one of those days where i am so grateful to have a smart friend like jeremy, matt and andrew, most of all thanks to you for watching. mtp daily with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. ♪ welcome to monday. it is "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in for chuck todd. the u.s. is facing new threats of of iran today sparking spheres of all-out war as iran vows revenge after the u.s. kill
te of top military commander qassem soleimani. and limiting president trump's military actions but we begin with a different threat facing this administration. impeachment. and a surprise announcement today from president trump's former national security adviser john bolton who now says he's willing to testify at the senate impeachment trial if he is subpoenaed. bolton has until now been complying with the white house's directive not to cooperate in the impeachment inquiry and while the white house is down playing the significance of bolton's announcement democrats see him as a potentially key witness. he could have damaging information about the president's actions surrounding ukraine and the bidens and he could corroborate the testimony of other officials who said bolton called the white house's pressure campaign against ukraine a drug deal. bolton's decision seemingly ups the pressure on senate majority leader mccon nol not only reused
to commit to calling witnesses but is also promised to coordinate the terms of that trial with the white house. a position he reiterated a short time ago on the senate floor citing president clinton's impeachment trial more than 20 years ago. >> in 1999, every single u.s. senator agreed to establish basic parameters for the start of the trial up front. and reserve mid trial questions such as witnesses until later. the vote was 100-0. that was good enough for president clinton. so it ought to be good enough for president trump. >> senate minority leader shuker said the argument proves he is not opposed to witnesses, just scared of them. >> to hear leader mcconnell say no witnesses now but maybe some later is just another indication he has no argument against
witnesses and documents on the her its. he is afraid to address the argument because he knows it is a loser for him. he says let's decide it let aer. why? why? no reason. >> it would take four republicans to join democrats, assuming democrats remain united, in forcing mcconnell to allow witnesses and the senators are starting to return to capitol hill this evening and we could start hearing from them on this big development any minute now. joining me now is nbc news's jeff bennett. gooed to see you. >> reporter: you, as well. >> four senators could make or break whether or not we hear from witnesses. is chuck schumer targeting a specific four? >> reporter: yeah. there's about four to six self professed moderate senate republicans or senate republican who is are up for re-election and vulnerable. the team is canvassing the hill over the last hour and caught up with a republican in the moderate lane, mitt romney. he told our leeann caldwell he
wants to know what john bolton knows and not the same thing as romney calling for mcconnell to subpoena bolton to compel his testimony. in the other column, the vulnerable senate republicans, you have people like potentially gardner, till luis, collins. collins backs up mcconnell's vision of a senate trial which is you have the house managers, lay out the case, the white house presents the rebuttal. at that point you take a vote, do senators want to hear more? if not you then move to an up or down vote on the articles of peemtd and hearing mitch mcconnell say to follow the same template laid out in the clinton trial democrats make the point, well, what he is really saying is by the time you get to that point he'll know for sure he has the 53 majority intact and he'll likely blow through that to get the fast and forgettable senate trial he is envisioning all along, katy. >> you talk about tom till luis.
