Between Senate LeaderMitch Mcconnell im going to take my cues from the president s lawyers. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi ill send them over when im ready. Pelosi finally moves to send articles of impeachment to the senate having won no republican concessions. She should have sent them a long time ago. What will the senate trial look like . Ill talk to one of the jurors, Democrat Michael bennet of colorado. And 22 days to iowa. Iowa. Iowa. Iowa caucuses. Will the impeachment trial hamstring the senators running as a new iowa poll shows what now looks like a fourway sprint. Joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news chief correspondent andrea mitchell, Time Magazine columnist david french, yamiche alcindor, and steve inkeep, host of nprs morning edition. Welcome to sunday, its meet the press. Announcer from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is meet the press with chuck todd. Good sunday morning. Think of this as a three i morning, iran, impeachment and iowa. On iran, you can argue that President Trumps killing of Qassem Soleimani was either reckless or bold, but they find themself struggling to explain whether soleimani posed an imminent threat. Protests broke out in iran after officials admitted it was the Iranian Military that shout down a jet, killing 176 people. Next, theres impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved finally to send over articles of impeachment for a senate trial that could begin this week. That was a victory for Mitch Mcconnell who resisted pelosis delay tactics. And on iowa, Des Moines Register poll released this weekend shows one more reshuffling add the top of the caucus race. Now just three weeks away. Bernie sanders has jumped to the lead for the first time in this poll, with Elizabeth Warren, pete buttigieg, and joe biden within striking distance. By the way, each of those top four candidates have led the Des Moines Registers poll at least once at some point in the last year. That gap between first and fourth, as you saw there, well within the margin of air. Typically, iowa would be our lead story three weeks before the caucuses, but this race has been overshadowed by events in overseas. After a threeweek delay and grumbling from democrats, pelosi signaled she would send articles of impeachment to the congress this week. Were concerned senators will not live up to the oath they must take to have an impartial trial. And she denieied democrats we divided over her delay. Absolute total cooperation. The will be no haggling with the house over senate procedure. We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. Several republican senators are joining with democrats, pressing mcconnell to allow some witnesses to testify. At this stage, i would like to hear from john bolton and other witnesses with direct information. I am working with a group of republican senators and our leaders to see if we can come to an agreement. President trump is promising to block boltons testimony. Now tying impeachment to iran tensions. After the killing of iranian general soleimani. We have to take this guy out. Were not going to have another shot at him maybe ever again. But i cant make it now because im trying to impeach trump. And highlighting new protests in iran, braising its braf longsufferring people after irans admission saturday that human error brought down a ukrainian plane while they were on high alert for a possible american attack. Thats after shifting explanations to justify the soleimani killing. We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. He was looking very seriously at our embassies and not just the embassy in baghdad. I can reveal that i believe it would have been four embassies. That claim contradicts many of secretary of state mike pompeos explanations. There were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani. We dont know precisely when or where. We had specific information on an imminent threat. And those threats included attacks on u. S. Embassies. Period, full stop. You were mistaken when you said you didnt know precisely when and where . No, completely true. Those are completely consistent thoughts. On capitol hill, where senators were briefed by top military and intelligence officials not one word was mentioned. Probably the worst briefing i have seen on a military issues in the nine years have i have served in the senate. This is a moment that requires strong, steady, stable leadership. President trumps actions represent a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to yet another disastrous war in the middle east. And joining me now is the National Security adviser Robert Obrien. Welcome back to meet the press. Great to be with you, chuck. Let me start with the imminent threat situation, because no one in the administration had talked about specific embassies at all. It was a very vague explanation that we got from various officials, all it was yourself, secretary pompeo, secretary esper, but heres what the president said friday evening. I want to play it and get information on the other side. Here it is. I believe it would have been four embassies. And i think that probably baghdad already started. Baghdad certainly would have been the lead, but i think it would have been four embassies. Could have been military bases or a lot of other things too. Four embassies. If they were talking four embassies did you guys see that as a declaration of war by iran . Thats a big thing. What four embassies are we talking about . We were very concerned about the situation. We the exquisite intelligence. The intelligence showed they were looking at u. S. Facilities