that wraps up this hour, i'm stephanie rhule. coming up right now more news with hallie jackson. hallie, i guess you've seen it the president tweeting moments ago about the stock market hitting an all-time high asking the american people how there are 409ks are holding. if you would like me to stick around i'd like to but i have no idea what a 409k is. i would like him to explain. >> we'll see if he clarifies that. stephanie, thank you so much. we come on the air with lawmakers ready to put new pressure on trump administration set today for a war powers resolution, what the president can do militarily against iran. that is going down in a matter of hours. even with the new pr push this morning from the vice president and this extraordinary statement

from him right here on nbc news. >> the ballistic missiles fired at american bases we believe were intended to kill americans. >> but how do we know, especially when reports suggested the opposite. that classed briefing for lawmakers behind deadly strike on iran's top general clarifying little according to many and triggering a jcpoa family feud. >> lame briefings like the one we received aren't adequate. >> whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy. >> nancy pelosi talks from that room you're seeing live there almost certainly about this and takes questions about reporters. maybe ready to make news on something else, when she will send articles of impeachment over to senate. even one of her committee chairman says this is time. we have one joining us live. anthony brown joining us along with senators from both sides of the aisle, new jersey and indiana along with msnbc news at

home and around the world. we have a lot to get to. garrett, i'm going to start with you. this is where the action is today. what do you expect on this war powers resolution? what are you hearing from people you're talking to i know this morning in the hallways here. >> two separate efforts going on in the house and senate with two outcomes. house powers resolution will come to the floor and should pass fairly easily with democratic votes and perhaps some republican support. that's being led by freshman lawmaker on the democratic side. speaker pressed pause to see fallout from the iranian attack the day before and how the president responded. now the house is moving ahead. the senate is a more interesting fight right now. that's because you've got a bit of a bipartisan split here. two republicans coming out of that briefing yet from administration officials furious at the way the administration is handling this and telling them

to stay out of it. a bit of a republican food foot. listen to mike lee, rand paul and senator lindsey graham going back and forth on this yesterday. >> probably the worst briefing i've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years i've served in the united states senate. >> i joined senator plea making the decision to also support the war powers resolution. i wanted to hear the intelligence first. what i hear was less than satisfying. >> at this moment in time to play this game with war powers act, which i think is unconstitutional, whether you mean to or not you're empowering the enemy. >> so hallie, you're never going to find lindsey graham and rand paul at the same lunch table metaphorically or otherwise but there may be other senators that agree with the more libertarian minded lee and paul. we have seen republicans vote with democrats on war powers resolutions like this, like with yemen last year and some other

votes. so democrats are looking to pick-off a handful of these republicans to join them in sending a bicameral rebuke to the white house. it would be a strong signal if chambers, one democrat controlled and one republican controlled tell him you can't move forward without authorization from us. >> right now seems way more likely in the house. right, garrett? >> yes. this is not a particularly heavy lift on the senate side either. two republicans, democrats would need four. there's at least a handful of other republican senators who i think could come across with democrats to send this signal on war powers. this is not necessarily going to be a hard party line vote here. >> guessing, garrett, when we hear from nancy pelosi live this hour, she will have something to say about this. kelly o'donnell i know folks at the white house will be watching closely to see what she says even as vice president pence and

other administration officials are out on a full-court press this morning attempting to defend their actions both before the soleimani strike as well as the response to the iranian attacks just a couple days ago. >> absolutely, hallie. the president also using twitter to say he hopes all republicans will vote against the war powers resolution trying to keep republican unity on the house side as a starting point. of course, garrett outlined the tension inside the republican party on the senate side. also the vice president caulking about some of the issues at the heart of the republican pushback, basically explaining he believes some of the sources and methods used in the intelligence community to provide information that became the rational for the strike that killed the iranian general that led to this whole episode, that even in a secure briefing, with members of congress in a secure site and classified setting, all those protections, that even there they could not share more.