he was tweeting out recently support of eric trump's birthday. where is this idea that he's potentially gettable on a vote for a rules change or a vote to call witnesses? >> reporter: yeah. there is a wish list, a senate democratic wish list, potential republicans they could flip. i would say tillis is along the list but democrats in both chambers say house speaker nancy pelosi's strategy to withhold the articles of impeachment was smart if not entirely preshent allowed for developments like this to unfold that democrats hope will put -- ramp up pressure on republicans to join with them, that's how they turn the 47 into 51 and put schumer in the driver's seat to dictate the kind of trial he wants so you had that "the new york times" reporting last momt saying mulvaney and bolton in the oval office trying to implore president trump to release the aid and now you have bolton offering to testify under subpoena although we should say
if bolton wanted to tell his side of the story he could do that tomorrow just based on his own free will and much the same way that fiona hill did. this notion to be subpoenaed is something that he -- it's a standard that he is setting and not in a rule anywhere. >> let me ask this. is there any chance that nancy pelosi -- maybe seeing that the senate trial won't be fair or what she considers fair or even without that, saying to adam schiff, subpoena him now. he said he's willing to comply. adam schiff said the investigation is ongoing. what are the chances of that? >> reporter: schiff just said in the last hour that in his view it makes sense for bolton to testify in a senate trial and not need for a two step process and that the house has done their work on this front even though the investigation continues. as you well know, politically speaking, the longer this goes into january, the more risks there are for democrats because
for momts now democrats have said that they were trying to avoid a messaging confusion where you have an impeachment proceeding really overlap democrats across the country -- the rest -- across the rest of the country in iowa and new hampshire trying to replace president trump at the ballot box and those trying to remove him via impeachment. >> thank you very much. it is a busy few weeks. joining me now senator ben cardin. senator, i do want to start with john bolton. where do you think the votes are for john bolton to testify? do you think there are four republican who is are willing to vote alongside presumably a unified democratic caucus? >> katy, i really don't know where the votes are right now but i would think that the senate will want to conduct a fair trial. and you need to hear from the people who know directly the president's involvement with the president of ukraine and we got
to look at the documents that support those conversations. that's a minimum for a fair trial in the united states senate. so we are hopeful that at least 51 senators will recognize that a fair process requires us to hear from the key witnesses. they did not testify in the house proceedings. so this will be our first opportunity to hear directly from those who could either establish the case or provide the defense for the president. as you remember, the president instructs the individuals not to testify in the house. >> are you confident if 51 senators back a subpoena that mitch mcconnell would comply with that? >> if 51 senators are in favor of the process, they control the day. this is not a matter for the majority leader to control the process. it's up to the majority of the united states senators who will control the process so if we have 51 votes, if we can get four republicans to joan the democrats then we can get this fair trial. we can get the witnesses, we can get the documents an the
american people can see the firsthand information in regards to the president's participation with the president of ukraine. >> i wondered today about marco rubio and whether he would vote for witness testimony and he is saying to cnn that he doesn't believe that those witnesses should be called because he believes the senate trial should be constrained by the information passed over from the house. given that, and if that's a take enough senators continue to hold, in the republican side of the senate, would you advocate for adam schiffing subpoenaing john bolton so the subpoena is out there in one way or another? >> the house has sole power on articles of impeachment. the process they use. they can reopen this, call witnesses. the senate has complete control over the trial. i respect senator rubio but
we're not constrained by the articles of impeachment from the point of view from the evidence. we can get our own evidence and entitled to call witnesses, issue subpoenas. it is up to the united states senate to carry out our responsibility of a fair trial. how can you have a fair trial without hearing from the witnesses about the involvement? >> i want to move over to the iran side of news and use a bridge here. elizabeth warren said the timing of the soleimani timing is curious to her and wondered if it is tied to impeachment, she is raising that question. do you think the president may have ordered this strike in order to distract from impeachment? >> the president has done that in the past to try to distract from the news of the day and would not be surprising. my concern is the national security of the united states and protection of americans. we know that the best solution in regards to middle east is the diplomatic solution.
we don't want another war. we certainly don't a war between the united states and iran. what the president has done he's isolated america rather than isolated iran. he started that when he withdraw from the nuclear agreement when iran was in compliance. dividing our alliance against iran and now with this attack in which many of our allies are wondering what we are doing, it is compromising the ability for a strong, unified front against iran's nefarious activities. i hope we can put this back together again and i think the key thing for us to try to find a diplomatic way to move forward. >> do you trust that this administration is looking for a diplomatic way to move forward? >> i don't know what this administration's policy is in regard to iran. it is so inconsistent over three years so it is -- but that's one of the reasons why the framers of our constitution envisioned congress having the power to declare war and why congress passed a war powers act so that there would be meaningful
