the obama administration. they knew that. the iranian's were negotiating from a position of strength. they are more patient, the obama administration needed the foreign-policy when and willing to give away too much to get it but once they got it there was no containment strategy, no talk about the malign influence through the regional ballistic missile program. you can't separate those things. recent intelligence from our israeli partners and keep the iranian's were planning on cheating on that. we are left in a position in 10 to 15 years where we have no more leverage and that is a difficult position to be in and at some point we have the escalation the iranian's were engaging in and gain back that leverage because they had no path toward normalizing and joining the global order. shannon: they have called on others. iran has signaled themselves as well. we will watch and wait as they promise more retribution and having served on the front lines you know what that means to our men and women so our thoughts and

what was your toughest choice during the obama administration? >> i mean, by definition the issues that came to my desk and therefore went on to the president's desk were the toughest issues. the easier ones got resolved at lower levels. i write about a number of issues we wrestled with in the obama administration and how we wrestled with them and i say in the book, the hardest collection or constellation of issues in my judgment and our time revolved around syria. and you know, there were different elements to those questions. should we fight isis? yes, that wasn't a hard one. should we use military force in response to the use of chemical weapons consistent with president obama's so-called red line without congressional authorization? the president decided not. but then negotiated the removal of the bulk of the chemical stock pile and its destruction. i dissented on that and i thought he should go ahead without congressional authorization and how we deliberated on that and really, the third and the hardest issue which we wrestled with for years

but blaming the obama administration for iran's missile attack? well, that drew a searing response from former national security advisor susan rice. >> this is another series of despicable lies that president trump. the fact that three and a half years after taking office, he remains -- the readers of the taking office -- he remains obsessed with president obama, shows president trump's extreme weakness and insecurity. >> susan rice speaking there. and interesting moment today, shannon, was on the president said he was asked nato to become more involved in the middle east progress, and in the case of iran, a country that is obviously in very deep turmoil right now. shannon? >> shannon: it is. kevin corke on the white house beat for us, thank you, kevin. the house moving forward with the war powers resolution aiming to limit president trump's military options with respect to iran. in the senate, a split emerging between hawks like republican lindsey graham and senator mike lee, who railed against the relatively short length of today's administrativ

of the obama administration. let us get back to investing in the american people. that's how we build the economy not by snatching away from thefment i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman rom kentucky for five minutes. mr. massie: i rise today in opposition to the marathon impeachment sham trial currently under way and occupying the senate's valuable time. frankly, the american people tuned out a long time ago, they find the proceedings simply boring and rightly so. in fact, a recent group, a focus group of democrats said they don't even care about this impeachment trial. they are not interested. and they are ready to move on. the truth is, that despite all of the repetitive accusations of cover-up, quid pro quo, he said-she said, etc., etc., this is nothing more than an attempt at a soft coup against president trump by the people who still can't get over the fact that he beat hillary clinton fair and square at the ballot box. just listen to some of the recent rantings made by

i think that's why experts in the bush administration and obama administration didn't take that step. it seems like a gamble that one shouldn't take with the lives of americans again and with the stability of the region itself. >> david, i'm curious what do you say to robert's point we shouldn't be in this position where the gamble is even on the table, that if the trump administration had not torn up the iran nuclear deal, had sort of continued along with where u.s. iranian negotiations are when it came into office we wouldn't be facing a choice like this. >> i think that what we're going to be facing was going to be a struggle with iran regardless. because iran in spite of the good faith hopes of the obama administration that by bringing -- by creating this agreement, bringing them back into the world economy, it would begin to normalize iran, iran would stop being this world exporter of terror. instead iran was doubling down on its disruptive efforts throughout the middle east. it was creating unsustainable tensions in the middle east, and i think the maximum pressure on iran was a

