Dershowitz: Articles of impeachment are unconstitutional

close

Video

Dershowitz: Articles of impeachment are unconstitutional

President Trump's constitutional representative Alan Dershowitz breaks down the legal team's argument for the impeachment trial.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," January 21, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And welcome to "Hannity."

Tonight, we're going to begin with a big Fox News alert. My monologue on what is now the Schumer-Schiff sham show is just moments away, and how there's not much new that we're really learning when something happens, though, on the ground in Capitol Hill. We'll have the very latest details, and we'll go to the hearings if necessary.

But, first, we get the very latest from Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram, who's there on the ground -- watching all day and suffering through a lot of this tediousness.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, good evening, Sean.

Well, right now, the Senate is debating a proposal by Chuck Schumer to subpoena Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. Over about the past 45 minutes or so, we've heard from Hakeem Jeffries. He's one of the impeachment managers. He's the chair of the Democratic Caucus here. There will be a vote on this later.

What we've seen over the course of the day are a lot of motions to table. These are not direct up or down votes on the issue at hand. These are one step remove. A motion to table means you're going to kill it, kind of euthanize it here.

Democrats are trying to engineer some of these votes to put vulnerable Republican senators who are facing tough reelection campaigns this fall on the record here -- Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Thom Tillis of North Carolina. You can imagine, you know, this is an effort to do that.

But they might say, we didn't actually vote against witnesses or documents or subpoenas. What we did here was we were voting one step away.

Now, here's a change: we think that the articles of impeachment, the case that the House prosecutors are going to make, is going to be spread out over three days. The reason is there was a last-minute change made by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moments before they started the trial today. In fact, it delayed the start of the trial by about 18 minutes.

If you look at the document McConnell had to actually go through in longhand with chicken scratches and change the length of the amount of time that they were going to debate this from two days to three days. The reason is he didn't have the votes in his conference. So, you know, McConnell has said he has the votes to carry out this trial the framework that he propounded a couple of weeks ago following the Clinton model from 1999, but he had to amend that today.

So, we expect this to go probably to midnight, maybe later. Other proposals to amend McConnell's framework from Chuck Schumer later tonight, and then they actually get to the arguments tomorrow.

Sean, back to you.

HANNITY: And, Chad, just to confirm. It's pretty much what was the same in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton is each side gets 24 hours, then they'll have 16 hours of questions. The issue then of potential witnesses comes up, and that then would also bring up the issue of executive privilege, which is why I would expect this motion to bring in Mick Mulvaney will be tabled for now and discuss later.

PERGRAM: That's right. And they probably wouldn't get back to that witness question until sometime next week, you know? But the important thing here is they subdivided this up rather than in 12-hour tranches over the next two days for the House prosecutors Wednesday and Thursday. They're probably going to get Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and then they punt back over to the president's team, you know, as they defend the president.

I'm told, you know, they have kind of two or three audience here -- audiences here for the president's defense team. One is the public. One are the senators. And the other one is in Switzerland right now, the president United States in Davos, Switzerland.

HANNITY: And what's key to your report too is, oh, they want to -- they want Republicans to take a vote so they can use it politically to bludgeon them in 2020, which is behind a lot of this, and that's very revealing.

Chad, thank you. We'll check in throughout the night.

And any developments as it's happening, we will go to it and bring it to you live.

Well, it's now officially as we call the Schumer-Schiff sham show. It is now proceeding in the U.S. Senate as you see on your screen. Well, most of you are likely working today.

I want to bring you the full comprehensive rundown. All that has happened earlier, what is ahead in this process, why it matters, it doesn't matter.

The Democrats, of course, they have been led by somebody who's compromised in this very case, somebody who's lied about this very case. I call him the congenital liar. That would be Adam Schiff and his comrades. They have literally been spewing B.S. for hours and hours. It is still going on.

We're going to point out something the rest of the media will never tell you, the many lies that were actually told today. We'll give you the truth. We'll give you the facts.

We'll bring it to you night after night. We will give you the insight. We'll give you all the day's developments and, sadly, we'll talk about what is a great divide in this country as a result of this.

Like last week, while the president did what he was doing, what he said many people were saying was impossible -- last week, you remember, the president got a two-year, $220 billion trade deal with China. That greatly benefits American -- let's see -- farmers, American workers, service industry, the energy sector, protecting and creating jobs in manufacturing, jobs we were once told that are never coming back, and helping to save jobs in our great auto industry here in America -- $220 billion over two years.

At the same time, simultaneously, what's Nancy Pelosi doing? Solemnly and prayerfully, smiling and taking pictures of her and what really her do- nothing Democratic colleagues and giving out -- remember -- the commemorative impeachment pins of hers.

Now, while all eyes were on the Schumer-Schiff sham impeachment show, we will show you what the president was actually doing today -- a tale of two Americas. We have a lot of news tonight.

Let me dip in right now. This is Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, up again today.

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: It's an organization that works for Congress.

Do you know who disagrees with the GAO? Don't take it from me, they do. They sent you articles of impeachment that makes no claim of any violation of any law.

By the way, you know what also doesn't, you can search high and low and the articles of impeachment, you know what it doesn't say -- quid pro quo, because there wasn't any. Only in Washington would someone say that it's wrong when you don't spend taxpayer dollars fast enough, even if you spend them on time.

Now, let's talk about the Judiciary Committee for a second. Two days in the Judiciary Committee. Two days --

HANNITY: All right. As warranted -- as warranted, we will dip in and out, but we're not going to torture you with -- and although I will say Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow and the president's team were pretty amazing today. We'll show you the highlights of all of this.

A lot of this though, to be very, very blunt is pointless, monotonous, redundant and there is really absolutely nothing new in terms of what we know as it relates to Ukraine and impeachment that we don't already know. Now, only now it is real. It will have real consequences on the rule of law, the power of the press see executive privilege and the country and our future.

This has been a three-plus-year -- don't let anyone else convince you otherwise -- of what really has resulted in a never-ending temper tantrum by Democrats that have done nothing that I can think of to serve you the American people, and I mean nothing.

