This is a rush transcript from "Your World," January 20, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR:  Thank you, Bill, very, very much.

Meanwhile, the calm before the impeachment storm.

Hello, everyone. I'm Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."

And what a world. All quiet on Capitol Hill right now. But in about 15 hours, the volume will be, shall we say, jacked up? The impeachment trial for the president of the United States gets up and running. There's still a lot we don't know.

This much, we do. Anything could happen and historically has happened.

We're ready for anything, with Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill, as Democrats get ready to go on offense, and Kevin Corke at the White House on how the president's legal team plans to play defense with a lot of offense.

We begin with Chad.

Hey, Chad.


Well, it wasn't too quiet today because you had both administration officials doing a walk-through on the Senate floor, as well as six of the seven impeachment managers, in preparation for the trial beginning tomorrow.

Tomorrow is going to be kind of an administrative day, as they set the parameters, the framework for the debate and what this is going to look like over the next couple of weeks here.

We still don't have the resolution from the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. We don't know exactly how much time. We have been led to believe what this is going to look like, but we don't know definitively.

And then there's the question of witnesses and documents. Here is the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER:  Now, I have seen reports that some Republicans are urging that Leader McConnell put in his proposal some kind of wishy-washy language, well, maybe we should vote on witnesses and maybe we shouldn't.

That is not good enough. That's a dodge. We are going to demand votes, yes or no, up or down, on the four witnesses we have requested and on the three sets of documents we requested. We will force those votes.


PERGRAM:  Now, Schumer is going to force those votes tomorrow, but he probably won't win.

The Democrats don't have the votes. This is what we're expecting, 12-hour days on Wednesday and Thursday, for the House managers to present their cases. That means, if they're not starting until 1:00 in the afternoon, because they have to accommodate the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, who is across the street hearing at cases at the Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday, we're probably going to go to 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, bleeding into the next day here this week.

And then it's the question of witnesses probably next week. The other thing here is that, in the 1999 trial with President Clinton, it's a different world, no iPhones back then. Senators are basically tethered to their desk. 
They can't go out to the Cloakroom.

They can't be going through their iPhone, going out to the hall to talk to reporters. They are tethered to their desks -- desk. They are basically off the grid.

These are rules that were not set in 1999, but rules that basically were created in 1868. That was the first presidential impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson -- Neil.

CAVUTO:  I remember you covered that very well. Thank you, my friend.

PERGRAM:  It was very similar, yes.

CAVUTO:  Yes, indeed. You were quite good even back then.

PERGRAM:  Thank you.

CAVUTO:  All right.

Well, President Trump's legal team is filing its own impeachment brief today, and it ended up being almost as many pages as the defense managers' 
in the House.

Kevin Corke at the White House on how that defense is shaping up -- Kevin.


Flimsy, a perversion of the Constitution, blazingly political -- brazenly, that is -- and, of course, rigged, just some of the descriptions by White House attorneys as they talk about the articles of impeachment from the House in a brief unveiled this afternoon, the executive summary, Neil, about 110 pages' long.

It argues this: "The articles of impeachment presented by House Democrats are constitutionally deficient on their face. The theories underpinning them would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution and to our structure of government."

White House officials say this should mean a quick acquittal with no need for more witnesses. But if Democrats insist on going down that road,, they say they will be ready.


KELLYANNE CONWAY, TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER:  The president was denied witnesses in the House proceeding. The -- and if the Democrats really want to go down that road and have witnesses, then we're going to have reciprocity in those witnesses.

I dare them. Let's be careful what you wish for.


CORKE:  Counsel to the president Kellyanne Conway.

Meanwhile, Democratic House managers left the chamber today as preparations for the trial continue, one they say should include more witnesses, and indeed a lot more evidence.

As you also know, Neil, the president later today leaves for Davos for the World Economic Forum. He is expected to talk a great deal about trade, perhaps a little tariff talk as well. And climate change, I will expect it to draw the biggest headlines.

And, of course, we will be here when the president leaves. If we get sound, I promise to pass in along -- but, for now, back to you.

CAVUTO:  All right, you always do.

Thank you, my friend, Kevin Corke at the White House.

Well, former federal prosecutor Doug Burns is with us, The New York Post's Kelly Jane Torrance, and The National Review's Mairead McArdle.

Let me get your sense of this, Kellyanne, as far as what we -- Kelly Jane -
- can expect. The White House has essentially said in its legal position, this is a waste of time, saying that this impeachment process is flimsy, that we did absolutely nothing wrong, it's a dangerous perversion of the Constitution.

So right from the get-go, they're essentially saying, what are we here for?