throughout the region and they wanted to inflict casualties on american soldiers, airmen, marines, as well as diplomats. The threat was imminent. I saw the intelligence. Theres been a lot of discussion on intelligence. I would love to have the intelligence out there now. Unfortunately, if we declassify it, we could lose that stream of intelligence that allows us to protect americans going forward, but the president s interpretation of that intelligence is very consistent with it, and so look, i think this has been a washington thing. I think when we tell the American People there was exquisite intelligence and there was going to be an attack on americans, we had to stop that. Let me get you to respond this. This is what the Washington Post is reporting. The embassy in baghdad did not receive an alert commensurate to the threat that President Trump describes. When the u. S. Government has specific information about threats to embassies, warnings or alerts, theyre often sent to Embassy Personnel to be vigilant. No one in baghdad was told. Why is that . Soleimani was traveling around the region plautding against the United States. As soon as it looked like there would be some sort of action against the u. S. Embassy, the president was decisive and bold in his action. We moved a Marine Company in, an army platoon in, and we put apache helicopters in the air. This was not going to be 1979. That was for one embassy. What dud you do for the other three embassies . We took measures with respect to other embassies. Im not going to get into the details of those and give up our playbook on the other side, but we were concerned about embas embassies throughout the region. There seems to be a disconnect. I mean, is it the definition of imminent . Is imminent months, not weeks . Are people misinterpreting that word . I think imminent generally means soon, quickly, in process. I think those threats were imminent. And i dont want to get into the definition further than that, but we took the measures necessary to protect american diplomats and our soldiers and sailors, and marines. And what you see because of the prompt action we took, both with respect to the embassy in baghdad which they would have attempted to overrun and storm, and with the bases hit by the Ballistic Missiles, there was no loss of american life. Why if you were so concerned soleimani was about to launch an imminent attack on perhaps as many as four embassies, why do you think the iranian response was so muted . I dont think it was a muted response. They fired off 16 Ballistic Missiles at iraqi bases where American Coalition forces were. Youre accepting it as a muted response because they seem to issue warnings, they let everybody know in advance. We were able to protect ourselves. It seemed as if they telegraphed this on purpose, no . They issued warnings they were going to retaliate. They didnt issue warnings of what they were going to do. We have fantastic systems that can pick up launches of Ballistic Missiles in space, Early Warning systems. Because of our diligence and vigilance, we were able to make sure the american soldiers were dispersed. Its a serious thing when you fire off 16 Ballistic Missiles. Because no americans were killed, the president showed great restraint in responding. Were putting additional economic restraints on the iranians. What is our posture . The u. S. Government and the trump administrations posture, if iran right now, it looks like theyre trying to at least expand their nuclear capabilities. The president said no Nuclear Weapon. What does that mean if hes saying that . I know some senators have asked, if stopping them from getting a Nuclear Weapon is a top priority, then why dont you need to go to congress to essentially get authority to do that . Well, there are a number of ways to stop them from getting a Nuclear Weapon. The president made it very clear, when he walked out and gave his speech which i thought was a great speech the morning after the missile attack, the first thing he said before saying good morning, is iran will never have a Nuclear Weapon. That is u. S. Policy. Right now, weve got a maximum Pressure Campaign that is strangling the regime, their economy is contracting dramatically. The people of iran are upset, protesting. They have been brutally put down, and Tiananmen Square style massacres the press has not been covering, and we think the regime is in real trouble. Not to sit here press does everything it can to cover. It is a very difficult country to cover. In fairness. This is not a press trying to omit things there. I would like that not to be a shot at us. A difficult place to cover because they have authoritarian regime, and they shut down the internet. And we get there are more questions about what the United States is doing to try to help the people of iran than necessarily what the regime is doing, but i agree with you. Its a tough place to cover because of the regime. Let me ask you to respond to former senator jim webb, who was a reagan secretary of navy. Hes got very, very interesting views when it comes to war and peace and the constitution. He writes this, it is legally and logically impossible to define one part of a National Government as an International Terrorist organization without applying the term to the entire knumpt. The revolutionary guards are part of the iranian government. If theyre attacking us, theyre not a terrorist organization. Theyre an attacking army. We took out the commander of another countrys army. To call him a terrorist at that point, if youre calling him a terrorist, isnt everyone in that regime a terrorist by definition . In this case, the kuds