Can you think of a single thing that they have done for we the people? Have they made you more safe and secure in your home? Have they created jobs and prosperity for the American people? Well, after eight years of Biden-Obama, things weren't working out very well.

We're going to show you all that the president has done in a few minutes and it is deep and it is profound and it has been under very difficult circumstances and a never-ending series of attacks and allegations and impeachment from -- starting since two days after he got elected. Then, of course, we have the propaganda state TV media mob, friends of all things radical extreme and socialist.

All of this culminating in this -- what is an unconstitutional abuse of power by Congress. None of what has gone on today and what they are doing is warranted. None of it. None of this is good for the country.

Everyone in the Senate knows how this will end. You at home know how this will end. There is no suspense. There's no mystery.

Question only will be -- the only mystery is a matter of when. There will be drama and will carry it at times about whether witnesses should be called, and the drama that could cause real permanent damage to the Office of the Presidency, that would be a fight on executive privilege that even George Washington used.

And in 287 days, I have really good news tonight. You the American people, thankfully, and I mean that, you get the final say in 287 days. You can shock the world again you the American people in one sense are the real jurors and in my honest opinion, you never take a jury for granted.

The Democrats have overreached. They have done nothing to serve the American people. They abuse power and what they're doing is unconstitutional. It is sad.

And this impeachment charade is an exercise in futility, and it is only a matter time before the president will get acquitted and vindicated.

And let me be clear: the Democrats, they do not have a case. And in just a few short minutes, their half-baked arguments were literally ripped to shreds.

We just see Pat Cipollone up there, let's give you a little background of what was unfolding earlier today by the president's -- for the first time, the president's defense, the president's expert legal counsel. Just take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER: Mr. Schiff also talked about a trifecta. I'll give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. That's a trifecta -- a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States.

We don't waive executive privilege and there's a reason we keep executive privilege and we assert it when necessary. And that is to protect -- to protect the Constitution and the separation of powers.

CIPOLLONE: Let's remember how we all got here they made false allegations about a telephone call. The president of the United States declassified that telephone call and released it to the public. How's that for transparency?

Overwhelming evidence to impeach the president of the United States and then they come here on the first day and they say, you know what, we need some more evidence, and the American people won't stand for it I'll tell you that right now.

They're not here to steal one election. They're here to steal two elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: As these events were unfolding today, mark this down. This is the very first time the president's legal team has had any opportunity to defend him in Congress.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell, he is following the precedent set in the Clinton impeachment trial. Each side fairly will get 24 hours to present their case. That will be followed by 16 hours of questions.

Now, let's compare that to what happened in the House. Remember, all the precedent that was set, all the considerations that were given to Bill Clinton and his legal team were all kicked to the side. They didn't even have a formal vote.

It wasn't the result of any independent investigation. It was we -- as we now know -- crafted in secret in the basement of the House. Now we know that, yes, the congenital liar, Adam Schiff lied, oh, we'd love to hear from the whistleblower when his office in contact with the hearsay whistleblower, non-whistleblower.

And then they auditioned witnesses. Then, they cherry-picked the evidence, what they would leak. Why? To propagandize you, the American people.

The majority of House Republicans were blocked or in one case actually forcibly removed from Schiff's basement, behind closed door audition proceedings.

The president's legal team was never allowed to participate. That was not the case with Bill Clinton. They were not allowed to present evidence or call witnesses or craft a defense as was granted Bill Clinton.

The president was afforded no due process, no basic fairness. The process was rigged from beginning to end. Every single due process consideration that Republicans under Newt Gingrich gave Bill Clinton and his legal team and his attorneys were denied this president and this president's attorneys.

And because Democrats wanted to enjoy their long Christmas vacation, they had to urgently and solemnly and prayerfully rammed through two bogus articles of impeachment in record time, they had to get it done -- urgent, urgent, urgent -- so they could go on vacation and then hold it back for a couple of weeks.

And now, what do we see today? Whining and moaning and complaining that the Senate trial isn't fair. Really? We're going to get lectures on fairness and due process from the people that gave no due process to the president in the House? Wow, pretty arrogant.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: Leader McConnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.

REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: To be debating whether you should allow witness is to be debating whether you should have a cover-up by definition. There is no trial in this country in which you wouldn't admit the relevant witnesses, in which it's even a question.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: If the House cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence, it's not a fair trial. It's not really a trial at all.

Leader McConnell's resolution would turn the trial process on its head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: I thought this was a slam dunk case. They didn't call the witnesses that they're now demanding to be called. They have the sole power to impeach. They think the U.S. Senate now should spend months doing their constitutional job, what they have the sole power to do.

They want the so-called evidence entered into record. They want all new witnesses they didn't call witnesses they failed to subpoena brought before the Senate. The Senate should do their job. They want special treatment.

That's not how it works. We have a Constitution. In it, it is very clear: the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment -- not the Senate, the House. They impeached it. They impeached the president.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That doesn't say anything about impeaching or investigating or doing the House's job or -- well, making a mess out of the garbage that they presented to the Senate. They said it's a slam dunk.

Now, the House managers, they've got their impeachment. They have their trial. Everyone sworn in, dressed up and ready to go -- present your slam dunk case.

Let me speak directly tonight to you the American people because a lot of you have Republican representatives in the Senate, some of them I would argue a pretty weak, and some of them are willing to lend credibility to this unconstitutional role that the House is trying to impose on them because they didn't do their job, at least to the extent they feel confident about their articles of impeachment.

Now, if you give the House Democrats, if your representatives allow the House Democrats the special treatment they don't deserve, that's unconstitutional, you are literally a part of what is a charade that will live in perpetuity, that is ripping this country apart. You, your representatives, your senators will be adding legitimacy to this unconstitutional corruption.

And, by the way, only 287 days before presidential election and the final jurors and this will be the American people. No Senate Republican, your representatives that you put in the Senate should give legitimacy to the slimy, compromised, congenital liar and his merry band of do-nothing Democrats who spearheaded this entire thing. They've been calling for impeachment two days after the president's elected, through 2017, through 2018, and all through 2019.

Have they done anything for we, the people? They're supposed to be our servants.

