tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC January 3, 2020 4:00pm-5:00pm PST
>> every single paper has got in -- i have a lot of respect for american journalism, but i think the boston globe missed this one completely. i don't know if this was a late post so they weren't able to get qassem soleimani in before publishing but there's no excuse. if the new york post can do it -- >> i heard when tom brady cheats, it doesn't go in the globe at all. >> yeah, it doesn't. you know, they're biased. >> we're out of time. thank you for putting up with this. "hardball" starts now. game changer. let's play hardball.
>> good evening, i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. tonight tensions between iran and the united states are at a 40-year high in the wake of a targeted drone strike near baghdad's airport that killed six people including general qassem soleimani, the head of iran's elite quds force and iran's most important military branch. president trump in a statement this afternoon from his vacation home in florida defended the strike. >> we did not take action to start a war. we do not seek regime change, however, the iranian regime's aggression in the region including the use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors must end and it must end now. the united states has the best military by far anywhere in the world. we have the best intelligence in the world. if americans anywhere are threatened we have all of those targets already fully identified, and i am ready and
prepared to take whatever action is necessary, and that in particular refers to iran. >> soleimani was reviled abroad for orchestrating a number of deadly attacks including the deaths of hundreds of americans. in iran today thousands took to the streets to mourn his death. confirming the drone attacks saying soleimani, quote, was actively developing plans to attack american dip plumats and service members in iraq throughout the region. this strike was aimed at deterring future attack plans. today the pentagon deployed about 3,000 troops to the region because of increased threat levels. response on capitol hill has been mixed with republicans commending the president's action and democrats questioning whether trump had considered the potential repercussions.
iran's supreme court leader ayatollah quote promised harsh retaliation. tensions between the united states and iraq have been building during the three years of donald trump's presidency. the u.s. has blamed rocket attacks on iranian backed forces along with that attack on the u.s. embassy in baghdad last week that precipitated soleimani's killing. joining me is nbc's chief correspondent richard engel. first to richard in iraq. let me start with you and what do we know now? skrbs this is something that got a lot of folks off-guard about 24 hours ago. what do we know about what happened? what led to it? >> well, what led to it is a very long discussion. this was something that the united states, many in the u.s. military have wanted to do for a very long time. they had an old score to settle
with qassem soleimani. you talk about how he killed hundreds of americans. he killed hundreds of american troops who were fighting a war here in iraq that iran felt very threatened by. iran wouldn't call that terrorism. iran would say that's what generals do in war, they kill their enemies. and there were pane many in the pentagon who wanted vengeance for that, they wanted to take him out so to speak. and now you're hearing president trump talking about how successful he was and talking about qassem soleimani in the same breath as the al-qaeda leader abbu bu car baghdadi. al baghdadi led a terrorist group that carried out attacks in night clubs in europe, that beheaded hostages, that tortured hostages. qassem soleimani was an oilgs representative of the iranian government that led a policy to try and expand iranian influence
around the world and was very successful at it and was very popular at home. he'll tell you what a significant figure qassem soleimani was in iran and what kind of implications this is going to have. but i think we know a little bit about where this is going because this is not over. this wasn't just a one off strike against the classic dilemma one man's a terrorist, the other is freedom fighter. in this case one man iran's national hero and a united states terrorist responsible for killing hundreds of troops in iraq. but this is now becoming a war against all of iran's partners, these proxy militias qassem soleimani was responsible for nurturing and knitting together as a united force. in the last several hours there's been yet another american air strike targeting a convoy containing several shia
militia leaders. it may seem like apples and oranges. they were iraqis, he was an iranian general. it's not. it's part of the same militant shia front qassem soleimani was part of, was the founder of. and now that front which has representatives all throughout the middle east, feels under attack and could very much feel the need to respond violently. watch closely what happens tomorrow in baghdad. these same shia militias, the same that were allied with qassem soleimani, the same militias whose leaders were attacked, maybe six of them killed in a convoy of vehicles just north of baghdad in the last several hours, those shia militias tomorrow are going to be holding mourning celebrations for their leaders not far from the u.s. embassy. and if they try to go into the green zone crossing one bridge
in particular and going into the green zone, u.s. forces there could open fire on them and then we could have a cycle of violence like this country hasn't seen in years. >> let's go to you then in tehran. richard said some possibilities here in terms of a response from iranian backed militias perhaps. what is the expectation where you are in terms of what the response will look like and in terms of how prepared the united states is for it? you heard the president there saying the united states is prepared at all possible locations here. what is your sense of that? >> well, there's definitely going to be a response. there's no doubt about that. iran is going to want some sort of reprisal for what happened to what was ultimately the second most powerful man in the country, qassem soleimani's, assassination. but i don't think you're going to see a knee jerk reaction from
iran. iran is very good at playing the long game. they are going to plan their reprisal very carefully and that could involve one of many things that they have at their disposal. the main option being unleashing the shia militias that qassem soleimani so successfully created throughout this region, that network of proxies that were so fiercely loyal to him and are probably still fiercely loyal to him in death. so there could be attacks by proxies on u.s. assets in this area, u.s. military bases. there could be cyber attacks by the iranians, which they have done before. so they have a lot of options available for them. i don't think the iranians are going to want to get involved in some sort of conventional warfare because gun for gun, tank for tank, airplane for airplane they are no match for the u.s. army.
