New push to check the president. How mistakes in iraq may be repeating themselves all over again. Weapons of mass destruction have been found in iraq. All in starts right now. Good evening from new york. Im chris hayes. If you are feeling dread and anxiety in this new year, you are not crazy. We are on the precipice of what many imagined as a worst Case Scenario of donald trump as president of the United States. The moment that he came down the escalator to announce his candidacy, people across the political and ideological spectrum from marco rubio to Lindsey Graham to Bernie Sanders to rick perry to ted vote your conscience cruz, they all have assessed trumps character as completely unfit to wield the power that he wields as president of the United States. For all of trumps narcissism and pettiness and bragging and ignorance, thus far through sheer luck we have avoided that absolute worst Case Scenario, the president essentially plunging the country into a new military conflagration geopolitical quagmire. A lot of truly horrible things have happened under donald trump as president. Nearly 3,000 americans died in puerto rico after the administrations weak hurricane response. Thousands of immigrant children separated from their parents kept in cages, dozens of immigrants including children have died in i. C. E. Custody. But a brandnew war run by this corrupt and curious president , that is the ultimate fear. A fear that looks very close right now to being a reality. Er in the wake of his ordering the airstrike of the number 2 figure in iran, millions of people marching the streets in iran, trump is now tweeting the way he always tweets, making outrageous declarations and threats. But now the difference is this. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be. On top of that, the man is facing an impeachment trial that he is obviously unnerved and obsessed by. There is every reason to believe any further evidence in documents or witness testimony would show trump to be even more guilty than he already looks. And so amidst this, donald trump has launched an unbelievably provocative escalation, an act of war by any sensible determination in the midst of his own impeachment, for motives that cannot be taken at face value. And now in the wake of that reckless decision, the man who maybe knows more about trumps policy than anyone who has been pushing for this kind of military confrontation for his entire adult life, former National Security advisor john bolton says he wants to talk. See, bolton is also, of course, a key figure in the impeachment of donald trump. He Just Announced that after turning down a request to speak to the house, he is prepared to talk to the senate. He released a statement explaining his rationale saying, i have concluded that if the Senate Issues a subpoena for my testimony, i am prepared to testify. It is important to remember that bolton left his position a brumt abruptly the day before President Trump released the ukraine aid. He said i will have my say in court. Back in november his lawyer said that bolton had many relevant meetings and conversations about ukraine that the house impeachment investigators have not heard. We found out just a few weeks ago that he was involved in an august meeting to try to get trump to release military aid to ukraine. Now, today republican senator marco rubio responded to boltons offer to testify saying he would vote against a subpoena of bolton. His republican colleague senator john cornyn said his testimony could be helpful to the president , and maybe it could be. Who knows. Throughout this entire affair bolton has been very coy in playing out some kind of unknown strategy of encouraging subordinates to testify, distancing himself from the corrupt obstruction at the heart of the president s impeachment, but not testifying himself. Hinting always that he knows more than he says. Now, if the house is done, he says he will talk to the senate. Now, maybe because he doesnt think they will subpoena him. Now that its front and center,. Obvious case to hear what he and others has to say has only gotten stronger. Joining me now for more on what bolton has to say, senior lecturer harvard law school, joyce vance from the Northern District of alabama, now an msnbc legal analyst. Nancy, let me start with you what you think the relevance, significance of bolton making this announcement today is. Well, id be concerned about the timing, right . I mean, he is someone saying he had relevant testimony on the impeachment inquiry. Hes mentioned multiple times in the house report. But he said he needed to be subpoenaed and he would he suggested he would go to court as others have done in order to testify. Now hes expressing his willingness just after he tweeted support for the president s strike in iraq. So im not sure what his particular end game is. In addition, its a very odd position. Its like saying im going to testify in your courtroom, but im not going to testify in the one next door. Ill testify before the senate but im not going to testify before the house. I think thats an untenable position. That is an important statement. It cues up what the house now does. Pelosi said the president and senator mcconnell have run out of excuses. They must allow key witnesses to testify and produce documents so the americans can see themselves. Schiff said he is involved in conduct. Now hes willing to come forward. The cover up must end. Mean being he should testify in the senate. There is a question whether the house can subpoena him now. Its a really interesting question, chris. And i think an important one because theres nothing that im aware of that would prohibit the house from continuing to investigate when a witness who has been previously unavailable suddenly becomes available. It seems like it would make sense to issue a subpoena and to try to hear what that witness has to say. And, of course, theres the backdrop here, that second article of impeachment about obstruction of congress. The