the trump administration sees the obama administration's unwillingness or inability to enforce the public redlines it set as one of the key weaknesses of the obama administration. i do not believe this administration will want to fall into that same trap. if you see in american casualty, it is possible that there will be retribution against a leader of the pm in a rack or something against anf casualty is a redline and we will hold iran responsible for any such casualties. >> the response from the u.s. was two-pronged. you so the killing of the u.s. contractor and they hit the pmf with airstrikes. only after the attack on the embassy that they met in mar-a-lago and decided to take out soleimani. >> on the question of war -- you remember the tanker war. >> i do and as someone -- i guess all of us served in the obama administration. i still go back to something that i think suzanne said at the beginning. what is the policy toward iran? is it overthrow? is it regime change? is it that awful phrase, change their behavior? if any of you have been in any kind of relationship, you know what the

this is a policy by the obama administration, not accidentalal and lee is absolutely right. that's why they are embarrassed. >> laura: i spoke to this iranian activist, incredible woman, about the media reaction here. she says they are not telling the real story. check it out.. >> what i want the american people to know that a majority of the iranian people view qassem soleimani as a terrorist who has terrorized the entire region. they don't relate to the narrative that the left has been giving. >> laura: it was shocking to see. pelosi spoke out about the protests that erupted on sunday and iran after iran admitted it shot down the airliner, killing 176 and said, they are upset because of the airliner. t that's all it is, they were fine before the airliner. >> it's worthwhile keeping in mind that when you're looking at democratic officials like i speaker pelosi and looking at the press, including the most prestigious brands in the media that these were -- these constituted the iranian deal echo chamber that helped obama's deal with iran, so they have a lot at stake in protec

of 2015 and the obama administration failed to give adequate notice about the prisoner swap. five guantÁnamo detainees were traded for bo bergdahl who pleaded guilty to desertion. the new york times reporting it is appears comey is under investigation for leaking information about russian intelligence document. the document reportedly played a key role in his decision to sideline the loretto lynch justice department and announced that hillary clinton would not face criminal charges over use of private email servers. let's bring in the power panel, bradley maas, attorney to donald trump, and andrew mccarthy. thank you for being with us tonight. i want to read a little more what the new york times has to say. it was suggested this could be politically motivated, it appears focused on comey and the timing could raise questions whether it was motivated by politics. >> i'm suspicious of this report. i think it is a rabbit hole. i know jim comey for 30 years. a good friend of mine in the us attorney's office. i disagree with jim regarding the way the email investigation was handle

in the obama administration, we essentially said we're going to do the nuclear issue and then not tie our hands one way or the other in terms of our ability to deal with iran's regional activities. the trump argument is you have to do this all together as a single negotiation. i don't think the trump argument makes a whole lot of sense. the united states sitting across the table with iran, and negotiating the role in iraq or syria or lebanon, doesn't actually compute, like how do we work that out. that requires a regional negotiation that the united states can participate in or underwrite or play a role in and that should be connected to but on a parallel track from the nuclear file, and coming up with a way to sequence and engage conversations among the regional actors about what a long-term deescalation looks like at the same time that we're executing a nuclear play. that is immensely complicated but i think necessary for whoever the next president is, i'll and just close by saying i don't know whether to see a silver lining in the cloud that the saudis and the em remirates have loo

he has ties to the obama administration. how much of a problem will it be for uncle joe biden? we will take that up and much more when we come back. don't go anywhere. is ink it comes with. big ink tanks. lots of ink. no more cartridges. incredible amount of ink. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ patients that i see about dry mouth. they feel that they have to drink a lot of water. medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works. [heartbeat] this is the epson no more buying cartridges.. big ink tanks. lots of ink. print about... thi

