This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 27, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Guess what's still going on? You guessed it. The impeachment trial continues this hour.

The President's legal team currently speaking. We will dip in live if anything newsworthy happens.

Think back to 2016 and the campaign then. Donald Trump used to recite a poem about a woman took a dying snake into her house and nursed it back to health. The snake did become healthy and then immediately whipped around and bit the woman.

As she breathed her last breath, the woman asked the snake, why did you do this? Well, because I'm a snake, was the reply. That's what we do.

All of which somehow reminds us of disgraced former National Security adviser, John Bolton. Republicans in Washington might seem shocked to discover that Bolton has turned and betrayed his former boss, Donald Trump, but they shouldn't be shocked. That's who John Bolton is. That's who John Bolton has always been. That's what John Bolton does, and not to brag we called it long ago.

Yesterday, "The New York Times" reported that Bolton's new book contains sections designed to help the Democratic case for impeachment.

Bolton accuses the President of delaying military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure its government into investigating Hunter Biden. Again, people in Washington stunned by this or claimed to be. If Bolton dislike Trump so much they wonder, why did he join the administration?

Well, the answer is simple. Bolton wanted war with Iran. He's always wanted war with Iran. He's obsessed with it.

Here he is, for example, gleefully fantasizing about regime change there long before he became National Security adviser. Watch.


JOHN BOLTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs' regime in Tehran.


BOLTON: And that's why before 2019, we here, will celebrate in Tehran. Thank you very much.


CARLSON: In Tehran. But Iran wasn't Bolton's only target. He also wanted more war in Syria and war in Venezuela, too. He wanted the war in Afghanistan to continue until your great grandchildren are too old to serve.

And of course, like all neocons, he wanted war with Russia. Lots of it.

In 2016, Bolton cited Russia is one of America's greatest threats. Can you imagine? But not China.

For Bolton, every conflict was the final test of America's resolve and a chance to use overwhelming military force. Maybe because he never served in the military himself. Bolton genuinely passionately loved war.

In the end, of course he didn't get it. Trump blocked him at the brink of more than one conflict. Bolton finally left in well-deserved humiliation.

Bolton's resignation was one of the highlights of the President's first term, a day of celebration for normal people everywhere, but not in America's newsrooms. The media were sad to see John Bolton go. They love wars. Wars me and they get to move tanks around on a screen and talk about weapon systems.

And so suddenly, for the first time, they love John Bolton, what a hero he was.


DONNA EDWARDS (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Bolton is something different. He's one of them, and he's not prone to just lying.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: And you have to give him the benefit of the doubt on credibility because this President deserves zero.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: It did feel like we were marking time and this was becoming a planned acquittal.


TODD: And yet we have a Perry Mason moment.


Who are you going to believe? Donald Trump? Or John Bolton? You could believe probably a dead frog more than you could believe Donald Trump at this point.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: John Bolton is a lot of things, but able to be painted as a Deep State actor is not one of them. So good luck with that.

Republicans can now exhale and acknowledge that the earth is round, that Donald Trump is indeed corrupt.

They can rely on a man who is the Republican version of Justice Scalia, in foreign policy circles, a conservative's conservative.


CARLSON: A conservative's conservative, says a liberal. In fact, the only thing John Bolton helped conserve over the past 20 years is Raytheon's stock price. He did a good job there.

The many pointless conflicts he has been pushing are not conservative, they're just the opposite of that. They are a big part of the reason our middle class is dying. That seems obvious to you, it's not obvious here.

In Washington, counterproductive wars are a virtue, not a vice. Just ask Mitt Romney, one of their biggest champions.

Over the last week in the Senate, Romney has made a ton of ambivalent noises about having relevant witnesses testify to the public. Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the whistleblower who shall not be named. I'm not sure, not really necessary, says Mitt Romney.

But John Bolton? Mitt Romney would love to see his old friend John Bolton testify before Congress. Keep in mind that Bolton was once a "senior foreign policy adviser" to Romney's doomed presidential campaign and clearly, they're still friends.


SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): I think with a story that came out yesterday, it's increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton.

It's pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice.


CARLSON: Will John Bolton testify? Who knows. Either way, it won't change the outcome. Trump will be acquitted. It's a totally stupid sideshow. He will be embarrassed about it later.

But it's worth taking this moment to pause and think about John Bolton himself for a moment anyway. How a guy who disagrees so completely with everything that Donald Trump ran on and won on -- how did that guy wind up in a position of power in the White House? Good question -- because he's not the only one.

Doug Macgregor is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, author of the book "Margin of Victory." Our first choice for foreign policy analysis. We're glad to see you tonight, Colonel Macgregor, what do you make of John Bolton's turn?

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR (RET), U.S. ARMY: Well, first of all, I'm impressed with Washington, D.C. There's no other place on the planet where a man who could not be confirmed for the job as Ambassador to the U.N., suddenly overnight, is transformed into the Minister of Truth and the paragon of virtue that everyone should listen to.

So no, this couldn't happen anywhere else, but Washington, D.C.

The second thing is what's really disturbing is something that you mentioned earlier. This is someone who probably is the most strident advocate for the use of American military power, everywhere that we've ever had in the White House, certainly in the job as National Security adviser.

