Own administration over targeting iranian cultural sites. What the state department and pentagon have to say about the president s threats. And we are one week away from the next democratic president ial debate. And a number of candidates making the stage is set to shrink even further. Dnc chairperson tom perez will join us live to talk all things 2020. All right. Today, the secretary of state mike pompeo faced questions regarding the decision to kill the iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Again, refusing to lay out the specifics behind the intelligence that reportedly drove the decision to kill the general. So if youre looking for evidence, you need to look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against soleimani. And then you, in addition to that, have what we can clearly see were continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of Campaign Activities that were going to lead, potentially, to the death of many more americans. Well, earlier today, National Security advisor Robert Obrien spoke outside the white house. And while he also wouldnt elaborate on the intelligence, he did reveal more about the threat that soleimani apparently posed. He was plotting to kill to to attack american facilities and diplomat soldiers, sailors, marines were located at those facilities. Leader today, the Trump Administration is preparing to the gang of eight on the situation in iran. Tehran bureau chief and Senior Center at the center for american progress. Ali, u. S. Forces in the region and there are tens of thousands of them. Continue to prepare for a possible attack either by iran or one of its proxy forces. Whats the thinking now as far as you can determine in iran as to what retaliation looks like against the United States . Because weve heard lots of different variations on what could happen. What are the papers saying . What are people talking about in iran as to what and when retaliation happens . Hi, ali. Well, there is a palpable sense of retaliation in this country. Thats all you hear about these days. That iran is going to strike back. But that is the big question. Its not a question of if. But its a question of when and how . Now, iran has a whole host of options available to it. Most importantly, those proxies that theyve built up in this region. Qassem soleimani built up that are scattered across this entire region. And iran always says that those proxies are within immediate striking of u. S. Forces and u. S. Assets. They could also choke off oil in the strait of hormuz. Iran is also quite sophisticated in cyberwarfare. I mean, probably not at the level of china or russia. But nonetheless, theyre not far off. And they could launch cyberattacks. Theres also been talk of iran launching a direct military strike against the u. S. So they deliver an unquestionable message that this came from iran. That iran is powerful to do this itself. And they dont have to rely on their proxies to do this. Rather alarmingly, earlier on today, the kataib hezbollah, which was the Militia Group thats under irans patronage that attacked the u. S. Embassy in baghdad that sparked off this whole crisis said today that we are waiting for iran to strike directly, a military strike, directly against the United States. And then well follow suit. So there are all sorts of ominous messages here. And there also seems to be preparation underway for this. Today, in parliament in iran, they just okayed an extra 200 Million Euros for the quds force. Thats the International Arm of the irgc that Qassem Soleimani was the head of. That 200 Million Euros is for their next two months operation, in addition to whatever else their budget is. They also, in that same session of parliament, designated the u. S. Military and the pentagon as a terrorist group in order to justify any action they need to take. So tensions are really ratcheting up here. And, you know, the the the strange thing here is that iran, on an almost daily basis, is saying that u. S. Troops need to be expelled from this region. Yet, were seeing more and more troops come here. The u. S. Says that theyre not going to leave iraq. So these seem to be all the ingredients for a disaster in the making. But tensions are running high here. And emotions are running high here. Just to move slightly away from all the military action, talk of military action thats going on, just to show you how passionate people have been about the death of Qassem Soleimani. At his burial ceremony today in his hometown, hundreds of thousands of people showed up. It sparked off a stampede. 56 people have been killed in that stampede, including children. So i mean, theres a lot of emotion here. There is a lot of talk of war here. Passions are running high. And you do get the feeling amongst amongst a large Cross Section of iranians that they expect the leadership here to strike back at some point. We just dont know when or how. Michael, whats the significance of the United States blocking the Iranian Foreign minister from attending a meeting at the u. N. . Well, its huge. And its only going to make things worse. First, lets remember the United States actually has a responsibility as the host of the United Nations headquarters in new york to allow diplomats from all accredited United Nations countries to attend and access the u. N. Headquarters fal facilities. That is an obligation the United States has. So im not sure where its getting the justification to do this. But more to your point, right now, the United States needs to be looking for ways to deescalate. Everybody needs to be looking for ways to deescalate. As