and daniel ben, white house official in the obama administration is also with us. andrea, i want to start with you. and i actually want to start with that interview you did this afternoon with the defense secretary. i watched every minute of it. it seems as though things had calmed from his perspective and there was no clue about what was going to happen tonight. >> well, there were some hints along the way because he had briefed pentagon reporters this morning as well and said that there could be a preemptive strike if they felt that u.s. interests or certainly u.s. lives were at stake. but there was no real hint in our interview we asked what would happen next. and appropriately, if they were planning this, he certainly would not comment on it. they had him do our interview. he did one other interview that i know of. and mark esper was very carefully saying that the u.s. had the forces, that the u.s. would respond, that enough is enough, said he, and we also heard earlier today over at the pentagon, the correspondents there heard from the chairman of the joint ch

and in all seven cases, the obama administration was found by the gao to have violated not once did a member of congress then say well, let's impeach him for it. even though in the case of a couple of the examples like the bigge bird bigger da biggery some rule against. that they are suddenly finding this to be acceptable to impeach somebody for the same as the other charge, which is obstruction of congress. imagine how many times president obama said no, i won't give you the information. we went through subpoenas. we went to court in the case of fast and furious. we did it for more than half of his administration before we finally got all the documents. >> tucker: fast and furious. that was the scandal in which the obama administration allowed a flood of illegal firearms into mexico the result being that people were murdered. that's not speculation or conspiracy theory that happened was there an effort to expweech obama over that not at all. we heard the attorney general in contempt. we wept dowmplet we got a judge appointed by president obama to agree with us and eventually we got t

the obama administration. why now? nothing was done in the prior administrations. look at this map of iran's partners and proxieses. the u.s. military bases in these countries should be concerned about people stationed there. should we be concerned this is where the focus is in terms of a retaliation on any bases we have in our proxies, partnerships of iran? >> yes. maria, we think there is a real likelihood iran will make a mistake and make a decision to go after some of our forces, military forces in iraq or soldiers in northeast syria. we have many troops in the region. it would be a big mistake for iran to go after them but we are preparing, you've seen the department of defense take their actions. you've seen the state department do its work to buildout coalition partners. i've been on the phone for weeks intensely over the past few days. our partners in the region know what america did was a good thing t reduced risk in the region. it reduced the threat from of instability that theocrats in iran imposed

the truth is the obama administration in the iran deal took sanctions off just like soleimani. he had u.s. sanctions off him and they took it off due to the iran deal. the obama administration never asked for his travel ban to be enforced, so he was traveling all over the middle east. and the un stood by his solemn mommy backed by the obama administration has been engaging and genocides of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people all over the middle east. separate him to criticize now and say that america under the president now, is the aggressor the situation just is not true. kennedy: and obviously it's a very complex situation that goes back several administrations and you could argue that not one of them has gotten it right because it is so difficult and there is no one clear answer. but it is rich that democrats have now had turned into an antiwar party when they had no party with what happened in libya and with a number of civilian killing drone strikes under president obama. >> there is a very clear difference we noted jerome strike in an isis fighter or low level terr

the tactical interference by the obama administration has to be dismantled. that's why steve said to the present, we have a simple target.we have to have a talking point that everyone can understand and it is the destruction of the physical caliphate. when we unleashed our military. when president trump says i have your back that you can do this. we destroyed the caliphate in five months. something we had been told it was a generational threat was gone. do you remember the front pages of the newspapers. the decapitation of stay with us journalists. that is all gone. why? because we have finally a decisive commander-in-chief in the white house. - - said elections have consequences. do they ever. >> your first book, defeating g hall. the first row about president obama, did the president keenness of - - represent a bigger threat to america and a greater commitment to winning the war against the jihadists them. strangely enough, it didn't. as one general shared with me, president obama and his team see the connecticut options such as drone strikes as the quote o