And this from a man who announced very glibly to the American public and numerous publications that, you know, gosh, I didn't see any point to serving in Vietnam, because by the time I might have been over there, gosh, the war was probably over anyway. So I saw no point and found a place in the National Guard.

So this is --

CARLSON: The irony coming from someone who has espoused keeping troops in places long beyond the possibility of victory.

MACGREGOR: Yes. Absolutely. And clearly he was fired principally not just for the broader issues of Iran and Venezuela and Syria, and so forth. But because specifically he spoke publicly and said that Libya could be a good model for North Korea, at a point in time when the President of the United States was building a policy to defuse the conflict, the crisis, the war -- end the war on the Korean Peninsula. That's the great tragedy. And finally, President Trump said that's enough.

CARLSON: I wonder, would any sane person say Libya that went from a dictatorship, for sure, to a place of total chaos where there are slave markets in the capital. Would anyone look at Libya today and say, we need more of those?

MACGREGOR: Well, probably Hillary Clinton since she was the principal force behind it, but I'm sure that John Bolton would have been much happier with Hillary Clinton. Certainly, more satisfied with George Bush that he served than with Donald Trump.

And here's the final tragedy. Everyone knows that Mr. Bolton has strong views. No one questions that. Everyone knows his advocacy for wars in many places.

And yet, somehow, magically, he got the job, and then managed to keep large numbers of people in the National Security Council staff who are all committed anti-Trumpers, and to bring in new anti-Trumpers, like Elliott Abrams, Jeffries and others in support of his policies of confrontation and hostility.

He thought he was President, and that's ultimately what dig him in.

CARLSON: It seems by his behavior that he was working to undermine the President while he was there? I mean, this doesn't seem a departure from what he's been doing for the last couple of years.

MACGREGOR: Oh, no, no, no, absolutely. And remember, he's very much in line with those four stars that brought the President over to the Pentagon, sat him down in the tank and said, we'll straighten him out. We'll explain to him why none of these wars can end. Why we have to have troops everywhere. That's John Bolton.

This town is full of people like John Bolton. The only difference is that Bolton didn't even bother to disguise it. He walked in, actively subverted, tried to replace Donald Trump's policies with his own. The tragedy is he was there so long and did so much damage.

CARLSON: There's so many people in this city who've made fortunes pushing these wars and I really hope that we take time on this show to expose them because they deserve to be exposed.

MACGREGOR: Absolutely.

CARLSON: We've made that point many times. Colonel, thanks so much for coming on tonight.

MACGREGOR: Thank you.

CARLSON: Congresswoman Debbie Lesko represents the State of Arizona. She is also a member of the President's defense team. We're happy to have her tonight. Congresswoman, thanks so much for coming on.

REP. DEBBIE LESKO (R-AZ): Thank you.

CARLSON: What would you say if you could boil down today to a theme for the President's defense team, what would it be?

LESKO: Well that the President did nothing wrong and there's nothing impeachable. The House didn't prove their case at all, and that the Senate should acquit him.

I mean, I think that's the bottom line of everything. There is nothing impeachable. And all these calls for witnesses are just wrong because the House could have called the witnesses themselves. They chose not to. They didn't subpoena John Bolton, and now they're claiming that they should talk to him. Well, they should have done their job in the House.

CARLSON: Mitt Romney, though, who's a Republican from a contiguous state, Utah, senator, is now saying that John Bolton should be a witness at the trial. What do you think of that? What do you think Senator Romney would say that?

LESKO: I think Mitt Romney has some sour grapes, quite frankly. I mean, I don't know him personally, I haven't talked to him recently. But that's my guess.

CARLSON: So you said that the theme tonight for the course of the day was the President did nothing wrong and should be acquitted. But is that would you say an open question?

I think the rest of us who are watching this are more likely not watching it with the assumption we know the ending, which is acquittal. Is that even in doubt?

LESKO: I don't think it's in doubt. But I think it's wise for the President's legal team to prove their case, and they prove the case that the house had the burden of proof. They didn't even come close to proving any evidence of impeachable offense.

That all it's been is a bunch of rhetoric fluff, and really all it is by the Democrats, and it has been all of 2019 is to influence the 2020 election. That's what all this is about. It has nothing to do with the truth or anything else. It's about taking back the power.

CARLSON: Yes, well, I think they're doing that. I mean, Bernie Sanders has been rising in the polls. That's not what they intended when they started this all. They intended to boost Joe Biden, but it hasn't helped him one little bit, which may be something that they regret in the end.

Finally, I mean, do you think it wouldn't be interesting for the rest of us to hear from Hunter Biden?

LESKO: Well, I think it's interesting to hear from Hunter Biden, but I don't think it needs to be done in an impeachment trial. I mean, I don't think -- I would advise against the senators voting for more witnesses, because that really just plays into the Democrats' hands.

All they want to do is prolong this, and they want to buddy up the presidency. They've tried to do it for years now to impeach him, and that's what they want to do. This is their whole goal.

Their whole goal is not about impeachment, they know that he's going to be acquitted. They're trying to influence the 2020 election. They're trying to drag this out as long as they can. And quite frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if the House does other Articles of Impeachment up until the election.

CARLSON: Yes. I don't think it'll work. Just my view. Congresswoman, thanks so much for coming on tonight. We appreciate that.