but in an asymmetrical war which involves unconventional types of fighting, that could be an extremely difficult match for america. that is something they are very good at, and they have honed their skills on doing. so sitting down in rooms in tehran right now senior revolutionary guard commanders, members of the security council are now probably plotting their next move. there was a meeting today of the national security counsel in iran and very, very unusually ayatollah homeni attended that meeting. he never attends those meetings. it's always someone like general soleimani who would attend those meetings or one of his deputies on his behalf. he's not around anymore, so the supreme leader is stepping in
making some of those major military decisions. in the coming days richard is right, we can expect some sort of reprisal from here somewhere in this region, steve. >> thank you both for joining us. and america's european allies who were not given advanced notice of the strike warned today of potential retaliatory violence. regional experts tell nbc news while soleimani is gone he quote built a mobile well of proxies and allies while operating largely in the shadows. now that same network is likely poised to avenge his killing, posing a strike that could strike just about anywhere in the world. for more on that i'm joined by courtn courtney kubi and david ignaceous. let me start with you. in terms of establishing what the united states was seeking to achieve here, we said it up front the word from the
administration was that there were imminent attacks being planned and this was a preventive step to keep it from happening. do we know anything at this hour about what attacks the administration had in mind here, had on its radar, and do they believe that this killing has stopped that threat? >> so we know a little bit. we don't have a lot of specifics about it, so some of it on the record, some of it on background. general mark milly, the chairman of the joint chiefs spoke to a group of reporters today. he declined to give any specifics they were tracking, but told a bit about the atmospherics around it saying they gathered the information very recently. he felt confident it was solid, he praised the intelligence actually as being rock solid, that in fact qassem soleimani was directing and planning and helping with these imminent attacks that were in more than one place. we know from u.s. officials and defense officials across the u.s. government that they were concerned about three specific
possible attacks that were in the coming days, planned to be in the coming days. one was in lebanon against both diplomatic and potentially some financial institutions there. and one was u.s. military locations in syria, primarily in the eastern part of syria, and then there was of course iraq. my colleague have been reporting today that soleimani took two recent trips, but he also was in lebanon recently and officials are teing us in fact those trips were to go and finalize some of the planning and approve some of the planning for these attacks. but i need to stress that no one is talking in the u.s. government is talking on the record with any of these specifics yet. and so that's why it's being met with some resistance, that in fact there was some kind of imminent threat here. qassem soleimani and these iranian backed shia militia groups that operate in iraq and
throughout the region have presented a threat to u.s. coalition and iraqis, locals in these areas for some time. cateb hezbollah is responsible sfr hundreds of deaths and more than 2,000 american service members being wounded from these new explosive form projectiles they introduced on the battlefield more than a decade ago in iraq and their tactics. qassem soleimani and the quds force and these proxy groups, they have represented a threat in this region for some time, steve. >> david, we say the tensions have been building for three years under donald trump between united states and iran. you write, though, in a new column at "the washington post" that war with iran has been coming at us in slow motion since 1979, the year of the iranian revolution that put
ayatollah ayatollah khamenei in power. >> people have an image of america held hostage by the new iranian revolution. in all the years since then, just over 40 years, the united states has struggled to find a way to deal with this revolutionary regime that is consistently destabilizing in the middle east. the u.s. has tried everything. it's had actions just short of war. it's at various points tried to form secret contacts, dialogue with iran. president obama made his nuclear agreement with iran hoping that would be a path toward greater moderation. in all that time nothing has worked, the revolution has remained intense, a destabilizing force, and its iconic symbol increasingly has
been qassem soleimani, the quds force commander and general killed in baghdad last night. he was quiet, in many ways a reversed man, small in stature from a working class background. but he built the network we've been discussing. across the middle east he formed proxy groups, hezbollah and lebanon, shia militias in syria. many think that bashar al assad would surely have lost that civil war, the bloody civil war that began in 2011 if he hadn't been rescued by qassem soleimani and his iranian trainers, fighters and the militia who came across the border from beirut. so over all this time i think america has been moving towards a confrontation with iran. i've written the phrase brink of
