Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) Was Interviewed About the Ramifications of President Trump's Decision to Take Out Qasem Soleimani and Also Congress' Action on the Articles of Impeachment; Iran Warns U.S. for a Harsh Retaliation; Iranian Ambassador to U.N. Calls Soleimani Killing 'Act of War'; Iran Vows Revenge for Qassem Soleimani's Killing; Dems Worry Airstrike Complicates Impeachment Politics. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 03, 2020 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: This is CNN Tonight. I'm Victor Blackwell sitting in for Don Lemon.

And we have major developments at this hour as tensions heat up between the United States and Iran over the killing of top general Qasem Soleimani. The reports of deadly air strike near Baghdad targeted a convoy of paramilitary forces that is backed by Iran.

Now CNN has not confirmed reports and there's been no claim of responsibility so far.

But we know that President Trump is defending his decision ordering the Pentagon to take out the top Iranian commander. His telling supporters in Miami tonight that Soleimani was plotting to kill Americans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He was planning a very major attack and we got him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: We're covering every aspect of this story from Iraq to here at home. Jomana Karadsheh is in Baghdad. Nic Robertson is in Saudi Arabia's capital of Riyadh, and Boris Sanchez is with the president in Florida.

Jomana, we're going to start with you about these new air strikes on the Iranian-backed forces in Iraq. What can you tell us, is anyone claiming responsibility? Any confirmation?

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Victor, so far, we have very little information. We don't have independent verification of this alleged air strike. What we do know is that the Popular Mobilization units that umbrella group that is made up of the Iranian- backed Shia militias, they put out a statement saying that one of their convoys was targeted in an air strike north of Baghdad early hours Saturday just after a few hours ago.

They say that none of their senior leadership, no top leaders were in that convoy, that it was a medical unit and there are a number of casualties, dead and wounded.

Now there's no indication, no confirmation at this point that the U.S. military was involved in this air strike. Certainly, the Popular Mobilization units haven't even pointed the finger at the United States right now. But the situation is so tense. Everyone is on edge. There is this anticipation of further escalation here in Iraq, Victor.

BLACKWELL: Boris, to you in south Florida, what are you learning about the time line of how all this came together?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Victor. So, we've heard from sources about exactly what took place over the last few days this plan to attack Soleimani really solidifying on Tuesday the president holding a meeting at Mar-a-Lago with top advisers with military brass, as well as with a number of friendly lawmakers on hand as well.

Apparently, there was a very frank debate and the president heard some opposing views. He got some push back specifically about what retaliation from Iran might entail and further what his strategy more broadly speaking is in the Middle East.

We're told by people close to the president that he was adamant even when confronted with the harsh realities of what a war with Iran would look like. The president wanted this to happen. He felt that it really was a message that had to be sent to Iran about their escalations.

The president today saying as much to reporters, effectively saying that it should have been done a long time ago and that he's not trying to start a war but rather prevent one. Victor?

BLACKWELL: Nic, to you, the secretary general of Hezbollah he came out tonight and condemn the killing of Soleimani and he said that there would be consequences. I wonder if the framework of what will be Iran's response is the wrong one if instead this will be a peppering of attacks. And what does it mean for the U.S. in the region?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think it goes beyond the region as well. If we go back, Victor, and look at what happened after the U.S. -- after the USS Vincennes back in 1988 in the Persian Gulf accidently shot down an Iranian passenger aircraft. More than 200 people were killed on board from that.

The follow-on response from that included the Iranians waiting nine months and trying to kill the captain of the USS Vincennes when he back home in the United States. The pipe bomb that went off under his wife's minivan didn't harm her. But it shows that the Iranians will in a situation like this try to reach beyond the region as well in some sort of attack.

You know, soft targets, generals at home, for example, that sort of thing. That's what they have a track record of doing. Undoubtedly, their proxies like Hezbollah will take it into their hands to try to attack U.S. interests and U.S. targets in the region and in proximity to them.

[23:05:06]

So, a peppering of attacks in the region is quite possible. But there will be Iran we can believe will try to have a strategic goal here. And for them they will likely believe that they're better off with a Democrat in the White House than a Republican which would indicate that they would try to undermine President Trump. That their actions would try to reveal President Trump's decision to kill Soleimani to be the wrong decision.