consultation of the legislative and executive branches. president trump has not availed him himself, has not consulted congress and we are a much more divided nation than we need. >> do you think the president respects the role that congress plays within foreign policy? do you think that he thinks congress should have any say in foreign policy? >> if you look at his actions, the answer would be no, because he certainly has been involved congress, not doing the notifications, he's refused to have his members of his administration testify before congress on critical foreign policy issues. we still don't know what happened in the summit meeting of mr. putin and president trump and what happened with north korea. there's so many areas of foreign policy that we have been kept in the dark so i think the president has not respected the role that congress plays, the critical role that we play in regards to the governments of
america. >> do you trust secretary pompeo? do you trust this administration saying that they took out soleimani because there's an eminent threat? >> i know we will have a classified briefing on wednesday and i think the questions will be asked so i'll withhold judgment until i can get the facts on the case but to me it is disappointing that there's not been a public release of why this attack occurred at this particular moment because it's not only the american people that are in the dark and congress is in the dark, the international community, also, wants an explanation. so i think it's important for us to find out and to have a public release of why the attack took place at this time. what was the imminent threat against america. >> why now? you are one of the few lawmakers who voted against the war in iraq. do you see similarities of what's happening now and what happened in 2003? >> well, no, not at all. you're correct that i didn't support the iran nuclear
agreement but once it was executed i have strongly supported making shoe iran complied with that agreement and for the united states to remain active in that agreement for its compliance. i strongly disagree with president trump's removal from the iran nuclear agreement and said that was against the national security interests. i am convinced that most of his national security group, his advisers, also thought it was ill advised to withdraw from the nuclear agreement making it much more difficult to find a solution to iran's nonnuclear me fair mouse activities so now that we have left that agreement, now that we have this attack how do we put together international coalition that can change iran's behavior other than using force? and we all know that using military force will not give us the answer we need for stability in the middle east. >> what would make the iranians want to negotiate diplomatically when the policy changes administration to
administration? senator, we have to leave it there for now. thank you so much for coming on and ahead, is john bolton the impeachment game changer? how his offer to testify could change the course of the senate trial. and later, the pentagon denies the u.s. military is getting ready to leave iraq. one day after iraq voted to expel american troops from its country.
do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. >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. ♪ 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
welcome back. whether the house voted to impeach president trump we thought this week was going to be the start of the impeachment trial in the senate. instead we start this week with a fight brewing in congress over presidential war powers and we still don't know when that senate trial may get under way. but as we said we do know there could be a new twist to what that trial looks like when it does get under way. with that twist, of course, is president trump's former national security adviser john bolton saying he is willing to testify if he is subpoenaed.
joining me now to talk about this new development and all the other twists and turns, "the new york times" political reporter and analyst nick kahnefotosi and maxwell and strategist and former communications director matt gorman. everybody, welcome. john bolton, why now? why now is he saying i'm ready and willing to testify? >> i'm not sure -- >> it oes t's the question of t hour. >> the statement on the website of the pac. he wants future in gop politics. there's no future in gop politics for a guy that torches president trump. i don't know if he wants to say he is available. i'm not sure if his target is people like i'm giuliani. it is not clear to me good it does him right now. >> he has no future in gop politics if he testifies against the president?
>> he has a book to sell and an influential voice in terms of the party and a rare folks who served in the trump administration but also has a pretty long quote/unquote establishment lineage. so there is several possible mechanisms here and he could tell the story tomorrow to nbc news. what is the angle here? for bolton. is the question. >> the tweet thread and tell the story if he wanted to. >> there is an angle. we are all clear about the fact that he is not doing this for no reason at all. there's a strategy and perhaps there have been conversations with some senators and that led him to make this public statement. >> it's so confusing. he was advocating retaliation against iraq, championing the killing of qassem soleimani and then saying i have a story and willing to tell it. it is just -- it is weird