that's why experts -- officials in the bush administration and obama administration didn't take that step. it seems like a gamble that one shouldn't take with the lives of americans again and with the stability of the region itself. >> david, i'm curious what do you say to robert's point we shouldn't be in this position where the gamble is even on the table, that if the trump administration had not torn up the iran nuclear deal, had sort of continued along with where u.s.-iranian negotiations are when it came into office we wouldn't be facing a choice like this. >> i think that what we're going to be facing was going to be a struggle with iran regardless. because iran in spite of the good faith hopes of the obama administration that by bringing -- by creating this agreement, bringing them back into the world economy, it would begin to normalize iran, iran would stop being this world leading exporter of terror. instead, iran was doubling down on its disruptive efforts throughout the middle east. it was creating unsustainable tensions in the middle east, and i think the maximum pressur

the best day of the obama administration for you. thehere were many, but happiest day for me had nothing to do with foreign policy. if there is the day that the supreme court affirmed the whites of gay marriage. that was such a happy day , and itit was so late is so joyful. the most profound way to so many of our colleagues. thinking about it, but we lit up the white house in rainbow colors. everybody celebrated. regardless of their orientation, it was a moment of pure joy. i would not have guessed that. ok, worst day? [laughter] >> too many to count. no, i write about it in the book. revolvethe worst days around the snowden experience. some tough days around russian interference in the election. name all thean't -- there were also a lot of good days when it came to national security. reopening to cuba. as i read in the book, we really stucco landing on that. we had two years of secret negotiations that never and we were able to unveil all of the elements of those changes simultaneously. otheran deal, and many days for the of celebra

this touches other people in the obama administration. john kerry certainly, his stepson was a partner of hunter biden's. there are many people who have their fingers in what appears to be bad ukraine issues. >> laura: andre was also listed in the visitor log in that original story in 2017. we are going to stay on this story and we think we will have a lot more. coming up, former attorney general jeff sessions, raymond arroyo, byron york, and tom bevan -- that is next. >> laura: republicans have looking to get your business off to a fast start in the new year? it's go time! switch to comcast business and get fast internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. plus, complete reliability with 4g lte backup. and, cloud-based security to help protect the devices on your network. greenlight your business in 2020 with fast internet and voice for $64.90 per month. switch now and get a $100 prepaid card when you add comcast business securityedge. call today. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ >> laura: republicans have been remarkably unifie

pompeo on the podcast and he told me that obama such and administration talking to the officials and just hang on, wait out the drop administration until donald trump loses freedom talk about undermining someone's foreign policy and this is a former administration that's dot commander in chief while he's dealing with the terrorist regime. >> martha: report a while back, suggesting that to them and, is that you are members of the obama administration sort of signaling to around two waited out and that they can return to the iran deal and everything that went with it if the democrat wins? >> martha, absolutely not, when president trump came into office, he inherited the obama legacy which is a successful campaign against counter isis which was a contained iran program and it was not an additional war in the middle east. now, all three are war and president trump would do well to take his own advice and on the campaign trail, he said it multiple times that we should avoid further entanglement in the region. if he fired it john bolton over it and here we are careening towards another war

the obama administration was begging for a meeting. >> president obama used to send pillows and sheets. i sent antitank weapons and a lot of things to ukraine. >> al-baghdadi created a caliphate bigger than the state of california. and with obama, you did nothing but get your ass kicked. >> so, kim in iran, you know, when we're dealing with a situation we're dealing with now, what do they make of president trump's obsession with president obama? >> well, to start with, president trump's comment about the missiles being paid for by the obama administration, i think that's a little bit unfair because of course, you know, the missiles were a response to a decision taken by president trump which was, you know, to allow the targeted killing of qassem soleimani. so, as other panels have been saying, the buck stops with the president. and obviously the missile program predates the nuclear deal that president obama signed. but in the middle east, i must say that a lot of americans allies like saudi arabia did think that president obama's policies enabled iran to become more powerful and bolder