the vice president defending the administration and also talking about how he believes the iranians were intending to kill americans with their counter-punch airstrike. here is a bit of the vice president speaking today on "today." >> some of the most compelling evidence that qassem soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against american forces and american personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have. it could compromise those sources and methods. >> reporter: that's his sort of deflection there on why they weren't providing more information and more information is what those senators and lawmakers say they deserve here. the use of the word "imminent" is critical because that's what the president can use to justify his constitutional duty to just a threat without bringing congress along. congress pushing back on this. a typical tension between the branches but certainly animated

by all these hot tensions with iran at the moment. hallie. >> kelly o'donnell at the white house. kelly, thank you. i want to get ali arouzi in iran. help us square something here. vice president pence very clearly on the "today" show with savannah talked about how they believe iran was attempting to kill americans, targeting americans, hoping for deadly force. others in the administration based on our reporting and others said, no, iran was meant to miss, essentially. they downplayed what they could do, what their capabilities were. how can we make sense of this? >> reporter: it is difficult. i guess that's why they call it the fog of war, hallie. from what we understand here as the dust is settling, it seems like iran's strike against that base was more symbolic than anything else. iran has, according to the united states, some of the most advanced missile programs in

this region. they showed the range they could reach. if they wanted to, it's not unlikely they could have killed u.s. troops but it seems it was a very carefully calibrated response by iran not to invite some all-out reprisal by the united states which would have been devastating for iran. nonetheless, they are still giving a lot of tough talk here saying that revenge will still be served against the united states. hassan rouhani, iran's president, said if the united states makes any mistakes, their revenge will be even more severe. but the reality here is iran doesn't want a conventional war with the united states. they are much more comfortable and better at working in the shadows against america through their proxies they have built up in this region. that's what they are masters at. they are no match for the u.s. military might. iran's air force, navy, missile programs is uncomparable to that

of the united states. if they went head-to-head with america on that, they know that they would lose. >> ali arouarouzi, live in iran. garrett and kelly, thank you as well. we'll check with the hill, nancy pelosi's live remarks. the top democrat on foreign relations committee, senator robert menendez. thank you for being on the show. >> good to be with you. >> i will pose the same question i posed to my cleek in iran. intelligence shows they targeted americans. how do we square the reporting? >> i think you have to look at what we factually know. one of the things we clamor and care about is the sophistication

of iran's missile development it's one of the things we seek to constrain beyond their nuclear program. you can't say they have a sophisticated missile program and then say that all of those missiles just happened to miss any targets that were intended to take american lives. you can't square that with a call by the iranians to the prime minister of iraq, who clearly would have informed us that missiles were coming if you wanted to have an attack that created ultimate consequences to american lives. and so i think that the facts belie what the administration is saying as it relates to intended attack with the purpose of killing americans. i think it just adds to the concerns that i have, having come out of yesterday's briefing, where i basically went in with three questions and didn't get the answers to any of them. >> let's talk about that intelligence briefing.

did you learn anything from that briefing that made you confident that what the trump administration did in ordering general soleimani taken out was the right thing? >> no. on the contrary, i went in with three very specific questions, which i got to ask. number one, what was the specific intelligence that led you to the belief that there was an imminent threat. two, what was the threat? what was the nature of the threat? what were the targets. three, what was the intelligence that led you to believe that eliminating soleimani alone, singularly would have eliminated the threat. the answer is i didn't get an answer to those substantive questions, and i think colleagues continued to hear through their questions the lack of type of information we need to not only have confidence in what the president did, whether it was the right policy choice or not, but where we go from here as it relates to iran. that's the great concern. we can't rely -- we can't just say take our word for it.

this idea that you can't distill the intelligence in a way that preserves your sources and methods but still gives us greater insight is unacceptable to many of us. >> what is interesting is senator marco rubio, your colleague on the other side of the aisle says anybody who walks out of that briefing said they weren't convinced action was justified, never going to be or just opposes everything donald trump does. is senator rubio right, senator menendez. do you just not like trump so you're not satisfied with his actions? >> i love my country more than i care about whether i like a president or not. that's the no the issue. the issue is i'm not going to live through another weapons of mass destruction moment. i served in the house during the vote on the iraq war. i did my due diligence on intelligence. i believed there was no clear and present danger, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and i voted against the war in iraq. the most important vote a member of the congress can take is a vote on "war and peace" and life and death.