The beady-eyed lunatic you've been watching on your screen all day is perhaps, well, my view, the worst liar in all of politics. He said he had significant evidence.

For three years, he told us of Trump-Russia collusion. That was a lie. Four investigations proved him wrong.

He told reporters there was more than circumstantial evidence of that collusion -- again, a lie.

He said there was collusion of evidence in plain sight. That was a lie.

He issued a memo arguing that FISA abuse did not occur. We now know that was a lie.

He gave complete legitimacy to the dirty Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier and said it was all true. Even "The New York Times" now recognizes it was likely Russian misinformation from the beginning. That was another lie.

He said, quote: We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We wish we could. Another lie.

And don't forget, Schiff completely fabricated a fake version of the president's call with the Ukrainian president, entered that into the public record. Again, that's a lie.

And that's not all. Just today, he's claiming that the Senate rules were nothing like the Clinton impeachment trial. That too is a talking point lie. And the media is running with that lie.

He also said President Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election. Nope, that's another lie. All election-related conversations president had with Ukraine surrounded and the interference documented in the 2017, January 11th "Politico" investigative report that, yes, confirmed by a Ukrainian court of Ukrainian election interference in 2016 -- by the way, separate and apart from Russian interference. Russians did it, they should have listened to Devin Nunes' warning in 2014.

And, of course, Schiff today also claiming the president obstructed Congress. That is a huge lie. The Democrats were in too much of a rush to let the courts resolve when you have a conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government -- well, the executive branch has the ability to seek remedy through that third branch of government.

And, by the way, executive privilege will likely get a Supreme Court decision on that sometime in June. They didn't want to wait. They're in a rush to impeach. They had to do it. They never even issued subpoenas now for the people they now claim that they need to prove what is a slam dunk impeachment case.

They got their impeachment. They have the authority constitutionally to do it. I don't believe it was right. And anyway, OK, now you have your managers picked, everyone sworn in, present your slam dunk case.

The truth doesn't seem to matter to those throwing what is now a three- plus-year temper tantrum. This is a political hit job. This is a partisan smear campaign. This is a dirty trick from beginning to end, and Democrats and they're willing accomplices and allies in the corrupt state medium mob have not accepted ever the results of the 2016 election. They're now hoping to damage all Republicans, including the president for 2020.

So, that's what we're witnessing, that right now. This is a tale of two Americas here. You got the D.C. swamp Democrats' angry, pathetic, baseless political smear after smear after smear after smear, lie after lie, besmirchment after besmirchment, attack after attack, but do nothing for the American people -- well, president today is in Davos, Switzerland, where he's meeting with the top business, political leaders from all across the world.

There's the president, American economy was the envy of every leader there, booming like never before everyone really is envious of your president. And, by the way, he has enough respect that he has picked up and they now know he means business and none of them want him to challenge them on their trade deals to make them more fair. So, they're being really nice to your president.

Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today, I'm proud to declare that the United States is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen before.

We've regained our stride. We discovered our spirit and reawakened the powerful machinery of American enterprise. Just last week alone, the United States concluded two extraordinary trade deals. The agreement with China and the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement. These agreements represent a new model of trade for the 21st century, agreements that are fair, reciprocal and that prioritize the needs of workers and families.

I want to go back to a question I asked earlier. Can you think of a single thing that the Democrats have done to make us more safe and more secure? I can't.

Have they done anything for prosperity, job creation? I can't think of that either. It's been a temper tantrum as I said for three, long years.

Let's look at what the president has done while being attacked every single second of every hour of every day.

Signed the biggest tax cut in history, he cut more burdensome regulation than any of his predecessors, he negotiated major new trade deals people thought could never happened Mexico, Canada, Japan or Western European allies and the big one last week with China, $220 billion for Americans in two short years. He pulled us out of the horrendous climate accord. He pulled us out of the horrific Iranian nuclear deal. No more bribing mullahs in Iran.

Al-Baghdadi and his top deputies are dead. The ISIS caliphate is in ruins, destroyed in Syria. Iran's top terrorist, he's also dead.

The American economy is soaring. We are witnessing the best employment situation since 1969, and record low unemployment for women in workplace, every demographic -- African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian- Americans, almost 8 million new jobs, 8 million fewer people on food stamps in America.

Wage growth for low, middle income earners is outpacing the top 10 percent. Oh, that means they're doing great, American workers. We are energy independent for the first time in 75 years and net exporter of energy.

What are the Democrats done to advance your prosperity, economic growth, create jobs, peace and security? What have they done to do anything? What have they done to make us -- our country a safer place?

In 287 days, you, the American people, will be the ultimate jurors. Clear- cut choice, and that is you get to choose the prosperity, the security, or a party hell-bent on political vengeance and seemingly nothing else.

Now, in the eight years they had, they did add 13 million more Americans to the food stamp rolls, they did put 8 million more Americans in poverty, and they gave us the lowest labor participation rate since the '70s and the worst recovery since the ‘40s and took on more debt than all 43 presidents before Biden-Obama.

And that is you now have the chance to shock the world again in 287 days. I take comfort in that tonight.

Joining us now, the author of "The Case Against Impeaching Trump", he's part of the president's defense team, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is with us.

Professor -- actually, I think it was Schiff today that said you don't know anything about constitutional law. You and I have had our disagreements over the years. We actually had some heated disagreements way back when. That's a long time ago. But you do know law and you do know the Constitution.

Why don't you give a, if you will, maybe a cliff notes education to some of the members of the Democratic Party, your party?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AUTHOR, "THE CASE AGAINST IMPEACHING TRUMP": Well, thank you.

I've been spending the last two days with dusty books going back to the 18th and 19th centuries reading Blackstone and reading the debates over the Constitution and reading the trial of Andrew Johnson. And I've come to the firm conclusion that the two elements of impeachment directed against President Trump are unconstitutional, the Framers would have ejected abuse of power, would have rejected obstruction of Congress. They rejected things like it, maladministration.

They didn't want to turn the United States into a British parliamentary system where Congress controls the executive and where a prime minister or president can be voted out of office by a simple majority vote of the legislature. So, they created very strict criteria -- treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Other high crimes and misdemeanors means crimes like treason and bribery. They don't have to be technical crimes if a person commits bribery but he's out of the jurisdiction or the statute of limitations is over, he could still be impeached. But they have to be criminal-like conduct akin to treason and bribery.

