This is a rush transcript from "The Story with Martha MacCallum," January 24, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So, the clock is ticking for the Democrats on the Senate floor tonight. They have about two more hours left in the 24 hours that they were given to present their case on why the President should be removed from office. Now, it is possible that this trial could be over at this time next week if at all times out the way, it is looking like it will. But of course, if witnesses come into play that could be a whole different story. Tonight, a report surrounding one of those potential witnesses. ABC News reporting that it has reviewed recordings that appear to capture President Trump at a private dinner telling associates that he wanted Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch fired in April of 2018. Now it was a full year later that she was actually sent back to the United States. Giuliani associate Lev Parnas was reportedly part of that conversation and said this earlier this month  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI: She fired her actually at the dinner which was the most surprising thing ever. I do remember me telling the President that the ambassador was bad mouthing him and saying that he was going to get impeached, something to that effect. And at that point, he turned around to John DeStefano who was his aide at the time and said, fire her. And we all - there was silence in the room.


MACCALLUM: Sounds very dramatic. So, President Trump addressing these reports directly in an exclusive interview that will air tonight on The Ingraham Angle. Here's a bit of it.  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you relying on Lev Parnas to get rid of your ambassador?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. But I have a lot of people and you know he's somebody that I guess based on pictures that I see; he goes to fundraisers. But I am not a fan of that ambassador.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But would you tell Parnas to get rid of her? I mean you have a State Department.

TRUMP: Well, I wouldn't have been saying that. I probably would have said it was Rudy there or somebody, but I'd make no bones about it. I want to have ambassadors. I have every right. I want ambassadors that are chosen by me. I have a right to hire and fire ambassadors.


MACCALLUM: Democratic Senator Chris Coons out of the hearing for a moment here and says that he would like Lev Parnas to testify in this impeachment trial. White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley says the President has every right to a place the people in his administration and he is getting in front of a microphone. He was there as well and has been with the President this afternoon as well. So, we'll hear from him. But first, Senator Coons who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, good to see you this evening.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Great to be back with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: We have not heard this tape yet. So, there are some characterizations of what's on the tape and what isn't on the tape, but the truth is that nobody really knows at this point. But given what you've heard so far, what do you think about it?  COONS: Well, it's striking that Lev Parnas is someone who none of us had heard of, even a few weeks ago as the House was developing the evidence that the House managers have been presenting to us here in the Senate over the last two days, they didn't have access to Lev Parnas as a potential witness. We've only heard of him because he was fleeing the country and was arrested and indicted in doing so. He was a close associate of Rudy Giuliani's. And I remind you one of the most troubling aspects of the House managers case which has been laid out in great detail is that President Trump inserted his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani in the conduct of a shadow foreign policy that included things like a smear campaign against Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, a long serving decorated independent foreign service officer who had been an anti- corruption crusader as ambassador in several different countries under several different American presidents.  MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you this. You heard what the President just said, he does have the right to remove anyone he wants from ambassadorships. Is that correct? Is that your understanding?  COONS: He does have that power, but not for a corrupt purpose. And one of the things the House managers laid out in great detail. I was surprised really at how much testimonial evidence they had from senior administration officials, folks from the National Security Council, folks who are current and former ambassadors. About the whole scheme that was put together by Rudy Giuliani and carried out by President Trump.  MACCALLUM: But let me ask you this, because--

COONS: If President Trump, Martha--

MACCALLUM: I know, it's fine.

COONS: If President Trump really hopes to be exonerated here in the Senate, he needs to present countervailing evidence. He needs to present witnesses and evidence to push back.  MACCALLUM: I'm just trying to figure out - I understand what you're saying. I'm trying to figure out what the evidence is of exactly. Because we hear also the President brings up this Ambassador Yovanovitch on the call that was released, on the transcript call.


MACCALLUM: And says, I hear she's bad news, something like that. It lines up with what is supposedly on this recording and I should point out that you know we haven't heard the recording. So, it's hard to characterize it.

COONS: That's right.

MACCALLUM: But that she wasn't supportive of the President.

COONS: That's right.

MACCALLUM: She wasn't lining up with his policies and what he wanted to pursue with regard to Ukraine. So, there's nothing there that would be evidence that would indicate that - what's the evidence is my question of wrongdoing, I guess.  COONS: Can I talk now?