from the obama administration since this air strike. and i have been surprised that so many of them uniformly have said we should now consider ourselves to be on a war footing, that we should basically perceive ourselves to be in a war now with iran based on this act by the trump administration. i wonder if you -- if you share that view, and whether or not you share that view whether you think the trump administration is doing the right kind of protective and mitigating things they could do to try to keep americans safe? >> i do think that the risk of direct conflict and sustained conflict with iran, a war has gone up immeasurably. and i think it is wise for americans to consider themselves likely to be on a war footing. if it can be averted, fine. but i'm dubious about that. there are things we can do to protect ourselves but none of them are sufficient or perfect. we can harden or embassies and our military facilities through a variety of means. we can draw down military or diplomatic personnel or increase personnel. we can warn ameri

in 2000, nine while working in the obama administration i convened an interagency working group to determine the government wide value for the social cost of carbon. as of 2016, the united states government estimated the social cost of carbon at about 50 dollars per ton of co2. since its inception, the sec has been used this foundational tool, setting roughly 150 federal regulations to cover areas such as energy efficiency and fuel economy standards. today, the benefits from u.s. regulations written to include the social cost of carbon total more than one trillion dollars. however, there are several reasons the current administration, the social cost of carbon is too low and as a

this touches other people in the obama administration. john kerry certainly, his stepson was a partner of hunter biden's. there are many people who have their fingers in what appears to be bad ukraine issues. >> laura: andre was also listed in the visitor log in that original story in 2017. we are going to stay on this story and we think we will have a lot more. coming up, former attorney general jeff sessions, raymond arroyo, byron york, and tom bevan -- that is next. >> laura: republicans have been remarkably unified during the senate trial, only senator susan collins broke ranks and voted in favor of one out of the 11 amendments proposed by chuck schumer. jeff sessions observed with mitch mcconnell for nearly two decades and is also former attorney general. do expect republicans to stay unified on this issue of witnesses going forward? >> i would expect if so, i think mitch has done a really good job. only one vote out of 550 or 60 votes and republicans prevailed every time. i think partisanship, the excessive obvious partisanship in t

>> who knows what joe biden wanted under the obama administration. one thing trump did, he did deliver lethal aid. anti-missile weapons, lethal aid to go out to fight with. when i was in ukraine, right after their revolution, that is what they needed. that is what they wanted. and the obama administration, because they were too afraid of, offending the russians, didn't give them anything but blankets and meals ready to eat. they didn't give them stuff that actually would help them. liz: you know, binoculars and blankets. >> those are really great in a fight. liz: let me get back to joan bolton. your reaction to john bolton and his book? >> we'll have to see what's in it. i don't in general believe in tell all books. thoughtful books after the fact are great. a president has the right, whether donald trump barack obama, or whoever the next president is make decisions and have advisors give him unvarnished advice. he has a right to throw out a lot of ideas when talking with advisors. it is almost like a personal covers. he should not have to think and

military leaders in the obama administration. these other pre-s decided it was america's best interest to let soleimani live, it would be more dangerous to kill him. so why did this president decide something more different? is taking out soleimani now perceived by the u.s. government to be less risky than they thought it would have been in the past, less dangerous for america than they thought it would have been before, or is it the trump administration still thinks it's just as risky, just as dangerous but this white house just doesn't care as much about that risk in the way past white houses and past presidents have cared? joining us next for the interview is somebody who has considerable experience weighing these kinds of risks for the united states. susan rice was ambassador to the u.n. she's national security advisor in the obama administration. she's our guest for the interview next. administration. she's our guest for the interview next yes! with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfor

mike pompeo criticizing the obama administration's approach. >> we took a very different approach. we didn't say cash to the iranians, we didn't pay for hostages. we didn't create a deal which would have given them a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon. we taken a different approach, when we ultimately will lead to success and stability in the middle east. >> melissa: and opinion editor of "the washington times" writing "this in the white house of barack obama's days. under this administration at the american interests that come first." about former obama advisor ben rose calls the decision dangerous. "there are real world consequences for having trump as president. they are becoming increasingly clear and he is the one who was going to have to navigate incredibly complicated and dangerous messes of his own creation. this is not reality tv." let's bring in our power panel, johnny joey jones, christian whitening, former state department senior advisor and senior fellow at the center of national interest and fox nes correspondent gillian turner. sergeant jones, i want to start with you

