John bolton says hes willing to testify in President Trumps impeachment trial if he is subpoenaed by the senate. Bolton was a closed a visor to the president. And hes a firsthand witness with the ukraine timeline. Mitch mcconnell will now face increased pressure from democrats to call witnesses in the trial. Joining us is carol lee and hans nichols informal carol, why did bolton make this announcement now and whats changed . Well, if you look at his statement, steph, hes basically saying that he wrestled with this issue of whether he was under obligation to listen to the white house that told him not to testify or congress which was compelling him to testify or was planned to compel him to testify. And came down on the side of congress that he should appear before the senate trial and testify to what he knows if he is subpoenaed. That is a big shift in the sense that he had said prior to this he would want a court to decide and whats bolton saying in his statement is that given the timing of the senate trial that there would not be enough time for a court to weigh in on this issue, so he looked into it himself, and he believes that he should testify, and ill read you part of his statement thats most significant. It says since my testimony is once again at issue, i have had to resolve serious competing issues as best i could based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that if the Senate Issues a subpoena for my testimony, i am prepared to testify. Thats a significant shift. And this is for all the reasons you just said. He knows everything. This is someone that the white house has been concerned about testifying or and saying publicly what he knows. And its a really big deal in development in the impeachment inquiry. So we need to know if hes actually going to be subpoenaed. But john bolton is a lifetime republican. Why do democrats feel confident hed be a winning witness for him. In the last few days hes happy with how the president is dealing with iran. Absolutely. And if you talk to democrats, i think what theyve said is that they think the truth and the facts are on their side in terms of making the case against the president , and that john bolton, you know, whether hes a republican or democrat, it doesnt matter because hes been a witness to significant events that could impugn the president. And so thats the democrats argument, but youre right in that john bolton is not suddenly a fan of democrats and their impeachment inquiry. He has obviously bipartisan a been a long time republican. Hes saying hes willing to testify at a time when hes been very much in agreement with the president s latest moves on iran. And also we should add he also has a lot of favor with senate republicans, his superpac is raising money for a number of them for their campaigns, and hes endorsed them. Its not necessarily a clear shot for democrats, and he will obviously be preparing for a republicanled body, but the democrats have said that they think hes of value because the facts are of value, and the facts peek for themselves. If he tells the truth, thats all they need. Hans, what does the white house know about this, and what are they doing about it . They did not have advanced warning. Theyre trying to formulate a response. The initial reaction seems to be that they dont want this, and you can see why its in their interest to change the trajectory of this case. For those inside the administration arguing for a short trial and get it over with quickly, they got a little am kn you in addition ammunition. If pelosi keeps the articles of impeachment and doesnt transmit them to senate, its an opportunity for things to drip out. I spoke to an official who said the houses job was to gather the evidence. Its the senates job to rule on the evidence. That doesnt change anything. It doesnt give the Senate Another bite at what the house has gathered. Thats the white houses view. Right . And there are political pressures and forces at play here. I think the calls that need to be made are Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins. All the republicans who are vulnerable in the senate who may feel pressure to say actually, lets go ahead and have some witnesses. Remember, you need about 51 votes last time i checked to actually have witnesses before the senate. If those senators put pressure on Mitch Mcconnell to have some witnesses, then this impeachment has fundamentally changed and that is that theres going to be evidence gathered in the senate, and from crucial players that could have a lot to say about what actually happened. Carol, what do you think Mitch Mcconnell does about this . Saying that you want to testify or youre willing to testify in this world, first of all, over phenomenon they tell you to testify in this world, people dont show up. Saying you want to testify doesnt mean the guy in charge of making that decision will call you. To hanss point, if two or three of the senators say, if theres a witness wed like to hear from them, that may influence Mitch Mcconnell, but ultimately, is this Mitch Mcconnells choice or can that decision be made for him . Well, we know Mitch Mcconnell weighs political pressures of his republican members very carefully. He keeps close tabs on this and he doesnt make decisions that he doesnt think are good for his republican senators. And we know that john bolton called senator mcconnell before nbc news was first to report that he was willing to testify. He did not reach him, but left a message with him. So he at least wanted to convey that to senator mcconnell before it went publicly. But thats the big question. And one of the things to watch for is what the white houses view of this is. That and senator mcconnell has said, hes coordinating closely with the white house as they