we just heard, there are incredibly dangerous and very real threats coming right now and the possibility for escalation is intense. Zarif coming to new york for a prearranged meeting that he was going to speak at at the United Nations is exactly the kind of opportunity that you could imagine quiet, backchannel conversations happening in a very, very high level to try to figure out if there is an off ramp to be had here. So why the Trump Administration would be blocking zarif from coming here is, frankly, anybodys guess. The only imaginary the only imagined thing i could think of is that they just are looking for more ways to provoke and prod the iranians right now. Ali arouzi, mike makes a really interesting point. At times like this when tensions escalate and you are trying to deescalate, which one hopes the United States is trying to do and weve heard from pompeo and trump that theyd theyd prefer to do that than to escalate. Zarif is not only irans chief diplomat as their foreign minister. Hes probably one of the deans of the diplomatic corps around the world. The United States does have an obligation because it is host to the United Nations to to allow people in. How is that affecting the ability to have any discussions . Because that is the formal channel by which anybody in the west would be talking to iran. It its completely blocking it. I mean, zarif is here in iran. Theres not much traveling going on. There are there was a Security Forum here. The afghan president and the sultan of oman was here. They were talking to him. But that thats not going very far. It makes a lot of difference when youre at the u. N. When the entire political global population is there. When you can talk to european leaders. Talk to american leaders. And others. Chinese, russians. All in the same forum. So in absence of any of that dialogue, this is making this situation all the more dangerous. The two main adversaries in this very dangerous game have absolutely no lines of communication to each other. And it doesnt look like the Trump Administration wants to open up that line of communication with iran. They talk about deescalation. But as you mentioned, the best way to deescalate is to sit and talk and not threaten each other on twitter. But thats exactly whats happening. They are just exchanging messages in in in on the internet. On twitter. And no real dialogue is taking place. Zarif is accusing the United States of acting illegally by blocking him going there. He says that theyre afraid of the truth. Thats why they dont want him to come. Secretary pompeo says that he just wants to go on a propaganda tour. So this isnt helping the situation whatsoever. Thanks to both of you. Ali arouzi, Tehran Bureau chief. Michael fuchs joining us as well. Thanks to both of you. Meanwhile, President Trump doubling down on his threats to attack irans cultural sites. A threat that is at odds with the president s own state and defense department. But first, capitol hill now divided over john boltons willingness to testify in President Trumps impeachment trial. What republicans are telling nbc news next. Youre watching velshi and ruhle on msnbc. Watching vels ruhle on msnbc. Hi, im bob harper, and i recently had a heart attack. It changed my life. But im a survivor. After my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. Its for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. Brilinta is taken with a lowdose aspirin. No more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. Brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. In a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. Brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack. Or dying from one. Dont stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. Brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. Dont take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. Slow heart rhythm has been reported. Tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. If you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. My heart is worth brilinta. If you cant afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. Ruhle. The white house and congress are at a standstill as House Speaker nancy pelosi continues to hold on to these articles of impeachment. Stalling the senate and President Trumps next strategic moves. And in a dramatic new development, former National Security advisor john bolton said that he would testify in the Senate Impeachment trial if subpoenaed. But theres no indication that bolton will actually testify. Senate republicans stopped short of calling for boltons subpoena. Senator, are you amenable to hearing from ambassador bolton in stage three . Thank you. There are a number of witnesses that may well be appropriate for the stage three of which he would certainly be one. I dont know quite what to make of it. I dont know mr. Bolton. What i know of him, i i i respect. He seems awfully anxious to testify. Id like to hear from john bolton and other witnesses with direct information. But that process will will accommodate that. Are you still open to voting to convict the president . Im remaining impartial, as my oath will require. Joining us now, msnbc correspondent Garrett Haake on capitol hill and former u. S. Attorney joyce vance. Garrett, lets start with john bolton. John bolton saying hes got something to say. But leaving it in the hands of republicans to issue a subpoena. If john bolton really has a story to tell, why not just come out and say it . We dont have to wait for his book, which hes been paid hand similarly for. He can come on tv with us. He can