LESKO: Thank you.

CARLSON: We're going to continue to monitor the nonsense ongoing in the Senate. The President's legal team, currently speaking. We will take you there live as warranted. But first a medical emergency.

Well, the coronavirus which has incubated in China for some unknown period of time, and now has escaped China is getting worse by the day.

More than 80 people are dead so far, that's the official number. It could be vastly larger. Thousands of cases have been confirmed. At least five of them here in the United States.

Again, this is an illness with an incubation period of two weeks, so there could be many, many more that we don't know about yet.

But so far, this is the fascinating part, travel to and from China and the United States remains completely unaffected. Chinese citizens, even people coming directly from Wuhan, the place where this started can travel to and from the United States whenever they want. Bizarre.

During the SARS epidemic 17 years ago, Canada failed to shut down flights between China and Toronto, and the result was a major outbreak that killed dozens. It was so bad that Singapore banned flights from Canada. Amazing.

So are we risking something like that today? Dr. Marc Siegel is a Fox medical contributor and he joins us tonight.

Doctor, thanks so much for coming on. You don't want to be alarmist about this, but it sounds pretty serious, and I'm kind of struck by the fact nobody seems to be in public anyway, talking about a travel ban. Why?

DR. MARC SIEGEL, FOX NEWS CHANNEL MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, Tucker, I'll get to that. But I want to say that I've been studying contagions for a really long time, as you know, and I have never seen anything like this. The amount of suppression from the Chinese government. Now they're suddenly cordoning off whole cities.

The fact that this far in, we don't know how contagious this is or even how deadly it is. The World Health Organization has yet to call this an international emergency when 1.5 billion people in China are already involved.

And then to your point about the lack of a travel ban and the idea that people are going back and forth semi-freely and if you do quarantine entire cities, by the way, people try to escape the quarantine.

CARLSON: That's right.

SIEGEL: They and they get hysterical and they spread more virus.

A shining light in the darkness is our own Centers of Disease Control here, which has looked at 110 cases already, found five, all of whom traveled from Wuhan and ruled out 32 cases, didn't have it. So they're teaching us as we go now, how contagious this is.

I'm very proud of our own government CDC, not what's going on in China, which is really reckless and really, really scary.

CARLSON: Well, it is scary. And I mean, I guess the most obvious question is, is the Chinese government providing our Centers for Disease Control with all the information that it needs to make informed decisions?

SIEGEL: I have reason to believe that that's still not true, and I'll tell you why. How the numbers are suddenly skyrocketing and for months, the word coming out of China that people were getting sick from a strange illness, and people were dying -- are they really on all the death certificates, this virus? Do we really know all the people that had this or did they think they had a flu?

We don't know if this is more contagious or deadlier than the flu, and we need to know that. We're studying these five people very, very carefully. But that's what should have been done in China from the beginning, and it wasn't.

And I'm positive, there's thousands and thousands and thousands of cases that never came to light here.

CARLSON: Well, so given that we know and it's no surprise the Chinese government is lying about a matter of life and death as they have so many times before, corporate America whelp and whine if we shut down travel to and from China, but if you were acting in the public's best interest, wouldn't you do that?

SIEGEL: Yes. And I guess you would and I want to make a point here that you know well. The State Department is saying level three to China, meaning you can go if you have an essential reason to go.

But here's what our viewers need to know. You can get there, and it's also according to the State Department, China can say you can't go back. You can't leave. We're not letting you out. We're afraid you might have the Wuhan coronavirus.

So I would tell everybody -- everybody -- unless they absolutely have to, to stay out of China, and I'm not trying to say by the way that all parts of China are equally affected here. That's not my point.


SIEGEL: But you could go there and they could decide, whoops, now you're in the area we're worried about and not let you go home.

CARLSON: I mean, especially as you pointed out in the first sentence, we just don't know because it's an opaque dictatorship that lies for a living. Terrifying. Dr. Siegel, I know we'll see you again on this.

SIEGEL: We need to know how contagious and how deadly.

CARLSON: Yes, yes.

SIEGEL: They're not telling us.

CARLSON: Amazing. Thank you, doctor. Great to see you.

SIEGEL: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you. The President's legal team speaking at his impeachment trial at this hour on Capitol Hill. Alan Dershowitz is currently at the microphone.

Minutes ago, he said this, "I voted for Hillary Clinton and I would have made the same argument for her that I'm currently making for President Trump." Let's listen in.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PRESIDENT'S SENATE TRIAL COUNSEL: Justifying impeachment is the manner by which the word incapacity -- focus on that word, please -- incapacity was treated.

Madison and others focused heavily on the problem of what happens if a President becomes incapacitated.

Certainly, a President who is incapacitated should not be allowed to continue to preside over this great country, and everyone seem to agree that the possibility of presidential incapacity is a good and powerful reason for having an impeachment provision.

But when it came time to establishing criteria for actually removing a President, incapacity was not included. Why not? Presumably because it was too vague and subjective a term.

And when we had an incapacitated President, in the end of the Woodrow Wilson second term, he was not impeached and removed.

A constitutional amendment with carefully drawn procedural safeguards against abuse was required to remedy the daunting problem of a President who was deemed incapacitated.