And it's interesting because, Neil, you might remember that for a while we were hearing that Trump actually wanted a drawn-out trial. He liked the idea of the drama of it, and he wanted to make a case for why he shouldn't be impeached.

CAVUTO:  He wanted his own witnesses too, right? Right.

TORRANCE:  Exactly. And so that's the thing.

He wanted to call Hunter Biden, but maybe he will have to give them John Bolton if he's going to do that. I have to say, listening to some of the lines from the defense brief, it sounds a lot like a number of lines in this letter that Chuck Schumer sent in February 1999 that...

CAVUTO:  Yes, and a lot of roles are reversed here. We're going to be getting into that.


TORRANCE:  He talked about how the president -- he said President Clinton did something wrong, but it didn't rise to the level of impeachment and impeachment shouldn't be used as a political stunt to do what you can't do at the ballot box.

I just re-read that letter today. And it sounds a lot like the president's defense.

CAVUTO:  Yes, both are busy playing these games here.

I do want to get into the issue of witnesses. That's been coming up, of course. The Democrats have a long witness wish list, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, Mulvaney's assistant, Michael Duffey, a White House budget director that might have had a key role at the time in securing and then blocking these funds, allegedly, to the Ukraine.

Republicans come back and they say, Adam Schiff, we want to hear from, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden. Where does this go?

MAIREAD MCARDLE, NATIONAL REVIEW:  I think that you first you saw Trump saying that he did want witnesses, and now the White House is saying that they want this to be short, a two-week trial.

Why do we need witnesses if the House impeachment process was solid, rock- solid, as Schiff said? But so we will -- and I think the length will largely depend on whether Democrats get the witnesses that they want. So we will see how it goes.

CAVUTO:  Well, you have a number of new developments.

I don't know whether witnesses are called for that, but it could delay things, right?


CAVUTO:  You have, obviously, the Parnas testimony, this guy who was a close associate Rudy Giuliani.

BURNS:  Right.

CAVUTO:  Lev Parnas, he's talking to the media right now, talked to a number of people.

BURNS:  Yes.

CAVUTO:  You have other developments where the government in Ukraine is investigating whether our former ambassador was surveilled.

BURNS:  Yes.

CAVUTO:  So there are a lot of new things that have happened that could delay this.


BURNS:  Well, there are two schools of thought.

One school of thought, as referred to, is, look, what's done in the House, that's the case and then you argue it and the Senate decides. The other school of thought is, no, that's more like an indictment in the House. And when you get to the courtroom for trial, of course you can introduce new information.

So I'm kind of...


CAVUTO:  Does that new information mean witnesses?

BURNS:  Well, yes.

But, Lev Parnas, I mean, we're all familiar with the Aesop's Fable the boy who cried wolf, right?

CAVUTO:  Right.

BURNS:  So OK, Michael Cohen, that's it. Trump's done. Paul Manafort, that's it. Trump's done.

Lev Parnas. Sound familiar?

CAVUTO:  So do you think -- Republicans might want the opportunity.

For example, Democrats have pushing Parnas to speak. They might like the opportunity to shoot down a lot of the stuff he said, or there a great risk in that?

TORRANCE:  I mean, there's a risk in that they don't know for sure what he's going to say.

He certainly is giving a preview on all of the cable shows, and newspapers, it seems like. But, yes, they don't know for certain what they will say.

But I think one of the reasons that Democrats are really calling for witnesses is that their case didn't convince the American people. We actually saw a slight dip in support for impeachment during the impeachment inquiry. Once the hearings were public and people started to see what the case was, there was actually a slight dip in support.

CAVUTO:  But do you think it's changed any minds?

You always remind me -- and you have as well -- all of a sudden, if you're supportive of the president, think that this is a witch-hunt, you still are, right? If you think that he should be nailed to the wall, you still think that way.

I'm just wondering about any minds being changed in any party, because this still comes across as a very partisan affair in the end.

MCARDLE:  Well, right.

And I think Trump's legal team is making a two-fold argument. One is that, is abuse of power a specific crime? Can you impeach a president for that? 
And the other one is that, whether it is or not...

CAVUTO:  Because some of them are saying, even there is abuse of power, it's not

MCARDLE:  Right. Exactly.

Some people are saying...

CAVUTO:  Is it? I don't even know the law.

MCARDLE:  I -- there are arguments either way.

BURNS:  We have what's called the plain meaning rule, when you look at a statute, and what that rule says is, if the plain meaning is apparent from the face of the statute, you don't need to go any farther.

So the Constitution says treason, bribery or other -- that's the key word -- other high crimes and misdemeanors. So what that means is other very serious crimes.