i'm not taking anybody's word for it. it's not disdain for the president. i have on occasion worked with the president in venezuela and other things. the reality is that turning this into a partisan fighter lens is unacceptable. i don't think rand paul and mike lee who both support the president overwhelmingly have a great dislike for the president. >> senator, while you and i are having this conversation mitch mcconnell is on the senate floor talking about impeachment, using the words of democratic senators essentially saying they would like to see house speaker nancy pelosi turn over the articles to the chamber to help make his argue. senator feinstein is among them. if you're not going to do it, don't do it. if you are, do it. i don't understand the delay. is it time for the house speaker to just transmit the articles now? >> i trust speaker pelosi in terms of her judgment. look, the house went through an

arduous process both in the intelligence committee, the judiciary committee, i think the speaker just simply wants to make sure that the house gets a fair opportunity to present its case in the senate in front of the american people. every day that passes by, we have more disclosures of more information, more e-mails between relevant parties. john bolton coming forward and saying he would testify. all of these things ultimately lead to the critical question why won't you permit witnesses and documents to take place in a senate trial. every american who has ever served on a jury, participated as a defendant knows that witnesses and documents are essential to a trial. >> senator robert menendez, i appreciate your time and for you being back on the show. thank you for your perspective. >> thank you. >> senator menendez on the senate relation committee. senator graham has been vocal about this on the other side of the aisle. he's talking to eric haake.

>> you can have one command are in chief. the way it's written now is meaningless, a current resolution that doesn't go to the president. there are cases on point this constitutionally is deficient right out of the gate. >> should the administration have given more information about the attack to congress yesterday? a lot of democrats came out, they weren't very happy. the vice president said it was too sensitive to share with all of congress. >> so in terms of whether there's an imminent threat, general milley was compelling and chilling about what was going to happen and what had happen happened. so i think a third-grader would believe there was an imminent threat coming from the man we killed. the man we killed was a walking threat. he dedicated his life to killing americans and he was up to no good again. now, the idea of the power of

the president. we have troops in iraq lawfully stationed as part of the isis fight. the power of the president, any president any time, it's inherent to defend those in the field. you can respond defensively. you can preempt attacks planned against people, against our troops, once they are lawfully deployed. >> compelling and chilling isn't the same as specific. does the administration have a duty to disclose what they know specifically to congress? >> the way we found this out we'll never tell anybody because it was magical and we're not going to compromise it. >> you said on hannity that the senate is taking up impeachment next week. how do you know that? >> i think the dam is broken. if senator feinstein says it's urgent, it's urgent. i can't believe she can sit on this another few days. if she doesn't act, we will. the republican senator are ready to get on with this. we have at least five democratic senators say we need to get on

wit. i want to compliment it. if the republican senate was doing this, i hope i would have the courage of my convictions to join the five to say send it over. >> you have been listening to republican senator lindsey graham, a close ally of president trump, talking about war powers resolution up today in the house as well as impeachment, frankly. senator graham doing what we have heard already from senator mcconnell, trying to use some words of some democrats to bolster the republican argument that house speaker pelosi should simply transmit the articles over to the senate now. i want to play you what senator mcconnell had to say right now. watch. >> the speaker has refused to let her own allegations proceed normally to trial unless she gets to hand design various elements of our senate process. >> we have this covered from every angle starting with geoff bennett. we just saw colleague eric haake

in the hallway. jeff, let me start with you here. speaker pelosi this morning actually responded to some of that democratic criticism. the pressure that seems to be building on her. as we get ready to hear from her really in about 30 or 40 minutes here. >> yeah. in the sense among democrats, some democrats, those at least who are willing to talk about this publicly, hallie, is that the pressure campaign has really outlived its usefulness. before the break, holiday break, one of the reasons the house speaker didn't immediately transmit articles of impeachment i'm told us because she was trying to give time and political cover for chuck schumer, top senate democrat to work out a deal, if he was going to work out a deal, with mitch mcconnell. since there was no potential for the senate trial to start in the holiday break, it wasn't that big of a deal. the delay wasn't that big of a deal. now that both chambers have been back for days and mitch mcconnell made it clear he has