war in the persian gulf so many times over this period i should have a function key at my computer. but now it's really here. the killing of this general acknowledged by our president and by our secretary of defense as it happened, senior -- most senior military officer of another country, that really takes us into the zone of warfare after all this time. i think there are two final questions i'd note, steve. the first is what was done last night legal. the united states has a prohibition against assassination, so we've heard president trump and secretary of state esper arguing there was an imminent threat that soleimani was involved in, this was in effect an act of self-defense. they're going to have to make that case more clearly. and the second question was this action wise, what's our strategy, what's our end game?
>> thank you both for joining us as well. and coming up the political fall out in washington from the killing of iran's top military commander. republican lawmakers largely showing support for president trump's actions. democrats expressing grave concerns. s actions. democrats expressing grave concerns >> the question moving forward is whether the administration has given any thought as to how to manage the fall out that comes from such a drastic action. this is the equivalent of the iranians assassination the u.s. secretary of defense. plus congress returns on monday with the house and senate still at an impasse over the president's impeachment trial. how could this play out, and does the conflict with iran change anything? we've got much more to get to. stay with us. anything? we've got much more to get to. stay with us plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything.
keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise.
who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more.
save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. last night the united states conducted a military operation designed to kill major general qassem soleimani, a notorious
n terrorist. no one should shed a tear over his death. the operation against soleimani in iraq was conducted, however, without something authorization and any advance notification or consultation with congress. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was senate minority leader chuck schumer on the air strike that killed iranian general qassem soleimani. reaction to that operation from members of congress is sharply divided today with democrats like schumer blasting the administration for failing to alert congress about the strike. in a statement last night nancy pelosi said the air strike, quote, risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. pelosi noted the strike was conducted, quote, without an authorization for use of military force and without the consultation of the congress adding the full congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation. while the speaker was left in the dark about the strike one of the president's top republican
allies, south carolina senator lindsey graham told fox news that he was in the loop. >> i was briefed about the potential operation when i was down in florida. i appreciate being brought into the orbit. i really appreciate president trump letting the world know you cannot kill an american without impunity, we will stand up for our people and that is an absolutely essential message. >> for more i'm joined by andi kim of new jersey. congressman, thank you for taking a few minutes. let me start -- there's some confusion here i think in the responses i'm hearing from democrats, so maybe clear this up for me. what do you think the administration's responsibility here was? was it consulting congress? was it letting them know this was -- seeking perhaps opinion on that or did the administration need a formal authorization from congress to
do this? >> well, first of all thank you for having me here today. this is obviously such a critical moment for our country and one that we have to proceed with the utmost care, and that's exactly what it is we wanted from congress, that something of this magnitude that the president knew would be something that would reshape the middle east and be just about the biggest foreign policy decision of his administration and his term. this is something that needs to be thought threw as a nation. it is putting us right at the brink of war. it is something that is putting a lot of americans at risk abroad, and we need to make sure we have the right strategy and right approach at every single level. >> a statement has been made come from the administration there was an imnrnt threat posed. it's established that soleimani was responsible for hundreds of american deaths. the united states considered him a terrorist in the past. but the administration is saying specifically in this moment