the obama administration came centrifugesd 19,000 churning. they had 10,000 kilos of enriched uranium. had a heavy water reactor in a rack that was working. by all accounts, iran was between six months 12 months away from having the bomb. the obama administration decided that that was the most urgent problem. they had to stop the bomb. if they didn't, i would not be surprised if israel would have decided to take on iran and tried to destroy the nuclear sites, which would have gotten us into a very serious confrontation. made the decision, they decided to put all of the pressure, all of the possibilities and trying to reach that deal. in my view, trying to reach the deal on the issue. in my view having the deal was a good decision, but i think it was wrong to leave some things out. wrong to have no discussion of the iranian missile program. you could absolutely predict that this was going to become a problem. it was wrong not to have the issue of human rights on the table. it was wrong not to have the role of iran in the region on the table. th

as isis emerged after the bush administration during the obama administration, now the decline, and everyone would like everyone to come home, but only if we can prevent -- >> pete: you mention risk threshold, there is a different risk threshold, we ended up partnering with iran and soleimani to push him back, which only empowered the iranian officials more, they could take over baghdad. now landing the top official after attacking the embassy, hello, alarm bells are going off saying that the risk threshold has been passed. >> emily: he has been operating in iraq since the bush administration. i want to see the intelligence. because there are a lot of places in the administration. >> dana: the congressional numbers will be back in town, not a new york, but coming up, more reaction from president trump on the air strike taking out the powerful general, we will show that to next. ♪ i've always loved seeing what's next. and i'm still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment tha

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

administration, and obama endorsement would be massive, castro saying we need big structural changes. he didn't feel that way or did he when he worked with obama? >> he now has a chance, an opportunity to express his politics, not necessarily the politics of barack obama. i think this is a good thing. he understands that the crisis we face as a country isn't just reducible to donald trump, it is really about a whole swathe of policies that in some ways he was part of during the obama administration. he says we need to go beyond that. >> when we talk about the crisis we face as a country, how difficult an argument to make, if the economy continues to chug along, and the president is sitting in office during in theory a strong economy, maybe not one for everyone, but look at the numbers, a strong economy. can democrats win on the idea that we're in crisis when we might not be in economic crisis? >> i think so. we have to begin to unpack it. i am not getting into your wheel house, you know it better than i do. you think about the gig economy, folks at uber, lyft, delivering amazon, what

i'll speak live with the former obama administration energy secretary. there you see him earn est munis. he'll join us right after this. can the hilton app help us score? you know, it's not that kind of thing, but you can score free wi-fi. can it 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 lose this soccer game, come on! book with the hilton app. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. this is the epson no more buying cartridges.. big ink tanks. lots of ink. print about... this many pages. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. you're stronger than you know. so strong. you power through chronic migraine, 15 or more headache or migraine days a month. one tough mother. you're bad enough for botox®. botox® has been preventing headaches and migraines before they even start for almost 10 years, and is the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or mor

now, of course, that changed a great deal during the obama administration. we are willing to give $150 billion to people that we knew, it was a decent chance they would be using it to kill americans. and terrorize the world. maybe use it to some of it to pursue nuclear weapons. we have been hearing that some of it was used by soleimani to help coordinate attacks against americans around the middle east because they want americans out of the middle east. but i have had a bill in most of the congresses in which i have been a member called the u.n. voting accountability act, and it put requirements on our money, and i almost got it passed as an amendment early on. it just simply, basically says any nation that votes against the u.s. position in the u.n., more than half of the time, shall receive no assistance of any kind from the united states in the subsequent year. . in march, we get the voting results from the prior year from the u.n. and you can go through and see what percentage of the time each country voted with us and when they voted against us. i think

not only under the obama administration, but previous administrations as well which is part of the problem. >> one of the things that president trump and secretary mnuchin have changed cfius. they are giving a more aggressive review. and national security is at the forefront in these cfius reviews for the first time in a long time. lou: your thoughts on the president's comments to laura ingraham that he will use executive privilege. >> he talked about protecting the privilege for himself and future presidents. there is no more sensitive relationships than the president and the national security advisor. not surprising to me at all. lou: i said boehner instead of bolton. i am the one who conjured that up from the recesses of my brain. thank you very much. good to be with you. i have to tell you, i have been looking forward to this story. we are going to report on a subject we have not reported on and indianapolis some part my failure. this is a story of interest and broad -- at least interest. the duchess of sussex, meghan markle and prince harry, announcing plans to step back as senior mem