votes to bring about the trial he envisioned, the sense is the delay no longer works to the democrats' benefit. you herpd lindsey graham say the dam is broken, invoked the name of senator dianne feinstein. earlier she said the longer it goes the more it becomes. if they believe it's urgent, they should transmit without delay. there's a technical thing here, too. it's not just that the house speaker would send over the articles of impeachment from one chamber to the other, where it might be walking down to physically present articles, she has to name those people. that is the technical thing that triggers the transmission of aemp articles of impeachment. they named those to prosecutor

on the senate floor. i'm told by members there at the time they didn't need 13 people. it was too many people. one thing the house speaker said, she wants to see what the structure of this trial will look like. it's not enough mitch mcconnell, majority leader, said he wants to follow clinton template, she wants to see it in black and white so she knows how many to pick and who those people might be, hallie. >> geoff bennett, live on the hill. i know we're expecting more developments with speaker pelosi ready to talk any mom. i want to speak to ceo of americans for progress and david jolly and msnbc political contributor. we should know while congressman jolly served as a republican he's no long area member of the gop. thank you very much. are democrats at a point of diminished returns when it comes to holding onto articles? >> i think the real question is what information is coming out. what was surprising during the break, holiday break, is that we did get a series of new facts

that came out that demonstrated one of the reasons why you would want witnesses. i think that's one of the questions in front of us, which is what else is coming up. it is interesting we've seen increasing poll numbers for witnesses as we have gone through the last several weeks. >> what is interesting to me as we are literally having the conversation house chair adam smith who made a lot schiff who made a lot of news just tweeted. he said i misspoke this morning. this is a walkback. i do believe we should do everything we can to force the senate to have a fair trial. if the speaker believes holding onto the articles for longer will help force a fair trial, then i wholeheartedly support the decision. what happened her? >> i think nancy pelosi got to her members. she probably has a plan. as we know from looking at nancy

pelosi's past actions. there are two options for nancy pelosi. one is to go big and keep holding the articles but you have to own that narrative. i think it's bigger than the issue of whether the senate will have witnesses. it's the fatal statement of mitch mcconnell that he does not intend to be an impartial juror. if house democrats and nancy pelosi really want to bring that to light or even suggest there's additional investigating that the house wants to subpoena john bolton, you can go big and continue to withhold articles indefinitely. without doing that, i do think particularly the comment by senator feinstein has made it harder for nancy pelosi to hold onto these. but let's give her credit. what has happened in the three weeks or so she has held onto them, the nation's attention has been brought to the point to realize that mitch mcconnell said he won't be impartial. he said he doesn't want witnesses and marco rubio and lindsey graham said, no, we're not going to have witnesses. what nancy pelosi has done is recorded for history that the

senate republicans have said they don't plan to have a fair trial. it's important that becomes part of the record. that is part of the record because of nancy pelosi's decision to withhold. >> you're both nodding and wrinkling your eyebrows. >> that was nodding, not wrinkling. what's interesting about this, the american public, even republicans, see this through the lens of what a traditional trial will be like. they expect there's information shared, and they basically have the perception if you're innocent, you have witnesses, you share this. we should remember that mitch mcconnell's strategy, which he was saying basically in december was to move this as quickly and expeditiously as possible. now we've had a decision of about a month about essentially a system they will have no witnesses which will be basically a farce. i think the issue here is i appreciate the senate is an ornery place but nancy pelosi

has control of her caucus and she also has had control of this narrative for week after week after week. >> new tracking poll on this issue. it shows 55% of the senate want to hold the full impeachment, 50% of independents, 45% of americans would rather decide the president's fate themselves at the ballot box. congressman jolly, if you are nancy pelosi and if you are mitch mcconnell, how are you looking at these numbers? >> well, you shouldn't be looking at the numbers, hallie. i know that's a pollyanna statement profit i respect that but they are looking at them. >> i know. i know. we also get to judge our elected officials for being followers not leaders. this is a moment we need leadership from nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell. this is where the error in what mitch mcconnell is doing is really tearing down the united states senate. hallie, it would be so easy for mitch mcconnell and senate