BLACKWELL: None of this happens in a vacuum. Jomana, the secretary of state today referenced Iraqis dancing in the street. I wonder if that -- and we saw the video, if that is representative of the larger reaction across at least Baghdad or the country to the announcement of the death of General Soleimani.

KARADSHEH: No, Victor, I don't think it's very reflective of the reaction here. That seems to have been a spontaneous sort of celebration. A very small one. Limited to one area in Baghdad it seems. We certainly haven't seen people celebrating on the streets here.

There are some who are definitely happy to see Qasem Soleimani gone. But overall, the feeling here people are terrified, Victor. They are really concerned about where this is all headed. What happens next. They are very concerned about their country's future.

There's so much anger that the fact Iraqis once again being turned into an arena for international and regional powers to be settling scores here. There's mounting pressure on the Iraqi political leadership to act here. The government that has been seen as so weak especially in recent months.

They are under pressure to stand up to the United States. They're caught between two allies, between Iran and the U.S. And so many people here especially when it comes to these powerful Iranian-backed Shia militias they want to see this government standing up to the United States and also, they want them to reassess Iraq's relationship with the U.S.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

KARADSHEH: They want them to also reassess the presence of U.S. forces here. Something that we might be seeing discussed in the Iraqi parliament on Sunday during that extraordinary session they'll be holding, Victor.

BLACKWELL: And Boris, what is the president saying -- I mean, of course, we'll hear from the Iraqis on Sunday as Jomana said. But what is the president saying about the next steps and the possible retaliation that the U.S. is expecting in the region.

SANCHEZ: Well, it's quite interesting, Victor. Today during that session with reporters, the president seemed a little bit subdued. We're hearing from sources that he is well aware of the gravity of the situation of the wide number of options that Iran has in terms of response to this strike.

The president uncertain about how they may respond. Though he did make something clear, the president saying that the U.S. military is prepared for anything that their readiness is all-time high. The president saying, he is ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect Americans.

Obviously, this is something that he pushed for, as I noted before despite some opposition. So, he is ready for a conflict if it amounts to that, Victor.

BLACKWELL: But we know, Nic, that the president according to his national security adviser, is willing to talk. Willing to have conversations with Rouhani, President Rouhani without preconditions. Is that plausible? Do you think the Iranians are in any mood to have a conversation with President Trump now?

ROBERTSON: Yes. That idea that President Trump could get into conversation with senior Iranian leadership, President Rouhani, it really sort of, got some momentum back in the end of the summer at the G7 summit in Biarritz in France. There was a sense that was the UNGA in New York that there could be communication, direct communication if not face-to-face between President Trump and President Rouhani.

You know, Biarritz, Paris was the last time -- Biarritz and of course, UNGA year was the last time there really was this opportunity where you had Iranian leadership in close proximity to President Trump where you could perhaps engineer a meeting or that close communication after the UNGA in September last year.

There hasn't really been a natural venue for that to occur. So put that to one side, the killing of Qasem Soleimani, it seems in that light it's so unlikely that the Iranians would get anywhere close to discussing anything with President Trump, in particular because Rouhani turned down a meeting at the UNGA with President Trump based on the fact that the president hadn't given in to Iranian demands to take all sanctions off Iran or take a number of sanctions off of Iran.

[23:10:07]

At the moment we don't realistically seem to be in a framework where we're going -- it's going to result in talks any time soon. I think Iran is going to want to get revenge and be seen to taking revenge for Soleimani's death before there could even be thoughts about a conversation. It seems such a remote idea at the moment.

BLACKWELL: All right. Nic, Jomana, Boris, thank you, all.

Now let's bring in Congressman Gregory Meeks, he is a New York Democrat on House foreign affairs. Congressman, thanks for being with us tonight.

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Good to be with you, Victor.

BLACKWELL: President Trump today said that he took out Soleimani to prevent a war not to start one. What do you say?

MEEKS: Well, then he said he's got to send 2,000 or 3,000 troops there. Then we've got to have people all over the world just about that trying to wait to see what the next move is. By doing the strike that he did does not end the military that Iran has had and their actions there. They simply replace someone there.