Let's say you had a statute, Ferrari, Rolls-Royces, and other high cars. The Democrats are essentially arguing that a 15-year-old jalopy would meet that statute. And it doesn't.

CAVUTO:  Depends on the Ferrari, though, repairs that you have to...

BURNS:  True. Good point.

CAVUTO:  So, finally, where do we go with this?

And, Kelly Jane, this is where it gets to be kind of thorny. A quick trial would be deemed by Democrats to be, oh, this is all cooked and they -- Republicans knew this ahead of time. The American people will never buy this.

A longer one could also boomerang on those Democratic senatorial candidates who have to sit down and be there for the whole thing. So how does this ultimately go?

TORRANCE:  Yes. I'm sure Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are hoping for a long trial. They would like nothing more than to see their biggest rivals stuck in the Senate.

But I do think it has a real risk of backfiring. And that's because I think Americans are kind of tired of this. No matter what you think -- like you said, a lot of minds aren't being changed.

The people who -- eh, they're kind of not sure, they're not...


CAVUTO:  But the longer it goes on, the more, let's say, Republicans risk exposing the president to things that he'd rather not be exposed to.


And I think that is one reason we might have seen that delay, is that they're hoping that more comes out that makes President Trump look bad in the eyes of the American public, if not uncover evidence of an impeachable offense.

CAVUTO:  So, brevity will trump whatever you can -- no pun intended -- get out of this, right?

For the president, you want this done quickly.

MCARDLE:  For the president, yes.

And the calling witnesses, from the point of view of Democrats, will drag it out longer. It'll last four or five weeks maybe.

CAVUTO:  But when you call witnesses, they're not going to speak and you're not going to hear them in the public. They're going to be deposed, right?

And then senators will quote from...


BURNS:  Yes, most likely, that will be the way it'll be, as opposed to live.

I mean, look, if it's quick, it sets up the political sound bite. This wasn't fair. It wasn't a fair trial. Everybody will be screaming.

CAVUTO:  Right.

BURNS:  The longer it goes, it's probably better for the Republicans to say, hey, it was a full airing out of the issues in a trial setting. And there it is.

So, look, when you have Chuck Schumer saying in '98, oh, no, you are usurping the voters, and now the opposite, that cements the point that it's political, obviously. The man is a graduate of Harvard Law School. So how can you argue complete polar 180 opposites on law?

CAVUTO:  All right, both are playing games on this.

We have gone back in history to see how Republicans and Democrats are playing this to their favor, sometimes by doing a 180 on positions they had little more than 20 years ago in the last impeachment process.

By the way, this is only the third impeachment trial in our nation's history. One thing we have concluded that is certain, they rarely finish the way they started.



GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON, R-ARK.:  It is a very risky prospect for either side to start a new round of witnesses.

And this is very unusual, because in -- what the debate was 20 years ago as to whether witnesses who had previously given testimony in the independent counsel investigation or in the House, they would be called as live witnesses.

And our case was that live witnesses is -- really allows the Senate to better evaluate the credibility of their testimony. This is totally different this year, because the House didn't call many of the witnesses that they're now arguing ought to testify.


CAVUTO:  That was former Clinton impeachment manager Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson telling me on my "Cavuto Live" Saturday show that the differences between 20 years ago and now is that the House didn't call any of the witnesses that both sides are arguing should testify in the Senate trial.

Historian Burt Folsom on those distinctions and what to make of them.

Burt, I guess it's historic that both sides will always argue, especially if each body is in different political hands, of the procedure, witnesses, lack thereof, focus.

But this seems particularly aggressive. Where do you see it all going?

BURT FOLSOM, HISTORIAN:  Sure. You're right.

The situation was different in 1999. Part of the key to this, Neil, is you need a two-thirds vote to convict of impeachment. And the parties are divided roughly evenly. So the impeaching party has to persuade lots of members of the other party to bolt.

And the Republicans back in 1999 felt that you had President Clinton guilty of lying to a grand jury. The question is, does that crime rise to the level of impeachment? They felt, if they could bring the witnesses in that the House had already interviewed, then the presence of those witnesses would help cement their case.

CAVUTO:  But, Burt, wasn't there a distinction then with President Clinton at the time? He was forced into ultimately admitting about that affair with Monica Lewinsky.


CAVUTO:  The process was quite well along. This president doesn't think he's done anything wrong. So there's nothing to admit to. I understand that.

FOLSOM:  Sure.

CAVUTO:  But that has got to make a difference in terms of where you take it to the next level, right?

FOLSOM:  Oh, sure. I think so, definitely.

And in the first impeachment we had with President Johnson, you had a heavily partisan affair, where the Republicans were -- even though they had
-- they did have the two-thirds majority, they were not able to convince members of their own party to convict President Johnson.