That's why the whole debate over witnesses is premature. First, the Senate should decide, is there a case? If this were a criminal case, I'd be making a motion to dismiss. Say somebody is indicted for dishonesty and they have a whole list of things he did, I would go into court and say dishonesty is not a crime and I would go to the Senate and say that abuse of power is not a crime.

And so, you don't need witnesses if my view prevails. You don't need documents. You get right to the vote and you acquit.

HANNITY: Let me go to the question of the specific constitutional roles of each House. The House, the Constitution says, has the sole power to impeach.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

HANNITY: The Senate holds the trial. Now, this House impeached, now they bring and their House managers, they are presenting their case, but they're asking the Senate to subpoena witnesses they themselves never subpoenaed.

DERSHOWITZ: Right, right.

HANNITY: To me, that would be the Senate then taking on the role, the constitutional role of the House. To me, that's not their role. Here's your impeachment tell us why and we'll either agree or disagree it's not their job to make the case for the weak case that they're put forward.

And if they wanted witnesses, they should have called them. They should have subpoenaed them.

DERSHOWITZ: I agree, I agree.

And the other thing: Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand what impeachment is. What she has said is even if the president's acquitted, the impeachment stands. No, that's like saying that if a person is indicted and the jury acquits 12 to nothing in five minutes, he's still indicted. No. The impeachment disappears, the impeachment is only a grand jury presentment.

My colleague Larry Tribe went so far as to argue absurdly that the House could impeach and never even send it to the Senate and then the president has impeachment hanging over his head forever. By the way, Larry Tribe also called for the impeachment of Ronald Reagan back in the day on the ground of abuse of power, which shows how absurd some of these academic zealots can be, wanting to impeach Ronald Reagan for abuse of power. If you can impeach Ronald Reagan for abuse of power, you can impeach every American from Washington to the present.

HANNITY: All right. Even one of the so-called experts, the opinion witnesses, hearsay witnesses under the federal rules of evidence, hearsay is inadmissible as you know, which should be applied here you actually have one of the so-called experts in the House literally saying that Donald Trump should be impeached because he wants to tweeted out fake news.

Let me go to some arguments that were made by the president's personal counsel, Jay Sekulow. And he said during the proceedings that --

DERSHOWITZ: Terrific guy, terrific lawyer.

HANNITY: I agree and Pat Cipollone was amazing too today I thought.

DERSHOWITZ: Terrific lawyers, great lawyers.

HANNITY: During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. The president was denied the right to have counsel present here. That is a trifecta that violates the Constitution. It matters because it's based in the Constitution. And then he went on to say, because due process demands, the Constitution requires that fundamental fairness, due process will be granted.

Now, you were there for the Clinton impeachment. The president and his attorneys were granted all of these things for Bill Clinton. None of them were granted to Donald Trump.

DERSHOWITZ: Uh-huh. Look, I agree, especially if Pelosi maintains the position that impeachment is an ending of itself, you need full due process. You need an adversarial system. You can't go and announce he's been impeached and it'll be impeachment hanging over his head for the rest of his life. And, by the way, he had no rights. He had no opportunity to cross-examine. He had no opportunity for his lawyers to be present.

That's --

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Hang on, Professor, one second. Let me dip in, there's a battle going on between the Senate Majority Leader McConnell --

DERSHOWITZ: Sure.

HANNITY: -- and Minority Leader Schumer.

I don't know if we can hear but for some reason we don't have volume on that. OK, we'll get to that. We'll report to you the vote is going on by the way on the proposal to subpoena the White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Let's go to Chad Pergram, who's there. He can tell us what just happened just moments ago -- Chad.

PERGRAM: Right, exactly. Well, they just completed a vote here to table this proposal to subpoena Mick Mulvaney, and then the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell turned to the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and said, can you give us some guidance on how much time and how many other amendments are in order here? And Chuck Schumer said, you know, we have a number of other amendments, quote, we will not back down. He said there's no reason we have to have all these votes tonight.

But there's going to be a number of other proposals here because they don't think that Mitch McConnell is completely following the model that was established with the Clinton trial in 1999. That what we're having right now for the first time since they went into this trial about 1:18 this afternoon is what we call on Capitol Hill a fake quorum call. They're not actually trying to get the -- all senators there. They're there, so right now, they're kind of meeting off stage to figure out what's next.

So they want to continue on, go to this next proposal by Chuck Schumer which would be to subpoena documents from the Department of Defense, and maybe they can come up with what's called in the Senate a unanimous consent agreement, a U.C.

They do most of their business in the Senate, Sean, by unanimous consent. That means if all 100 senators agree, they can make the sun rise in the west. So if they can forge some sort of a deal, they can say, all right, we're done for tonight, we'll come back and pick that up tomorrow. But if you have not voted on the actual framework for the trial and the Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer continues to propound these amendments, you can't actually get to the oral arguments with the prosecution, the House impeachment managers and then the defense by President Trump's legal team.

So, that's what this kind of caucus going on on the Senate floor right now. I'm looking down here.

There was a moment of exasperation by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel just a few minutes ago on the floor in reference to the amendment to summon Mick Mulvaney to testify, and this is what Cipollone said. He said, quote, it's getting late. I would ask respectfully that we start the oral arguments.

And again, this is a balance that the House Democratic impeachment managers, this is a -- you know, kind of a tightrope they have to walk. We're seeing a lot of Adam Schiff, Democrats will tell you that they think that he's making a compelling case. He is the face of this.

And Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, you know, who was President Trump's opponent in 2016 and now is a fairly big defender, he said during the dinner break around 7:30, quote, God help us if we have to listen to Adam Schiff prattle on for hours non-stop. So, if they get an agreement here we could wrap up the votes tonight. Otherwise, this could go very deep into the night.

Keep in mind that Chief Justice John Roberts has to preside over the Supreme Court tomorrow morning. There's a reason why this Senate impeachment rule is a mandate that they start at one o'clock so the chief justice can go across the street and handle his duties there and then come back and handle the Senate trial.