But now the American people are not as safe. American assets and individuals where both civilian and military are not safe. And if you just listen to the words of the members of the administration that's clear. Because they're looking for it and know there could be and will be some kind of retaliation. And they're trying to prepare for it and seems to me escalating the scenario.

So, to say that we are safer now when we didn't have to send the troops in and do everything just seems to be ridiculous on part of this president.

BLACKWELL: We've heard from the president and members of the administration that there was an imminent planning of an attack. That something that was in the near future. Chairman of the joint chief of staff, General Milley says that there was clear evidence -- and I wrote it down here -- of planning a significant campaign of violence against the U.S. Do you have any reason to doubt him?

MEEKS: Well, I've got reason to doubt the entire Trump administration.

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKWELL: Let me ask you specifically about the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

MEEKS: Well, I would have -- yes, I have reason to doubt. I would like to know and see for myself. You know, I was in Congress when I was told that there was mass, weapons of mass destruction in Iran. And we had individuals that came before our committee. I had to then go and went to the Pentagon to get other information and talk to individuals.

So, I would like to see and like to talk, as a member of Congress, that is my responsibility. That's why the president of the United States had information should have come to Congress. At the least with the big eight. It seems to me that this president what he did was he made sure that there was no one else in the room as far as the big eight and members of Congress from the House, particularly who happen to be Democrat.

So, what are you hiding is what I want to know. Because this is the most serious part of my job. When we put and risk the life and limb of our young men and women that's in the United States military. BLACKWELL: Let me ask you about the justification for not coming to

the gang of eight. House and Senate leadership and then the leaders of the foreign affairs and relations committees in the House and Senate.

Lawyers from the White House, from Department of Justice, and Department of Defense according to a senior official say that they didn't need to come to Congress to get clearance because this was an imminent attack. And as Soleimani has been identified as a terrorist under article two powers that he doesn't need to come to the gang of eight. You say to that justification what?

MEEKS: Well, if there was an imminent attack, still it requires him to meet with Congress or the leadership in Congress within 48 hours.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

MEEKS: That has not occurred yet. S even if it was, he should have called in all of the big eight and the leadership both the Senate and the House within 48 hours. There's no getting around that.

And so, it seems to me and I want to get to Washington. He could have called us back into session or call us back to say we want to have a classified session.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

MEEKS: To give us and inform us what the evidence was.

BLACKWELL: But if you say there's no -- there's no getting around it, are you questioning the legality of it? Do you believe that the strike was illegal?

MEEKS: Well, possibly. And that's why I've got to get the information. It seems to me that that's important because it can make a determination as to whether there was an assassination or whether or not it was some legitimacy.

And we were not engaged in military war with Iran previously. So, if we're going to do this kind of attack that is in fact engaging in essence saying that we could be going to war. That's what I hear the president saying. Then I see that there is a responsibility on his part to come to get an authorization of the utilization of military force.

[23:15:01]

BLACKWELL: What's your degree of confidence that this administration has put this killing of Soleimani in a larger strategy to deal with Iran and with the region at large.

MEEKS: I have not seen any strategy on behalf of the president. That's what bothers me. You know, I'm from New York, he's always just shooting off at the mouth. It is this president who says that he knows more than the military. He knows more than our intelligence agencies and more than the generals. That he can do this all by himself. That's why I would like to know who was in the room and who was

opposed to it. And I would like to question and talk to the general that just made a statement so that I can make sure that I know how and what this president may or may not have done.

It is, you know, we already know that this president he flip-flops all over the place. The Washington Post has already documented that he's lied over 10,000 times.

BLACKWELL: Fifteen thousand four hundred thirteen.

MEEKS: So how can I just have a level of comfort? I need to be -- there's got to be corroborating evidence just coming from some place. And you know, even when you see the whole piece of hiding information and not being forthwith even with reference to impeachment.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

MEEKS: Now I'm going to take his word on this? No.

BLACKWELL: Let me ask you about the overlap here. The Washington Post is reporting that there's some House Democrats who are bit skittish now about sending over the articles of impeachment considering what's now on the table with Iran. Are you one of them?

MEEKS: No. I think that what we want to do is to still find out what with McConnell what the procedures will be and so that -- and have witnesses that come in that has to testify. Same as what happened with the Clinton impeachment process.