Now another reason why incapacitation was not included among impeachable offenses because it's not criminal. It's not a crime to be incapacitated. It's not akin to treason. It's not akin to bribery, and it's not a high crime and misdemeanor.

The framers believed that impeachable offenses must be criminal in nature, and akin to the most serious crimes. Incapacity simply did not fit into this category. Nothing criminal about it.

So the Constitution had to be amended to include a different category of non-criminal behavior that warranted removal.

I urge you to consider seriously that important part of the history of the adoption of our Constitution.

I think that Blackstone and Hamilton also support this view. There's no disagreement over the conclusion that the words treason, bribery or other high crimes, those words require criminal behavior.

The debate is only over the words -- and misdemeanors. The framers of the Constitution were fully cognizant to the fact that the word misdemeanor was a species of crime. The book that was most often deemed authoritative was written by with Blackstone in Great Britain.

And here is what he says about this in the version that was available to the framers. "A crime or misdemeanor is an act, committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it. This general definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors, which, properly speaking, are mere synonymous terms."

Mere synonymous terms. He then went on, " ... though in common usage the word crimes is made to denote such offenses are of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors only."

Interestingly though, he pointed out that misdemeanors were not always so gentle. There was a category called capital misdemeanors, where if you stole somebody's pig or other fowl, you could be sentenced to death.

But it's only for a misdemeanor, don't worry. It's not for a felony. But there were misdemeanors that were capital in nature.

Moreover, Blackstone wrote that parliamentary impeachment, "is a prosecution," a prosecution of already known and established law presented to the most high and Supreme Court of criminal jurisdiction analogous to this great court.

He observed that a commoner can be impeached but only for high misdemeanors, a peer maybe impeached for any crime -- any crime. This certainly suggests that Blackstone deemed high misdemeanors to be a species of crime.

Hamilton is a little less clear on this issue, and not surprisingly, because he was writing in Federalist number 65, he was writing not to define what the criteria for impeachment were, he was writing primarily in defense of the Constitution as written, and less to define its provisions.

But he certainly cannot be cited in favor of criteria such as abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, nor of impeachment voted along party lines.

He warned that the greatest danger -- these were his words -- the greatest danger is that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

CARLSON: Alan Dershowitz, formerly of Harvard Law School. We will continue to monitor the President's defense team this hour, we'll bring you any key portions of it live, as warranted.

Of course while official Washington has spent the last week breathlessly obsessing over a silly impeachment ritual, whose conclusion we already know, something actually newsworthy and remarkable really has happened in the rest of America.

Bernie Sanders became the Democratic frontrunner. Bet you didn't think that was going to happen? He just had a heart attack. He is like 77. And yet, with one week to go before the Iowa caucuses, a newly released Emerson poll has Sanders up nine points in the first contest in the nominating process. That's the biggest lead in Iowa for any candidate in the past two and a half months. It's real.

After Iowa, of course, there's New Hampshire on February 11th. Now, new polling in that state shows Sanders up seven points, and that's not an outlier poll.

Sanders has led every poll in New Hampshire in the last two weeks by an average of eight points. Now, historically, candidates who win the first two primaries become the party's presidential nominee.

But wait, you can almost hear CNN saying and they will. Iowa and New Hampshire are incorrigibly white states. They are not representative of the New Democratic Party. Okay.

The third contest is in Nevada, now called Nevada, where the Democratic primary electorate is heavily Hispanic. So how's Bernie Sanders doing there? Well, he's risen within a single point of Joe Biden and he is still rising.

So suddenly, it's pretty clear whether you like it or not that the momentum is with Bernie Sanders.

As of today, he could easily become the Democratic presidential nominee, and that's a very big deal, not least for the people who control the Democratic Party.

Despite superficial similarities, Biden and Buttigieg, two other frontrunners, and really even Elizabeth Sanders are not like Bernie Sanders.

If Bernie Sanders wins, he won't just mandate gender neutral bathrooms at the local Chick-Fil-A, or seize guns from mean old Republicans in rural America. Those are lifestyle issues and they are beloved by the Democratic donor class, because they don't cost them anything. They are free and they get to feel virtuous.

But Bernie doesn't plan to stop there. He has got bigger ideas. He intends to upend America's economic order. That's bad news for a lot of us, but it's especially bad news for the liberal finance establishment and the tech world, which have become richer than any group in history over the past 20 years.

Democratic donors hate and fear Bernie Sanders for that. So they put up their PR department to attack him. First CNN, head of the PR department of a liberal establishment teamed up with the Warren campaign to denounce Sanders as sexist.

They based this on a single unprovable allegation from a year old private conversation. If anything that attempt was counterproductive. It was too obvious and dumb and ham handed like everything they do, but they've kept trying.

A headline in "The Daily Beast" this morning really sums it up, "Worried Democratic operative scrambled to fund a network to take down Bernie Sanders."

Well, if you've lived through the 2016 campaign that may sound a little familiar to you. Bill Kristol tried the same thing in the Republican primaries four years ago. How'd that work? Well, Donald Trump is now the President.

Lesson. It isn't easy for bitter establishment dinosaurs to crush a political insurgency, and you'd think the ruling class would have learned that very simple lesson the last time they tried it on the Republican side, but no, they haven't learned it.