there was a particular imminent threat. is that something you've been briefed on at all? is that something you know what they're referring to? >> i have not. if there was an imminent threat, then congress should be briefed imminently about this. this is something where we all the proper classifications to be briefed up on this. and if it was that much of a danger posed to american, that is something we need to know immediately and the american people need to know as well. >> this is name that might have been new to a lot of folks last night but to leaders in this country, to military leaders this is not a new name, responsible for hundreds of american deaths through the years, someone of enormous power. you were in a position in the obama administration where you were very familiar with qassem soleimani. it is the reporting out there today the bush administration, the obama administration, they had the opportunity, the option of taking out soleimani and pursuing an operation like this
and chose not to. talk about the thinking of the obama administration to look at this guy and the terrible things he's responsible for and to not take him out? what was behind that decision? >> you're right i'm somebody that has worked on these issues for a long time at the state department, the pentagon and white house, national security council. i've been working on iraq issues and qassem soleimani is certainly someone where thought about and worked on every single day. he's someone who has a lot of american blood on his hands and someone that is absolutely a murderer in terms of the threats that he poses. that being said, what both the bush administration and the obama administration concluded was that killing qassem soleimani would unleash a tremendous amount of chaos and violence that could be directed to america -- americans and american interests. this needs to be a calculation made with considerable care. and this is exactly the type of
information that we need to hear from the trump administration about what is it about this calculation that they felt was worth moving forward on knowing full well this could very well move us to the brink of war. >> is there an argument to be made given the long-standing role he'd been playing, again the deaths of americans that results from him, is there a case to be made in the last year or so iran was getting more aggressive, was acting in a more emboldened way, shooting down a drone, the embassy attack last week, that this was reaching a point where perhaps the calculation on somebody like soleimani was changing or should change? >> well, when i approached these issues of national security we always have to think about it from the metric of are we making things safer for americans? certainly wave seen a lot of violence from qassem soleimani and shia militia groups under
iranian control. we have seen that for years now. what we've seen recently does not even measure up to the level of attacks we've sustained in previous years, so, you know, there certainly is a threat. it's not something to be taken lightly, but it's absolutely critical that we think about are these decision that are being made making america and americans safer? and right now that is without the trump administration giving us further details and explaining their decision, that is not an answer that we can answer right now with any confidence. >> the administration is apparently citing a vote 18 years ago in congress, the authorization for the use of military force in iraq. that was a vote in october 2002 the congress took back then. there was also a vote to authorize the global war on terror 19 years ago in 2001. those two authorizations have been used by administrations since to authorize actions like this, basically two decade old actions that have not been
pulled back by congress. is it time for congress to pull one of both of those back? is there going to be any movement in congress to do that? >> there's certainly a lot of discussion about that. and people on both sides of the aisle understand when we are sending our armed service men and women into harms way they need to have clarity of mission. when you are running off an authorization that is decades old, they do not have that kind of clarity of mission. it is absolutely necessary for us to be able to make sure that they are given clear details as well as every measure of success that they need to be able to operate. so that is one aspect of it. while we're talking about these authorizations we center to continue to recognize there are americans in harms way tonight and this is something that cannot wait, and this is why it's so urgent we move forward right now. i think so cheerily about our diplomats and our military personnel in iraq and throughout the region, they are very much in harms way, and we owe it to
them to be able to have that clarity and give them the mission and be able to make sure we have a strategy that underpins that. >> thank you for joining us. and up next why now? so soleimani was a deadly thorn in america's side as we've been talking about for years, but presidents bush and obama declined to take him out. so what has changed? you're watching "hardball." wha? you're watching "hardball. of snow day closings due to inclement weather... all two-wheel drive cross-overs should close for the day. wannabe suvs should close for the day. regular four door sedans should close for the foreseeable future. all jeep 4x4 vehicles will remain open- despite the harsh weather conditions. ♪ i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late.