republicans say we want a fair trial, too. we are going to have a fair trial with witnesses. at the end of the trial if the message from senate republicans was we don't think this rises to the level of impeachment and we are got to vote not proven or acquit the president, the nation can understand and have that debate. whether or not there was sufficient information to remove the president from office. that is a reasonable stance. what's odd is they are showing fealty to the president, weakening those republican members. they don't have credibility when they speak to those americans that show up in the polls saying, yes, we want a fair trial. >> the one thing i would say is those polls, generally speaking, most people want the elections to decide things. the fact it's not a majority should actually concern republicans. >> thanks to both of you for your perspective. unique, indeed. appreciate it. we're going to hear from the house speaker on this and much more in just about, looking at my clock, 20 minutes from now, not even. you can see the room filled up

at the podium where she will speak for the first time since several developments emerged, including walk back from chairman. we're also tracking new reporting from the white house. president trump speaking at the top of the hour. what we know about his newest move to up end rules on the environment including who might be getting a pass on key regulations. republican senator mike brawn from public works joins me to talk about that and more on the impeachment trial. people in puerto rico still without power as we speak after a series of earthquakes hit the island. officials say there have been 45 of them, 45 since tuesday. it's upsetting to so many people to see the streets because it looks so similar to hurricane maria. people waiting outside just waiting for help to get there. people waiting outside just waiting for help to get there. when you shop for your home at wayfair, you get more than free shipping. you get everything you need for your home at a great price,

the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

which is why xfinity mobile data,is a different kindent. of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70. click, call or visit a store today.

>> the president expected to make a big announcement in 340 minutes. not iran, not impeachment, but something under radar. the president plans to scale back an environmental policy

that has been in place for r50 years. the law, known as the national environmental policy act, requires federal agencies to look at the climate impacts big infrastructure projects like building mines, laying pipelines, drink, et cetera before the green light. the white house is trying to move to exempt some projects from that kind of review, a big shift that would make it easier to build oil and gas pipelines. not surprisingly oil industry into this, quote, remove barriers stifling construction of key infrastructure projects. environmental group says the trump administration is doing serious injustice to people in industrial communities adding it's a matter of life and death. sitting on the environment works committee, here to talk bo that and iran and impeachment but let me start with the topic. you reached across the aisle to work with democrats on issues. you told your hometown paper somebody has to start on our side of the aisle, right?

you point to the basic chemistry and physics that putting carbon in the air makes greenhouse gases problematic. that's not the place to be. ush party, is president trump on the wrong side of history here? >> when you use words like life and death, that's probably taking it to the extreme to make your point. if you relax some of that stuff, it will have that kind of impact. i can tell you i've looked at it from both angles. i have been a conservationist all my life, the first republican to join the climate caucus. we need to be in on the conversation. i also know as a state legislature in indiana when the crossroads of america had to do infrastructure projects we do the work, 80% of the bill is paid for. you have a lot of cumbersome rules and regulations that sometimes make projects 15 to 20% more skpepsive. i will do, like i do in a lot of things, find that equilibrium

where we do not crash environment and streamline projects so it doesn't cost an undue amount. like everything, there's a balance. i intend to speak out to where i think the good balance would be. >> do you think this tips the scales on the wrong side of it, though, what the president is doing today? quickly, senator? >> not really because it's too soon to tell. we ned to be watchful, keep the best of what epa has done, get rid of the stuff that hamstrings and makes it expensive for no reason. >> let me ask you about something else i know is on your mind, that is the possibility of the senate impeachment trial. nbc exclusively has gotten our hands on the draft of senator graham's resolution which would call on nancy pelosi to immediately transfer the articles over to the senate. is that a resolution you plan to support? >> i think there's a point in time where you do need to send it or end it. steve danes and i did an op-ed

