Soleimani seven months ago. Now, what does that mean from trumps take on his story, and his credibility . Plus senator cory booker is out of the potential president ial excuse me. Out of the president ial race officially. Were going to take a look at why he couldnt Gain Momentum nationally and what it says about diversity in the 2020 battle for the white house. And President Trump on trial. This week the impeachment process could start moving fast. Were going to break down what happens next. Lets begin with new information about americas killing of irans general Qassem Soleimani. Five current and former Senior Administration officials tell nbc news President Trump authorized soleimanis killing seven months ago in the case that iranian aggression caused the death of an american. This new timeline comes as the Trump Administration struggles to give one consistent rationale for why soleimani was killed. Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on american diplomats and military personnel. Was the justification the imminent threat . Its never one thing. The American People are smart. Its never one moment or one instance. Its a collective. Zbh when you say the attacks were imminent, with retalking about days and weeks . This is not something thats relevant. He was looking very seriously at our embassies. We had specific information on an imminent threat. And the threats included attacks on u. S. Embassies. Period, full stop. So you were mistaken when you said you didnt know precisely when or where . Completely true. Those are consistent thoughts. I can reveal i believe it would have been four embassies. The president didnt cite a specific piece of evidence. He said he believed are you saying there wasnt one . I didnt see one wrrd to four embassies. I didnt see one. Just so you know, and youd be excused to not know that because hes relatively new. Thats the United States secretary of defense. If theres a missile fired or something happens, the secretary of defense is the top person in that job. He did not see the evidence that President Trump claims was the justification for that attack. When you talk about who has classified information, the person in that job has all of the information. Joining us now, one of the authors of that nbc news reporting, our colleague and correspondent, kourtney at the pentagon. Help us understand this. Does this new information invalidate the administrations claim that a threat was imminent . No, they dont have to be mutually exclusive. The reporting from our colleague carol lee and i is back early on in the Trump Administration, early 2017, the administration began to track soleimani more. So thats the initial backdrop. There was some sort of a threat or plot that didnt come to fruition back then. And the u. S. Started watching him more. Then this past summer about in may when the tensions between the u. S. And iran started ratcheting up, the u. S. Sent military assets to the region. The statement came out from john bolton. There was concern there was going to be a sort of a conflict. When the administration was going through the possible target list for strikes with iran, that was when soleimanis name was added to that list. Then a couple weeks later, iran shot down a u. S. Drone over the the waters there in the region. And john bolton then National Security adviser advocated to take that option. Well, obviously the administration on theed against that. So what we know is that when they put soleimani on the target list, it was done with a condition. And that was something that they would consider if iran killed an american or killed, attacked americans that led to u. S. Casualties. So we had this contractor killed in kirkuk on december 27th. That pushed this one over. But not just that. This was a target of opportunity for the u. S. Military. They looked at this as the potential for a very clean strike. So they knew that they were going to be able to target him from a drone in iraq where the u. S. Military has a decent to significant sized military presence there and they have control of a lot of the air space or free access to the air space. Also it was the middle of the night. That meant the potential for civilian or other casualties were low. That was another reason they took this strike here. So i think you make an interesting point. The reasons dont have to be mutually exclusive, but heres what i dont understand. This is me as viewer watching this the last couple weeks. Why would the administration not just come out and say that this is the reason we ordered the killing of Qassem Soleimani, because he took an american life. Maybe thats not information they wanted everybody to have, but the fake answers or the different answers or the inconsistent answers start to make one wonder whether they should believe anything that comes out of the administration. They must know that confusion effects their credibility. And thats why this has been such an issue. Right . I mean, if they had come out and said Qassem Soleimani has had a decades long reign of terror in this region. Hes responsible for killing people throughout the region, and for running the groups and these militias who go out and incite terror throughout the region. If they made that the argument, this wouldnt be a conversation. But if using the argument that there was an imminent attack or that he was planning attacks that would be carried out shortly, legally it provides a stronger legal justification. But the reality is Qassem Soleimani and the militias he controlled or ordered around, they were always planning attacks in the region. I mean, they had been attacking americans on iraqi bases for weeks. And it was just the one in kirkuk that was the largest one that took an american life. I was in baghdad when they killed an iraqi. Hezbollah killed an iraqi and wounded another. Them planning attacks was not new, but the people are confused because soleimani and these militia groups, they were a threat. So why use the word imminent . Thats what they keep getting hung up on. Thank you for your excellent and important reporting on this. I have to remind people, this country has been at war for close to two decades, and some of that war is on the basis of bad information, and some of that war is on the basis of misleading information. It is incumbent on every one of us to push and to ask and to question why these things happen. Last week i interviewed congressman crenshaw whom i have a lot of respect for. He said its not right to question the decision. And that is something that came out of the briefing. I was thinking as a member of congress and a journalist, it is our only work to question these decisions. Joining us now, New York TimesNational Security and legal reporter charlie savage, and jill wine banks, also the former General Council of the u. S. Army under president carter. Jill, what do you make of this, the different stories, the different justifications . Either theres a legal justification for this or there isnt, but this just this has been muddy for the last nine or ten days. I agree with everything youve said, ali. You really hit it on the mark. There is a question whether this is justified under u. S. Law or under International Law. And the legal experts are in doubt about it. But theres also another important question which is was this the right thing to do . We attacked on another country east east territory. We did not give congress a chance to weigh in. Not even the gang of eight or the leaders ofld. There are a lot of policy,s in addition to straight out legal questions as to whether International Law allows the killing of an adversary who might be involved in planning. This was not a hot war. We werent engaged in ongoing Armed Conflict with this country. And yet, we took out one of its military leaders. So there is a serious question about the legality, but also about the wisdom, the international effects of this. Obviously the downing of a plane carrying both citizens of iran as well as canadians was a direct result of the hostile environment. It may have been a mistake in firing the missile, but that was because they were on such high