notion that none of the documents are available, which makes it all the more important to hear what bolton has to say firsthand. You know, if this was a jury in it a criminal case, say a drug case where the defendant had taken a match to his drug ledge ledgers and burned them so they wouldnt be available for the jury to see, they would draw that inference and thats what the president has done here. What makes it strange is what the legal precedent is for all of this is unclear. There is this nixon precedent. There was this litigation that was set in motion and mooted and there was this lawsuit brought by one of boltons subordinates to see like who should i listen to. The president says i shouldnt testify, the house says i should. What should i do. The house retracts that subpoena because they dont want an unfavorable ruling. What the actual law says here is not clear. Well, the law doesnt there isnt, there isnt clarity. Its not in the constitution. There had been other opinions by other judges, notably of general counsel mcgahn that he had to testify, he had to appear. Testimony is a different issue. He had to appear. He had to answer their questions. It may be that he would exercise the privilege, executive privilege or some other privilege with respect to particular questions, but he had to appear, so its not true that there isnt precedent. I think that to some degree the house was withdrawing the subpoena because they ran out of time. Right. And because they had gotten the testimony from other people. But there really is no precedent for someone simply saying, i dont think that your proceed Sergio Garcia legitimate, im not going to participate. Going and saying yes to this, no to that, thats a different issue. But ive never heard of this and i dont believe the constitution supports it. Its a great point. Theres been this weird tease going on from people around bolton, joyce, today again in the New York Times. Former white house officials and people close to mr. Bolton, thats the sourcing, has indicated his testimony would likely be damning against mr. Trump and moderates convicting him. It gives incentive for republicans in the senate not to hear from him which appears to be largely the line today. Thats right. And its an awkward position for bolton to be in because, of course, hes a career republican. There is some sense here that maybe hes looking for a little bit of cover before he testifies. He doesnt want to go in as a hero for the democrats. And if this speculation about the dramatic impact of his testimony is true, he could well end up as an Unlikely Hero for democrats. So i suspect he wants a little bit of cover in this scenario. There is now a sort of question about timing more broadly, nancy, and this impasse between the two branches where, again, there is no clear guide here. Well, there is no clear guide. But you know something, the constitution doesnt say many things specifically. But when it talks about the senate, it says the case shall be tried in the senate. Tried. And the senators have to take an oath that independent of their oath as senators. Trial had a specific meaning in the 18th century. It meant witnesses. It meant an impartial jury. These were not things they set aside comments. If you are a strict constructionist as many of the republicans purport to be, you would understand that trial meant witnesses, crossexamination, and oath meant an oath of impartiality as a juror would take. Boltons coming forward makes it clear that, you know, that maybe opens, at least raises the possibility there will be other witnesses who will come forward. I dont think there really is justification here for not holding witnesses, not having witnesses. Yeah, i think thats 100 correct. We will see whether that prevails as this goes forward, nancy ge rtn er and joyce vance, thank you both. Joining me now senator tim kaine. He voted to prevent trump going to war with iran. First i want to talk about the news from bolton today. You would be a juror if and when an impeachment trial happens in the senate. Your reaction to his statement today. Well, chris, i tried a lot of cases to juries back in the day before i was in state politics. And you dont have a trial without witnesses and documents. So as soon as john bolton says, i want to come if you subpoena me, then the republicans really cannot say, we dont want to hear from you, and square that with the oath that were all going to have to take at the beginning of this trial. The oath says that we will do impartial justice in all matters pertaining to the trial of donald j. Trump according to the constitution and laws, so help me god. There is no way to live up to that oath and refuse to hear from a witness who has said, i have new information bearing directly on the questions of this trial. And so its going to be a very difficult thing for republicans now to block john bolton or other witnesses or key documents. Well, difficult maybe in a sort of principle sense. We already have marco rubio saying i dont want to hear it. And Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins saying lets figure out the rules and well get to that. Your only colleague who expressed desire to hear from john bolton is mitt romney. Right. How confident are you that there are any votes to have a kind of procedural uprising among republicans . Well, and you put it the right way, chris. How confident am i that there will be votes. We get to make the motion that bolton should testify and be subpoenaed, and then every republican will have to vote. Not a voice vote, not a secret vote. A vote on the record. I think that is a very hard thing for three categories of republicans to vote against. There are the republicans who are running in really Battle Ground states for reelection this year. How do you explain, i took an oath to do impartial justice, but i didnt want to hear from john bolton . There are senators, republicans who are institutionals who care about the institution. How do you explain voting against