since the conclusion of the obama administration, ambassador power has served as a professor of global leadership and human rights at the harvard kennedy school and harvard law school. last year she published a memoir, "the education and the as one of hailed 2019's most notable books by the washington post and the new york times, -- and the los angeles times, and it was a fascinating read. we are glad ambassador power could be here on the power of national security. kelly back to the stage and give a warm round of applause to ambassador samantha power. [applause] kelly: thank you, all. i hope everybody had a good lunch. ambassador power, welcome to the national security conference, the first 100 days. you are an astute person who experienced the first 100 days of an administration and the rest of the administration as well, so we look forward to your perspectives. , want to mention your new book "the education of a new idealist." there are parts of that book that i feel like i lived with you through. it was nice to see it written down in a compelling and personal way. one theme that co

it was declared under the obama administration and he was the head of that force. from an authority standpoint he is to be treated like al-baghdadi, like osama bin laden, like some of the terrorists across the united states. if we have the chance to take content and prevent future loss of life, which was by the reporting going to happen. i'll take the sensitivity of it is that many of these intelligence sources and many of the tech domains, weather satellites or interception would have you are still ongoing. we're still -- they're still actually being used and the lasting what to do is divulge the sources and methods to her enemies. this isn't from decades ago. they are active and ongoing. right now i'm off a from my perspective, i find it much because members of the armed services committee that with actionable intelligence to stop the future loss of life and did not take it, i would be screaming from the rooftops about why that wasn't done. because like you and your losses, the thought of sitting across the table from another goldstar family, from another maimed

what they do know, unlike the obama administration, is that this will be an overwhelming response. they knew whatever they did during the obama administration -- remember those ten sailors they took hostage the last day of the union address? what was our response to that? nothing. that happened repeatedly in the obama years. and that's emboldening iranian terrorism and iranian provocations. lou: as we wrap up here, your sense of the reaction in the national media? it is transparentally obvious to everyone that soleimani was evil. he was a leader of a terrorist force. he carried out attacks against u.s. troops. the iranians responsible by some estimates as many of a third as our casualties in iran. and we have democrat office holders, we have the left wing media talking as though there was no lead-up to the decision to remove a targeted terrorist from the planet. >> contrast this to when obama took out osama bin laden, the celebration in the media, the celebration by republicans and democrats. there was no notification of that either. it's just a shame that this trump derangement sy

and a former state department and 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 seemed 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 there could be a preemptive strike if they felt that u.s. interests or certainly u.s. lives were at stake. but there's 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 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 that correspondents there from the chairman of the joint chiefs saying that an

the trump administration sees the obama administration's unwillingness or inability to enforce the public red lines that 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. so if you see an american casualty, it is possible that there will be retribution against a leader of the pmf in iraq, if that's who conducted the attack. there might also be something against an iranian target as well because the trump administration has said an american casualty is the red line and we will hold iran responsible for any such casualties. >> sorry, one more thing. the response from the u.s. was two-pronged. first you saw after the killing of the u.s. contractor, they hit the pmf, there were air strikes. it's only after the attack on the embassy that they met in mar-a-lago and decided to take out soleimani. >> particularly on the question of war, because you remember the tanker war. >> right, i do. and as someone who did -- well, i guess all of us did serve in the obama administration. i still go back to something th

we are going to expose what the obama administration knew about hunter biden and burisma and reveal how it all ties back to the person some have floated as the whistle-blower. our exclusive investigation comes later in the hour. but first the impeachment managers just wrapped their case, it was just a few moments earlier today that set the tone. the democrats tried convincing an impeachment where a nation that the case against the president is open and shut, because they lack essential facts to prove impeachable offenses, they had to resort to the usual. lies.ro that's something the president called out this morning. >> i think the other side has a soul lied, i watch the lies from adam schiff, he's a liar and a