BLACKWELL: Right.

MEEKS: Just as Senator Schumer talked about. So, no. We're not going to have a wag the dog here. Because I hope, I truly hope that this is not part of trying to change the dialogue about impeachment.

BLACKWELL: All right.

MEEKS: And we're not going to give that up.

BLACKWELL: Congressman Gregory Meeks, thanks so much for being with us.

MEEKS: OK.

BLACKWELL: Iran's ambassador to the U.N. is calling the killing of General Qasem Soleimani an act of war and tells CNN that there will be revenge. Hear more from his interview from Erin Burnett, next.

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Tonight, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations calls the killing of the top general in Iran, Qasem Soleimani at the hands of the United States an act of war. And he vows his country will not remain silent and there will be what he calls harsh revenge.

Ambassador Majid Ravanchi spoke tonight with CNN's Erin Burnett.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your time tonight.

MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Pleasure.

BURNETT: With these sudden developments, obviously, the entire world is focused on this story. When you look at what happened here, was this a declaration of war?

RAVANCHI: In fact, it was an act of war on the part of the United States against the Iranian people. The U.S. started an economic war against the Iranian people back in May 2018. Then the President Trump decided to withdraw from the JCPOA, the nuclear deal.

And they started the maximum pressure policy against the Iranians putting lots of economic pressure on Iran. And they have continued until today.

Last night they opened a new chapter and the attack against the Iranians by assassinating one of our most beloved generals who is popular. Not only in Iran but also in the countries in the region. So that was, as I said, a new chapter which is tantamount to opening a war against Iran.

BURNETT: So, you say it's tantamount to opening a war against Iran. President Trump today said, his words, we took action to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war. What do you say to President Trump, Mr. Ambassador?

RAVANCHI: I do not -- I do not believe that the U.S. took an action to stop a war because the assassination of -- the plan for the assassination of General Soleimani was in the making for quite some time.

John Bolton the former national security adviser tweeted last night that it was in the making. So, it is not acceptable to agree to what the administration is saying that they had enough evidence as they put it that General Soleimani was planning to attack U.S. citizens.

BURNETT: Because you say this had been in the works for quite some time.

RAVANCHI: This has been for quite some time in the plan.

BURNETT: So, Secretary of State Pompeo on that front says General Soleimani was plotting an imminent attack on Americans. That was his word - imminent. So, can you categorially say --

(CROSSTALK) RAVANCHI: Definitely it is rejected. If they have evidence, they

should show it. They show provide the evidence. I'm sure that they do not have any evidence that can be proven in a court.

BURNETT: So, President Trump says he's not looking for regime change in Iran. He also said that today. Do you believe him on that? Obviously, John Bolton, the former national security adviser said the opposite as he has said many times before. But when President Trump says this is not about regime change, is he telling the truth?

RAVANCHI: What matters is the U.S. deeds not the words. What they are doing against the Iranians are exactly to put lots of pressure on the Iranian people to stand up. And that is -- that is contravention of U.S. obligations based on international law.

BURNETT: So, when you say tantamount to war, an act of war, the words that you used, Ambassador Ravanchi, the supreme leader of Iran today said vowed severe revenge. And his other words were a harsh retaliation to what he calls the criminals who perpetrated this attack, the Americans.

[23:25:07]

So, what does that mean? If you're going to have revenge, retaliation to an act of war. Is that a war?

RAVANCHI: As I said, the U.S. has already started the war against Iran, not only economic war but something beyond that by assassinating one of our general who is being mourned by people in Iran and in the region.

So, we cannot just close our eyes to what happened last night. Definitely there will be a revenge. There will be a harsh revenge. Iran will act based on its own choosing. And the time the place it will decided by Iranian -- by Iran.

BURNETT: So, I want to ask you about that. Because when this happened last night President Trump did not say that he was targeting someone else and General Soleimani happened to be there. He said it was him. And we targeted him and we killed him. There were no proxies. There was no excuse making. He owned it. Will Iran's response be the same way? That Iran targets the United States?

RAVANCHI: I'm not in a position to go into the detail of what's going to happen when we're going to act in the revenge. But what I can tell you is that by targeting one of our top generals in contravention of U.S. obligations using the air space of the continent country Iraq.