dichotomy i can't quite make sense of. >> absolutely. he said hopefully this is the first step for regime change in iran. i have never seen a republican use the "r" word sort to speak and how does this influence as jeff was saying susan collins? mitt romney talked about it. short of subpoena -- >> who's that fourth republican? >> i don't know yet. quite frankly, it doesn't change the calculus right now for them or mitch mcconnell. right? it was never about whether or not witnesses would testify or the process for allowing witnesses to be a part of it and nothing has changed with that. will they have the votes in the second part? that's the question. in terms of process that's unchanged. >> do you think? >> i think the republicans right now are in a tough spot because i think, you know, the president's rash foreign policy decisions in any other context if it's another president could be analyzed the way we always do. we look to all of the experts and the intelligence community
information and do the analysis of whether or not this was a strategic decision that would for the best interest of the nation. i don't think anybody's sitting here believes that donald trump makes decisions for the best interest of the nation. he was just impeached for doing the exact opposite thing. and so, i think this is the greatest fear that i think anybody who's nervous about trump having the launch before he was elected, this is the moment we feared. him acting very rashly and then everybody sort of acting as if this is a normal president and doing the analysis when this is not a normal president. >> let me keep it back to bolton just for this segment here. we'll talk about iran a little bit later. nancy pelosi, she's withheld the articles of impeachment. adam schiff said his investigation is still ongoing. he says that it should remain in the senate but if mitch mcconnell doesn't call witnesses what's stopping schiff and pelosi saying you're willing to
comply with a subpoena? come on down. we'll have a public hearing. your information will be out there. one way or another. >> look. it is a win for democrats right now to prolong this very discussion, to be having the discussion in the first place. >> why? >> if she hadn't held back the articles of impeachment it would be done now and no witnesses. what she's done is created space for -- >> i mean, the senate -- coming back tonight. he could have regardless of whether she withheld the articles, set it over tomorrow or when congress gets back in congress, could have sent out a note today. >> look. her goal for pelosi is to prolong the discussion aen to isolate the gop moderate that is don't want to have the discussion so even if they lose on witnesses and he never testifies it's a good thing for democrats if they can continue this discussion about the process in the senate and not lose control of it. >> why is marco rubio saying i'm going to stick to whatever the
house says? he was not a hawk with russia but very strong in his pushback on russian influence. ties into russia, ukraine. whether or not they meddled, didn't meddle and the president getting investigations out of them. why is rubio unwilling to demand a fair trial? >> well, again, i think fair is subjective. he can have opinion on it. it's different than mcconnell or -- >> can you have a fair trial without witnesses? >> that's a subjective thing. >> i'm asking you. >> it can be fair depending on how it's run. i don't think witnesses are a precomposite for a fair trial especially because we had witnesses in the house. you can have a perfectly good opinion we need witnesses. and when it comes to pelosi, i wouldn't say it was strategy. unlike ben cardin would say but luck. this is an essentially escape
hatch for her. right? bolton's not subpoenaed by the house. so as you said, it is very hard for bolton to say i'll appear before the senate and not the house and at some point they could call the bluff and say come down and we'll meet you in raburn. >> 2020 democrats, isn't a prolonged senate trial for those in the senate a bad thing? >> yes. not on the campaign trail is not the best when you're running a presidential campaign in the early states talking about caucuses. where you have to get that face to face time and you have to make a connection. people are dedicated days to go and vote for you. but i think that this is also a moment in which you can stand up and show that you can be an alternative to the reality right now. the president is -- his level of competency from the beginning on every single issue is something that keeps me up at night and i
think that the impeachment hearings and the subsequent vote established that he will abuse his power in any context and that is i think one of the messages that any of these democratic candidates can run with. >> don't go too far. ahead, iran's call for vengeance. teheran said it will retaliate as president trump threatens to attack iranian cultural sites. we'll get the latest from the pentagon next. why are we doing this? why are we doing what?
welcome back. we have got breaking news right now on the aftermath of the u.s. killing of general qassem soleimani. iranian president rowhani is not bagging down after president trump threatened to target 52 iranian sites if iran retaliates for the killing of soleimani. rowhani vowed revenge on behalf of iran on friday in a tweet and at the pentagon secretary of defense esper and joint chiefs chair milley deny reports that u.s. troops are mobilizing for a possible withdrawal from iraq. iraq's parliament voted yesterday to excel forces from the country. joining me now is nbc news colleague courtney could bey who just spoke to some of the top brass at the pentagon. courtney, why is there this confusion over whether the u.s. is leaving or not? >> there's a lot of confusion here, katy. every time we turn around the story is changing and all started with a memo that was
