you go back to 2001 when china joined
the world trade organization, and before that in 1994 when nafta came in, that was 20 years of misery for men and women who worked with their hands in blue collar america. and what president trump has been able to do with four points of his policy compass which is tax cuts, deregulation, cheap energy and fair trade, he's been able to turn those trends around. now they're all moving in the right direction. these things take time, but i'm happy with those numbers. we're looking at 3% wage growth and benefitting the lower end of the income stream, which is the blue collar workers. we've reached a record high on median household income. i think it's up to like $68,000 now. these are great numbers, and people, i guess, want to put some kind of negative spin on them, but i tell you, three years ago you said, this is what it's going to look like, you would have taken it right then because the congressional budget office said we were going to do
about a tenth of what we're doing. >> i want to ask you quickly about something that really can't be talked about quickly is the china trade deal. phase 1 is expected to be signed next week. the president suggested yesterday that he would like to hold off finishing the deal until after the election. i heard that and i'm wondering, what does the election have anything to do with this? >> well, i think that that's a fluid situation. the president is a master negotiator. i think what we're focused on now is having the chinese come in on the 13th, get acclimated, have the final t's crossed and i's dotted and have a great signing in the building behind me there, and it's going to be an historic event. finally after three years with china, we're going to deal with things like forced technology transfer, intellectual policy theft, currency manipulation, access to their financial
markets. phase 2 is going to be very important because it deals with some other things like dumping state enterprises, but in the meantime, we have tariffs in place to defend our crown jewel. i think the president has done two things with china. one, he's changed the attitudes of america and capitol hill. now we understand what we're up against with china. everybody is behind him on this. two, he's negotiated tough, brought china to the table and actually got a deal which it looks like we'll be able to sign with great fanfare on wednesday. it sounds good. >> it sounds like next week is going to be nothing but busy with everything going on. >> two historic deals in a week? wow. >> let us see. a lot can happen in a day. peter, thank you for coming in. appreciate it. thank you, all. be right back. 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. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. we begin with dramatic breaking news at this hour in the impeachment of the president. speaker nancy pelosi just moments ago offering a timeline to finally deliver the articles of impeachment from the house to the senate. it will happen next week. there, of course, has been several weeks of delay. the speaker writing moments ago, quote, i have asked the judiciary committee chairman