he has been an enemy of both the bush administration and the obama administration. and i know they targeted him. yet they chose not to take him out. why then did they choose to do so now? >> that is a good question for the administration. what i've seen at least in reporting is that the president was presented with a number of options including for responding to the militia in iraq laying siege to our embassy. and one of the options was a taking out qassem soleimani with the expectation that he would never choose it because the second and third order of consequences would be so grave, no one would want to do that. but yet he chose it. but of course we don't know this for a fact. we need the administration to explain to congress exactly what it was thinking. but again, this all goes back to the original sin of tearing up the iran nuclear xwreeagreement nothing to replace it and exerting pressure without anticipating the almost necessary consequences. >> during the last administration, was taking out qassem soleimani ever anything seriously considered by former presid

he was in the targets of the barack obama administration. they decided not to assassinate him and he was fully in the target of mossad, an incident of he was with someone they were going to assassinate and didn't want to assassinate him. there's a cost benefit analysis to be had. if you're the military guy in the room, what you talking snablt. >> if i'm mike esper, i would give a briefing of the consequences of that decision. i would want to make sure that the president had a good idea of the affect on the ground among the troops but i think professional malpractice if either esper or pompeo did not give the president a decision tree about what would happen if he did it and if there is a consequence and then there's a follow-on action. but look. the fact remains qassem soleimani is responsible for the death and the wounding of thousands of american soldiers. he was a battlefield combatant. it was a battlefield and he was a threat. he became a target and that target was taken out. >> is there a distinction that qassem soleimani was a military

so these things happen and in all seven cases, the obama administration was found by the gao to have violated not once did a member of congress then say let's impeach him for it. even though in the case of a couple of the examples like the bird-dog exchange, which was a violation of the law, the president was directly involved. this is the double standard. it's not that presidents don't do things that technically there is some rule against, if that they are suddenly finding this to be acceptable to impeach somebody for, the same as the other charge, which is obstruction of congress. imagine how many times president obama said no, i won't give you the information. we went through subpoenas, went to court.. in the case of fast and furious we did it for more than half of his administration. before we finally got all the documents. >> tucker: is a fast and furious, that was the scandal in which the obama administration allowed a flood into illegal firearms into mexico. the result being that people were murdered. that's not speculation or some conspiracycy theory, that happ happened. and

as isis emerged after the bush administration during the obama administration, now the decline, and everyone would like everyone to come home, but only if we can prevent -- >> pete: you mention risk threshold, there is a different risk threshold, we ended up partnering with iran and soleimani to push him back, which only empowered the iranian officials more, they could take over baghdad. now landing the top official after attacking the embassy, hello, alarm bells are going off saying that the risk threshold has been passed. >> emily: he has been operating in iraq since the bush administration. i want to see the intelligence. because there are a lot of places in the administration. >> dana: the congressional numbers will be back in town, not a new york, but coming up, more reaction from president trump on the air strike taking out the powerful general, we will show that to next. ♪ when we were looking for a roommate, he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to h

when that talking point comes up, well, the bush administration said no and the obama administration said no, and i was there for both of those, it was never -- i have a cold today. i can't talk. qassem soleimani never left iran. he never, never engaged the way he's been engaging in the last few years. and we saw it at the last piece of the obama administration where he was supplying, getting the houthi rebels in yemen arme. so you can't say they didn't do it then because of "x" and the circumstances have changed. >> that's an important point. >> he was much more active. he was in syria planning operations. he had participated in the planning of the operation that killed an american just several weeks before that. and so those facts matter. and i think it's hard for people just to come down and say yes or no and i don't like the president, that's my decision or i love the prrkesident, that's decision. none of that is an adult conversation about what the threats are. >> speaking of adult conversation, alyssa slotkin's husband is a retired colonel. an apache helicopter pilot. they met