on it. i'm still hoping it gets here without that kind of measure. we get into phase one like we did in the clinton proceeding. we'll see if we need witnesses, which is the whole issue they are worried about. all i can tell you, when we get to that point, i'm hoping they are considering that's going to be reciprocal. if it's not reciprocal, i think it's a faux issue to put out there. if they think that's what's driving the process, i know folks on our side, and i'm sure the president as well. would want his slate of witnesses. so i don't know where that goes. five democrats in the senate, if not more have come out and said, bring it over. i think time sis working against pelosi on that issue. >> although it sounds like you're willing to give her a little bit of extra time, senator. >> i would rather say it come over in a way we didn't force it. although, i think at a point in time we need to look at it. >> before i get to iran, i want

to ask you, we have been reporting at nbc news about the legal defense team. i've spoken to sources at the white house, in and around the administration as well, who say no final decisions have been made but discussions about republican members of congress over. some names came up, mike johnson, jim jordan, others, would that be a good idea in your view. do you want to see house colleagues defend the president or do you think that muddies the water. >> i think that would be totally up to the president's defense team. if they think jim jordan and others would help make their case, i think that's fine. i think their day in court is needed to give his point of view. >> on iran, senator, your republican colleague in the senate called the briefing the worst he has ever seep on a military issue, the intelligence briefing yesterday. you, however, said president trump's stock value after

attending is an all-time high. i ask this with respect, senator, were you in the same briefing? >> it's amazing. we were all in the same briefing and i even noticed bernie sanders came into it, so i think it's important to hear. all i can tell you is i'm with mike lee and rand paul on a lot of issues, especially when we talk about budget. in this case, i think what i heard from the folks there telling us what led up to it, it made sense to do it. the issue of what was the imminent thing this might occur, especially when it came from the military point of view that was there in the briefing. it to me was clear. now, if you look at the procedural part of it, of what happens next, and mike lee was mostly interested in, what do we if something else occurs from iran. i'm probably with him on that idea. >> would you support war powers resolution, senator, before i

let you go? is that something you would vote for? >> in general i think congress needs to be more involved. we have been derelict over decades. i just don't know if the timing should be next week, because then it's associated with this situation. i think what happened in taking out soleimani made sense with what led up to it. it begs the question what would the option have said had something occurred and we didn't do anything. so i'm open to discussing where congress should be more involved. >> senator mike braun, i appreciate that and appreciate you joining us live on the show here. again, thank you for your time. we're going to stay live on capitol hill with our eyes on the other chamber over in the house, specifically house speaker nancy pelosi, less than 10 minutes away at this point. she'll be speaking from that podium right there about all of this. we've got our team in the room to find out just when, just when she is going to transmit those impeachment articles. but first we're on swamp watch with new reporting on how the trump administration is really trying to put the secret in

secret service. also good news for ruth bader ginsburg, she's announcing in an interview she's officially cancer-free. the 83-year-old had surgery on cancer of her pancreas. a variety of important cases, second amendment challenges to roe v. wade. second amendment challenges to roe v. wade. we need to keep moving! tomorrow. and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it.

[mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, pie insurance here to stop you from overpaying for worker's comp. try pie and save up to 30%. it's easy. sweet! get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me.

my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. we are back and we're on swamp watch this morning.

"the washington post" has new reporting out today centering around how much secret service spends on president trump's travel everything from trips to mar-a-lago or overseas to visit troops or like today, going to ohio for campaign rally, pretty much any time he sets foot out of the white house. how much does it cost to get the president here and there and keep him safe which nobody disagrees should happen. put off until after the 2020 election. the post reports the issue has emerged as a sticking point in the last few weeks between secretary treasury steve mnuchin and key democratic senators. the key behind that, political reporter from "washington post" and friend of the show. david, thanks for being back. >> good to be here. >> to be clear, nobody thinks the president shouldn't have secret service protection. everyone agrees all presidents should. when do we know transparency behind how big the bill is.