approach this trial, and the white houses view on whether or not to subpoena john bolton could influence how mcconnell comes down on this issue. Its going to be an interesting thing to watch. Carol, thank you. Hans nichols, thank you as well. Well continue to follow this. Joining us now, democratic senator from new york, kirsten gillibrand. She serves on the Armed Services committee. Thank you for joining us. Weve got to start with john bolton. He said he will testify if theed by the senate. Does that put pressure on Speaker Pelosi to send over the articles of impeachment . I dont think it puts pressure on Speaker Pelosi. She will make a decision when she thinks its appropriate based on the circumstances. I do think it puts pressure on senator mcconnell, because if those impeachment articles do come to the senate, and when they come to the senate, we have a willing witness to has relevant information who has asked and is available to testify. And so that puts pressure on republicans, the mcconnell to allow us to call witnesses. We certainly would like to hear from bolton, mulvaney, others like giuliani as well and pompeo. So i think it puts pressure on him. And why do you think that john bolton would be a witness that would help democrats case . Hes a lifetime republican, and im guessing has a better relationship with Mitch Mcconnell than he does with nancy pelosi. I dont think this proceeding is supposed to or has to be political. We have a constitutional duty to review the facts, and to decide whether or not these crimes have been committed. And even though mr. Bolton is a registered republican, i suspect he also believes he has a responsibility to the country and the constitution to tell the truth, and if he has relevant information about this solicitation of a bribe by the ukrainian leader in exchange for the congressional resources that were supposed to be provided, i think perhaps he wants to be an american first. And we have heard certainly from the testimony of fiona hill he has strong feelings about this. Lindsey graham told fox news if spo Speaker Pelosi doesnt send the articles of impeachment soon, hes urging them to change the rules so the senate can hold the trial without the articles of impeachment. Something mcconnell said last week the constitution doesnt allow for. What are you hearing about this, and what do you think of it . I think its an odd suggestion by lindsey. I think senator mcconnell has been clear that he intends to proceed to a trial when he receives the articles of impeachment from the house. I dont imagine senator mcconnell would change the rules for this new suggestion by lindsey graham. Lets turn to the crisis growing overseas. What would an expulsion of american troops from iraq mean for u. S. Policy in the region . U. S. Doesnt have to listen. It was a procedural vote, really. Were in iraq explicitly to help to defeat isis. We were asked why the Iraqi Government several years ago to do joint missions and to train the iraqi forces to they can defeat terrorism in the region. So if the iraqis no longer want us to coordinate our efforts to defeat isis, i think thats problematic. Theres no reason that we have to have troops in iraq, but what President Trump done is lead recklessly. His Foreign Policy does not have a strategic vision. He no longer consults or works with our allies. He seeps to make decisions on a whim. Its making us much less safe. And the only person or people that are benefitting from this chaos is isis. Let me ask you about the war powers of reform resolution you introduced. You and others in this country are concerned about misusing the authorization for the use of military force in a way that gets us into wars and gets us away from missions. Is this the kind of thing you were worried about, this kind of action that doesnt seem to have there may be lots of opinions of whether america should have killed soleimani. They have the chance in the past. The reason i introduced this war powers resolution reform bill is because we have used the aomf past in 2001 and 2002 to go into 20 countries, to have multiple missions against multiple adversaries. Some of which didnt exist in 2001. I think weve had three president s who have used the authorizations to engage in military action. I would like to change the war powers resolution so that congress can regain its authority under the constitution to declare war. I would like a president to be limited to a twoyear time period to be able to name the country and name the enemy that he or she is fighting. And have the authority back in congresss hands to withdraw funds should the president abuse that authority. We do not need forever an e endless war. Thats what we have today. I dont think President Trump has the authority to declare war on iran. I will support senator canes resoluti resolution. It allows congress to make the decision of whether or not we go to war with iran. Thank you for joining us. And of course that begs the question, are we closer to war with iran . Were going to look at the u. S. Strategy in the region as hundreds of thousands of iranians come out for soleimanis funeral. Well look at new details on why the president ordered his killing and whether or not it was justified by law. Youre watching velshi and ruhle. If you use it on monday, by thursday, youll be enjoying that Chocolate Ice Cream again. They can start it, and 3 days later, i know that theyre going to have the results they were looking for. Iand i dont add up the years. But what i do count on is boost high protein. And now, introducing new boost mobility with collagen for joint health. When taken daily, its key nutrients help support joints, muscles, and strong bones. New, boost mobility. Here, it all starts withello hi . How can i help . A