MACCALLUM: Please go ahead.

COONS: Thank you. Martha, the court case--

MACCALLUM: I was just doing my question.

COONS: The court case that's been presented by the House managers is that President Trump put his own personal political interests ahead of our national interests and that he directed the firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch and he put a hold on badly needed military aid to our strategic partner, Ukraine, who continues to face Russian aggression in the east because he was trying to extract from the newly-elected President of Ukraine, a commitment to open a sham investigation on Joe Biden and to announce an investigation into the 2016 election. So, the core issue here is, what was President Trump's motive in ordering the dismissal of Marie Yovanovitch as ambassador? What was his motive in putting a hold on this badly needed military aid to Ukraine? Hundreds of millions of dollars which had strong bipartisan support. The key witnesses that we are hoping to hear at the end of these first two weeks of the trial are folks in senior levels of the administration at OMB. The President's Acting Chief of Staff, who carried out President Trump's orders to place an unjustified hold on this badly needed aid.


COONS: Want to exonerate the president, those are exactly the sorts of relevant witnesses we should be hearing from.  MACCALLUM: Well, I think and as you point out, you know, the polls show that people are interested in hearing from these witnesses. So, I guess my question - and you make a number of assumptions, I should just point out that haven't necessarily been established in terms of whether or not - what the President's motives were. I think if it was so clear, this would be an open and shut case. But it isn't. It's still open. So, let me ask you this. In terms of these witnesses that you want to hear from, what do you recommend? Do you think that it should move back to the House, because that's been an idea that has been floated, whether or not they should go back and continue given these new pieces of information that are coming out? What do you recommend? What course?

COONS: Martha, that's one possibility is that the House could continue to develop information. But the rules that were adopted by the Republican majority when we began allowing for depositions of potential witnesses, those could be going on right now. Those would be going on in a closed session. The President could assert whatever privileges or immunities that he wanted to, to challenge or strike certain aspects of that testimony. The Chief Justice would be making those rulings about relevancy. And then another week from now or so, that additional testimony or evidence could be presented in front of the Senate. It doesn't need to hold this up for weeks and weeks. We really already have in place a process that could allow this to happen fairly quickly.  MACCALLUM: All right. Senator Coons, thank you. Always good to talk to you, sir.

COONS: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You bet. So, the White House will be here to respond in a moment. And next, Rudy Giuliani threatening new evidence of his own, ramping up calls for an increased energy behind a Biden investigation. So, is that where all of this is headed, even perhaps after this process of impeachment is over? Charlie Kirk and Richard Goodstein, when the story continues.  (COMMERCIAL BREAK)


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): He deployed Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine to continue advancing a scheme.

(Senate Impeachment Trial)

That serves no other purpose than advancing his 2020 reelection prospects.  (END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Lead Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff blasting President Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, speaking out today and amplifying the calls for an investigation into the Biden's business dealings in Ukraine as a result.  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: You know, I started investigating Biden two years ago, when he was thinking about running for President. I never thought he would run. It looked to me like he couldn't cross the street, much like run. Am I going to cover it up the way the Democrats and the media cover it up? Absolutely not. This ends hopefully with Biden finally being put under investigation.  (END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Joining me now in Washington, Charlie Kirk, Founder and President of Turning Point USA and author of the upcoming book, The Maga Doctrine, The Only Ideas That Will Win the Future. And Richard Goodstein, a Democratic Strategist who pointed out that he has been covering impeachment since Clinton and he's with us as well. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Good to have you both here.  RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISOR TO CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: Sure.

MACCALLUM: Charlie, what do you think about this, this whole Rudy Giuliani element of this Ukraine investigation? And is it helpful that he is continuing to pursue? It's really a 2016 investigation that he's really focused on.

CHARLIE KIRK, MAGA DOCTRINE AUTHOR: Sure. Look, Rudy gets under a lot of criticism from people in the media. I think he deserves a lot of credit for focusing the conversation on Biden corruption in Ukraine. Look, he's the personal attorney of the President of the United States. It's his job to protect his client and to find any facts that might be anywhere related towards Democrat opposition, towards the President of the United States. And I think it's also important to take a step back. Adam Schiff, you know, was obviously going after the mayor today, quite aggressively. And he said, well, the President didn't trust his intel agencies. Well, the same intel agencies that we've now learned under the FISA investigation that spied on President Trump's campaign and went under all sorts of different discrepancies in the process and methodologies there. So, look, I think the mayor is under unfair criticism, and I think he deserves a lot more credit than he gets.