, the obama administration, and now the trump administration. and, yes, i don't need the tweets saying you're comparing donald trump to barack obama. i am not. this is a much bigger question about where america finds itself after one-fifth of the 21st century is behind us. >> look, look, to be fair to what you're saying, barack obama -- barack obama's policies in the middle east, for instance, you could see trump's as a kind of continuation of them. obama was very interested in withdrawing from the middle east. he told me in an interview once, and this caused a lot of problems for him in the middle east, he said iran and saudi arabia are going to just have to learn how to share the middle east. there were a lot of comments like that, a lot of suggestions that he wasn't interested, wanted to get out. and you know and we've talked about this before, geopolitics just like nature abhors a vacuum. so if the u.s. pulls out of the middle east or pulls out of europe or pulls out of asia, that vacuum is filled by iran, by sunni extremism, by russia, by c

knows his it was under the obama administration where they deemed him a terrorist. new.isn't anything the fact that he was finally aken out is something that you've seen bipartisan support for. not just republicans. go look at the comments of president obama's homeland security secretary, jeh johnson, susan rice, or so many others who recognized what soleimani actionnted and that this was long overdue. and just like we when we were in when president obama took out osama bin laden, we supported that action. the right thing to do when president obama gave that command. just by the same token it was the right thing to do when president trump gave the command to take out soleimani. a are a safer world because brutal terrorist is gone from who hadnet, a terrorist killed hundreds of americans and was planning to kill even more. become t shouldn't partisan. it's very disappointing to see some in the democrat leadership in the house trying to criticize those actions that safer.erica using some of the same talking of ts that are coming out tehran, and now talking about chang

hadley, both the bush administration and obama administration had discussions about removing mr. soleimani and came to a different discussion. a jointe decision-making process that took place in both the administration's that you can talk about? they waived the consequences of these actions, is that correct, and came to a different conclusion? >> congressman, that's a good question, i am going to answer based on my own imperfect recollection. i do not remember the issue of taking out soleimani. i know the general have said in january of 2007, he was monitoring the convoy which he believed soleimani was present and he contemplated taking him out at that point in time and decided not to do so. again, my colleagues mercedes -- colleagues may disagree. i am not aware if that had came into the white house before or during that decision. it was an operational decision. canid not have so far as i recall, formal consideration. rep. bera: and in the obama administration? ms. haines: thank you, congressman. in the obama administration, and again, also with my personal recollection, there w

did vice president biden stop leading the obama administration foreign policy efforts in ukraine? no. in the meantime vice president biden is still at the forefront of the years ukraine policy. he pledges a billion dollars loan guarantee to ukraine contingent on its progress in rooting out corruption. around the same time the $1 billion announcement, other people raised the issue of a conflict. as special obama administration special envoy for energy policy told the new yorker, it raised hunter biden's participation on the board of burisma, he raised it directly with the vice president himself. this is a special envoy to president obama. nbd had questions. december 8, 2015, the "new york times" publishes an article the prosecutor general shokin wasor investigating burisma and its owner zlochevsky. the times report, here's another quote. the credible -- credibility of the vice presidents anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son hunter biden, end quote with burisma and its owner zlochevsky. and it wasn't just one reporter who asked questions abou

when you have a president like president obama whose administration, experts were no doubt telling him that him promising the american people that their premiums would decrease, and they could keep their health care plans and doctors if they wanted was a lie, and for him to continue to go out there and tell that lied to the american people, i wanted to document what was true. host: i want to turn to chapter 49, 1 of the 50 points that you made. goods anti-gun $150y resulted in a million loss for the company. my question is how do you balance, or do you balance the second amendment and the use of these assault rifle's that can kill so many so quickly? own an assault rifle, and i am a member of the nra. i think it is an important -- it is important to mention that i am a law-abiding citizen. i am a son and a brother. weaponsle who get these , there are no laws that you can pass to stop them from procuring these weapons. in many cases, particularly in recent shootings in california, these guns are often purchased legally. laws that are now implemented, whenever some evil person picks up a