He was able to escape impeachment, conviction for impeachment.

CAVUTO:  So, much is made of the significance of the Senate trial and how long it lasts. The longer it lasts, the more problematic.

We don't have much to go on. But, in this case, the president seems to be pushing or at least his legal team seems to be pushing for a quick affair, ideally, two weeks or so. I don't know how likely that is.

And I don't even know whether, in the end, they really want that, or the president zealously wants to go ahead and vindicate himself and maybe call for witnesses who could help him do that.

FOLSOM:  Sure.

CAVUTO:  But is it fair to say that, the longer it drags on, the more problematic for the president, or how would you describe it?

FOLSOM:  It may be.

It could go either way. Impeachment trials are loaded with surprises. And I think that it could go either way. A long trial, because it's sort of a fishing expedition for the Democrats -- and the Democrats are hoping that if they get this fishing expedition going, that they might be able to hook an impeachment fish.

CAVUTO:  Right.

FOLSOM:  But the Republicans are saying the longer -- might think, the longer this goes on, the more ludicrous the Democratic assumptions are that President Trump has committed a crime, and it will then backfire on the Democrats.

CAVUTO:  What about the idea of late-breaking developments, where -- whether you have extra witnesses or not, we have had enough come out, with the Lev Parnas comments in interviews with the likes of Rachel Maddow, et cetera, to say nothing of this investigation into Ukraine looking into whether we had surveilled our former ambassador there, that there's enough there to at least drag this out a little longer just to look into all that stuff?

FOLSOM:  Well, there are always things happening.

CAVUTO:  True.

FOLSOM:  The argument that the Republicans would make is, you need to have your case made and then bring it to the Senate on the basis of the evidence that you have accumulated in the House, not that you try to fish and find new evidence later to cement your case.

CAVUTO:  Well said.

Burt Folsom, no wonder. You do know what you're talking about.


CAVUTO:  Thank you, my friend, very, very much, distinguished fellow, historian extraordinaire over at Hillsdale College.

In the meantime, we are celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. today, as we should. What would he make of an economy that has now produced record low unemployment for African-Americans and minorities? How would he assess what's happening?

After this.


CAVUTO:  All right, kind of a Fox News Alert here, not a surprising one.

Lev Parnas has formally requested that Attorney General William Barr recuse himself from his case, citing a conflict of interests. Remember, he has fingered the attorney general for a lot of conflicts of interests.

He said that would make him sort of, not only conflicted, but an unreliable representative here. Again, we will keep you posted on any further developments.

In the meantime, the president is overseeing an economy with about the lowest unemployment rates we have seen for, forget about regular Americans, all types of groups, from women, Hispanics, African-American, lowest on record.

Martin Luther King would like that. But what would he make of that and the guy who is delivering the goods on that?

Fox Business Network's Charles Payne here to reflect on that.

What do you make of it?

CHARLES PAYNE, HOST, "MAKING MONEY":  Well, it's -- really, we're in a remarkable stretch right now.

The last year-and-a-half, two years has really been just -- just amazing. I was looking at some data before I came. Just last year alone, non-white income growth was significantly higher than white income growth every single month, except January, when they were even.

It's not just that they were a little bit above this. The data I looked at went over several decades, far above. We're talking like 4.3 percent vs. 
3.5 percent, that kind of stuff, on a month-to-month basis every single month.

It really is remarkable, the employment, the population, things that go beyond the unemployment rate. Are people coming back to the labor force? 
Are they making more money?

Now, here's the problem. In 2018, black and -- black wages went up as fast as anyone else's, except Asian Americans. But the household -- median household income was a little over $41,000. It peaked in 2000 at a little over $43,000.


PAYNE:  So there's a lot to make up here. And this is where the frustration is.

CAVUTO:  You know, it's interesting, too, because you and I can remember during the campaign when Donald Trump was running for president -- and we have a clip of this -- he would always make an appeal to African-American audiences about taking a chance on him.

I want you to react to this.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  What do you have to lose? You're living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs; 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?



CAVUTO:  That was this pitch.

PAYNE:  Yes.

And, listen, black -- black people are prideful, in terms of keeping it real. For some now, that was too hard-hitting, but the stats are the stats and the truth was the truth.

And a lot of times, you say to yourself, why? Why? The correlation between education -- Neil, one of my big pet peeves is that, if you really like me, stop giving my kids and my grandkids watered-down educations, because I don't really care if you like me. I want you to respect me.

And you don't really think I'm smart, you don't really think I could be your accountant, you don't think I could be your stockbroker, if you give me these watered-downed educations, and then later on try to readjust it by taking something from someone who earned it.