Now, they're attacking broadcaster Joe Rogan. Why? For the crime of giving Sanders a half-hearted endorsement. Now, Rogan who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in America infuriated the establishment and "The New York Times" by saying this on his show last week.


JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: I think I'll probably vote for Bernie.

But him as a human being when I was hanging out with him, I believe in him. I like him. I like him a lot.

He's been insanely consistent his entire life. He has basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that, in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.


CARLSON: Not exactly a full-throated endorsement, but it didn't matter. Immediately, the hackiest figures in the Democratic establishment swung as one into action.

In Washington, the Human Rights Campaign demanded that Sanders disavow Joe Rogan's endorsement. On what grounds you ask? Rogan, who is major fixture in the world of Mixed Martial Arts once said that biological men have a physical advantage in MMA bouts against women because they do.

For this, HRC denounced him is alt-right, and Joe Biden sensing an opportunity immediately piled on. He issued a statement that declared, "Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There's no room for compromise."

In other words, Joe Rogan may seem like a likable guy with a popular podcast, but on this vital question of civil rights for which future generations will judge us, Joe Rogan is Bull Connor. He is a bigot.

It's hard to know who really believes crap like this. No one has ever heard Joe Rogan's show considers him extreme. Rogan isn't even especially political, he doesn't seem that interested.

Most of the time, he just asks questions often about MMA. And yet CNN, as if on cue, it's always on cue with them promptly attacked Joe Rogan as a bigot. That's what their masters in the establishment required them to do. They were just following orders.

One of the many, many ironies here is that the people are now calling Joe Rogan, immoral invariably grovel for Al Sharpton's blessing every election cycle and in fact, they've also been begging for Joe Rogan's support. Watch this.


ROGAN: They all keep asking me to be on my show.


ROGAN: I have a request from all of them.


ROGAN: Oh, yes, Biden, Warren.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you resist that [bleep]?

ROGAN: Mayor Pete. Because they're not my friends. I only talk to my friends. I like Tulsi and I like -- I like, Bernie. That's it.


CARLSON: So the other candidates flattered him. Now, they're denouncing him, whatever it takes. And honestly, the Democratic establishment is getting a little tired of all of this, the endless wrangling and whining over piddling little primary elections in irrelevant outpost like Iowa. Where the hell is that?

What can't voters just shut up and accept Michael Bloomberg as President, he did great in Manhattan? And isn't it time to give an elderly billionaire a shot? Why shouldn't someone worth $50 billion finally have a say in this country? It's all very frustrating to them -- democracy that is.

Jason Nichols is a Professor of African-American Studies at the University of Maryland. He joins us tonight. Jason, why can't you just be quiet and accept Michael Bloomberg? He's a billionaire. Like what do you know?

JASON NICHOLS, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Right, exactly? You know, Michael Bloomberg, we could go on and on about him. Of course, there are three words that will always remind me of Michael Bloomberg and those are stop and frisk, you know, which --

CARLSON: That was the best part of Michael Bloomberg.

NICHOLS: Kind of problematic taking away the Fourth Amendment every rights of African-Americans and Latinos in the city.

CARLSON: I'm against taking away rights, but no, it's a sincere question. So Bernie, who -- obviously I'm not endorsing Bernie -- I dread Bernie's rein, but I can't help but notice the similarities between what they're trying to do to Bernie now, and what they tried to do to Trump before. I think it's stupid. It's counterproductive, but it's also so fascinating. So like Joe Rogan, is now a bigot? Are you listening to this?

NICHOLS: Yes. So I think with Joe Rogan, the opinion that Joe Rogan had, is not one that I would necessarily endorse or agree with.

But one of the things that I will say is that there are many people who feel that way both on the right and the left. So I think if anything, you know, Joe Rogan probably needs a conversation, maybe he should bring me on his podcast, I'll be willing to speak with him.

CARLSON: Shouldn't we have a national -- because I mean, this is a sidebar, but you know a biological man competing in a blood sport against women, some of us would say it seems like maybe he has an advantage.

Now, if you think that he doesn't -- whatever, we can debate it, but just to dismiss him as a bigot because you want to hurt Bernie Sanders seems like it's weird.

NICHOLS: Yes. No, I agree. I think that that's, you know, probably not the route that I would have taken. I think that Bernie Sanders, you know, there are people who want for Bernie Sanders to disavow this endorsement, like you said, it was half-hearted, at best.

If I were Bernie, I would certainly not do that. I think, you know, there is a segment of Rogan's following that is really important to the Democratic Party, and if we can get some of those people who I think would otherwise be Trump voters, if we can get those disaffected guys that are kind of apolitical, kind of like Rogan, if we can get them You know, to listen to what Bernie Sanders is saying, I think that that's so important to the Democratic Party.

CARLSON: Well, if I were in the Democratic Party, I would agree completely with what you just said. So last question.


CARLSON: I know that everyone thinks that, you know, Biden is on top of the national polls.


CARLSON: I think most people in Washington, those who know him, don't think he should be running in the first place -- it's mean -- and don't think he is going to be the nominee.