the obama administration knew full well above this while the president was out promising people that they would be able to keep it and they would be able to keep their insurance plan. anybody at the time was arguing that there were serious solutions that needed to be debated in congress and ultimately voteded on if the mar would support him. but what obamacare did was took a product and mandated the purchases. in many p ways, they have argued now for a long time that it was up bailout to insurance companies and the american citizens got a raw deal. in the intervening years, the individualrs mandate has done ay with, i speak personally at the time, for personal reasons, i didn't have health insurance for six months and then i purchased health insurance the last three months of the year. i had to write a pretty fat check to the government just because of the twice that i did not make to purchase a product. again, i want to do dedicated a chapter to this because it highlighted how lawmakers have increasing amounts of power and influence over the lives of american citizens. when you have

i served in the obama administration, and a couple of agencies. my question about the first 100 days, and you point to a couple of early crises the new administration will be confronting, like the border and so on. but that is going to be a big crisis from election day to inauguration day and through the first 100 days if a democrat wins because the outgoing , president will not want to leave and he will be undermining the credibility of the election of which is lost. he's laying the predicate for that every day, that the system is rigged against them, et cetera, et cetera. so the biggest crisis, it seems to me, would be assuring the american public of the legitimacy of what would be a messy, compromised election if the democrat wins. how high on the priority list do you put that? moderator three good questions. :who wants to take the winning with grace question? i think we're all very graceful. [laughter] >> absolutely we can win with grace. that is, i think, our instinct. and that has to be our guiding principle. i see no benefit in engaging in

. >> raymond: walid phares, in my reading, i've discovered that two administrations, obama and bush, have the option of taking this guy out, this mastermind in iran who spread such mischief and mayhem all across the middle east. they decided not to do it. why was now the right time? >> first of all, why they decided not to do it is very important, and rather than the obama administration, engage in negotiating the iran deal, for that purpose, they let a lot of these militias operate, from hezbollah to others across the region, we lost basically four or five years of counting these militias because of the iran deal, which was ended, the end of the day, and the last two years of the bush and administration were difficult because of sharp opposition, when congress has changed majority. now the trump administration has this opportunity, not just because we are superior on the military level, the people of the region are rising, and i am surprised -- we've seen millions of iraqis demonstrating against iraq is about to tip over, iran is the same thing. that is not part of the analysis at a

ca ♪ >> brennan: joining us now is former obama administration c.i.a. director, retired general, david petraeus. good to have you here. >> good to be with you, margaret. >> brennan: qassem soleimani was or adversary when you were -- >> and a very, very capable one. >> brennan: what was your thought when you heard he had been killed? >> a surprise, to be candid. we never had gone after him before, but he never dare step foot inside iraq when i was commanding the surge, nor during the time it was the commander of u.s. central command. he only really became visible in the way he has in more recent years after the arab spring, supporting the murder of bashar al-assad in syria, and very actively supporting the iranian supported malitia inside iraq that was helping to contend with the islamic state of the invasion in northern and western iraq. >> brennan: he openly traveled? >> he did. he was on social media. of course, that was a period when he was helping iraq go after the same enemy that we eventually helped iraq defeat. make no mistake about it, those mal

we had some start on that in the obama administration. you've all interacted so close with congress in two different roles, how would you be thinking about the relationships necessary to build the coalitions that are necessary to build, to get some of the big agenda work done potentially with either a friendly congress or a non-friendly? >> i would just say that from my person at the pentagon one of lessons i particularly was the times when we were smart enough to bring key congressional staff and members in early on an initiative or on a problem set that we're trying to solve and kind of make them part of the group that's trying to think it through and craft a solution, we tended to do a lot better. i understand there are times when you can't, harder to do that. but i think more interaction, more informal interaction, more investment building q relationships, more building of the problem set and enlisting good thinking on solutions, i think the more we can do of that, the better we tend to do in actually getting things executed or gettin