MACCALLUM: Let me play this sound bite, Richard. This is from an interview I did with Lindsey Graham last night and why he thinks that, you know, in the long run, it's valid to dig into the Biden question. Watch.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 a month for a reason. They hired John Kerry's stepson, Burisma did that they were hiring all these people close to the Obama administration, not because of their expertise, because of their influence and the question is, did they use his influence to help this company when it came under investigation? I think there is a lot of questions about that and we'll get to the bottom of it.  (END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, Richard, the suggestion is that every time anyone opens their mouth about the Biden question and why he was hired to do this work and why the Hines - Chris Hines was also hired to do it, it gets immediately shut down and no one's allowed to talk about it. No one's allowed to say, well, that's a question. Maybe it's not illegal, but maybe it's unethical. Maybe it's sort of a sign of what people worry about in the swamp in terms of influence and making money off of political positions. Why is that not an area that we're able to look into?  GOODSTEIN: Well, I think there's two questions. One, should it be part of the impeachment trial? Rudy Giuliani said his epitaph will read he lied for Trump. So, I do think in some quarters, the fact that Rudy Giuliani is pushing this may not be kind of the single best calling card for whatever he's pushing. And it's only if he's got something, why does he put it out there like now, which would help his client presumably better than later?

MACCALLUM: He says he is. He is doing a podcast.

GOODSTEIN: Well, great. So, let's hear it.  MACCALLUM: Next week.

GOODSTEIN: But look, I think if the Senate wants to look into what it is that Hunter Biden did, they should look at nepotism broadly. Look at the trademarks that Ivanka got in China. Look at all the real estate that Jared sold to the Qataris. I mean, if they want to look at nepotism--

MACCALLUM: But that was their point. I mean, I see what you're saying. But you know, on those issues, those were businesses that they were in for a very long time. They weren't like, oh, now my father--

GOODSTEIN: Jared was given the portfolio for the Middle East. That was not something he did for a very long time.  KIRK: One second, Richard. Jared's family, the Kushner family was in real estate for many generations. There is no experience in the Biden family, an oil and gas or the region or Ukraine whatsoever. He was put on that board because his father was Vice President. of the United States.

GOODSTEIN: Hunter admits that he got hired because of his name. He doesn't dispute that.

KIRK: Obama's own NSE said, this is problematic. They wrote guidance memos on in fact, they testified behind it. Well, here's the difference. The Trump family, Don Junior and Eric in particular, divested from international deals when their President - when their father became President. The Biden's went after international deals. And, Richard, you know, deep down, there's something questionable with this whole Biden Burisma narrative.

GOODSTEIN: But it has nothing to do with impeachment. Here's the answer. If Donald Trump really had concerns about corruption, why would you only ask for an announcement from Zelensky? Why would he have not done this in 2017 or 2018 before Joe Biden announced? Why would he not have asked his own FBI and Department of Justice?

MACCALLUM: I've always thought - I know people hear that different ways? But when I hear it, to me, it's saying, once you announce it then we'll have the meeting. Not - you only need to announce it. Now, I have no idea which one it is--

GOODSTEIN: Gordon Sondland disagrees with you.


GOODSTEIN: And he talked with the President about it. You didn't.

MACCALLUM: Hours and hours of the testimony. And I think it can sort of be seen in a couple of different ways.

GOODSTEIN: OK. Fair enough.  KIRK: In closing, look, some of those things have yet to be substantiated. We do know on the phone call there was a conversation around corruption in general in Ukraine, which is well-known as one of the centers of corruption in Europe in general. But if you look at Jim Jordan's four irrefutable truth about this, the aid was released, President Trump gave javelins when Barack Obama gave blankets, there is nothing here whatsoever.  GOODSTEIN: And if I can answer one thing, the aide was released when the cops showed up. It's like dropping - being a bank robber and dropping the cash that doesn't mean your hands are clean. And it wasn't just blankets. It was all sorts of carrier--

MACCALLUM: Food also.