relevant witnesses . And then finally, there are senators who are retiring who dont have anything to fear from donald trump. And this, this is going to be one of the elements, last elements of their legacy as a senator. How do you explain a no vote when youve taken an oath to do impartial justice . So i do think the pressure, once we get to this point and the motions are made and people are on the record, theres going to be pressure for them to vote yes. At least a number of them. Obviously amidst this in this sort of interim period we await the trial, the president ordered the killing of Qassem Soleimani in iraq, military confrontation with iran. Are you confident those are independent and unrelated truths, the president and impeachment, wanting to perhaps distract the American Public and making some determination purely in terms of National Interest on the soleimani strike . Im not confident, chris. I dont know the president s motivations and so its hard to comment on them. But what i will say, you point out that in the midst of this the president launches this escalatory attack, he did it over the objections of the Iraqi Government, our ally asked for permission. They ed to be objected to this d another strike. He did it without congressional approval, and without informing congress. And still to this day, many days later, he has not provided information about this claim that there was imminent threat. The president is going rogue. He is waging a war when its congresss job to declare war without even informing congress of what hes doing, and its time for congress to reel that back in. What would your war powers resolution do . Under the war powers act of the 1970s, there is this very narrow procedure, chris, and it basically says this. If the president goes rogue and goes to war, engages in hostilities that are not covered by a congressional authorization or declaration, any senator or house member can file a resolution thats privileged, which means we have to take it up within a set period of time. My resolution which senator durbin says all u. S. Forces engaged in hostilities against iran need to be withdrawn from those hostilities unless congress decides to pass an independent authorization for war against iran. I think i have some colleagues who think a war with iran is a good idea. I think its a horrible idea. But whatever you think about it, it shouldnt be done on the whim of this president or any president , and so what im going to do is im going to force every member of the senate and the house is doing the same thing, to have a vote where we all have to declare whether we think a war with iran is a good idea or a bad idea. All right, senator tim kaine, thank you so much tonight. Absolutely. Up next, a stunning announcement from the u. S. Military today suggesting in a letter they will withdraw u. S. Troops from iraq, and then in an even more stunning announcement, they said, oops, didnt mean it. Disregard. Well talk about it all in two minutes. Im your 70lb st. Bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. Ahh no, come on. I saw you eating poop earlier. Hey my focus is on the road, and thats saving me cash with drivewise. Whos the dummy now . Whoof whoof so get allstate where good drivers save 40 for avoiding mayhem, like me. Sorry hes a baby skip to the good part with alkaseltzer plus. Now with 25 more concentrated power. Nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. Oh, what a relief it is so fast wthats why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. And tv with you a breeze. Really . Yup. You can transfer your Service Online in about a minute. You can do that . Yeah. And with twohour Service Appointment windows, its all on your schedule. Awesome. So while moving may still come with its share of headaches. No kidding. Were doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. Go to xfinity. Com moving to get started. Things are now moving very quickly in the wake of the president s decision to assassinate iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. In teheran today, a massive crowd gathered to mourn the general as irans Supreme Leader wept over his casket. He promised revenge against the u. S. Iranian government is known to sponsor state protests. Ali arouzi described an unprecedented scene with the streets packed with the largest crowds he has ever seen in that country. The a. P. Estimated at least a Million People turned out to mourn and protest. The state media said there were millions. The crowd visible on satellite images. Meanwhile both israel and saudi arabia who are u. S. Allies and staunch enemies of iran have been distancing themselves from trumps decision to kill soleimani. Today israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu said they were not involved in the killing of the general and they should stay out of it. They will meet with secretary pompeo to push for restraint. All the while, President Trump the american president continues to ratchet up the rhetoric stating for the second time last night that any iranian response to lead to american attacks on iranian cultural sites which would be a war crime. Well have more on that in a bit. Trumps Foreign Policy also continues to be an apparent boon for isis. Back in october, you will recall President Trump abruptly abandoned military support for the the kurds in syria. Kurds had been integral against the fight against the terrorist group. That resulted in hundreds of isis fighters from prison camps. This decision to kill soleimani has led to iraq and syria to halt its years Long Campaign against isis as u. S. Forces braced for retaliation from iran. Thats not all. Iran is now taking new steps towards Nuclear Weapons announcing sunday its ending its commitment to limit enrichment of uranium which had been part of the 2015 nuclear deal that trump pulled out of unilaterally. Over the weekend as thousands of new u. S. Troops were being deployed to the middle east, the Iraqi Parliament approved a nonbind