i don't think that would be a good idea for iran. that wouldn't last very long. do i want to, no. i want to have peace. i like peace. and iran should want to peace more than anybody. so i don't see that happening. no, i don't think iran would want that to happen. it would go very quickly. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was president trump just three days ago saying he wants peace with iran. the trump administration has hit iranian proxies before, but yesterday's air strike against the country's top general is the first direct confrontation with iran itself. this dramatic escalation of tensions between the two countries. as "the new york times" writes, quote, mr. trump's decision to kill general soleimani was one presidents bush and obama had objected fearing it would lead to iran.
john bolton tweeted this, quote, long in the making, this was a decisive blow against iran's quds activities worldwide. i hope this is a step to a regime change in tehran. for more i'm joined by former special assistant to president obama and lead iran negotiator to the iran nuclear deal. and david french, senior editor at the dispatch. i'm glad to have both of you because i think there is a fundamental disagreement between both of you, and yietd like to hear both sides of this here. i think we can stipulate thatsole mathat soleimani was a very bad individual. the dispute here is whether the benefits of taking him out outweigh the costs. i want to hear both sides of this. let me start with you, robert, because i know you were in an administration that faced this decision and decided the costs would be more than the benefits. take us through the case for that approach. >> well, first of all i mean the real issue was under the bush
administration. that was when qassem soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans. they made the decision that eliminating him -- the cost of eliminating him would outweigh whatever benefits because of the repercussions in terms of iranian retaliation but also eliminating one man doesn't mean disrupting the entire organization. when it came to the obama administration let's recall from the time period we were negotiating with iran from the nuclear deal to the end there were no attacks against americans in part because of these negotiations. there was no threat to american lives in iraq. all of that started because of president trump's decision to exit the nuclear deal and to put maximum pressure to try to suffocate iran. during the obama administration, again, the decision, the calculus the cost would outweigh the benefit in particular because this was not a time when iran was targeting americans in iraq or elsewhere. >> so david french, that same question. the cost and the benefits, how do you look at it? >> you know i think that the
calculus is different now than it was in the bush and obama administrations. i served in iraq during the surge and one of our priorities is we were trying to get the shia militias to stand down, to not attack. and so the idea of hitting such a potent iranian leader would have inflamed the very shiite militias we were getting to stand down. that's a different strategic posture. here you have the isis caliphate is in ruins, you have iran in a vulnerable position whether it's economy crumbling, facing internal arrest. it is an a weak position. it strikes me if you're going to gamble, and look i'm not saying this is going to work out. i think it's way too soon to say that. but if you're going to gamble on this kind of move against iran as they're escalating in their threats and attacks on americans, this is as good a
time asany. >> so, robert, what do you think of that? i know you don't like the posture the trump administration decided to take on iran certainly when it came to the nuclear deal, all the tensions that had been building. but to david's suggestion it is a gamble but this is the time to do it, do you see a scenario where a gamble like this could work? >> first of all, i do want to emphasize we shouldn't be where we are today and we wouldn't be where we are today with threats to iraq, threat to americans if it were not for the decisions the trump administration took the reckless, shortsighted and unnecessary decisions to throw away the nuclear deal. is it a gamble that could succeed? first of all, it's an enormous gamble. a gamble you just heard from representative kim that is putting the lives of americans at risk, putting the region at risk, the risk that president trump has vowed he wanted to avoid. so it's a huge gamble for very uncertain gain and very real
risks. i've yet to see the evidence. of course i'm not privy to the intelligence. i've not seen the evidence that would make this the necessary step the trump administration is needing to take. it is enormously risky. i think that's why experts in the bush administration and obama administration didn't take that step. it seems like a gamble that one shouldn't take with the lives of americans again and with the stability of the region itself. >> david, i'm curious what do you say to robert's point we shouldn't be in this position where the gamble is even on the table, that if the trump administration had not torn up the iran nuclear deal, had sort of continued along with where u.s. iranian negotiations are when it came into office we wouldn't be facing a choice like this. >> i think that what we're going to be facing was going to be a struggle with iran regardless. because iran in spite of the good faith hopes of the obama administration that by bringing -- by creating this agreement, bringing them back into the world economy, it would begin to normalize iran, iran