alert. Charlie, democrats and republicans alike will tell you soleimani was a bad guy. An American Contractor was killed in december. So why hasnt this administration been able to give a clear answer on the justification for the air strike that killed him . I think a lot of this has to do with the legal issue. He could be a bad guy. I think everyone agrees he was a bad guy and was providing support and encouragement to the hezbollah style shiite militias for years and years. And that doesnt mean that its lawful for the United States to assassinate him. As a matter of domestic and International Law, this is a high ranking official of a sovereign government. Hes not a random terrorist. And the and so it looks like the Trump Administration decided to put out an initial story that would make it look like it fit within some legal precedent, some of which were established by the Obama Administration about when you can use force against an imminent threat. When the country thats hosting that person is unable or unwilling to take it out themselv themselves. Maybe thats a trump for sovereignty. All the legal issues that are real. Its not just like oh, it was maybe more legal if you put it that way. That would make it legal. But for that, its not legal. And then it turns out increasingly it looks like that that may not have been actually the case. That this was something that was in the works at least on the table going way back to may when the drones started when the drone was shot down and the problem with the tankers, it was being discussed all along, and that may still be a good or bad policy decision, but if its not legally available, its not something the u. S. Government ought to have done. Right. And i think thats the important part. You also made this point. Theres two separate discussions here. Was this legal or illegal under american or International Law . And once you dispensed with that discussion, then theres the policy discussion, was it the right thing to do . And people can have different views on both of these things. Im a little puzzled because there was a briefing for members of congress and senators. Many of them came out, including some republicans said the justification even there was muddled. There doesnt seem to be clarity here, and i dont understand who wins from there not being clarity . Nobody wins. Thats for sure. And its so consistent with all of the number of lies that the administration has told. You played the esper interview where he cant say that there was an imminent threat or he was aware of four embassies being under attack or possibly being attacked. It goes back to the era of Collin Powell who was a very respected general until he went to the u. N. , and put out false information about weapons of mass destruction which led us into this very proloengnged conflict. When i was general koucounsel o the army, i had to look at intelligence from north korea about whether to withdraw our troops from korea on the grounds that there was more troop strength than had previously been predicted. I know its not that easy to look at intelligence and determine what is right and wrong, but here we arent even being given the basic information that the constitution would require for a declaration of war. And this is in fact, a declaration of war. The rules of war dont allow random killings of people behind the plans killing attacks. Thats what happened here. Whether you could call it an assassination is a legal issue, but that doesnt matter. He was killed on foreign territory. It wasnt even in his own country. And we didnt notify the foreign country. We didnt notify our top people in congress. And theres no credible evidence thats been put out that there was an imminent threat, and i think charlie is correct. The reason theyre using that is because that could possibly make the attack legal. But even then, there should have been notification to the members of congress. Jill, thank you. Charlie, thank you as well. We have big news when we come back. Were going to dig in on the campaign trail. Cory booker officially out of the president ial race. Were going to look at why the promising candidate could not get traction in the president ial race. Plus President Trump claims the economy is great. So why are wages so stagnant . Were going to break it down for you. Youre watching velshi and ruhle on msnbc. Thousands of women with metastatic Breast Cancer, which is Breast Cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. Ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr her2 metastatic Breast Cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. Ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. Patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. Ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. Tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. Before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. Common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. Be in your moment. Ask your doctor about ibrance. The good news . Our comfort lasts all day. The bad news . So does his energy. Depend® fitflex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. Because, perfect or not, lifes better when youre in it. Be there with depend®. Welcome back to velshi and ruhle. Another democratic candidate is out of the president ial race with just 21 days until the iowa caucuses. Democratic senator of new jersey cory booker announced today he will be suspending his campaign for president. The announcement is ahead of tomorrows democratic debate in des moines, iowa where six candidates will take the stage. Cory booker had not qualified for that debate. Joining us now, opinion writer at the Washington Post, and msnbc contributor, jonathan capehart. In the real politics most recent poll, cory booker was below 2 . What do you make of the fact that he was viewed as a compelling, inspiring candidate, but he couldnt make any traction in the polls . Youre right. Senator booker was an inspiring candidate to a lot of people, especially the ones who supported him. He was a compelling candidate, but as ive argued in two pieces over the last couple days, particularly li when it comes to African American voters but clearly among democrats as a whole, as long as former Vice President joe biden is in the race, particularly among African American voters, candidates just arent going to gain any traction. And im bringing up African American voters, obviously, because senator cory booker is African American from new jersey in the Washington Post poll, when of African American voters when they were asked to rank the candidates in terms of who cares about the issues that i care about, senator booker came in third. So i think thats one of the probably the major reason why senator booker is no longer in the race. In a few minutes Steve Kornacki is going to join us. Were going to see the juggernaut joe biden is in in South Carolina because of African American voters. Weve had this conversation about what is inspiring African American voters and why they are increasingly important in the democratic fold and in this upcoming election. But the bottom line is virtually nobody has eaten away at joe bidens lead among African American voters or those expected to turn out in South Carolina. That is correct. South carolina is important, because within the democratic electorate there, 60 of the democratic electorate in South Carolina is African American. And also we have known this for a long time, and the new poll, hammers it home. The number one priority for African Americans in particular and democrats overall is defeating donald trump. And so i the democratic voters and black voters in particular are being pragmatic here. Im sure there are plenty of African American voters who would love to see another African American or person of color in the white house, but theyre looking at defeating donald trump, and they think that joe biden, Vice President biden is the person to do it. Jonathan, good to talk to you. Thank you for joining us. Jonathan, c jonathan capehart. And Steve Kornacki is here, correspondent for msnbc news and the guy who follows the polls be