go on any network. He can put out a public statement. Thats exactly what ive heard from a you couple republican senators today saying this is a person who throughout his public career has never had a problem speaking out when he had something to say. And if hes inclined to Say Something now, he ought to just go ahead and do it. You heard from mitt romney there in the leadup to this. He was one of the last senators to really come out and say what he thought postbolton. Hes a senator who said all along that he does want to hear from john bolton. But what he also told reporters a few minutes ago is that hes perfectly fine with the Senate Following the clinton impeachment model going forward. Thats a model by which house impeachment managers will present their case. The president s lawyers will defend him. There will be a period of time where senators can ask questions of the two. And only then would they vote on whether or not to call witnesses. What that means is that republicans probably have the votes even now. Theyre in their lunch meeting right now. We expect to hear from Mitch Mcconnell as soon as they come out on this question. They probably have the votes to go ahead and move forward on a rules package just supported by republicans that does not include calling witnesses locked in up front. The votes are just not there for the democrats to go the other way on this. And so that may be what we see now whenever when and if nancy pelosi decide to release the articles and send them over to the senate side. Joyce, what are you thinking about what boltons testimony could look like . Because he said hes willing to testify. We dont know what hes willing to testify to. We dont know whether this will be remarkably damning evidence that will hurt the president s chances of getting acquitted in the senate. Or he might say things that that dont make it all that bad for the president. How do you think about this as a prosecutor . So i think its a really good question to ask. You know, i have never gone into a trial where ive put on cold a witness having no idea what they would say. Thats really not a very Good Practice for prosecutors. And here, it would be stunning if john bolton were to come in and testify in the senate with no one having any idea what his testimony would be about. It would certainly be a theatrical moment. It might help sell books. Who knows . But the reality here is that the situation with bolton highlights how different this process is from the clinton impeachment. Where there was a robust, thorough investigative process conducted by an independent counsel, who some people believed actually went on for far too long. But that process was thorough. All of the witnesses, including the president , had given statements. So by the time this process in the senate took place, there was an understanding of what the evidence looked like. We dont have that here because the president has kept firsthand witnesses from testifying and refused to turn over any documents. Garrett, john bolton is a lifetime republican. His superpac just put more money forward to try to support members of the gop running for reelection. There is no sign that he is looking to get the president removed from office. But he did leave the white house not on good terms. He is not on good terms with mike pompeo and mick mulvaney. How much pressure does it put those guys under to testify . Or does it worry them of what he could say . Well, it might. Look. Theyre under different sets of circumstances here because, of course, both pompeo and mulvaney are still employees of this white house. And could, presumably, apply different standards of executive privilege to try to get out of testifying should they be called. You know, bolton, in that white house, was just one of another big personalities back and forth. We know there were a lot of behindthescenes meetings on the issues around ukraine. We know, for example, there was one meeting bolton had by himself with the president. We know there was another that he had with pompeo thanks to the reporting from the New York Times. So this is someone who, if he does want to come out and tell the whole story, whatever story hes got, who knows if hes got his own notes and records from that time period, could put pompeo or mulvaney in a spot where down the line they might feel compelled to come forward and clear their names. Or or to try to push back in some way. But, again, theyre under a different set of rules, a different set of restrictions potentially as Current Administration employees. But are they, joyce . Because we hear the executive privilege extended when it suits. Don mcgahn isnt currently employed by the white house. Neither is hope hicks and we havent heard from those two. The president has never formally asserted executive privilege. We heard people like former attorney Jeff Sessions repeatedly saying, well, im not going to answer that question. So i can preserve the president s right to assert executive privilege. But the reality, stephanie, is that that question has never been tested. I suspect that its not quite as broad as this white house has tried to pretend that it is on occasion. The executive privilege is meant to preserve the president s ability to get clear, objective advice from his closest advisors on key issues when making policy decisions. Its not meant to hide criminal conduct. Its not meant to Keep Congress from engaging in oversight. To be fair, president s from both parties have tried to use it maybe more broadly than legal doctrine would accept. But one thing that we can be sure about President Trump