But if they do punt until tomorrow and that's something that Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has indicated he wants to wrap this up tonight, if they do punt until tomorrow, that means that you're going to set back further into the week and into the weekend and probably next week when you will have the prosecution present its case spread out over 24 hours, three days as part of the modified resolution that Mitch McConnell put out today and then probably get well into next week for the defense. That's what's at stake right now.

And so, they're -- I'm looking down here to monitor just below me trying to see if I can get any hand signal or any indication whatsoever about what might come next. So, we might be here for a long time, they might get some sort of an agreement and wrap this up, or say in the next two hours or we might be here all week. We'll see.

Sean, back to you.

HANNITY: All right, Chad Pergram.

One last question for Professor Dershowitz.

Now --

DERSHOWITZ: Yes.

HANNITY: -- both sides are going to get to 20 hours to present their case, just like in the in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, then there'll be 20 hours of questions, just like in the case of Bill Clinton. Then the issue of deciding on the need for any witnesses will take place, just like in the case of Bill Clinton.

DERSHOWITZ: Uh-huh.

HANNITY: And as we've been watching, we're watching political theater unfold here tonight --

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

HANNITY: -- because no the vote will come after both sides present their cases and in the 16 hours of question.

The last remaining constitutional issue I have for you, professor, is about executive privilege, used by George Washington.

DERSHOWITZ: Uh-huh.

HANNITY: The need for executive privilege.

DERSHOWITZ: Uh-huh.

HANNITY: And again, the House, they could have subpoenaed Mike Pompeo --

DERSHOWITZ: Right, right.

HANNITY: -- Mick Mulvaney, and they could have subpoenaed John Bolton and anybody they wanted. They decided not to because it was so urgent for them to go on vacation --

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: Before we get to executive --

HANNITY: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: Before we get to executive privilege, you say it's theater, and I think what's going on now, as a trial lawyer, at least I'm speculating, everybody wants to get the last word before intermission at the theater. And so, I think what the Democrats are trying to do is frame it so they get to make all their arguments before the weekend.

And then everybody goes home for the weekend or at least Sunday, and they've heard only one side, and it begins to filter into their heads. And I think probably the Trump defense would like to at least begin to present their case before the weekend for theater strategic and other kinds of reasons. That's just my speculation.

As to executive privilege, look, executive privilege is part of our Constitution, and it's very important. The president has to -- doesn't even have to use the words "executive privilege". He has that privilege and he is the one who can invoke it on behalf of anybody in the executive.

For example, John Bolton is dying to testify, that's not his decision. That's the president's decision. If Congress doesn't like it, they go to the courts, then the court decides and that is how the decision is resolved.

But you don't get the legislature making a final decision on rejecting executive privilege or any other kind of program. It's up to the court.

HANNITY: Professor, any circumstances, because this is political -- you're right. That is the president's privilege.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

HANNITY: And the need for it has been well-documented and we have great precedents on it.

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, yes.

HANNITY: The question is, would there be any circumstances under which the Senate saying this is political, that they could try to circumvent judicial review on that. I don't believe that be constitutional.

DERSHOWITZ: You know you've asked a question that I actually have some experience and I represented somebody many years ago in the House. And she pleaded lawyer-client privilege and the chairman of the committee said, oh, no, no, no, it doesn't apply in the House. It doesn't apply in the House.

And we took it up and, of course, it prevailed. It does apply and -- and they can't just willy-nilly overrule it.

HANNITY: OK --

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: They will have to go to the court, yes.

HANNITY: If you had to guess, and I know it's very hard to predict especially with the Supreme Court on the issue of executive privilege, I would argue that you might even get some liberal justices go away -- not giving in on executive privilege because of the impact on the -- on the executive branch of government.

DERSHOWITZ: I think that's right. I think that it won't be a strict five to four party line decision. I think you will see a mixture.

It's a very complicated issue and it's not liberal-conservative. You have liberals who believe very strongly --

HANNITY: It's constitutional.

DERSHOWITZ: -- that the president should be able to confer with his advisers like John Bolton on national security.

HANNITY: All right. Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard, thank you.

Well, now, also just breaking from "Politico" moments ago, get this, Adam Schiff may have also mischaracterized new so-called evidence -- remember Lev Parnas and all the hysteria? New documents show, in other words, that's another lie from the congenital liar.

And here to break this big breaking development in all today's news, joining us now is a congressional member of Trumps legal team, Congressman Doug Collins of the great state of Georgia.

Congressman, it was very interesting when he sent over the new evidence, how he totally exonerated Joe, you're not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor that I know is investigating my zero experience son being paid millions, but he said that the prosecutor that was doing the investigation -- I don't know any business that offers millions to anybody that has zero experience -- but they, Schiff said that prosecutor is corrupt. Amazing.

What do you make of this "Politico" piece?

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Well, from what we're hearing right now, it's just another line of what we've seen with Schiff all along. He's willing to say anything, do anything, tell anything to get at this president.

This is not just a simple kind of (ph) one off, it's not a two off, it's just a regular habit of what this man does. He does not want to come to grips with the truth that the president is the president, he's doing a good job, and he wants do anything he can to take him down.

But the whining and the theater that's going on with the Senate floor today from him and others is just -- it really takes the cake today. And it just shows the American people how weak the case is and how they're wanting other people to do their job for ‘em.

HANNITY: You know, it's an amazing thing, no due process. I've watched the whining today, I'm like, guys, you gave no due process to the president.

But more importantly, there's no case here. There -- for example, the second article on obstruction of Congress, OK, that's great but that means they're -- what they're saying is obstruction is that the president would seek remedy when there's a conflict between the judicial -- I'm sorry -- what would the legislative and executive branch and seek remedy through the judicial branch. That's not obstruction.

What is abuse of power? What does that mean? What law are we talking about here?

COLLINS: Yes, they don't have an abuse of power, Sean. What they're wanting to do is I wanted to give every member or the Democratic Party in the House something -- from the ones who are in the Trump districts, to anyone else, to say, abuse of power is whatever we make it out to be.