would stop being this world exporter of terror. instead iran was doubling down on its disruptive efforts throughout the middle east. it was creating unsustainable tensions in the middle east, and i think the maximum pressure on iran was a justified, a difficult decision but a justified decision. and then once that was taken and i think it's probably correct that maximum pressure began to lead to this tit for tat. but once you began to see iran targeting american soldiers in iraq who were there according to congressionally authorized mission, once you began to see these iranian backed iraqi militias targeting u.s. soldiers, then the options began to narrow. there is an obligation to defend our soldiers, and i think this was a justifiable, bold attack, and we don't yet know if it was wise. we don't yet know if it's prudent. >> robert, i'm curious quickly
just the way we've been talking about all of our guests have been describing soleimani. he sounds like the glue that sort of held together a pretty powerful network, a source of power for iran, a source of considerable trauma for americans in the region. removing him from the equation, what does that do? does it destabilize iranian leadership at all? >> so let's not underestimate soleimani's role. he was obviously a mastermind and played a crucial part. he was not the only person. there was an organization that created the organization, it will survive his death. and just ask the israelis who tried time and again to get rid of the leadership of hez bella, and similar organizations. they are replaceable even if you get rid of the person who seems irreplaceable, ultimately the organization survives. you get rid of soleimani, you
embolden or you motivate the people behind them to try to retaliate and he will be ultimately replaced. >> appreciate both of you joining us. up next congress is back in session facing crises abroad and impeachment apparently in limbo here at home. what are the chances for a quick ending to the impasse over that impending impeachment trial? you're watching "hardball." t impending impeachment trial? u're watching "hardball.
welcome back to "hardball." as the senate awaits the articles of impeachment passed against the president they remain at an impasse over how to conduct the trial. after two weeks of recess majority leader mitch mcconnell and his democratic counter part chuck schumer remain deadlocked over whether the senate will hear from witnesses and the possibility of a further delay is fueling mcconnell's latest attack. >> democrats have let trump
derangement syndrome develop into a count of partisan fever that our founding fathers were afraid of. the same people who just spent weeks screaming impeachment was so serious and so urgent it couldn't wait for due process and now it can wait indefinitely while they check the political wins is and look for some new talking points. >> mcconnell maintains the decision whether to call witnesses should come after the senate trial begins. however, the minority leader chuck schumer wants a commitment now. >> will we conduct a fair trial that examines all the facts or not? the country just saw senator mcconnell's answer to that question. his answer is no. never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. leader mcconnell's proposal to
vote on witnesses and documents later is nothing more than a poorly disguised trap. >> amid this stalemate the timing of the president's trial is still in the hands of house speaker nancy pelosi who will decide when to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. late today she issued a scathing rebuke of senator mcconnell. that is coming up next. you're watching "hardball." s cot you're watching "hardball. is mealtime a struggle?
introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. actions speak potato louder than words. she was a school teacher. my dad joined the navy and helped prosecute the nazis in nuremberg. their values are why i walked away from my business, took the giving pledge to give my money to good causes, and why i spent the last ten years fighting corporate insiders who put profits over people.
i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. because, right now, america needs more than words. we need action. as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. wake up to a healthier, happier life. with a leesa hybrid mattress. the secret is 2 technologies in one mattress. pocket springs for edge-to-edge support, responsiveness and comfort. plus premium foams for pressure relief and cooling. find out why reviewers love leesa's hybrid design. then sleep on it in your own home. it's easy, there's no risk. and right now, it's on sale. go to leesa.com today. hey, saved you a seat.