>>host: susan rice of the obama administration in the new york s times writes the aeschylus tory cycle began may 2018 president trump recklessly ignored the advice of his national security teamgnn and the opposition of our allies to unilaterally withdraw from the iran nuclear deal despite the parents to the term. >> what adherence? is she a comedian? that is beyond the pale de-escalation began 1979 when americans were taken hostage for over a year ago that's when the escalation began. the escalation began when qassem soleimani and the unclassified report that he was responsible of the death for at least 603 american servicemen and women in iraq if your viewers see a veteran with missing limbs today and you see somebody who has prosthetics who lost an arm because of an iud in all likelihood the result that iran gave to the munitions to iraq that person now has no d limbs and that's where the escalation began. when i was in the white house the president asked me in the oval office what do we do about theke jcpoa? i said kill it. then secretary of state john kerry said we know more than $

military leaders in the obama administration. these other pre-s decided it was america's best interest to let soleimani live, it would be more dangerous to kill him. so why did this president decide something more different? is taking out soleimani now perceived by the u.s. government to be less risky than they thought it would have been in the past, less dangerous for america than they thought it would have been before, or is it the trump administration still thinks it's just as risky, just as dangerous but this white house just doesn't care as much about that risk in the way past white houses and past presidents have cared? joining us next for the interview is somebody who has considerable experience weighing these kinds of risks for the united states. susan rice was ambassador to the u.n. she's national security advisor in the obama administration. she's our guest for the interview next. guest for the interview next >>> joining us now for the interview is susan rice, ambassador to the u.n. and then national security advisor in

that is the view of the trump administration and the view of the obama administration. there is that resistance in the court cases to the jury station of the courts to address those. i think house managers are missing the point when i identify that position that the administration has taken. because the house cannot claim that they have a mechanism for going to court. they are in court right now asserting that mechanism. simultaneously claimed that while they don't have to bother with that mechanism, they can jump straight to impeachment. impeachment under the constitution is the thermonuclear weapon of interbranch friction. where there is something like a rifle or a bazooka at the house's disposal to address some friction with the executive branch, that is the next step. it is incremental in the constitution, not jumping straight to impeachment that is the solution. if the house could jump straight to impeachment, that would alter the relationship between the branches. it was suggest that the house could make itself superior over the executive. tangled a threat of impe

this is a policy by the obama administration, not accidental 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 speed 23 admitted it shot down the airliner, killing 176 and said, they are upset because of the airliner. 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 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 and protec

since the conclusion of the obama administration, ambassador power has served as a professor of global leadership, public housing human rights at the harvard kennedy school and harvard law school. and last year she published a memoir, the education and idealist which was hailed as one of the 2019 most notable books by the economist, "washington post" and the new times. and let me just say it was a fantastic read. we are so honored ambassador power could be a today for a keynote conversation of the power of progressive national security. so please welcome back to the stage kelly maximum of please help me give a very warm round of applause for ambassador samantha power. [applause] >> thank you all. hope you had a good lunch and could breakout session. ambassador power, welcome. >> glad to be here. >> the first 100 days. you're an astute person of sprint first one of days of administration and all of the rest of the administration as well, so we look forward it to your perspective. first i want to mention your new book, the education of an idealist. there are periods of that i felt like i

government reaction to them than back during the obama administration. kristin: yeah, it really is is. protesters are calling for accountability with some even demanding that the supreme leader step down. rick leventhal tracking this all from our middle east bureau. hey, rick. >> reporter: kristin, days of denial turned to an admission of guilt, iran saying it did shoot down that ukrainian passenger plane, calling it a mistake and a, quote, hasty decision x. now demonstrators who once railed against america is calling on the ayatollah to step aside. and we're seeing some remarkable video from the streets of tehran. a vast majority of protesters avoiding stepping on american and israeli flags on the street. walking on the colors has been promoted by the iranian regime since 1979, but this time the crowd chanted, quote, the u.s. is not our enemy. the demonstrations started as a vigil for 16 iranian students who were on the plane, then chants of death to the dictator, death to the liars. security forces attacked the crowd with tear gas and weapons, and nume