the president tells you, we'll tell you just not now. >> the argument is it's important to know but we'll tell you sometime in 2021. the ability of the public to see this and understand it and see trump's presidency in the light of that leading up to the 2020 election will be zero if this goes through. >> the 2016 campaign trail, which i remember well, the president talked at times saying he would never leave the white house apparently. here is a trip down memory lane. >> i wouldn't leave the white house. obama always leaves the white house. think of it. we don't pay any money. we don't have to fuel up "air force one." do you ever see how much it cost toss travel in these things? >> the president invited the comparison with president obama which you make the comparison of that president obama's travel cost $96 million over eight years. it's estimated president trump's $13.6 million in a month in 2017, the numbers we know. if that pace continued the president would have exceeded where president obama was in just his first year of office.

right? >> that's right. he would have exceeded in the first year. also what's different about trump's travel, not only is it apparently a lot more and a lot more expensive than president obama's travel, it's also to places trump owns, he operates, places people can pay to be near him. there's a profit possibility for all travel, bedminster, mar-a-lago. he's going to places where people can pay to be near him, have paid to be near him. when you understand the travel in that context, not just traveling to get away but to a place that makes him money, it becomes important how much the taxpayers are paying to sub diocese that. >> who ends the fight? what's your sense? >> this is something mnuchin wants? he wants control of the secret service. he will be willing to sacrifice things to get it. the bill isn't written. this is a fight about when it will be written. it's too early to know who has leverage to win this. >> david, thank you for joining us to talk through it.

appreciate it. back to capitol hill now. a live look at the room where any minute she's supposed to be beginning in minutes, nancy pelosi talking about big headlines in washington. she has not arrived in the room just yet but we do expect she'll expect impeachment, iran, a lot of things. we'll bring it to you live. while we wait we want to follow first on the 2020 campaign trail that relates to congress. democrat pete buttigieg is announcing his first endorsement from a member of the black caucus. anthony brown saying he will support the south bend mayor. not only that he's going to become a co-chair and packing his schedule with stops in iowa. the news is a bit of a shift for a candidate buttigieg who has been struggling to win over support from african-americans, a key voting bloc in the democratic primary. with me for the first interview since making that endorsement. he serves as vice chair. thank you for being with us.

>> good to be on this morning. thanks for having me. >> why pete buttigieg? why today? >> i had a chance to spend time with pete. i was in iowa in december. during that time in iowa, i was listening to what he was saying. more importantly i was watching the crowds and audiences and seeing their reaction. i see in pete someone with extraordinary intellect, certainly an understanding of a breadth of issues, a willingness to listen and really a forward-looking approach to how we solve the many challenges we are going to face on day one after the trump administration. i'm very pleased to be able to support pete buttigieg to be our next president. >> there are a lot of questions. i don't have to tell you, congressman, about what kind of an impact your endorsement, other endorsements may have on buttigieg's standing with african-american voters. i want to play for you a little bit what politics editor jason johnson had to say about whether this might be the start of a new chapter for buttigieg.

here he is. >> it doesn't matter what chapter it is, i'm at the end of the book. this raises his popularity with black voters to 1%. the pro bs that mayor pete has had with african-american voters are because of his own policies and his own behavior and his age and what the sort of policy issue that he has in south bend, indiana. >> what are you going to tell people, congressman, who do have concerns about buttigieg's past policies. >> first of all, i think the biggest challenge every candidate has is getting yourself known to voters. if you look how pete went from early 2019 to the end of 2019 from a candidate that probably had zero percentage in every community to being a major contender, it's because of his ability to deliver a message to the voters. as pete becomes more familiar in the african-american community, just as he has had and done in other communities, i believe that in listening to his message about empowering people,

investments and education, very purposeful targeted investments in health care, particularly considering the racial disparities and health care in our country, you're going to see support increase dramatically for pete buttigieg. i think this is just the beginning or part of the conversation with voters, and i'm very confident that the support will be there. >> you say pretty dramatically. it would have to be extremely dramatically look at the numbers now. buttigieg pulling just 2%, joe biden pulling 51%. not a monolithic voting bloc but you have to build a coalition if you want to be president and win the democratic primary. >> i think that's what pete's strength is, building coalitions. even if you look at what he's done in south bend. being a mayor of a city is a tough job. he worked with a coalition, diverse coalition to address housing issues. he reduced unemployment in the african-american community by 70%, poverty in the african-american comment in south bend by 40%, and he does