BURNETT: Yes.

RAVANCHI: A sovereign country. Then the president -- I'm sorry -- the prime minister of that country has condemned this act of aggression by the U.S. I mean, they should -- they should expect anything as a result of this aggression.

BURNETT: So, General Soleimani was one of the most powerful people in your country as you have just referred to, Mr. Ambassador. And it's hard to overstate his influence for people to understand.

Americans can understand though what the reaction would be if someone that influential were killed here or killed in another country. But someone who was let's say the chief of the CIA, the defense secretary or even a vice president. Does this death change the game completely between Iran and the United States?

RAVANCHI: It has a, I can say it has given a blow to any attempt. That might be considered as a possible dialogue between the two countries. It seems to us and it is our belief that this administration does not believe in dialogue. They want to put lots of pressure on Iran to agree to an American dictator. So that is not acceptable to us.

The way that they acted last night showed once more that this administration is eager to use whatever it takes to attack Iran to put pressure on the Iranian people.

BURNETT: To the definition of the word war, when you said it's an act of war you also said that the war has been going on for quite some time. That it started with economic sanctions and the United States ending the Iranian nuclear deal. Is this going to become a different sort of war? A shooting war for lack of a better word?

RAVANCHI: As I said, the U.S. started economic war in May 2018. Last night they started a military war by assassinating -- by an act of terror against one of our top generals. So, what else can we expect Iran to do? We cannot just remain silent. We have -- we have to act and we will act.

BURNETT: And you have to act militarily?

RAVANCHI: The response for a military action is a military action. I mean, by whom, by, you know, when and where, that is -- that is for the future to witness.

BURNETT; All right. Ambassador Ravanchi, thank you very much for your time tonight.

RAVANCHI: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: That was CNN's Erin Burnett interviewing Iran's ambassador to the U.N. He's calling the strike as you heard against General Soleimani an act of war.

We have a lot to talk about with Max Boot and Nick Kristof, next.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Iran's ambassador to the United Nation calls the killing of Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani, an act of war. He says the response for a military action is a military action. Joining me now are Max Boot and Nick Kristof. Max, first to you. You heard the interview. You watched it as we sat here. What would be if they're looking for a proportionate response -- we don't know if they want to escalate -- what would be proportionate to killing someone of that stature in Iran?

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Obviously, killing a senior U.S. official, which I certainly would not take that off the table as a possible Iranian response, all of them were like responses, would be in the region itself. We have more than 60,000 troops. We have diplomatic missions. We have civilians all over the place all across the Middle East.

The Iranians are a very capable adversary. They have hundreds of thousands of militia fighters they can call upon. They have thousands of missiles. Remember, in September, they used cruise missiles to disable a major Saudi oil facility. They could just as easily use those cruise missiles against any U.S. military or diplomatic outpost in the region.

[23:35:02]

BOOT: And so there is a lot of risk of escalation here. Trump is gambling obviously that by killing General Soleimani, he will deter Iran from further action. And Secretary Pompeo said today, make Americans safer. That is certainly one possible outcome.

But I think there's a huge risk that the Iranians will in fact be goaded into retaliation. They will actually wind up killing more Americans and then the U.S. will be put on the spot of having to escalate further. You know, this is how wars start, unfortunately.

BLACKWELL: What are you expecting to see?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: I agree with Max. I think there are going to be -- there is going to be targeting of U.S. bases in the region and probably U.S. embassies or consulates in the region. Iraq is obviously a major potential target. U.S. presence in Lebanon and Afghanistan are all pretty easy.

I think it would be harder to hit a senior U.S. official. But in addition, there can be cyberattacks on the U.S. Iran has a pretty impressive cyber capacity. One of the advantages of cyberattacks or other attacks on U.S. economic targets is that there is implausible deniability. And I think that Iran would like to inflict damage that everybody thinks is coming from Tehran, but is not obviously so.

BLACKWELL: I will talk more about all that in just a minute. We know this president has a credibility problem as we have discussed, but he is asking the country and the world to trust him. We'll talk about how this could play out, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: The Pentagon is ordering thousands of additional troops to the Middle East as Iran tonight vows revenge for the U.S. strike, killing one of its top generals.