In New York City, classic example, Stuyvesant High School, where all the smartest kids go.

CAVUTO:  Right. Right.

PAYNE:  Over 50 percent of those kids are Asian. They earned it.

There's talk about taking their places and giving it to black kids. Now, the black kids didn't have a chance to earn it because progressive cities give them watered-down educations, starting at kindergarten.

So if you didn't give me the education, if you didn't think I was smart enough or my kids weren't smart enough, don't do me any favors and offer me a higher minimum wage later.


CAVUTO:  That's what Republicans are saying. Democrats have been taking you for granted.

PAYNE:  Absolutely.

CAVUTO:  Promised you they're going to start spending trillions, and you get very little for it, so take a chance on us.

But they don't do it aggressively, that is, Republicans. Why not?

PAYNE:  Well, President Trump, honestly, is the first president I ever seen just over and over again make overtures to black Americans.

Now, there's a whole lot of other things.

CAVUTO:  Do you think it will translate to a higher percentage?


PAYNE:  I think it will. I think it will.

Listen, I think it'll be double digits.


PAYNE:  It won't -- I think it'll be double digits.

And, listen, black people are doing extraordinarily well. They're not going to tell pollsters. I can tell you right now, they're not going to tell a pollster. They're not going to say anything.


CAVUTO:  In the privacy of that voting booth, they will pull the lever for him?

PAYNE:  I really believe that will happen.

When I was watching the LSU thing, the kids and President Trump, I was really nervous with the kid Ja'Marr Chase. His body language was a little fidgety. He smiled a few times with his buddy.

CAVUTO:  Oh, yes, yes.

PAYNE:  But I could tell he was a little tense.

And then when Trump said, come say a few words, it was like, uh-oh, because I know that kid in the 24 hours before that got called an Uncle Tom, was told, why are you going to the White House, that this president hates you.

The pressure that this young man was under, and when he went to the mic and says, I'm just happy to be in the White House, I wanted to burst in tears.

CAVUTO:  Yes, that was very moving.

PAYNE:  Because that's how he should feel.

And that's how we should feel about the progress we are making in this country. We should be able to enjoy it and be able to vote for who we want to vote for, based on how we feel.

CAVUTO:  But you feel that there are a good number of African-Americans who are going to do just that in the voting booth, that just they're not going to admit it to pollsters?

PAYNE:  Absolutely. Absolutely.

CAVUTO:  Interesting.

PAYNE:  Yes.

CAVUTO:  All right. Well, you have been uncannily right about everything else.

PAYNE:  Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO:  So, we shall see.


CAVUTO:  You have got to be wrong one of these days.


CAVUTO:  All right, Charles Payne, he is the best, and he knows of what he speaks, an incredible life story.

By the way, 20 years ago, lawmakers were taking sides over witnesses and Senate trials, Republicans arguing one point, Democrats arguing the other. 
We have gone back in time, because we have this ability to look at tape.

And you will be amazed the 180s since then -- after this.


CAVUTO:  All right, we got a new crisis in China, has nothing to do with trade, nothing to do with the economy, but, man, oh, man, it is spreading, and fast, and maybe your health depends on it.

The story you're not hearing that you should be, and you will after this.

CAVUTO:  Now, you know, politics is a funny thing when it comes to impeachment.

Twenty years ago, the major players in the Clinton impeachment trial were at odds at, well, calling witnesses in the Senate.

Take a look, 20 years ago.


SCHUMER:  It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.:  In every trial that there has ever been in the Senate regarding impeachment, witnesses were called.


CAVUTO:  So, of course, that had us thinking -- it happens sometimes -- they must feel the exact same way today, right?

Take a look.


SCHUMER:  We can force votes. Leader McConnell will never be for witnesses and documents. He is -- he has said he's taking his cue from the White House, and the White House wants a cover-up.

GRAHAM:  Clearly, to me, any president would ask for executive privilege regarding these witnesses. And if they were that important, why don't you call them in the House?


CAVUTO:  This is begging for an Abbott and Costello moment, right?

I mean, but you just said 20 years ago you wanted to...


CAVUTO:  A little different, but is this all just partisan politics?

Axios political reporter Caitlin Owens, Democratic strategist David Morey, GOP strategist Justin Sayfie.

Caitlin, I know politics, how it works. I get that. I'm not meaning to disparage either those gentlemen.

But when the roles are flipped, so are the points of view. That just heightens the sentiment that this is all politics.

CAITLIN OWENS, AXIOS:  Right. Of course it does.