there is a reason why we didn't go after suleimani under the bush administration and the obama administration, because they came to the assessment that going after that high an iranian official would end up getting more americans killed in the long run. >> secretary of state pompeo said that killing suleimani disrupted this imminent attack, saved american lives in the region. do you dispute that? >> reporter: well, i haven't seen any of the intelligence. of course the war powers act, which is the law of the united states requires the president to consult with congress before carrying out any military strikes overseas. the president is in violation of the war powers act so none of us could sit here and opine as to whether this was necessary. but what i know is a watcher of iran and the middle east is that by taking out suleimani you are frankly creating a martyr that is going to inspire more attacks in the future. and so, yes, maybe it had the effect in the short run of preventing the attack and maybe there were other ways to prevent the attack other than assassination. in the long run this ma

i agree with john that his statement for the obama administration was there to underwrite and appease and they were there to confront and contain iran. it is a good bumper sticker for the policy. it doesn't fit the facts terribly well. it was the obama administration led on by the bush administration that blew up the centrifuges at nataz early in their time, right, using a cyberattack. >> on the breakout timeline, what are -- what is the world looking at now in terms of time for breakout in terms of iranian enrichment for iran? he commented on that and said, again, on our watch, iran will not have a nuclear weapon. >> breakout time is not a time to nuclear weapon, breakout time is the time to produce enough fuel to get a nuclear weapon. the concept of the 2015 iran deal was get a year built in, so you have enough warning time. it is hard to estimate now exactly, but the best estimates i've seen are in the four, five, six month arena. so what has happened -- >> it is much quicker. >> much quicker. what happened is a president who said he was leaving the deal, because it would enable ir

>> the obama administration created enormous risks to the american people in iran. this administration is working to reduce that risk. chris: finally, some analysts suggest that the impeachment of president trump has emboldened enemies like iran and north korea to think that they can confront him. do you think that as misguided as it may be, that some of our enemies think that this president is more vulnerable because of the impeachment effort? >> you should ask mr. soleimani. chris: i understand that but he was going ahead before you killed him and the question is, do you think that impeachment is emboldening our enemies? >> i don't. i think our adversaries understand that president trump and our administration will do the right thing to protect american people every place that we find risk. chris: secretary pompeo, thank you. >> thank you, chris. chris: thanks for coming in on a very busy weekend. >> yes, sir. thank you. chris: when we come back, democrats raise questions about the wisdom and legality of the president's decision to take out soleimani. we'll talk w

. >> the obama administration entered a terrible deal in regards to iran and nuclear weapons and allow them to continue to build ballistic missiles, these are not rockets, these are missiles with increased range and the development, with the money they got from iranian's, to sponsor terrorism and would have allowed them to build a nuclear weapon down the road. the trump administration took us out of that bed deal. the iranian this decided to respond economic sanctions with violence and used these other groups, don't want to do it themselves so they use shia groups to attack the region and soleimani was behind it. donald trump made clear months ago you guys keep doing this, if you kill americans, if you kill a single american there will be a response. >> maybe without a strong response except for words last weekend they will show their response last night. 14 after the hour. iran threatening to strike israel and our allies. last night our next guest for israel special ops, he says iran has to be put on notice. ♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. and no

it's interesting to note that the obama administration withheld $585 million of promised aid to egypt in 2013 but the administrations public message was that the money was not officially on hold as technically it was not due until september 30th. the end of the fiscal year. so they didn't have to disclose the halt to anyone. sounds like this may be a practice of a number of administrations. in fact, to the president, this president, there's been concern about how aid is being put forward. so there have been pauses on for eight and a variety of contexts. september 2019 the administration announced it was withholding the over $100 million in aid million dollars in aid to afghanistan over concerns about government corruption. in augusttaf of 2019 president trump announced the administration and soul were in talks to substantially increase south korea's share of the expense of u.s. military support for south korea. in june president trump paused over $550 million in foreign aid to el salvador, honduras and guatemala because those countries were not fairly sure the burns of preventing mass