data plan for everyone. Everyone . Everyone. Lets send to everyone wifi up there . Uhh. Sure, why not . Howd he get out . a camera might figure it out. That was easy glad i could help. At xfinity, were here to make life simple. Easy. Awesome. So come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. Welcome back to velshi and ruhle. Were watching major developments in iraq as the u. S. Ambassador has been called in to meet with the Iraqi Foreign minister. This follows a vote by iraqi lawmakers in favor of a symbolic resolution to expel u. S. Troops from iraq. Now, that came in response to the death of irans top general who was killed in a u. S. Iraq in baghdad last week. Meanwhile the ayatollah wept and prayed over soleimanis coffin today. The leaders funeral drew hundreds of thousands of mourners into the streets of tehran. The iranian government announced it is suspending the commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal and will no longer abide by the final restrictions under uranium enrichment. Joins us is Richard Engel with iraq. Is this a different strategy on irans part . Before a week ago were they still adhering to and respecting the Nuclear Agreement . Reporter so lets start with the Nuclear Agreement and then theres some new developments about that meeting between the iraqi Prime Minister and the u. S. Ambassador here. So first on the Nuclear Agreement, the u. S. Obviously President Trump first pulled out of the Nuclear Agreement. It was the United States that broke the Nuclear Agreement, and then iran has been trying to sort of abide by it, and not abide by it in order to keep relations with european countries. And europe has been allowing iran to play what is effectively a strip tease with the Nuclear Agreement peeling off one layer at a time, because it didnt want to totally break relations with iran, cut off european access to irans oil markets, et cetera. What iran has done now, however, has said it wont abide by what is perhaps the most fundamental part of the Nuclear Agreement which is the ability or the caps on its ability to enrich uranium. Iran under the old agreement was allowed to enrich uranium to a degree that it could be used for medical purposes, but really never be used to become nuclear fuel. Now iran says its going to enrich uranium and you enrich it by spinning it through the sen rye f ri fujs to a higher degree to weapons grade uranium. Iran hasnt said if its going to do this. It just said its no longer going to be bound by the ability which capped the ability to only enrich uranium at a low level. Now, about the meeting that you referenced at the top of the show. This is starting to gain a little bit of momentum. So yesterday the parliament passed this resolution, and in theory its a resolution that doesnt have the full force of law, because it has to be signed by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is only an acting Prime Minister. Thats according to the iraqi constitution which if youve been following iraqi politics for many years is itself somewhat spongspongy, and its. Theres been a lot of interpretation of it. Just in the short in the last few moments, the iraqi Prime Ministers office through its official twitter account released a photograph of the u. S. Ambassador meeting with the Prime Minister, and a statement in which the Prime Minister said that he told the u. S. Ambassador its time to leave. Its time to follow the order of the parliament and to have a mutually agreed withdrawal that suits everybodys interests and to put relations with the United States on a strong track and that the according to the statement, that the Prime Minister also stressed to the u. S. Ambassador the seriousness of the situation and that iraq doesnt want to see the region or this country slide into war. So it puts the United States in a very difficult position. The u. S. Has now just been officially notified that its time to leave. That its time to start packing up the troops packing up the gear and go. But is the u. S. Really now going to pull out the old copy of the iraqi constitution and say that request by the Prime Minister is not completely valid because hes an acting Prime Minister . The u. S. Is in a tough spot now. But for a president who has sort of implied sometimes that hes not interventionist, what is the argument against the United States leaving . What would happen if the United States abided by this nonbinding resolution and pulled up stakes and left iraq . Which is now a sort of semi nonbinding direct request from the Prime Minister. Right. Reporter what would happen if all u. S. Troops left . All of them, every troop, every piece of equipment here . You could have iraq slide back into civil war. The last time all u. S. Troops left here, isis took over half the country and entire Iraqi Army Divisions fell in the city of mosul. You would have real problems here if all american troops left. Even if you have a small american presence, it means they can keep some of their intelligence capacities here. It means they can keep some of the more advanced weapons which can only be operated by american troops. The difference between and there are currently 5,000 troops here. The difference between 5,000 and 4,000 is not much. The difference between 5,000 and 1,000 is significant but not catastrophic. Going from 5,000 to zero could send this country into a bad spiral. Richard, thank you as always for your analysis. Richard engel is our chief correspondent joining us from iraq. A major twist in the impeachment drama. Were going to dig in deeper. John bolton now says hes willing to testify and he knows all about president ial moves on ukraine. How this could change the impeachment trial. Youre watching velshi and ruhle. Youre watching velshi and ruhle. [ ] looking to simplify your skin care routine without sacrificing results . Try olay total effects. One dose provides more vitamin b3 than 50 cups of kale and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. Try olay total effects. He would be willing to testify if subpoenaed by the senate. Bolton was a key witness in several events in the ukraine timeline that were outlined in the house testimony. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tweeted about boltons announcement saying, quote, the president and senator mcconnell have run out of excuses. They must allow key witnesses to testify and produce the documents trump has blocked so americans can see the facts for themselves. The senate cannot be complicit in the president s coverup. Joining us now, former u. S. Attorney and msnbc contributor barbara mcwade. Weve been trying to figure out what might be at the bottom of this thing. Why john bolton would say this. We have some sense of what john bolton knows. But how would you think about this as a prosecutor . Bolton if you had to divide it up is still team trump more than hes Team Democrats and impeachment. So what does this mean that he seems to be so interested in testifying all of a sudden . Well, i think hes mostly team bolton. The cynic in he says this is a pr move. He has a book deal. He wants to be able to sell his books in it. At the moment hes in a tight spot because he refused to tell his story publicly to the nation, but he wants to sell books with that story. And so i think this is an effort to make it look like he was willing to testify if the senate served him with a subpoena. He likely knows thats unlikely. If youre adam schiff, why not subpoena john bolton right now . If john bolton is willing to testify to the senate, wouldnt he be willing to testify before the house . I think thats a shrewd move. I think its a key question. Theres this idea that impeachment is over and now were onto removal trial in the senate. There is nothing that prevents the house from continuing to inve ga inve gait and building on the evidence they already have. To subpoena john bolton now in the house i think would be a great move and call his bluff. If youre willing to testify, tell your story here. Lets say he gets subpoenaed by the house or whatever reason a few republican senators decide to pressure mcconnell and he gets subpoenaed to testify at the senate. Does the white house have any levers at that point to prevent him from testifying . I think it does. One of the things that makes me think this is a selfserving statement is theres nothing to prevent him from changing his mind or the white house from asserting executive privilege or absolute immunity as it has with regard to other witnesses weve seen in the past. I think all those tools are still in the tool box if the white house or john bolton wants to assert them. This is a convenient thing to say. And the way to call his bluff, is for adam schiff to offer a subpoena in the house. If you want to tell your story, come over to the house and tell it. Adam schiff tweeted. Lets read it. Bolton is an important i mean, i dont know if our producers thought that they were dealing with to anchors under the age of 45, but you got to be kidding me if you think i can read that . It says bolton is an important witness involve. Bolton refused to testify in the house following trumps orders. The senate must allow testimony from him, mulvaney and others. The coverup must end. I appreciate our producer thinking we could have read that. If you thought we could read that, god bless you. Schiff saying the same thing that pelosi is saying. Do this. Have them testify. At this point, Mitch Mcconnell has said he doesnt need anymore information. Does this qualify at more information . We heard from fiona hill about what she said john bolton said to her, but thats not the same as hearing from john bolton what he said. Agreed. And john bolton may know more than that which fiona hill c observed. He may have been involved in other people. He seems likely to be a person with a lot of information. I think this is one more piece that adds to the scale that may tip the ball lanance as we see and more, the reporting about emails that suggests that there is more information out there that could be useful in deciding whether the president could be removed from office. I think its a piece that weighs down the scale. At some point, there may be enough to do it. Look how much money President Trump has been able to raise during this impeachment process. While we could look at the emails, unredacted emails and say wow, is it really tipping the scales . I dont know. I mean, if ultimately the senators get enough pressure from their home constituents, then thats all it needs, and all you need is four senators to change their minds. Its a House Majority rule to decide whether to issue the subpoenas and so at the moment they have 53 votes. If you can shake loose even a few, that could make a difference. Which might make a difference in the few votes whether its mitt romney or Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or Cory Gardener who might say their constituents want it. And for the constituents, if they are talking about the geopolitical conflict, it puts impeachment in the rearview mirror. Thank you for joining us and for your analysis. Next, well look at President Trumps war powers. Was killing of irans military Commander Qassem Soleimani justified, and was it legal . Youre watching velshi and ruhle. Ruhle. Rock music man so im not taking any chances when something happens to it. So when my windshield cracked. My friend recommended safelite autoglass. Tech hi, im adrian. Man thanks for coming. Tech oh, no problem. Tech check it out. Man yeah. They came right to me, with Expert