And this is Washington. This is not the first time that we have had side- by-side clips of politicians appearing to talk out of both sides of their mouth, depending on whether -- whether it's politically expedient or not.

That said, of course, there's also a point of view that this is just different than 20 years ago, right? And we're fighting about process at this point. It's kind of an age-old Washington tactic to -- instead of fighting about the marriage, you're fighting about process, which, if you -- 20 years ago, you were on the other side, it doesn't look good.

CAVUTO:  No, it does not.

I don't mean to jump on you there, Caitlin, but I just want to switch to Washington right now. This is outside the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington, D.C., the president and the vice president of the United States quietly paying their respects -- their respects to the former civil rights leader.

We just learned that he wanted to stop by there.

If you think about it, Justin Sayfie, the backdrop that the president has been using is to continue with his business, in this case all the other things that are going on -- he will be leaving for Davos, Switzerland.

He has been mentioning, speaking of Martin Luther King, the great progress made for minorities and all Americans in the labor market. Now, that is the backdrop for a lot of this, less so impeachment.

How is that, you think, working out?

JUSTIN SAYFIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  I think it's the right strategy for the president.

It's a two-pronged strategy. On one hand, he has his stellar legal team defending impeachment in the Senate, but at the same time he wants to show the American people that he's not being distracted by impeachment, that he's going to continue to lead, he's going to go to Davos, Switzerland, meet with world leaders there, talk about the incredible U.S. economy and how it's doing.

I think it's exactly the thing that he should be doing, and I think that Bill Clinton even tried to do 20 years ago.

CAVUTO:  You know, David, looking at this, and knowing how people had reversed sort of points of view because the shoe was on the other foot, to Caitlin's earlier point, Chuck Schumer felt no need for witnesses back then, now thinks we should, Lindsey Graham, big need for witnesses back then, no need now, doesn't this play into that theme that few minds are going to be changed in this partisan divide?

DAVID MOREY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  Yes, it probably does, Neil.

I don't think we're going to have a lot of minds changed, unless somebody pulls at a thread. We do have witnesses, which we probably will end up having some witnesses. And the more you pull on the threads here, the more you find.

Look, we got some vertigo on the president's legal team, with Dershowitz and Starr. And 'in 99, in the impeachment scandal of Clinton, there was a big Ken Starr investigation. There wasn't quite that in the House. And they had a lot of trouble, as you know, getting witnesses through the House process, because they would have had to fight in legal battles that would take forever in the court system.

So, it's a different can of worms here. I suspect we're not going to change a lot of minds, though. We're going to be watching a lot of TV, though.

CAVUTO:  Yes, I guess we will.

Caitlin, I'm just wondering, in that environment here, whether length will matter. In other words, how long this drags on will matter. It's -- Republicans, the argument goes, the shorter the better.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. But what are you hearing?

OWENS:  Right.

I think that it depends, matter for what, right? I think that, again, if more witnesses -- if witnesses are allowed to testify, we could learn more, right? And that could be damaging to the president. Or there's a world too where it could be exonerating.

But everything we have learned so far -- I think, so far, we have seen that, the more people talk, the worse it gets for the president, right?

But in terms of mattering ultimately for how senators votes, I don't know that it matters. I think a lot of minds are made up already.


OWENS:  And the Senate has the votes to acquit him.

And then in terms of the 2020 election, you know, that's a long time from now.

CAVUTO:  It is, indeed. No, it is.

David, I just had Charles Payne on here, who thinks that the polls aren't reflecting support particularly among minorities for the president. They just can't and won't admit it. What did you make of that?

MOREY:  I think there's some truth in it.

But if you look at -- you would have to add a lot of numbers to the polls. 
As you know, the African-American vote is so low for Trump in the polling.

I think what the polls are not really telling us, and maybe the pundits as well, Neil, is the turnout energy that the Democrats may have.

Short of a third-party run, short of a war which distracts the country, the Democrats have this tremendous energy to beat Trump. Hard to unite the Democrats. They are very united around that concept.

CAVUTO:  Yes, it depends on who their nominee is, to your point.

MOREY:  True.

CAVUTO:  Justin, the Republicans are very united too. They think the president has been shamed on this whole impeachment thing. So both parties are very galvanized, aren't they?

SAYFIE:  Well, they are.

And for President Trump, he's going to use this whole impeachment thing to pound his narrative that he's in Washington challenging the swamp that he calls it, and the swamp is trying to send him home and kick him out.

So, really, the interesting thing about impeachment is it plays exactly into his narrative that he's representing the people, that people in Washington don't like that, and that's going to galvanize Republicans. And I think it's also going to help him with some disaffected voters that he won in some of those Midwestern swing states as well.