I think most establishment Democrats are assuming it's Michael Bloomberg, because he's got all this money. If you wind up in a place where Bernie wins the first three contests -- Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada -- and maybe win some more. You're going to look at the Democratic primary electorate and say, sorry, you get the billionaire because he's got more money. Is that going to work? What's going to happen?

NICHOLS: So I disagree with the idea that Michael Bloomberg is going to be the nominee, even though he has tons of money. Number one, because again, you will not win a Democratic primary without African-American voters.

And he came along at the 11th hour and said, oh, I'm sorry, after all those years of leaning in on stop and frisk, I'm going to change my mind, so I think he's definitely not cut. I think Biden --

CARLSON: But the macro question is at this moment in American history, is the lesson really billionaires need more power? Why is no one listening to the billionaires? Is that what the Democratic Party is really telling us? Because I'm serious. I talk to people in D.C., and they're like, why not Bloomberg?

And it's like, really? That's the lesson you've learned from the current economy.

NICHOLS: No, I agree. You know, I think -- I'm trying to get rid of a billionaire right now, who I don't necessarily think is suited to be President.

So I'm not asking for any more New York billionaire socialites to be President. What I do think is that we have a great stable of people with different ideas. Hopefully, it won't come down to a brokered convention. We're going to have somebody who's going to emerge.

Right now, it's looking like Bernie Sanders, but I'm not sure how he's going to do throughout the south where it seems like Joe Biden has a good grasp on things.

CARLSON: Maybe. I just hope -- poor Biden. I feel sorry for him every time he talks. Professor, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much for that.

NICHOLS: Great seeing you, sir. Thank you.

CARLSON: Fox News alert for you. Alan Dershowitz still speaking at the President's Senate trial. He just began making references to past Presidents and what they did that could be constituted as an abuse of power. It's an interesting colloquy -- soliloquy. Let's listen back.


... victory for his party. But the President, as a President, and as a party leader and Commander-in-Chief, made a decision with life or death consequences, end quote.

Professor Blackman drew the following relevant conclusion from this and other historical events. He said, "Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare while in the back of their minds, considering how these actions will affect their popularity. Often the two concepts overlap. What's good for the country is good for the official's reelection." All politicians, he said, understand that dynamic.

Like all human beings, Presidents and other politicians, persuade themselves that their actions seen by their opponents is self-serving are primarily in the national interest.

In order to conclude that such mixed motive actions constitute an abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the President and attribute to him a singular self-serving motive. Such objective probing of motives cannot be the legal basis for a serious accusation of abuse of power that could result in the removal of an elected President yet, this is precisely what the managers are claiming.

Here's what they said, "Whether the President's real reason, the ones actually in his mind are at the time legitimate." What a standard. What was in the President's mind, actually, in his mind, what was the real reason? Would you want your actions to be probed for what was the real reason why you acted?

Even if a President were -- and it clearly shows in my mind that the framers could not have intended this psychoanalytic approach to Presidential motives to determine the distinction between what is impeachable and what is not.

And here I come to a relevant and contemporaneous issue. Even if a President -- any President -- were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter, in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power.

Consider the following hypothetical case that is in our news today, as the Israeli Prime Minister comes to the United States for meetings, let's assume a Democratic President tells Israel that foreign aid authorized by Congress will not be sent or an Oval Office meeting will not be scheduled, unless the Israelis stop building settlements. Quid pro quo.

I might disapprove of such a quid pro quo demand on policy grounds, but it would not constitute an abuse of power.

Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power. It's part of the way foreign policy has been operated by Presidents since the beginning of time.

The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives, that the President was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase abuse of power as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a President.

Now it follows, it follows from this that if a President, any President were to have done what "The Times" reported about the contact of the Bolton manuscript that would not constitute an impeachable offense.

Let me repeat --

CARLSON: Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and improbably, a key member of the President's defense team -- interesting -- we will continue to monitor the impeachment trial now in progress in the Senate.

We expect to the defense team to wrap up shortly, of course, we will bring anything interesting if it happens.

In New York, the Empire State Building is lit up tonight with purple and gold in honor of NBA player, Kobe Bryant, who was killed tragically over the weekend. Jason Whitlock joins us after the break.


CARLSON: Prince Andrew, a long standing member of the disintegrating Royal Family across the Atlantic stepped back from his family over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Now though, he is refusing to help prosecutors untangle that case. Huh. For details tonight, we turn to chief breaking news correspondent, Trace Gallagher. Hey, Trace.


Hey, Tucker. It looks bad because it directly contradicts what Prince Andrew said publicly back in November after he was accused of being part of Jeffrey Epstein's underage sex trafficking ring and having sex with then 15-year-old Virginia Giuffre.

The Prince issued this statement that reads in part, "I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required."

Well, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman says the Prince's help is required, but it has not materialized. Watch.


GEOFFREY BERMAN, U.S. ATTORNEY: The Southern District of New York and the F.B.I. have contacted Prince Andrew's attorneys and requested to interview Prince Andrew and today, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation.


GALLAGHER: It's unclear exactly what questions they have for the Prince, but the U.S. Attorney also said Epstein's charges contain conspiracy and that it's very unlikely he committed his crimes alone, saying the investigation is still moving forward.