Service where i needed it. Thats service i can trust. No matter what im hauling. Right, girl . Singers safelite repair, safelite replace. But maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Because there are options. Like an unjection™. Xeljanz xr, a oncedaily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. Xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. Xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; dont start xeljanz if you have an infection. Taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. Serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. As have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. Tell your doctor if youve been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if youve had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. Needles. Fine for some. But for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. Ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. An unjection™. All right. Heres a question. Was the killing of irans general Qassem Soleimani justified and was it legal . Thats the debate raising questions about president ial war powers or president ial waur. In an op ed, its said soleimanis killing was, coaquo illegal and predictable. It was to prevent a war. He made the right decision. Theres lots of intelligence. Youve seen some of it out in the public. The death of the american on december 27th. Intelligence on the forward basis of risk. The president made the right decision. We did not take action to start a war. I have deep respect for the iranian people. They are a remarkable people with an incredible heritage and unlimited potential. All right. There are a few federal acts that give the president certain war powers. Theres the 1973 war powers act which requires the president to notify congress of military action within the acts required 48 hour time frame. The strike that killed soleimani happened early friday morning in baghdad. The Trump Administration notified congress on saturday which was within the 48 hour window. Theres also the 2001 authorization for use of military force act which states that the president has the authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of International Terrorism against the United States. The Trump Administration says that iran posed an imminent threat, but some in congress argue that they have seen no evidence of that imminent threat. And then there was the 2002 authorization of the use of military force against iraq which states that congress urged the president to take appropriate action in accordance with the constitution and relevant laws of the United States to bring iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Reminder, the air strikes against irans general were carried out in baghdad in iraq. But now house Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pointing out under the u. S. Constitution congress has the power to declare war, not the president. Shes now leading efforts on capitol hill to pass a new war powers resolution similar to the Senate Version introduced by tim kaine. That move is designed to limit President Trumps military operations in iran with proper congressional oversight. Joining us now jane harmon and Foreign Affairs analyst brett mcerk. They are building the justification around the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. Its been used for military action in places like iraq and syria, but critics are saying iran is a different case. Why . Well, happy new year. Its nice to be on this program with both of you. I voted for the 2001 aumf, it was about the folks who attacked us on nec9 11, and last time i looked iran was not on that group. In fact, they offered us assistance after 9 11. All of us who voted for that, and it was every Single Member of the senate and house except for one person, barbara lee of california. Every one of us thought it was limited in time and place. And it would be focussed on afghanistan. Just noticed that this action against soleimani was not in afghanistan. It was in iraq, and again, he this attack did not fit the purpose of the iraq aumf, the 2002 aumf. I applaud nancy pelosi and others who are saying finally this should have happened years ago, that Congress Needs to authorize the use and deter the use of force in war theaters like this one for this purpose. And the president is directed that thousands of new troops be sent to the region. Unclear numbers and exactly where theyre going. Were putting patriotic young people in harms way. Those people live in congressional districts. If i were a member of the trump base, a lot of the people are coming out of his base, i would want to know why are my sons and daughters going there and what are they fighting for and who are they fighting against . And last we checked, 3900 members of the 82nd airborne were deploying as of friday night, and more may come. The question in making the defense of this attack without the necessary authorization, if there wasnt one, is whether or not the threat from iran represented by Qassem Soleimani was imminent. Both george w. Bush and barack obama had at various times opportunities to take Qassem Soleimani and they weighed the benefit of doing so was not outweighed by the risks of doing so. Some members are congress are skeptical arguing the administration hasnt produced adequate evidence of this. You worked in this rule. Its complicated in the world of fighting people who do bad things to do it in a way that is legal and justifiable but i guess its important that that happens. So what does proper evidence that would satisfy Congress Look like . Ali, the question of the soleimani strike is one thing. I think the question of the legality of the strike, were past it. I think arguably that strike alone probably does