CAVUTO:  We shall see. Still early, to Caitlin's point. No, no.

All right, in the meantime, guys, if global tensions with Iran weren't already high, now they are threatening to back out of yet another nuclear treaty, the one they backed out from originally? Or is this a new one?

You will be surprised.


CAVUTO:  All right, Iran is mad at everyone these days, threatening to back out of that global nuclear treaty if Europe refers it to the U.N. Security Council over alleged agreement violations.

It's a mess. That's where we stand right now.

Atlanta Council senior fellow Sean McFate.

You know, professor, what is your sense of where this is going? I mean, obviously, the deal seems all but destroyed now, when even the Europeans are thinking we're going to drag you to the U.N. to straighten out some things. It's done, isn't it? Is there any debating it?

SEAN MCFATE, ATLANTIC COUNCIL:  Well, the JCPOA, or the Iran deal, it's in hospice right now. There's no denying it.

The Iranian regime and the European powers, I think they all know where this is heading. And we should have no illusions about any of this.

CAVUTO:  So, when the provocative actions that Iran has taken, when John Kerry lamented this in a New York Times editorial -- I think it was The New York Times -- a couple of weeks ago, sir, he had said much, in fact, none of this, none of these provocative actions would have taken place, the going after a Saudi Aramco facility, the -- what's been happening in the Persian Gulf, all these other incendiary incidents, if we hadn't ripped up that agreement.

That struck me as a bit of a stretch, but what do you think?

MCFATE:  It's a stretch.

I mean, there's no way to know. The Middle East, as everybody knows, is super complex. To say that this was the golden bullet or we have you wish to describe it, it would have been utopian otherwise, it's a little -- it's a little bit of a stretch.

I think we all know -- I think we all -- there was a lot of concern, even during the day, when Israel and Saudi Arabia who had the most to fear from Iran were vehemently against this deal.

CAVUTO:  So now what happens? Let's say the deal is all but dead. They have sent out signals -- I don't know if that's the proper terminology, Professor, but signals that they might entertain getting back into talk through third-, fourth-, fifth-party sources.

How likely is that?

MCFATE:  I think they're playing -- they're playing it out.

What's really going on is that Russia and Iran have been moving closer to each other for months now. And they're creating a secret and soon-to-be not-so-secret alliance to sort of, in some ways, have serious hegemonic influence in the Middle East.

Russia has sought to not extend the arms embargo when they expire in October and October, so that they can sell Iran hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons and create path dependency between Iran and Russia.

And they fight in a new way of war. They're slowly and quietly winning the Middle East, something we should be very concerned about.

CAVUTO:  All right, thank you, sir. We will see what happens there. But it's different drama each day, it seems.


CAVUTO:  In meantime, a new crisis in China, but it's got nothing to do with trade, nothing to do with money, nothing to do with a phase two, three or four type of an economic deal, but it's spreading fast.


CAVUTO:  Well, ahead of the Chinese new year, health officials are grappling with a new virus that has apparently killed at least three people and infected over 200 in China, this as millions of people travel for the holiday. And from that neck of the woods, it is a very big, very busy holiday, at that.

Now to the threat of an outbreak. How real is that?

Emergency medicine physician Dr. Janette Nesheiwat joins us right now.

Doctor, when I hear what I'm getting from the Chinese, I'm automatically suspicious, are they -- are they telling us the truth? I mean, what do you know about the so-called 200 who have gotten this? What's the real deal?


I don't think they want to remake of what happened a few years ago when we saw SARS and also MERS. But what's happening is, Neil, there's this new strain of what's called the coronavirus.

And, typically, this just is a virus that causes a common cold, sniffles, runny nose, congestion, headache, that sort of thing. But some of the strains can be more serious, more deadly.

And this is a third strain that has been found to cause viral pneumonia, which has killed about three people. And they are taking precautions to inform the community, inform the public.

And they're also checking patients before they get on flights to make sure they don't -- they're not running a fever, and testing them for this virus, so it doesn't spread to other parts of the world and other parts of the country.

CAVUTO:  But it is, in the case of this one South Korean woman, who I guess was athletic and young, and then she died, heading to Korea.

So I'm beginning to wonder now whether the genie is out of the bottle here.

NESHEIWAT:  Well, so, yes, we have seen that it's in Wuhan, China, Shanghai, Beijing. And so we're taking precautions. This is nothing to panic about.

Again, most of the time, it's limited, self-limited virus, most people do fine. But for some people, maybe they have a weakened immune system, or it just attacks them in a certain way. Then it can cause severe upper respiratory infection, pneumonia, and that can be life-threatening.