the obama administration allowed them to access their own money. >> it sounds good and the base eats it up. what about john kerry, he broke the law and his dealing with iraq. watch this. >> they should have looked at obama administration and john kerry, the logan act because what he was doing with iran and the relationship they built up. i think john kerry personally, i think he was advising them. i think that the obama administration was just letting them get away with murder. >> okay, i can't really follow that but fortunately we have you -- what? >> logan act is a 1799 law that makes it illegal for american citizens to conduct unauthorized diplomacy with countries that are having disputes and the united states. john kerry continued talking in some ways to his former counterpart, this was before 2018, trump insisted that these conversations continue and there is no evidence of that. and there's no evidence thaao john kerry was working against the u.s. his people, his aide have made clear that he was trying to get iran to continue to engage in diplomacy and stick to commitment under

administration that make the obama administration look moderate. >> so you run back to the middle? >> it's a question whether the candidate can win the democratic primary and also when the general election can avoid turning off huge parts of their population. >> neil: thank you and have a great weekend. in the meantime you've heard all the thoughts over prince princes but if you heard over what he just told prince harry and megan -- it goes like this. you can't have your kick and eat it, too. [laughs] ♪ limu emu & doug hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> neil: all right. for a while the dow briefly crossed 29,000 but stocks are still surging over the past year. a lot of millennials are now saying maybe we should jump in. they are a little bit late but they aren't always

administration paying people and entering into agreements, look at the iran nuclear deal president obama got into with iran basically saying i will pay you today not to make nuclear weapons tomorrow. he didn't want anything on his watch, donald trump is looking at a long-term strategy for stabilization in that region and around the world and when you look at donald trump's policies some people are looking as you mentioned saying it is his benghazi know it is not. it is handled totally different we. when somebody attacks americans or american interests donald trump stands up for them and i think the world needs to understand that. he is willing to show america's teeth in these situations around the world and when they don't respond appropriately, showing america's bright and our foreign policy to advance good around the world is taken seriously. it hasn't been done in the past. when he is trying to get these things on the criticism coming from the left is people had these policies that have not worked, donald trump has tried some things that are different from what has been done in the pa

and he has reversed the obama administration policy on iran which is a terrorist state because they are killing american soldiers. not for tel aviv but for los angeles. but they are a great to israel into us too. but yet he's not given a lot of credit for what he is doing in foreign policy which is essentially reaganism. and they attacked reagan too. and reagan was very, very successful. when you make of that? >> will first, and i think the most obvious issue for me is i find it stunning that when the president of the united states as america first people get offended. that's a dog whistle america first americans are black, white, yellow, green, all releases and all religion. american vets of mixes so great that seems to offend everybody when he says american first. mark: why is that offensive do they google lewis to the acs is part of a global community? is this why they don't at this.want open borders? they don't even talk about national sovereignty. when they have us surrender our formal representation to the organizations? >> first of all you cannot be a sovereign nation without bor

and he took a swipe at the obama administration per se signing the deal and rewarding them with a payoff that the president claims helped fund the attack. >> they chanted death to america the day it was signed. then they went on a brief funded by the money and the deal, and created in yemen, syria, lebanon, afghanistan, and erect. the missiles fired last night at us when our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. >> while the president did not announce any u.s. retaliation for the missile strike, just a show of force and personnel around him was a clear signal to iran, that if they try anything to harm u.s. interests, they will likely pay dearly for it. >> harris: thank you so much. i want to bring in tom spoehr, former deputy commander in iraq. great to see you. i want to know how many americans were in danger and how it is that you miss two military bases? did they get lucky you are a mess on purpose? >> 5,000 people total u.s. service members in iraq, so each one knows 300 or 400 service members total. i don't think this is within iran's capabil