And Virginia Giuffre's attorney David Boies had this response, quoting, "Prince Andrew's continued refusal to cooperate with authorities after freely acknowledging that he would be prepared to answer inquiries raises even more questions about the role he played in the international sex trafficking ring Jeffrey Epstein and others operated. Prince Andrew should take most seriously the deeply held belief in this country that no one is above the law."

Of course, Prince Andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations, including during his disastrous BBC interview where he said he stayed at convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's home because it was, "convenient" -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher from Los Angeles. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.


CARLSON: Well, yesterday as you know, if you were here, basketball legend, Kobe Bryant was killed in a helicopter crash along with his daughter and seven others.

They were traveling to his daughter's basketball practice a little north of Los Angeles. He was just 41 years old.

Kobe Bryant was an interesting man and worth talking about and so we're happy tonight to be joined by Jason Whitlock, host of "Speak for Yourself" on FS1.

Jason, thanks so much for coming on.


CARLSON: So you've covered Kobe Bryant for a long time. You live in LA. He was in the Lakers for 20 years. You'd think he had a complex record, but in the end, I don't know, he seemed like kind of different from a lot of people we see in professional sports. Tell us your assessment of Kobe Bryant.

WHITLOCK: Listen, Tucker, there's no question about it. Kobe Bryant fell down big time in 2003. He was accused of doing something heinous. He and the young lady -- it was a sexual assault charge. They came to some type of understanding. There were no criminal charges. But there was a civil settlement where Kobe acknowledged some level of wrongdoing.

And look, it was awful. But Tucker, I just got -- I love the way the guy got up. I love the way that he course corrected. I loved his passion for his daughters. He had four daughters. He had a 13-year-old daughter, Gianna that died with him. She was a pretty good basketball player.

I love the commitment to his daughters that listen, if you're going to die and you die in support of your family and doing something with your child, I think it's kind of heroic, and I think that the things that Kobe was involved in, his support of women athletes and women athletics, I think it was part of the penance he played for the mistake he made in 2003.

But I respect it and I was a longtime critic of Kobe Bryant, but in the recent months since post his playing career, I was a big supporter and liked what Kobe stood for and have a lot of respect for Kobe Bryant.

CARLSON: I was just struck. I mean, if you're Kobe Bryant, one of the most famous people in the world, obviously you can do whatever you want, and on a Sunday morning, you're getting up early to fly your daughter and a couple of local coaches to a game or practice that you're coaching, that's really kind of revealing I thought in a great way, in a wonderful way.

WHITLOCK: I think it's something that everybody can relate to, and I think that's why there's this great outpouring of love for Kobe Bryant. Because, listen, do most parents get in a helicopter take their kid to a game? No.

But they certainly get in cars. They certainly get on airplanes. They certainly live a life in service to their kids, and that's where I think Kobe Bryant was that at the end of his life, and I have nothing but respect for it.

I think we need more of it. I don't have a problem saying I think Kobe in the second act that he had just started, he was a role model that I think everybody can be proud of.

CARLSON: Amen. I agree with that completely. Dying bringing your daughter to practice, what's heavy.

Jason Whitlock thanks so much for that perspective.

WHITLOCK: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you. Pete Buttigieg's case for the presidency depends entirely on his record. What's his record? Well, eight years as mayor of a place called South Bend which is in the Midwest. But is that record one that he can be proud of? A retired South Bend Indiana police officer joins us next.

Plus a new report says the F.B.I. is looking allegations that Ilhan Omar married her biological brother. It's a question we've brought up many times on this show and it's a real question it turns out.

And we'll continue monitoring the ongoing impeachment trial of the President now underway in the Senate.


CARLSON: Mayor Pete Buttigieg is one of the youngest presidential contenders in the history of presidential contender, so he doesn't have a lot run on except for his mayor, eight years, rather his record as mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

But did he do a good job? Well, here's one measure. During his eight years in charge of the city, crime in South Bend surged.

In 2012, the year that he became mayor, there were 233 cases of aggravated assault. In 2018, the number of aggravated assaults tripled to 711.

What happened exactly? Well, Derek Dieter knows. He is a former South Bend police officer and City Council President and he joins us tonight. Derek, thanks so much for coming on.

DEREK DIETER, FORMER SOUTH BEND POLICE OFFICER: Hey, thank you. I'm honored to be here, sir.

CARLSON: Well, thank you. So, you know, I never hold any executive mayor, you know, President, Governor responsible wholly for crime numbers, but that's a massive rate -- that's a rise that's really troubling.

What did Mayor Pete do to cause that? Or what did he not do to prevent it? Or how was he related to that?

DIETER: Well, I think it's a combination of things. What's going on now that the personnel is at an all-time low of officers, five officers just went to a neighboring city, including the 2017 policeman of the year. Three more on their way. People have left at alarming rates, both white and black.

So I think it's just the overall kind of negativity that he got into this stuff. You know, you can't read out to his corner and expect to know what's going on in the inner city, you really have to experience and I think, since he got in, he got off on the wrong foot with the former chief, and it's been kind of downhill ever since then.

CARLSON: But if you're mayor, or if you're any leader, keeping your people safe is obviously the most important job. His job is keeping them from being assaulted. If they're being assaulted three times the rate, then there's a huge problem. So was he aware of this? Attentive to it? Did he try to make it better? What did he do or not do?