If I don't like the suit he has on today, I'll say that's an abuse of power. If they don't like the way he talked about a certain issue, or he dealt with people on the wall or the immigration or any other issue, they can say that's an abuse of power, and I voted for those articles because he's just abused power.

But let's be real clear today, Sean. There's some things are going on. It's the misleading.

It's to Congressman Crow out of Colorado saying that -- or Ukrainians died because this aid was withheld. That's false and is a misleading truth that should be put to rest (ph), because those were monies for future use, not current use.

Let's look at Chairman Nadler who said, oh, a jury would convict him in less than, you know, a few seconds. Well, put your evidence up.

Schiff whining, saying the reason we didn't call Bolton is, is because he was actually going to use his constitutional right to go to court to get a clarification. Schiff cannot make his case.

And then Schumer has decided, along with Schiff and others, to put the Senate on trial, basically saying if the Senate doesn't do what we want to do, then they're corrupt.

But the last part about this is really the problematic part. At the end of the day, Sean, remember, let's remind the audience this, at the end of the day about the call, two people on the calls. Zelensky and President Trump - - no pressure, both of them have said so. There was no conditionality, only aid. There was nothing done there.

The Ukrainians did not even know that aid was probably (ph) -- was held up at the time of the call, and then, at the end of the day, the aid was released before the deadline of September 30th, and aid was released with no meetings.

Let's never forget. There are four facts that never change. This president did nothing wrong and all the Democrats want to do is just stretch it out to try and get through this president before next November.

HANNITY: You know, you sounded a little there like Jim Jordan. Four facts that never changed and he's right.

(LAUGHTER)

COLLINS: We -- you know, we got the -- between Jim Jordan and the rest of us, we got these facts that matter, folks, and the folks in America are seeing through the Schiff show and now the Schumer exchange.

HANNITY: Well, I called it the Schumer-Schiff sham show now. So, you got to keep up with those, Congressman. All right. Thank you, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

COLLINS: Schumer-Schiff sham show. We got it.

HANNITY: No, it's Schumer-Schiff sham show, yes. Say it fast, by the way, on live TV. Good luck in case you mess up.

Here now, Congressman Devin Nunes and Congressman Mike Johnson. Congressman Johnson also serving as a congressional member on Trump's legal team.

Congressman Nunes, one of the things that was so glaring -- you put out the Nunes memo. You recognized that the bulk of information in the FISA applications was, in fact, the Clinton dirty, unverifiable dossier that even "The New York Times" recognizes as likely Russian misinformation from the beginning.

Everything that your colleague, Adam Schiff, wrote in his report ended up being a lie. He told us that the dossier was true, wasn't used much in the FISA applications, and now, we see his more trouble even tonight in a new breaking news report as it relates to the new evidence that he tried to make a big deal of with Lev Parnas last week.

I'd like you to comment on how many lies this person can get away with telling.

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Well, we don't have enough time in your show, Sean. I would take up the next four weeks going through all of Adam Schiff and the Democrats' lies.

Let me first start by saying that the Senate now is getting to deal with for the very first time what I've had to deal with for over three years. So I hope they're having fun, especially not being able to play Brick Breaker or whatever on their -- on their iPhones.

But let me talk about specifically about this new breaking Parnas story.

You may remember that a couple months ago, right after Thanksgiving, CNN came out with a fake news story that said that I was doing the nefarious things with my staff and meeting with Ukrainians, meeting with all these dirty Ukrainians. That information that went from Parnas and his lawyer to CNN -- CNN has yet to retract that story. It later came out that I was actually in Benghazi, nowhere near Vienna where they had me.

If you look at -- they released our phone records. They accused us of doing nefarious things with this Lev Parnas character.

The truth is Adam Schiff -- Adam Schiff and the Democrats have been doing nefarious things with Parnas. And if you look at what's happening, the guy's been indicted now. Now, his lawyer just came out and lied again. He lied to the Southern District of New York.

Tonight, there's new information that comes out there that he accused the FBI and DOJ of trying to slow down Adam Schiff and the Intel Committee's investigation by not providing the information. The feds now came out tonight and said, no, that's not true.

And now, you come out and -- it's once again, like we've seen numerous times with Schiff, this is another fake news story about something that he supposedly said that Parnas was saying about Zelensky. The fact is that didn't happen.

So, it's just a long line of lies that continue.

HANNITY: I'll read from Politico, Congressman Johnson. In one section of the letter that Schiff sent to the House Judiciary and his new evidence involving Lev Parnas, Schiff claimed that Parnas continue to try and arrange meeting with President Zelensky, citing specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: trying to get us Mr. Z.

The remainder of the exchange which was attached to Schiff letter was redacted. But an unredacted version of the exchange shows several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document appearing to show notes from an interview with this founder of Burisma Holdings that was paying zero experience Hunter millions and millions of dollars -- I never knew of any company that paid someone millions for knowing nothing.

But anyway, when Mr. Z answers my brother. That suggests Parnas was referring, oh, to the head of -- the founder of Burisma, not Zelensky.

So, that would mean another congenital liar Schiff lie, and the media mob, an Area 51 Roswell Rachel Maddow (INAUDIBLE) the biggest interview ever. Oh, is she going to correct the record? Is NBC going to make her correct the record?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON, R-LA.: Great question, Sean. They were referring to the wrong Mr. Z. They were talking about Zlochevsky, who was the founder of Burisma, this terribly infamous, corrupt company Burisma.

That's the problem with Adam Schiff and everything that Devin is saying, everything that we've been complained about for months, these super secret hearings in the basement and all the rest. They -- they are cherry-picking facts, they're misrepresenting the facts all along to follow their narrative.

When you look at all of these facts in context, you understand there is no "there" there. That's what the president has been so anxious, why he's so anxious to put on our case, because he understands and he knows the American people will understand, when you see all of this, in its full context, you'll know there's nothing there.

They have cherry-picked this. They have engineered the process. They manufactured this fraudulent process and that's why we've been saying this is a sham from the very beginning.

HANNITY: So, if we look -- there's really no new facts here, Congressman Nunes. I'll give you the last word on this.

NUNES: Yes.

HANNITY: And thank you both for being with us.