Back with me now are Max Boot and Nick Kristof. Max, let's first talk about this credibility problem that the president has, that the administration has. This is a moment in which the country needs to trust the president because there are some things that he likely will not disclose. What's the importance of that gap that we see now?

BOOT: Now, you are seeing the cost of having a president who is a pathological liar, who has uttered over 14,000 falsehoods since coming to office. It's impossible to believe anything that he says. But as you suggested, Victor, this is a moment where it is imperative that you believe the commander in chief because, in fact, he does have access to top secret intelligence that the rest of us don't have.

And you saw the credibility gap on display today where Mike Pompeo was saying there was an imminent threat against U.S. personnel and interest in the region and that's what justified the strike on General Soleimani.

A lot of people, I think, are quite properly skeptical and in fact, you heard a different story coming from the Department of Defense with officials there saying, well, it was a more general deterrence type strike where it wasn't an imminent threat per se.

We don't know what the truth is. But at the end of the day, it is hard to take the administration at its words and that really undermines their ability to generate support either at home or abroad for this kind of risky military action.

BLACKWELL: And this would be a great time to turn the cameras on in the White House briefing room to get Stephanie Grisham --

BOOT: We need an explanation.

BLACKWELL: -- to answer some questions.

BOOT: We need an explanation. We need more than a brief statement the president gave or a few tweets. We need to have the president and his spokespeople talk to the nation, take questions, and really tell people where we're going. And we're not getting that.

BLACKWELL: The president did a bit of a 180 today on intelligence officers, saying now that he has, quote, "the best intelligence." That's a very different opinion of the Intelligence Community than what we have heard from this president.

KRISTOF: That's a reversal. In a larger sense, it's not just his credibility gap. It's not just the reversal. It's not just these history 15,000 false statements. It's this assumption that the other side doesn't get to move as well. And so repeatedly, President Trump is taking action in Iran and other countries. In expectation, you end the nuclear deal and you think Iran is going to come crawling back and ask for it to be renegotiated. You kill 25 pro-Iranians and you think Iran is likewise going to be deterred. Instead, they support attack on U.S. embassy. And I think likewise he appears to have thought that attacking Soleimani would deter Iran when every expert on Iran believes it will be the opposite.

It just reminds me of the run up to the Iraq war in 2003 when there were so many people who argued Saddam is bad guy. Therefore, we are better off if we just take him out -- model is Hitler in 1938 -- without understanding that somebody can be a bad guy and the cost of removing them can be trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, vast numbers of Iraqi lives. And I hope we're not making a similar mistake of the escalation again.

BLACKWELL: Nick, let me stay with you for this because, you know, there's a tweet for everything in the administration. This one though comes with some video from social media. This is Donald Trump private citizen then back in 2011, speaking about then President Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get re-elected -- and as sure as you're sitting there -- is start a war with Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Now, let's put up the tweets because the president also several times claimed that President Obama would start a war with Iran to get re-elected. This time, there are three tweets for this and a video. What role does this play here? Is this inconvenient or are we learning more about the president?

[23:44:57]

KRISTOF: Look, I'm reluctant to ascribe political motivations to President Trump in this case. But I think everybody knows that President Trump has habit of imputing to others motivations that he seems to have himself.

And so everybody looks at these tweets from 2011, 2012 accusing President Obama of trying to foster a war for political reasons. And of course, everybody is wondering whether this is simply a reflection of how he thinks.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. Max, what do you think?

BOOT: I think that's a legitimate concern. I mean, because clearly whether intended or not, the consequences of the strike is at least for a few days to take attention away from impeachment and on to something else. And so, you know, Trump can claim credit for killing this evil mastermind. But I think the larger question here, Victor, is does he have an endgame? We know he has tactics. We know he can impose sanctions. We know he can kill General Soleimani. The question is: What is the objective that he is pursuing? He seems to want a massive change in Iranian behavior. He seems to think that if he keeps ratcheting up the pressure, the Iranians will cave.

Well, I would remind viewers that in 1980s, the Iranians lost something half a million men fighting Iraq and it didn't cave. So, I would not be so confident they will cave under this pressure. He needs to have a diplomatic off ramp for the Iranians before we wind up in a major war. And we just don't see that diplomatic off ramp right now.