DIETER: Well, I think it's again, attempting to do things. I think his heart may have been in the right place, but I don't -- to be honest -- I don't think he really knew what to do about it.

In 2017 a record 102 shootings occurred. Last year that record was broke. And already this year, South Bend has had four murders and about 13 shootings. So, again, it's a horrific pace that it's on, and I just don't think right now and in addition to basically, throwing the Police Department under the bus of saying all police work is based under the shadow of racism is not a good way to get in touch with all your officers.

CARLSON: No, it's completely idiotic, and it doesn't help anybody of any color. So I read a story that said that under him, under Buttigieg as Mayor, police officers were warned not to fat shame people. What does that have to do with keeping the city safe?

DIETER: I guess you'd have to ask him. I retired in 2014, but I still talk to officers almost daily in my -- I have my own security business, so I'm out there in the community, always have.


DIETER: And I guess it's just again, he may have not gotten good advice from people. He has his own idea how to do stuff and until you've been out on the streets, which I've been out there since the 70s, until you experience that and see it and have anything to do with it. It's really -- he has not got to the point of what it should be in the city.

And it's very disheartening for all the policemen I've known being there and growing up of what it's turned into now.

CARLSON: A very quick last question, since you do talk to current police officers in South Bend, if they were determining the election would they vote for Pete Buttigieg for President, do you think?

DIETER: I can't tell you how they'd vote one way or the other.

CARLSON: I think we're getting a sense. Thank you so much. Derek Dieter, great to see you tonight.

DIETER: Okay, I'd like shout out to the Dieter kids and go Chiefs.

CARLSON: Go Chiefs. I'm for that. Good to see you.

DIETER: Thank you.

CARLSON: Barely a year after getting elected the Congress, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is one of the most famous progressives in the country.

The press loves talking about her political views, suggests frequently that her opponents must be racist because why else wouldn't like her?

But they seem to have no interest whatsoever in her own past which is strange because it's interesting.

For years, credible allegations have swirled that Omar married her biological brother a decade ago as part of an immigration scam. Even our hometown newspaper that was set out to disprove it couldn't disprove it.

Now "The New York Post" reports that the F.B.I. is investigating the matter.

Steve Drazkowski is a Minnesota State Representative. He knows a lot about the subject. He joins us tonight.

Steve, thanks so much for coming on.


So the F.B.I. looking into allegations that she married her biological brother as part of an immigration fraud attempt, which was apparently successful.

The first time I heard this, I thought that cannot be true, but it sounds like it may be or why else would the F.B.I. be taking this so seriously?

DRAZKOWSKI: Yes, Tucker. So well, we talked earlier, actually end of last year and we developed an online petition, to share the requests we put with the U.S. House Ethics Committee for them to do an investigation.

What I heard from people overwhelmingly was you need to do more. Our investigative units of government need to act on this. I heard it over and over and over again.

So back in October, I sat down -- I was able to get in touch with the F.B.I. after talking to the U.S. Attorney here in Minnesota. She referred me to the F.B.I. I sat down with them for 90 minutes with staff, and we went over all the details that we have about Ilhan Omar's past, her marriage fraud, and the very likely frauds and crimes committed as a result of that, a very productive discussion.

They were utmost professionals, listened very closely. They told me they were going to share this information with I.C.E. and with the Department of Education.

I asked them if they would share their point of contacts with me with them, which they did. And I've been able to start to follow up further with them.

I'm hopeful that we'll actually have more discussion with Homeland Security and I.C.E. and actually be able to sit down with them in the future as well.

CARLSON: I'm confused at this point. So there's an active F.B.I. investigation into whether Ilhan Omar married her own brother to defraud our immigration system, but there's no House Ethics Committee investigation of it. How can that be?

DRAZKOWSKI: Well, there isn't yet and as a matter of fact, they vet those House Ethics investigation requests for quite a while, and we're continuing to ping them about that. And I should kind of correct the record here, Tucker. I don't know if there's an investigation going or not. I can tell you and people of America, we have shared extensively, the documents with the folks -- fine folks at the F.B.I.

They have not told us there are doing an investigation. They have not told us they are not doing an investigation. That's the way they operate. But they have been very cooperative. They've listened and they've given us the ability to talk to some of the other agencies.

CARLSON: Well, they sit down with a sitting State Legislator and ask him for information and he provides it. I think most of us would agree that's an investigation and it sounds active.

In any case, I hope we get to the bottom of this. I hope we find the brother apparently who is in the U.K. There is so much here and you were one of the first people to bring into public attention. Thank you. Good to see you tonight.

DRAZKOWSKI: Thank you. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, the President's defense team wrapping up tonight on Capitol Hill during the impeachment trial. They say they're done for the day.

But just moments ago, Alan Dershowitz responded to John Bolton's leaked allegations against the President. Here's what he said.


DERSHOWITZ: Now it follows -- it follows from this that if a President, any President were to have done with "The Times" reported about the context of the Bolton manuscript that would not constitute an impeachable offense.

Let me repeat. Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.


CARLSON: Alan Dershowitz speaking on the President's behalf in the Senate tonight.

We'll be covering any news out of the impeachment trial right here on Fox, but for us, for this show, that's it for tonight.

We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. The show this the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying, possibly smugness and groupthink.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.