leaked out of baghdad a little bit earlier this afternoon. it's from the one-star yen in charge of the u.s. and allied forces in iraq so the task force in iraq. he sent a note to someone who's sort of like his counterpart in iraq informing him that there was going to be an increased out tempo of moving troops in and out of baghdad in the coming days and weeks. he said that this was -- but here's what everyone got kind of stuck on. he said that it was going to be preparing for onward movement and the movement out of iraq needs to be conducted in a safe manner and what secretary of defense esper came down to talk about was this memo and whether, in fact, the u.s. military is preparing to leave iraq. they deny there's plans right now to leave iraq but the reality is according to a u.s. official who i have spoken with this memo while it was --
unsigned, that's what general milley kept saying, it was provided to the iraqis as a notification of the some u.s. troops leaving baghdad, some going up into kuwait. it's because some of them are assigned to this counter isis and training mission that's now suspended so why keep them around in baghdad? you can move them up to kuwait and some troops are moving in, force protection. the 82nd in kuwait. so the memo itself is correct about the fact there's movement in and out. what they're denying is that this is indication that the drawdown of u.s. troops is beginning and they say at this point there's no ordered departure. >> the iraqi parliament voted to excel u.s. troops over the week. there's some question of the legal authority to do that because the iraqi prime minister
is outgoing. that being said, if the iraqis do not want the u.s. government there, for how long can we remain? >> remember, this is similar to what happened in 2011 and then after -- when isis grew in iraq and the u.s. had to start sending troops in, it is confusing. the u.s. is not operating under like in countries of iraq prior to 2011, a status of forces agreement. right now many of the troops are there assigned to the u.s. embassy so they're under the diplomatic mission and many more, in fact, are actually there at the specific invitation of the iraqi government and they're assigned to help train the iraqis to help them defeat isis and considered a defensive position that the u.s. is supposed -- u.s. military supposed to have there, helping the iraqis to fight isis. so it's -- i have gotten so many
answers in the last 36 hours or so, 32 hours since this decision made by the iraqi parliament of what happens next. i think the reality is there's a lot of confusion because the iraqi government is in turmoil, it's a caretaker government right now but also -- so does the prime minister -- the parliament, they voted this nonbinding resolution. does this caretaker prime minister have the authority to tell the u.s. to leave? also, while there is a lot of incentive in the parliament to have the u.s. military leave, we haven't heard yet that that's what the prime minister wants to do. the u.s. military provides some stability. when they left in 2011, isis was able to resurge and concern if the u.s. were to leave isis would try to resurge again so the iraqi government has some incentive to keep a partnership with the u.s. military in iraq. >> one other question. the president's tweeting of targeting 52 cultural sites.
that would constitute a war crime. what's the pentagon saying about that? >> to go after any kind of a cultural or religious site, by the military considered a military target it's a violation of the geneva convention and also a violation of the dod war of law. we're asking about a memo issue and he said that the u.s. military will not violate the law of armed conflict. he would not specifically say address what president trump said but he said they will not violate it, katy. >> thank you very much. good luck getting annalses over there. >> thank you. i need it. ahead, president trump's clash with congress over whether the attack on general soleimani was necessary and over what happens next. stay with us.
the u.s. killing of a top iranian general, democrats are already making a push to limit president trump's ability to take any additional military action against iran without the approval of congress. they're furious over what they see as the trump administration disregarding the war powers of congress. senator tim kaine who introduced a resolution spoke on the senate floor just a couple moments ago. >> if there is to be a war with iran, it should not be initiated by this president or any president acting on his ore hr own. it should on the be initiated by a vote of congress following an open and public debate in full view of the american people. every member of congress should vote and then be accountable for the question of whether another war in the middle east is a good idea. >> house speaker nancy pelosi says the house will vote soon on a similar resolution. we're also learning today that the full senate will be briefed
by a senior administration official including secretary of state pompeo and defense secretary mark esper on wednesday. democratic congressal leaders were not notified of the strike in advance and it's unclear how many republicans congress was gip a heads up. let's turn to my colleagues garrett haake on capitol hill and hans nichols at the white house. garrett, what are the chances that the war powers resolution or any resolution of that nature gets passed in this congress? >> reporter: slim to none. an expert on shiite militias is heading up the effort in the house and will pass. the effort in the nat is more complicated factor. there you're liable to see the democrats vote in favor of senator kaine's resolution but the republican party again as we talk about on so many other issues is liable to hue close to
the president. the defections might see from mike lee potentially or rand paul, sort of have more anti-interventionalist stances in the first place. that's not enough to get democrats there on the votes. the debate is important in and of itself. we see this happen time and time again where america involves itself in something, whether briefly or longer term overseas, the debate arises over whether we need another authorization for u.s. of military force and then so quickly the things die out. we are still operating on authorizations for use of military force older than some of the men and women overseas fighting on our behalf and will see how much attention focused on this issue and for how long. but it's pretty tough sledding in the senate for this measure. >> last one in 2002. you are right about that. hans, why does this white house believe that they don't have to go to congress for anything of this nature? >> reporter: previous presidents haven't. you have seen a broad ceding of