force, which operates outside of iran and fomentes terror in lebanon with hezbollah, in iraq, that organization has been designated legally as a terrorist organization. Soleimani was the head of it. Hes not just been designated by us. Hes under a travel ban from the u. N. He shouldnt even have been outside of iran. This was someone who was a leading of an organization that was engaged in terror. He was involved in planning imminent attacks against the United States. The president made a very difficult decision but a Bold Decision december. Let me ask you this, if he had not been designated officially as a terrorist, would he have been targeted on the battlefield . Thats a hypothetical, what i will say and what the president said is if there are folks planning to kill, maim, and harm americans, thats a red line for us. You have to be careful. If youre out trying to attack the United States of america, you better be careful. Let me ask you one final question on the issue of troops in iraq. Heres what President Trump said on friday to a fairly provocative question by laura ingraham, who said why not leave . Why not leave . Im not so bad with it. When i heard that, i said hmm, i have it down to 5,000 troops. We had many, many troops there in iraq. And were there only in training. We train them. But if they want us to leave, but they speak different publicly than they do privately. Theres a bit of confusion sometimes. President trump seems like somebody who wants to leave iraq sooner rather than laterer. Secretary of state pompeo and others in the National Security team are concerned about the strategic vacuum that could leave and seemed to push back. Is our official policy that were trying to get out of iraq or not . We would like to get out of a lot of countries if we could. We want to bring american soldiers, sailors, and marines home. We have been there for 17, 18 years now. It would be great and i believe the president believes it would be great to get folks home. We want to do it in a way that preserves the victory we had against the caliphatcaliphate. When President Trump came into office, it was as big as great britain. Were working with the iraqis to maintain a solvent country. Are you concerned in the four years that President Trump has been in office, it seems as if we have sent more troops to the middle east that we have removed . I think our goal is to have a middle east thats stable, secure, with independent countries that their sovereignty is respected and americans can come home to the extent possible. Thats what were working on. By the way, curtailing irans terrorist activities around the region will allow us to bring more troops home. Ambassador obrien, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. Joining me frame bowling green, kentucky, is republican senator rand paul. Welcome back to meet the press, sir. Good morning. Let me start with what you have heard from the administration. You heard from the ambassador, i think, just now. You have had other briefings. Do you feel as if you have got enough information to make you feel comfortable with what President Trump did . You know, i think we have heard contradictory information. We have heard from the secretary of state that they dont know where or when, but it was imminent. That to me does seem inconsistent. He thinks he can square the circle, knut it seems pretty inconsistent. Theres a bigger question, too, and this is what really infuriated me about the briefing. They maintain both in private and in public that a vote by congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in iraq and do whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from iran. And i dont think thats what congress meant in 2002, nor do i think one generation can bind another generation. So my point in being for the war powers debate is we really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in iraq or afghanistan and there needs to be authorization from congress. I want to get your reaction to something President Trump says, because he makes no apologies for not informing congress. Let me play for you the explanation he gave. I am worried about it. Can you imagine, here we are split second timing. Executed like nobodys seen in many, many years. On soleimani. Can you imagine, they want us to call up and speak to crooked, corrupt politician adam schiff. I know politics is high and polarization is high, but if that becomes a standard, where president ial administrations decide theyre not going to inform congress because they just dont like somebody who is in line to receive that information, where does that leave us . Well, you know this is not a new trend. This started probably very aggressively with truman in the korean war. Lbj and the vietnam war. President obama did hundreds and hundreds of targeted killings without asking for permission. I think president s of both parties have been trying to usurp the thauthority, but our Founding Fathers wanted to make it difficult to go to war. Thats why im willing to stand up. Not because i distrust President Trump . I think he has shown remarkable restraint, but im willing to stand up even against a president of my own party because we need to stand up and take back the power. We also need to debate whether were going to keep sending kids over there forever. The numbers tell the story. It does feel as if we have sent more troops to the middle east. Look whats happening in saudi arabia, which i know you have been against, then were bringing them home. What kind of message does it send to the American People . I think its a mixed message. President trump has been consistent saying he doesnt wan