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 p in am 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. question of war -- you remember the tanker war. -- ido and as someone 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? that awful phrase, change their behavior? you have been in any kind of relationship, you know what the effect of saying everything would be fi

under the obama administration, every mud puddle in kentucky have been defined as a navigable stream, therefore, where g a situation farmers would be breaking the law to farm the land that they generations.ny next is tax policy. . we helped cut taxes overall, but one thing that helped agriculture is the accelerated depreciation rule which encouraged farmers to make a bigger investment. and lastly, trade. we have had huge success on the trade front over the past couple weeks here in washington. and i applaud the trump administration for their efforts to not only sign the usmca, which is the new modern nafta deal that puts workers on a level playing field in america with workers in mexico and canada. also enhances agriculture opportunities. but also the phase one trade deal that the president signed recently with china. this focuses on agriculture. it brings back those markets that we lost in agriculture because we were on the frontlines of this trade war. it also increases new markets for agriculture. so i'm very pleased with the achievements that have been made in agriculture, but i r

what they do know, unlike the obama administration, is that this will be an overwhelming response. they knew whatever they did during the obama administration -- remember those ten sailors they took hostage the last day of the union address? what was our response to that? nothing. that happened repeatedly in the obama years. and that's emboldening iranian terrorism and iranian provocations. lou: as we wrap up here, your sense of the reaction in the national media? it is transparentally obvious to everyone that soleimani was evil. he was a leader of a terrorist force. he carried out attacks against u.s. troops. the iranians responsible by some estimates as many of a third as our casualties in iran. and we have democrat office holders, we have the left wing media talking as though there was no lead-up to the decision to remove a targeted terrorist from the planet. >> contrast this to when obama took out osama bin laden, the celebration in the media, the celebration by republicans and democrats. there was no notification of that either. it's just a shame that this trump derangement sy

military leaders in the obama administration. these other presidents decided it was america's best interest to let soleimani live, it would be more dangerous to kill him. so why did this president decide something more different? is taking out soleimani now perceived by the u.s. government to be less risky than they thought it would have been in the past, less dangerous for america than they thought it would have been before, or is it the trump administration still thinks it's just as risky, just as dangerous but this white house just doesn't care as much about that risk in the way past white houses and past presidents have? joining us next for the interview is somebody who has considerable experience weighing these kinds of risks for the united states. susan rice was ambassador to the u.n. she's national security advisor in the obama administration. she's our guest for the interview next. the interview next man: sneezes skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for p

the obama administration released $140 billion which we know in part was used to fund the operations and terrorism commanded by major general soleimani. >> 70,000 us troops in the middle east, 5000 currently in iraq, the iraqi parliament voted to get rid of foreign military. >> the middle east is not a problem we can solve. the president understands that. the metric, the measurement, the yardstick is what are the national interests. his first reaction, his first gut instinct is always how do we bring the boys home? can we bring them home from wherever they are, afghanistan, iraq, the good news is this is a businessman, a pragmatist who understands it is not only not our job to try to change other countries to be reflections of ourselves but it is not feasible in afghanistan or iraq, this is why i wrote my second book, we are there for the same reasons we deployed in october of 2000 want to be sure these territories are never ever again used to execute mass casualties attacks on the soil of the united states or citizens around the world. that is our reason for being there and can be d

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 all of them together in a single negotiation. i don't think the trump argument makes a whole lot of sense. the united states sitting across the table from iran and negotiating the proper role for iran in iraq and syria 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 the 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. and i'll just close by saying, i don't know whether to be -- to see a silver lining in the cloud that the saudis, the em