powers from congress. on this initial ability to strike, to go ahead and launch some sort of military action. even what pelosi is talking about, she has a 30-day window where the white house as i understand it would still be able to undertake what it feels is a congressional and constitutional ability to do strikes. so this is -- this always boils up on something like this and the time frame that the congress is talking about seems much longer than what we're talking about here. iran's talking about responding within 36 hours and the house has a 30-day window on this. and those things really might never come into conflict. guys? >> what are you saying, hans? do you think this is something to boil up whenever an issue comes up and then passes away? it is not something that's -- that serious? >> reporter: there have been a few senators who have been
committed to this. tim kaine being one of them on the republican side rand paul asking about just what is the congressional authority of u.s. forces, for example, in syria. right? we now -- everyone accepts 500 to 600 troops in syria. what's the legal authority? 2002 authorization of use of military force. that's why the mike pence tweets that have been largely debunk that ten of the 12 of 9/11 hijackers and so interesting because they're couching this action or laying the predicate for that old korncongressional authorization almost 18 years old and why that rational is interesting. we heard from the president today calling in to rush limbaugh for taking out soleimani is a different argument and more of the retrospective argument and should have been taken out 15 to 20 years ago. the official line from the department of defense was that
the threat was imminent. >> the line that might pass legal muster? >> reporter: they have huge -- so this idea that this -- the threat was real and it was imminent and elements to establish to do preeffortive. the president on the twitter feed talking about iran never having a nuclear weapon and entirely different argument. >> garrett, what about lawmakers? when you talk to them, how many of them are feeling -- looking back to 2003 and feeling that their vote in 2003 if they were there is hanging heavily over their heads? or, if they were not there, looking back and learning the lessons of 2003 and seeing this and thinking to themselves, i don't know if i want to get involved in something like this again or if i should trust the administration, to take their word for it without proof? >> reporter: i heard dick durbin
talking about a handful of senators that voted against the authorization of military force in that case. look no further than the campaign trail as something that bernie sanders and joe biden going over for months. the thing to watch is what senators are saying when they come out of this classified briefing that they're expected to get on wednesday: they won't be talking about the substance of the briefing but more or less comfortable with the line that the administration gives here, whether it's more like we got on the front end 0 of this or hans pointing out that the president is saying after and to what degree does the president escalate? senators are reasonably comfortable with the targeting of soleimani and less with 52 targets in iran by the president in the next phase of this. >> we keep saying if they're less comfortable but then they seem very comfortable with it and we will have to fibnd out.
thank you. ahead, we have more on this political fight over the iran strike. elizabeth warren's suggestion that the timing of the attack is not a coincidence. that's next. ligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from managing inventory... to detecting and preventing threats... to scaling up your production. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. gimme two minutes. eligible for medicare.
and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask... for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan,
you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile... enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked...
the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. welcome back. members of congress aren't even back on the hill yet and intelligence chairman committee schiff calling for hearings in response to the strike on the iranian military commander qassem soleimani. and he're what elizabeth warren told chuck about the timing of
the strike yesterday on "meet the press." >> i think the question people reasonably asked is, next week, donald trump faces the start potentially of an impeachment trial, and why now? i think people are starting to ask why now did he do this. why not delay and why this one is so dangerous is that he is truly taking us right to the edge of war. >> nick, zuerlein that and matt are back. she is asking why now. i would add this to this. the president has tweeted in the past and put out a video in the past before he was president accusing obama of starting a war in order to get reelected. yes in an election year. he is a man who projects. it could be a future projection. i don't know. >> if he imagines that it will help him wag the dog, i think he is wrong. what this president's greatest skill is what's changing on the front page of the paper every day. it's also his worst skill in