welcome back to "hardball." while president trump navigates an escalating foreign crisis in the middle east he is also facing an ongoing domestic political crisis here as the third american president ever to be impeached. as congress kicks off the new year democrats are trying to put pressure on senate leader mitch mcconnell to allow witnesses at the trial. speaker nancy pelosi went after mcconnell saying today leader mcconnell made clear he will feeb feebly comply with president trump's cover-up and be an accomplice to that cover-up. every senator faces a choice to be loyal to the president or to the constitution. i'm joined by madeleine dean of pennsylvania who's a member of the house judiciary committee. thank you for joining us. we are now into the new year. the articles of impeachment have not been normally transmitted to the senate. certainly to judge by the mcconnell schumer speeches we saw today, the statements from
nancy pelosi, the sides here are still miles apart. how long realistically can democrats wait before sending those articles? >> that is within the control of the speaker and obviously very much within the control of senate mitch mcconnell. if he should decide to have a fair trial. why would we forward articles of impeachment when senator mcconnell has told us in public he will not be upholding his oath of office, he will be derelict of his duty, he will not be fair and impartial. will he uphold his oath of office? and something i want to remind people of is this is an argument in part about process. but let's not forget what happened at the end of last year. this president was impeached. he stands impeached. that is not something that will be taken away. that is not something that mitch mcconnell can whisk away for him. this president is impeached for
abuse of his office and obstruction of congress. >> you say this is up to mitch mcconnell. he has said he'd be happy if the house never transmitted the articles. what is the leverage here if the threat is we won't give you something you don't want. >> i hope the leverage is reminding himself of his oath of office, rereading the constitution. i was impressed with the year end report by chief justice roberts who reminded us of the important civics lesson that we're all involved in and reminded the judiciary especially that we must make sure that we impart impartial justice without fear or favor. that was an important message i think to all of the 100 senators who will act as jurors. i call upon every one of them to come forward and to call upon their later to say of course have witnesses, of course do our constitutional duty of having a
fair trial. so i call upon my own senator toomey. he claims to be an independent, and yet his statement following the impeachment of this president was a very partisan statement. i call upon him to ask or urge senator mcconnell to reverse course and say, of course, i will uphold my oath of office. >> if this drags on, though, if what you're describing doesn't happen, it's already been a few weeks. if it continues to drag on a few more weeks, we get into february, we've got the "state of the union" address, the presidential primaries and caucuses begin, the news starts moving on, the campaign heats up, is there a point you say we're not sending the articles at all? >> i don't know if that is one of the options that the speaker is considering. i certainly don't think we're anywhere near that. after all, the president was impeached on two articles of impeachment just the end of last year. we're coming back from some time
with family and of course a serious crises. we spent last year passing hundreds of bills, and what did he do? he sat on most of them. he called himself the grim reaper. so people should not be surprised he's not doing his duty whether it's about impeachment or legislation or holding hearings. this is someone who's decided he will be i think fiona hill -- dr. fiona hill i was in for her opening statement and she discovered mr. giuliani and others in the administration were on a domestic political errand. it strikes me that mitch mcconnell has found himself on a domestic political errand for a president not worthy of that errand. >> just looking at the united states senate, what we've been following here are there any indications that republicans are breaking with mcconnell's posture? you've seen lisa murkowski of alaska, susan collins of maine
say they're uncomfortable with the public posture he's taken, whether that translate into joining democrats and calling for the sort of witnesses you are, that remains to be seen. have you seen any other indications from republicans moving in your direction? >> no, and i wonder if you felt the same reaction i did? it was impressive certainly that senators murkowski and collins stepped forward to say in the one case they were dismayed by mitch mcconnell's statements he would not be impartial, he would work in full coordination. but why aren't 97 other senators saying the exact same thing? they have a constitutional oath to uphold. they have a job to do. and if they don't want to do this job, they should not be in those positions of authority and power. >> congresswoman, thank you for taking a few minutes. and i invite everyone to check out my podcast. it's called article 2, inside impeachment. the latest episode on that upcoming senate trial, it's
available right now wherever you get your podcasts. you're watching "hardball." everu get your podcasts. you're watching "hardball. can . in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, 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®. ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it.
here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.
some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today. and that's "hardball" for now but don't go anywhere msnbc has continuing live coverage throughout the night of the conflict between the u.s. and iran. at 9:00 rachel maddow is going to sit down with former national security advisor susan rice. and on monday chris matthews returns for just in time for
what is shaping up to be a very busy week. in addition to ongoing fall out from the killing of general soleimani, congress will take up where they left off. also on monday we'll be just four weeks away from the iowa caucuses. that is "hardball" for now. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> we took action last night to stop a war. >> massive contradictions from the white house. >> we did not take action to start a war. >> as more american forces head to iraq. >> americans in the region are much safer today. >> tonight the fall out from the strike to kill iran's top general, reaction from the region and the dangers of escalation. and "the new yorker" dexter fillkens how