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

the obama administration is defending it. brian said since this administration pulled out iran resumed all of its nuclear programs and the u.s. is isolated. >> they are their knees to the fact that the protestors are on the streets in rural areas. they are not organized by any force. i will add another thing to this: under no scenario would it be okay for iran to have the funding to support all of their terrorists causes. that's the issue. i called on the president. the president did something important. he called on nato to get iran out of this deal >> we heard from juan about this. you are writing. >> yes, every word you say. >> we heard from juan who thinks it's not a good connection to make between the money we sent and these missiles. >> it's a natural connection. obama gave iran a stack of dead presidency. trump gave them one dead general. that's a good comparison. that's what the united states and iran wanted. look, you have to compare -- i don't compare trump to obama. i compare trump to ben rhoads. i don't think he c

. >> the obama administration or score political points. now the same democrats who stood up and cheered for obama, criticizing trump for going after a known butcher who is responsible for the death of up to 600 u.s. soldiers, reportedly had plans to launch more attacks on the u.s. this is all about politics. but you know the election is still 11 months away. this could all be ancient history by then. the news cycle moves so fast in the trump era. who knows if this will even influence voters by the time election day is here. melissa: it is true. the president's nation to the address, his address to the nation made a lot of points wanting to get out middle east. that we're energy independent, others need to get involved here. will democrats spin their position on that, when they have said, oh the president is getting us into another endless war. said he would get us out. now, looks like he does want to get us out, will they say he is cutting and running? >> probably. today, elizabeth warren said we don't want to go to war with iran. she is r

the obama administration pointed out the conflict of interest over and over and over again, and so did the press until the press decided to defend the house democrat partisan impeachment attack. this has been a sham from the beginning here presidents have the authority to investigate corruption and there was overwhelming -- >> the one to one witness question -- >> a look at the witnesses who will be a one for one or two for two. i sat to this last hour and those most powerful presentation on either side. what it gets at is that the president had every right to look into corruption because he did such a good job of comparing what was overlooked during the obama administration and how thick the bidens were involved. in fact, the main take away from this is i'm sure now, they mentioned the bidens 400 times in the presentation. it's probably the vice president worst nightmare how this has risen to the profile. >> that's what it boils down to, not quid pro quo but the fact he asked for a favor from ukraine. >> did you watch the video of barack obama -- >> barack obama -- issue was today. we

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

it's a misconception that the obama administration -- i worked for the obama administration for five years. three years at the national security council where we did a lot of work on iran. it's a misconception that all we did was diplomacy and engagement. we had a much more sophisticated strategy of sometimes coercion. we put in place the most comprehensive, multilateral sanctions against iran ever in 2010. u.n. security council resolution 1929. but we did so as a predicate to try to get us to a negotiation. and what i see missing from the trump strategy is it's all pressure, restoring deterrence, but it's not achieving concrete national security objectives that make americans safer and better off for us and our partners in the region. >> ambassador michael mcfaul and michael fuchs, thank you both for joining us tonight with this very badly needed analysis as we have hostilitiesccurring with our troops around the world. >>> donald trump is expected to make a statement on iran this morning. we'll be right back with more. stay with us. you're watching msnbc. since my dvt blood clot i w

it is interesting to note that the obama administration withheld $585 million of promised aid to egypt in 2013. but the administration's public message was that the money was not officially on hold as technically it was not due until september 30. the end of the fiscal year.

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

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

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

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

the president obama a lot, comparing with this president to what the obama administration did or did not do, specifically on your run -- iran? guest: i was going to say that the caller's argument sounds very similar to secretary pompeo yesterday making the case for the president's actions toward iran. alladministration says that of the turmoil in the region, all of the de-escalation occurred under the obama administration, but the moment that we enter the iranian nuclear deal was the moment that served as the catalyst for what we're seeing now. that is the argument you're going to continue to hear the president make because just over the past three years of his presidency, he has time and time again positioned himself and cast himself as completely antithetical to the obama administration of foreign policy. he likes to take that and compare it to his america first agenda and i think this is really a moment where we are going to see that played up as is possible. host: how much have you been covering the trump white house? guest: the moment he launched his presidential campaign and he