politics. >> you think maybe he was trying to change the subject from impeachment? is that a crazy thing to ask? >> what i'm saying is it will change again in due time, probably tomorrow. that's what i mean. >> i think it worked. i was on vacation while this was all -- >> bragging, bragging. >> no, i wasn't doing that. all i'm saying is i was trying to tune out from the news and oh, a war has started. or we're on the brink. >> it could be. >> precipice of war. and i think in this particular moment what's tough is that, you know, it's so dangerous. and donald trump doesn't have the fundamental understanding of the issues that underlay foreign policy decisions, which is, you know, what matter, right. it doesn't matter what he tweets. it doesn't matter what he really says anymore. it actually matters the deliberation and the process for which we're coming up with these decisions, and that's where the danger is, because there isn't deliberation happening. >> look, i think, though, the things that are on the front page right before the strike were the fact that they were
attacking our embassy. the reason impeachment was stalled was because it was stalled in between the two chambers. this wasn't like the day after he was impeached in the house. one of the other things that struck me, i was listening to the elizabeth warren clip is her making news on impeachment changes the dynamic for her a little bit, because she was really harshly criticized by many on the left in her party for initial statements on soleimani where she called him i believe a murderer and said what a bad guy he was. she had to walk it back the next day, in many ways copied bernie's statement on this where bernie was solely going after the trump administration, called it an assassination. in a broader way, this is an example, another one, of elizabeth warren slowly trying to copy and move into that bernie lane by really essentially copying his homework, so to speak. >> huh. the war powers act. 2002 aumf is old. it's broad. how much do we need to see a
reauthorization, a re -- congress reassert itself and say hey, listen, if you want to do this sort of thing, you've got to come to us. >> we absolutely need to do that. this entire decade has been fraught in international conflict because there hasn't been a strong enough established historical precedent. >> it's two decades. >> wow. it rereally is two decades. i'm old. the point is that we need to reestablish that. we need to get back to some sort of normalcy in terms of there being the deliberation that happened in congress and there being both participants in terms of what the ultimate decision is. and i think the fact that there has been so much concentration of power in the executive branch going back to the bush administration. and when they potz it issed the unitary executive theory, that set off what we're seeing now, and we're seeing it in the hands of the most dangerous president. >> i would say it actually goes back further, right? the war power resolution was made in '73 to respond to nixon.
as hans was saying this is a fight between the executive branch and the legislative branch for over a generation now. you see wit clinton, obama and the like. my old friend buck used to work for speaker paul ryan. members in the house yell and scream about wanting an authorization of military force. when it comes down to it, when the rubber meets the road, they don't actually want to make the vote. >> from the sunday shows, trying to blame the obama administration for why they needed to take out soleimani. listen in. >> 2015, the obama/biden administration essentially handed power to the iranian leadership and acted as a quasi ally of theirs by underwriting them, underwriting the very militias. all underwritten by american policy in the obama administration. >> to take a terrorist off the battlefield does not increase the risk of terror. the risk of terror is increased by appeasement.
that's what the obama/biden administration did this. is what president trump will never do. >> it is important that they understand that america will no longer behave the way that it did during the obama/biden administration. we will no longer apiece, we will no longer tolerate. >> they've been beating this drum, obama made us less safe by not acting. >> look, the obama position was that a nuclear power of iran was far more dangerous and worse for us than even a bad actor in the region, and that was their bet. >> that is how they have to sell it by going back to obama and saying well, obama should have done it. is that how you get the republican party behind you? >> you also talk about how unsafe having iran emboldened in the region, right? broadly the case i would make is, look, for generations, iran has set the terms, iran has set the rules. and by not kind of responding in kind to them, they were getting more blatant, more flagrant. they were attacking our embassy, for gosh's sakes. >> he did pull out of the iran deal. >> but that's not justification for attacking our embassy. that's a totally different thing. >> pulling out of the iran deal,
he put on more sanctions. this is against the advice of his own generals, husband own intelligence committee. >> but they have been ramping that up for essentially a generation, right? i think that's why the obama administration was so angry -- excuse me, the trump administration was so angry that obama made the deal. >> nick, zuerlein that and matt, i'm going to leave that there and we'll come back another time. we're out of time so we'll be right back. right back trump: obamacare is a complete and total disaster. 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, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
the daughter of correspondent julia ainsley and her husband newman. mary was born sunday afternoon. mom, dad and baby are all doing great. congratulations from all of us, the "meet the press daily" team and, julia, he is beautiful and perfect and welcome to the mommy club that is all for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, katy. thank you so much. we begin with negotiations breaking up negotiations over the senate trial. a key witness agreeing to testify. with the world obviously on edge over the continuing fallout from president trump's deadly strike against iran's top general, today the white house surprised by new impeachment pressure from one of donald trump's highest ranking aides and a well-known iran hawk, john bolton, who picked today of all days to release this new formal statement announcing for the very first time thaefr he is