it because he listens, he brings people together around difficult problems and challenges to find solutions that works for everyone. i think when he takes that experience, eight years as a mayor and he couples that with forward-looking vision he'll be very attractive to the african-american community as he becomes more famine our community. >> okay. i want to leave that there for a moment and get you on something else that's happening. i should warn you house speaker pelosi is set to speak any moment on capitol hill. there has been a bit of a back and forth from somebody you know well, the chair of the committee you are on, adam smith who says it's time for the articles of impeachment to go over. is she smart to wait or overplaying her hand. >> i think it's important the speaker send the articles of

impeachment when we are assured there's a fair trial in the senate. what does a fair trial mean? access to witnesses, documents and information, much of which was not available to the house. we acted on good, competent evidence to pass articles of impeachment but the american public deserved even more in a full, fair, open, transparent trial in the senate. so until mitch mcconnell can guarantee that, i support the speaker's decision to withhold the articles of impeachment. >> speaker of the house nancy pelosi over on capitol hill is expected to be at the podium any moment to talk with reporters we are live on capitol hill and we'll bring it to you in a second. we'll bring it to you in a second

if your gums bleed when you brush, you may have gingivitis. and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. 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, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com any minute now speaker of the house nancy pelosi will be walking into that room and she might be making some big news on that war powers vote we're expecting later today and that impeachment articles we've been watching. kasie hunt is joining us from the hill. we are now 107 days into the impeachment inquiry, more than three weeks since the house

officially impeached president trump. where do we go from here? >> reporter: you're seeing a number of senate democrats, okay, let's get it ball rolling. but the speaker and her allies have seen what they think are good results from her strategy so far. they feel like there's still new information that's coming out, new documents, new poe sententi developments, john bolton saying he would testify if subpoenaed before the senate. in is something we keep expecting she keeps getting questions in the hallway, she told one of our producers who doggedly chased her down last night, how many times is she going to get this question? i can guarantee you she's going to get it again in a couple of minut minutes. >> a lot more is the answer. >> we'll see what she says there. but there has been significant -- let's say there have been a couple members of congress who have come out and questioned the strategy, democrats, only to quickly walk

back their remarks. congressman adam smith was the latest one. dianne feinstein said a couple of slightly different things, saying, okay, it's time for a trial and then saying we trust nancy pelosi. this seems to be the strategy she wants to pursue for right now, hallie. >> on the war powers resolution, that is something she's likely to talk about. we have senator mike braun on the senate side andy seemed open, didn't rule out maybe joining kral joining democrats to vote for that in the senate. what do you expect to hear from nancy pelosi about that? >> reporter: well, this is a debate they clearly want to be having here in the house. i thought it was interesting you had such angry comments from mike lee and rand paul coming out of that closed door briefing suggesting that the secretary and secretary of defense essentially said it's better for the country at large if there isn't a debate on war powers. the house is set to have one

today. >> kasie hunt live in the room where it will happen. we're going to try to sneak in a quick break before she decides to speak. we'll be right back. to speak we'll 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. remember, you have out the hilton app. can the hilton app help us win? hey, hey-we're all winners with the hilton price match guarantee, alright? man, you guys are adorable! alright, let's go find your coach, come on! book with the hilton app. expect better. expect hilton.

let's me start with iran. today we will have a resolution on the floor put forth by alyssa slotkin, we're proud of her in terms of her experience in terms of national security, under democratic and republican presidents, now a member of

congress putting forth a resolution this week. last week in our view the administration conducted a provocative, disproportionate air strike against iran which endangered americans and did so without consulting congress. when i was informed of this attack, the administration took responsibility it over the weekend. i said why did you not consult with congress? >> well, we held it in closely. no, you have a responsibility to consult with congress. no, we're held it close. so whoever close means. as you see, there has been criticism from the republicans about the briefing that was put forth yesterday by the administration on this subject. some have asked do you agree that this is the worst in