It's affected, they say, about 200 people that are known, but about 1,700 actually is the number that they have estimated that are underreported.

But if you have any symptoms, Neil, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, see your doctor. But they are taking precautions, working with the CDC to ensure the safety of other countries and other passengers.

And even here in the United States, JFK, L.A. and San Francisco airports are screening passengers coming in for that -- from that part of the world, checking for temperatures, taking a history, asking them where they have been, where they're coming in from, and also asking for any signs and symptoms.

And even if they say they don't have any symptoms, we are giving them information where they can go and who they can contact if they develop any symptoms, because it can take up to a couple of weeks later until you have any symptoms potentially.

CAVUTO:  So you might be carrying it, but the incubation has not started, and that could be delayed.


CAVUTO:  And that -- it's in that interim that people are traveling and flying all over the place, and that's the risk of spreading.


CAVUTO:  What are just basic advice for folks who are hearing this now to protect yourself? As you said, there's no vaccine been available for the time being. What do you do?

NESHEIWAT:  Well, some of the most important things to do are actually very common, basic things. Keep your hands washed and clean.

Avoid sick contacts. If you're going to that part of the world, wear a mask and don't do any unnecessary traveling. If you...

CAVUTO:  Does this travel by air, Doctor? In other words, it can carry from one person to the other just by air?


If someone is coughing and sneezing, potentially, you can catch it. Also, they found it to be linked to a local animal seafood market in Wuhan, China. So they believe this strain was from animal to human, and then potentially it can spread to other humans from coughing and sneezing and that sort of thing.

So just take commonsense precautions. Stay away from sick people. Keep your hands washed and clean. Make sure you're up to date with your immunizations. That's very important. Of course, stay warm, stay hydrated, that sort of thing.

CAVUTO:  Well, good advice, all.

Dr. Nesheiwat, always good seeing you, emergency medicine physician...

NESHEIWAT:  Great to see you, too.

CAVUTO:  ... joining us with some good, helpful pointers, just to be on the safe side.

Meanwhile, ahead of the Iowa caucuses, Democratic senators running for president are getting pulled from the trail for the trial -- why one says, you know what, I'm not worried at all.



CAVUTO:  You are not on the stump campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. 
How do you feel about that?

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET, D-COLO., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Well, I think we have a constitutional duty to fulfill, so I'm not worried about getting taken off the campaign trail.


CAVUTO:  Colorado Senator and 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bennet telling me on "Cavuto Live" this past Saturday he's not worried about getting pulled off the trail for the impeachment trial.

Senators running for president, though, are stuck in the Capitol throughout this process. How does that fall out?

Ellison Barber follow it closely from the trail.

Hey, Ellison.


There are nine Democratic candidates here in Des Moines participating in the Black and Brown Presidential Forum. A number of them flew here, sprinted here after participating in Martin Luther King events in Columbia, South Carolina.

As you said, this is the last day for some of them to really campaign before the impeachment trial gets under way. There are four senators still running for president right now, all of them having to return back to D.C. 
later tonight in order to participate in the impeachment trial, but two of them are going back to D.C. with significant endorsements.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar were both endorsed by The New York Times editorial board. The board did something very unexpected by announcing they were going to have two candidates that they support, and they're getting a little bit of criticism for that.

But the editorial board wrote this -- quote -- "If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach."

The Iowa caucuses are now 14 days away. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders are at the top of recent state polls, but The Times says neither candidate is in their view up for the job.

For Sanders, they say health is a concern and question the effectiveness of his anti-compromise approach for policies that are often, in their words, overly rigid, untested and divisive.

On Biden, they suggest his policy proposals are outdated and aimed at returning to a pre-Trump status quo. They say it is time for Biden to pass the torch to a new younger generation of political leaders -- Neil.

CAVUTO:  So all those candidates who are running, the senators who are running, they have to be backed by tomorrow, pretty much, right?

BARBER:  Mm-hmm. Yes.

I mean, it was amazing. Some of them were a little bit later here, I think, than we were expecting because they were in South Carolina.

CAVUTO:  Right.

BARBER:  But you can see how important it is for them to get on the ground as quickly as they can, because they won't be here. We are expecting to see some of them Skype or even phone into various town halls while they're back in D.C.

CAVUTO:  All right, thank you, Ellison. Great reporting, as usual, Ellison Barber following all of that in Iowa, of course, the scene of the caucuses a little more than two weeks away, not even.

Meanwhile, our impeachment coverage and its impact on the election and the markets continues tomorrow on "Coast to Coast" 12 noon Eastern time, the fallout from something that has had no fallout thus far.

What are the markets telling us that others are missing? We will tell you tomorrow.

Here comes "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.