BLACKWELL: The president promised that he would not send troops into battle without a plan for capital V, victory. It is time to answer some questions about what's next after this killing of Soleimani. Max Boot, Nick Kristof, thank you both.

Congress returns to Washington. But with this major foreign policy crisis going on, what happens to the Senate impeachment inquiry?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: The battle over the Senate impeachment trial is heating up again as lawmakers return to Capitol Hill. But will the foreign policy crisis over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iran's top general complicate the impeachment trial?

With us now to talk are Juliette Kayyem and Renato Mariotti. Good evening to both of you. Renato, let me start with you. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are back in Washington today, fighting over the impeachment trial. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Let me clarify Senate rules and Senate history for those who may be confused. First, about this fantasy that the speaker of the House will get to hand-design the trial proceedings in the Senate, that's obviously a non-starter.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Leader McConnell has been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. Leader McConnell reminds us today and in previous days that rather than acting like a judge and a juror, he intends to act as the executioner of a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Renato, who's right?

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think in a certain way, they both are. I actually think that McConnell is right that the Senate is going to decide what the trial is. I don't particularly like McConnell's desire not to hear from witnesses and how unfair he's going to make things. But in the end, the senators are going to vote, you know, and their 51 votes are going to carry the day as to rules.

But Schumer is absolutely right that McConnell is not setting up a fair process. He's not even trying to create the appearance of being fair, of listening to witnesses. You know, we already know, I think, how Senate Republicans are going to vote.

But the very least they could do is, you know, have a respectful process that takes into account the witnesses and the evidence that are there and there's very substantial evidence, I'd say overwhelming evidence of Trump's wrongdoing here.

BLACKWELL: So they will vote. The question is when. In December of '98, President Clinton launched a strike on Iraq after a U.N. report that Saddam Hussein was blocking WMD inspections. Let's go in the "way back machine" with a clip from CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now, this surreal intersection of international policy and domestic politics continued tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An impending impeachment vote in the House. American military forces ordered into action. The question is: What concerns this president most at this late hour of the evening?

KING: Bernie (ph), the president has retired to the White House residence. Aides here say his focus is on the military operation, that he is receiving periodic updates, but we also know that throughout the day he did speak with his political advisers about impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: So, Juliette, those strikes ended up delaying the impeachment vote in the House. I mean, if this conflict with Iran escalates, what could this mean for the Trump impeachment trial as it moves to the Senate?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I think what you're seeing from the Trump White House is its inability to separate the impeachment proceedings from everything else because that's because Donald Trump is tweeting about the impeachment proceedings while there is an international crisis or while there is other news.

And so I don't think you're going to see much of a delay. I honestly believe that. First of all, we don't know what Iran is going to do in response. It may be a very delayed response. As we saw with the Clinton impeachment, we go on with impeachment even if there are military strikes or other foreign affairs issues. And I think what's important to remember is that in some ways, I think they're the same story.

BLACKWELL: Hmm.

KAYYEM: In many ways, you know, I've been on air the last 24 hours talking about Iran and about this sort of -- I think the sort of carelessness. Even if you believe that this was the right thing to do, the sort of lack of looking at consequences, the foreign intervention, the sort of disrespect for other branches of government, the lying, all of it sort of the same story.

[23:54:56]

KAYYEM: And I think if Democrats want to sort of weave these two different lanes, they should think about these common narratives, about the way that this president governs, which is essentially falsehoods. And so you can get into the little nitty-gritty details about the impeachment proceedings, but ultimately it's about respect for the office and the respect for the Constitution and honestly respect for us, which I think is lacking in both arenas, in both the foreign and the domestic affairs arenas.

BLACKWELL: So Renato, The Washington Post is reporting tonight the Democrats could submit articles of impeachment to the Senate within days. Right move?

MARIOTTI: Yeah. You know, frankly, they may want to submit that during this crisis. Frankly, the White House, you know, I think has to be concerned about the fact that the president is, you know, certainly been irregular in the way he has handled this operation. It may change, you know, change some votes from senators. It's a political process and frankly, the senators are going to take that into account.

BLACKWELL: Renato, Juliette, thank you both. And thank you for watching. Our live coverage continues right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)