They really -- this is about a phone call where aid was never mentioned, but the president did say, "do us a favor", not "do me", do us a favor. We've been, you know, told that election interference occurred.

By the way, you warned everybody in 2014, the Russians would interfere in our elections and they did. You warned us. They didn't listen to you, meaning Biden, Obama.

Then, separate and apart, while we had a Ukrainian court, "Politico", January 11, 2017, talked about Ukrainian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, which included a DNC operative meeting at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C., a woman by the name Alexander Chalupa. And, in fact, that Ukraine did interfere extensively in the 2016 election, separate and apart from Russia's interference.

That seems to always be called the conspiracy theory, just like people say, oh, no, Joe Biden's innocent. I don't know any business that when you say, you're not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor investigating my zero experience son being paid millions not being a big deal. Democrats don't ever want to talk about that.

Joe's innocent, according to everybody. Hunter's innocent. I don't think either are innocent.

Your thoughts?

NUNES: So, so you forgot what an important point, too. Fusion GPS, the Democratic hit firm, they also were doing nefarious things in Ukraine.

So, the Democrats don't like this. The media doesn't like this, but I've continued to say, we have an ongoing active investigation -- meaning, the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee -- that we've had for a long time looking at Ukraine.

They don't like it. They get mad. They get mad that my staff was talking to people Lev Parnas and others. Guess what? We're going to continue to do it. And you know why? Because the corruption was there.

HANNITY: Well, your --

NUNES: The Democrats are culpable for this. They don't want the truth to come out, that they're the ones that we're doing really bad things with high-level Ukrainian officials, high-level Ukrainian or large Ukrainian companies that have been -- that are -- that have -- are corrupt.

And now, they're the ones that are dealing with people like this Lev Parnas, and then they cherry-pick things and they constantly get it wrong.

HANNITY: The guy accused of --

NUNES: And so, that's what the Senate now is getting to see today. They're getting to Schiff in action. And as time goes by, sounds really important on the front end, and at the end of the day, it ends up to be a lie.

HANNITY: All right. You've been vindicated, Congressman. Thank you for telling the country the truth. We know Schiff lied now. Thank you.

Congressman Johnson, thank you.

Here with more reaction to all the proceedings, former House Oversight Committee chairman, FOX News contributor, Jason Chaffetz, former White House press secretary, FOX News contributor, Ari Fleischer.

Jason, this is your wheelhouse. Let's -- let's look at where we are, the lack of due process. Now, the House is trying to get the Senate to do that which they refuse to even do themselves. They said it's a slam-dunk case. They have their managers. They're presenting their case, but they want Republican senators now to make their case better.

If their case was so slam-dunk, why do they need that?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: In this country, you're innocent until proven guilty.

The burden is on Adam Schiff. Yet, Adam Schiff is the least credible, the most grading. He has totally been discredited every single step of the way. I think he is pompous in the way he presents this.

I can't imagine what it's like for these senators to sit there and be on the receiving end of him bloviating hour after hour. This is just day one. I think it's going to get worse.

When they presented it and they controlled every aspect in the House, they lost support. People moved away from it, and they didn't convince anybody. In fact, they lost a Democrat in the vote, and they lost the public support.

That's only going to get worse in part because a -- this is the Adam Schiff show. You keep talking about it but he makes the situation worse.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Yes, I dare you to say it three times.

CHAFFETZ: There are no new facts today. None.

HANNITY: I dare you to say it three times fast, the Schumer-Schiff sham show. Go ahead. Try. Good luck with that on national TV.

CHAFFETZ: No way.

HANNITY: Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I have a high wire act here every night without a net at the bottom.

Ari Fleischer, first, your general observations and then I want to look -- we have to look at everything 287 days away from the ultimate jury, the American people. See this through the political prism, especially as the president is in Davos, the president's keeping another promise, the China deal last week, as Nancy Pelosi solemnly and prayerfully smiling with her commemorative impeachment pens.

So, how does this play out?

ARI FLEISCHER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, let me step back from the dilly maneuverings and the personalities on the Senate floor and in Washington, I want to talk about the American people.

The American people are a fundamentally fair, sensible, well-grounded people. If a crime were committed, this would be bipartisan. And that's the fundamental flaw in impeachment because no crime was committed. And instead, what you have is a one-party partisan push for an impeachment from people who never liked Donald Trump in the first place.

But there is a little tremendous group of Americans who are independent, who don't really follow politics, Republicans as well, who if they thought that Donald Trump committed a crime, they would say so, because crimes are obvious. We know when a crime is committed as a public.

And that's absent here, and that's the fundamental flaw. And that's why this never should have risen to the level of impeachment. That's why all of this, Sean, has been a total waste of time.

And as you said in your opening monologue, the only thing that matters is when will this be over and we can at least have some pretense of Congress going back to what it's supposed to do --

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Does this impact, in your view, Ari --

FLEISCHER: That's the only issue that remains.

HANNITY: Does this impact the election?

FLEISCHER: No, I think this is going to be forgotten by the time the election takes place. I don't really think this gains either party. I don't think it's going to help the president. I don't think it's going to help the Democrats.

The president had the talking point because he'll be able to say he was exonerated, but I think that this election is so polarized, this impeachment will be forgotten and it'll be a blip by spring, let alone October.

HANNITY: All right. Jason Chaffetz, Ari Fleischer, thanks both of you.

Here now, Geraldo Rivera, Dan Bongino, you never know what to expect with these guys. Sometimes, it's fireworks. Sometimes, it's not. I'm the referee usually but I'll let you go.

The one thing that I can't get over, Geraldo, maybe you can help me. You've been in this business for 50 years. We're proud of all your great work over the years.

But in all seriousness, I cannot get over every Democrat, every one of the media mob, oh, Joe -- you can't get the billion until you fire the guy investigating my zero experience son being paid millions. Far worse, all the evidence you need on the very thing these act and feign outrage on, I'm having a hard time understanding that spectacular level of hypocrisy, the double standard, the lack of fundamental, intellectual honesty, reason and common sense. Because you have to -- that is, you're taking on enormous hypocrisy here.

How did they get -- how did they do that and justify that?