fall within the article ii powers as commander in chief. But were in a spiraling National Security crisis, and the question is where is this headed . And the war power is clearly under article i with congress. Thats where you get this kind of the debate. And we are now approaching a very unprecedented situation. The test here, the president s commander in chief power under article ii, is there a National Interest to take action and were there threats below the whats the nature, scope and duration of the activity . A single air strike falls within the article ii power, but article i, war, that means significant maneuver of u. S. Person fell in harms way and a potential that the scope and duration could be protracted. Since may the Trump Administrations moved now almost 20,000 military personnel to the middle east given the escalating crisis with iran, and he tweeted a couple days ago hes prepared 52 targets inside iran. Heres the problem. Theres no congressional authorization. That means the president would have to rely on his article ii commander in chief powers. And i think as we look forward, this is unprecedented article ii territory. The significant maneuver of forces, 52 targets being prepared in iran according to the president. The closest would be libya under the obama administration. But in that case, it was different. We did not have u. S. Personnel moving into the region. So they were not at risk. We had nato with us. It was a different situation. I think the key thing here and what congress is right to be asking a lot of questions, this is a core article i power, war. And there is no authorization for war with iran. Thats a fact. And when youre moving tens of thousands of u. S. Personnel to the region to prepare for a conflict and preparing that number of air strikes potentially, we hope we dont get there. It starts to feel like the iraq war. Thats what people are concerned about. The things get blurry over time. Jane and brett, thank you both very much. Coming up next, john bolton says hes prepared to testify in the upcoming impeachment trial. What it means for President Trump and democrats. Well get reaction from capitol hill. Youre watching velshi and ruhle live on msnbc. T i had noa that my grandfather was a federal judge in guatemala. My grandfather used his legal degree and his knowledge to help people that were voiceless in his country. That put a fire in my heart. It made me realize where i got my passion for social justice. Bring your Family History to life like never before. Get started for free at ancestry. Com at colonial penn, Life Insurance company. And with Coverage Options starting at just 9. 95 a month, you can get a whole Life Insurance plan to help close that gap with a benefit check paid directly to your beneficiary. If youre between age 50 and 85, Coverage Options start at just 9. 95 a month. And the rate is locked in. And it comes with two lifetime guarantees. One, your coverage can never be cancelled, and two, your rate can never go up. Call for free information and youll also get this beneficiary planner free just for calling. Use it to record Important Information and helpful direction for your loved ones. So dont wait, call now. announcer and when you call right now, youll also get this free prescription savings card that can help you save up to 80 on prescription drugs. Democrats are amping up the pressure on republicans and senator Mitch Mcconnell to call fact witnesses in the Senate Impeachment trial. After john bolton announced today that he would testify under subpoena. All eyes are on mcconnell and his caucus now to see if boltons testimony changes their calculus on how the senate trial should proceed. Joining us now, jegeoff bennettn capitol hill. What have you learned . Reporter the few democrats ive talked to since this bolton news broke, theyve made the case that house Speaker Nancy Pelosis strategy to withhold articles, they say that strategy is now downright prescient in part because it allowed for new developments to infold that could change this power dynamic as democrats push for a trial with witnesses. At the end of the december there was that reporting to the New York Times that Mick Mulvaney and john bolton and others pressed President Trump to release the aid but President Trump refused. Now you have john bolton saying he would testify if hes subpoenaed. We should say theres nothing preventing from john bolton from showing up here tomorrow and talking to members about what he knows if he wants to tell his story. You can bet adam schiff and his colleagues would be more than happy to make a secure room available for that testimony. But so far what you have are democrats coordinating their messages it seems to ramp up the pressure on those selfprofessed moderate republicans and politically Vulnerable Senate republicans, they need them to get what they want. Weve seen reaction from chuck sooirm saying if anybody opposes subpoenas, they have participating in a coverup. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the senate cannot be complicit in the senates coverup. Adam sif, the senate huft allow testimony from him, mull vainies and others. The coverup must end. The argument is if these republicans dont back the democratic vision for a trial, thats a trial with witnesses that is agreed upon before this thing starts, then by extension you have these republicans engaging in a coverup. Jeff, thank you. Geoff bennett for us on capitol hill. Weve got breaking news right now. Los angeles prosecutors just filed criminal charges against disgraced movie mogul harvey weinstein. The charges are in connection with at least two instances in which weinstein allegedly sexually assaulted women. Thats him walking with a walker. Hes had back surgery. He faces charges of rape and sexual assault. More than 80 women have come ford accusing him of sexual miss conduct. Hes pleaded not guilty to all accusations of nonconsensual sexual activity. Well look at what could be the biggest threat from iran, and its not nuclear. Youve youre watching velshi and ruhle. Lshi and ruhle. American senior, ruhle. Ake your home. Ruhle. Learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse Mortgage Loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. A reverse Mortgage Loan isnt some kind of trick to take your home. Its a loan, like any other. Big difference is how you pay it back. Find out how reverse mortgages really work with aags free, noobligation reverse mortgage guide. With a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. Discover the option thats best for you. Call today and find out more. Im proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. When youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. So you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. For small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. Shop everything home at wayfair. Com welcome back to velshi and ruhle. As the United States and the world places for possible retaliation from iran, experts warn the biggest threat could be coming from cyberspace. Iran is considered to be one of washingtons primary adversaries in the realm of online hacking and has shown a willingness to go after targets before. Cybersecurity experts are particularly concerned about potential breaches of major u. S. Companies and Government Agencies that work with crucial infrastructure and hacking may already be underway. Authorities are investigating the hacking of one federal website on saturday night. Although officials have not yet confirmed who is responsible, a group purporting to be iranian hackers has claimed responsibility. Joining us now security analyst, sean henry, former Security Director of the fbi. If there is some little government website that was hacked on saturday, that wouldnt be reflective of the capacity that iran has shown to actually do potential real damage in the cyber realm. Absolutely not. Iran has very capable cyber offensive operations. And if we did see this hacking of a website, its relatively low level, easy to do, and hikely a hacktivist, somebody taking action out of patriotic duty. I think we have to be more concerned about some of these other actors operating within the last ten years throughout the United States. In u. S. Organizations, companies, government organizations and critical infrastructure, those are the types of attacks and Cyber Operations we need to be preparing for here, ali. In terms of cyber warfare, whats the worst Case Scenario . Steph, theres a whole host of things that these actors did do. Weve seen organized crime groups operating out of iran using ransomware. Atlanta was hit 18 months ago and impacted the operations for the citizens. They werent able to pay bills. The court system was down. This went on for many weeks and cost millions of dollars when that data was encrypted. If you look beyond those cyber actors to the state capabilities, the iranian government, weve seen them launch destructive attacks. Theyve targeted organizations throughout the world, in saudi arabia, here in the United States, those attacks are much more devastating because they can wipe out computers, tens of thousands at a time, in one fell swoop, impacting longterm operations of an organization to do their daytoday business, steph. One of the things we always think about is data hacks. But in fact one of the things that you always think about is infrastructure hacks, which is a whole lot worse than getting your data locked up or stolen . Thats exactly right. Nobody wants to lose their data. If you lose 200,000 credit cards, a retailer, thats a bad day for them. But if you look beyond that to these destructive attacks that actually take down infrastructure that render whole systems inoperable, we saw the iranian government, according to the u. S. Government, target a critical dam up in the state of new york a few years ago. They got access to that dam. They were able to control it. Fort nanlt for the citizens there that dam had been disconnected physically so they werent able to control it. But they had access and could have. If you think about that type of an attack where they can make changes, this is an asymmetric threat. Theyve got the capability. Its a low barrier of entry. Its relatively easy to do. Theres a wideranging target base, and we can expect to see those types of attacks going forward. Sean, thank you, as always, thanks for joining us. Hes a chief Security Officer at crowdstrike. Quick look at the markets, were flat on all major markets. They were down when you started today. You brought it up on friday, remember when 9 11 happened when there is a jolt to the system, you see it rattled and then things regain control. Within one month. Its a majority of stocks, about corporate earnings, are not impacted. Specific sectors like the Defense Sector its positive. And that flight to quality, u. S. Treasuries, gold. Gold is up the highest its been in about five years. Thanks for watching. Ill see you back here at 3 00 p. M. And i will see you at 9 00 p. M. Katy tur picks up coverage. Good afternoon. Its 11 00 a. M. Out west and 2 00 p. M. In washington where john bolton says he is ready to testify. Does the house wait for the senate to move or does adam schiff issue his own subpoena. Iran, tensions continue to escalate. If you had starts of war on twitterer on your President Trump bingocard, mark that box because he said this. These media posts will serve as notification to the United States congress that, should any iran should iran strike any u. S. Person or target, t