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: Then why didn't the Republicans today make the same case you just made, Sean. I long for you to be on the floor of the United States Senate --

HANNITY: Oh, boy.

RIVERA: -- today, making an impassioned argument. The Republicans were fooled by a Democratic smokescreen. Yes, this wasn't about these various amendments. This wasn't about the nuances of whether this guy is going to be subpoenaed or that document is going to be subpoenaed.

This was a Democrats' opportunity for the opening argument, and I think the Republicans, with all due respect here come up to your pals, Sekulow and Cipollone, I think they missed. They missed. They were OK, they were fine, but they did not understand what the Democrats understood.

This was -- you only get one -- you only get on time to make a first impression. This was the first impression for the American people. They should've come out blasting. They should've been Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. They should've been, you know, John Quincy Adams.

This should have been oratory. They are hypocrites, and Hunter Biden. They wouldn't let the president go to court. They went about executive privilege -- where was the passion? Where was the -- I wanted much more -- much more meat.

I think to allow the Democrats a head start, which is what today was, I think is a mistake, Sean.

HANNITY: You know, I -- there is a part of me that always wants that passion because that is in my DNA, Dan. It's in your DNA.

DAN BONGINO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

HANNITY: On the other hand, is not going to matter. Because we all know how this and it doesn't and the way the Democrats want.

But the biggest -- you know, it's a tale of two Americas here. China deal, commemorative pens and smiles, prayerful smiles, you know, solemn smiles. And then, today, this, and a president -- the leader of the entire world, the envy of the world with our economy now in Davos talking about the great American economic success story, on top of his great foreign policy success.

BONGINO: Yes. Now, it's profound. I mean, you have essentially a very C- Spany professional kind of news look with the president Trump overseas. And you've got Ren and Stimpy in the House with, you know, Nadler and Schiff. I mean, it was humiliating.

You now, a shocker. I disagree with Geraldo a bit on this one. You know, ordinarily, I agree with Geraldo about when it's time to bring the fire and I do believe there is a time for that. There's no question what Devin Nunes said tonight is correct. The real Ukrainian scandal is with the Democrats, Nellie Ohr, Leshchenko, Hunter Biden, and Burisma. That's the Democrats' scandal, and this is a smoke screen.

But I disagree. I thought Pat Cipollone, really, with a raging inferno today. I thought he did a great job.

And let me just say, Sean, I've been watching coverage, I've been glued to the TV all day in preparation for this appearance tonight. And can we just nail down one simple talking point and put this thing to bed? Everything was complicated, we get an executive privilege, all this other stuff, does the audience realize that to this day, this is an alleged crime with a zero victims?

Quick, anyone in the audience, tell me who the victim is. Oh, it's the Ukrainians, right? Well, how come they can't get a Ukrainian to say anything happened? They have the ministers of foreign affairs on CNN, they said that Lev Parnas is a liar, and the Ukrainian president is like, hey, guys, I do not know what you're talking about.

There was no question. There's no victim.

RIVERA: Here's why I disagree. Remember Johnny Cochran? If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Why didn't one of the president's lawyers say, no crime, no conviction, no crime, no conviction, where is the treason? Where is the bribery? Where is high crime and misdemeanor?

BONGINO: No, let me answer your question.

RIVERA: I think they needed -- they needed to hammer that.

BONGINO: I get it. I totally get it. I am not a litigator, you are a lawyer. I'm saying at this point in time, I don't think that's the time for that.

I think the perfect foil here was having conspiracy theory promoting Adam Schiff on the House floor promoting these nonsensical twilight zone fairy tales and having Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow go up there and just dismantle every one and point to America what a liar they are.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I've got to run. I got to thank you both.

RIVERA: Due respect, my brother, I think you're missing the point. The point is, Sean --

HANNITY: I thought the lawyers did great. I was pretty happy with --

BONGINO: I thought so too.

HANNITY: All right.

RIVERA: But the Democrats want to draw this up. They want to get to the point where you are so exhausted, you say, OK, let's have a witness.

HANNITY: Let me tell you, by the end of the 24 hours, Americans are going to hate them.

All right. I got to run. Thank you both.

BONGINO: A hundred percent.

HANNITY: Joining me now with the reaction, Trump 2020 senior advisor Mercedes Schlapp, Katie Pavlich.

Katie, all right, we only have about a minute each for you, I let me make your best case. Katie, we'll start with you.

KATIE PAVLICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think, at the end of the day, when Americans are watching this impeachment trial moving forward, and they are hearing all about aid being withheld by the president, they ask themselves, is this really a bad thing that the president is being a good steward of American taxpayer money? And that's a case the Democrats are trying to make, he should've just let it go and the White House can make the argument that they were trying to be prudent with the funding that Americans work very hard for it.

And as you pointed out, the president has been able to lock down a lot of wins both domestically and overseas as the House has been focused on impeachment and as we see that continuing in the Senate.

HANNITY: And aid was never discussed, and corruption was, and the four facts of Jordan never changed. And they were consecutive meetings, Mercedes, high level, and even including the vice president, not much was aid mentioned.

Zelensky didn't feel it. The foreign minister didn't feel it. You get the final word tonight, Mercedes.

MERCEDES TRUMP, TRUMP 2020 SENIOR ADVISOR: That's right. I mean, clearly, the president has been so transparent in this process, he has played by the rules. The ones who have broken the rules, the one who have abused power have been Democrats.

And Schiff has taken the lead with his hypocrisy, how he's basically run this whole impeachment process. It's been a sham. It's been disgraceful to our republic, and the mere fact is that these Democrats have wanted to impeach the president from day one, while this president has been focused on the work of the American people.

And that is why I think when Geraldo said that this was his -- you know, it's the first impression for American people? No. They have been calling out the lie for months and I think at the end of the day, the ones who are going to hurt are the Democrats. They are going to hurt politically and it's why the president will win again in 2020.

HANNITY: I agree with that final point by both of you. Great job, thank you both.

All right. We'll always be fair and balanced. We're not the hate rage media mob. We seek the truth.

Let not your heart be troubled, the news continues. Laura Ingraham is next. See you tomorrow night.

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.