KIRK: President Trump gave Ukrainians armed and lethal weaponry. President Obama did not. That is a fundamental element fact here when it comes to--

GOODSTEIN: He gave them Humvees; I think that's true. He didn't give them javelins. But the fact of the matter is, again, this notion that somehow or other President Trump's hands are clean because he ultimately gave the money, kind of overlooks the fact he gave it because the jig was up--

MACCALLUM: It's a valid point. And we will never know the answer to that question, because that's the order in which those things happen. It's a very valid point. Just a quick thought on the President going to the March for Life today and speaking when no other President had, quick thought on that.

KIRK: I was there. It was historic. You had hundreds of thousands of young people in certain estimates showed here in Washington, D.C. I really applaud his courage, it's first president in history to address the gathering.  MACCALLUM: Richard?

GOODSTEIN: And politically, we know that swing sort of college educated suburban women, most of whom were a lot of Republicans, voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and abandoned the Republican Party in droves in 2018. Is abortion something that they feel strongly about in the consistent with the President's view or not? You tell me. And that would be my answer to whether this was a good thing or not.  MACCALLUM: I guess we'll see.


MACCALLUM: We will see. Thank you very much. Great to have both of you here.

KIRK: Sure.

MACCALLUM: Thanks, Charlie. Thanks, Richard.

GOODSTEIN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, Senator Josh Hawley says that if witnesses are called, it's absolutely clear in his opinion, that Hunter Biden should be one of them. He's going to explain next why.  (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: With the fate of witnesses in this impeachment trial still unclear, a new poll tonight finds that two-thirds of Americans think they should be called. And it includes 45 percent of Republicans. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan argues witnesses are critical for both Republicans and Democrats writing this. Both parties are thinking of their own needs. But when you open the door to impeachment, there is a third party in the room. History. It, too, has its needs, and they're less selfish than those of the political parties. History wants information. It wants data and testimony. It wants as near as possible to know and understand the story. Here now is Senator Josh Hawley, a member of the Judiciary Committee. Senator, thank you for being with us tonight. I know you've had a lot of long days here and more long days to come. So, what do you think about what Peggy Noonan says there?  SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Well, I don't think the question has yet been decided. Obviously, the Senate is going to make a decision on witnesses next week. But my view is this, we have admitted into evidence in the Senate all of the record compiled by the House, including all of their witness testimony, all the documents. It's all before us. What the House is really asking - the Democrats is asking the Senate to do is to go out beyond that record, to go in search of evidence they haven't been able to find, in search of proof that Donald Trump violated laws that they can't prove. It's basically to turn ourselves into an investigative body and redo their case for them. I don't see any reason to do that. In fact, it would violate established past practice and tradition.  MACCALLUM: So, here's Adam Schiff talking about why he says the President cannot be trusted earlier today, Watch this.  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: You can't trust this President do what's right for this country.

(Senate Impeachment Trial)

This is why if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed.  (END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So that was actually yesterday. But he said a lot on the same theme again today. Senator. What do you say to that?  HAWLEY: Well, I would say that we heard a lot today from Adam Schiff in that vein and some of the things that really struck me, Martha, as he talked repeatedly about a coup, suggesting that President Trump's presidency was somehow illegitimate. He said that President Trump was a triumph for Russia, greater than any achieved by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Really? I mean, you can't make this stuff up. I thought that today his really laid bare the hysteria that is motivating this impeachment inquiry. I mean, it is rapidly partisan and in some cases it's just outright insane. The idea that President Trump is a triumph greater than any of the Soviet Union. What are we even talking about at this point? I just think that at this point, it's rapidly becoming just a campaign rally and it's time to move on to the President's argument.  MACCALLUM: Well, obviously, there's two sides to all these stories and we continue to hear from them, and Adam Schiff has certainly made his feelings known. With regard to Joe Biden, his name has come up a lot, Burisma has come up a lot. I think the Biden name came up over 100 times. You know, if we do see witnesses here, you feel strongly that they need to be included, even though the presidential candidate has said, he doesn't want any part of that.  HAWLEY: Yes, I do. And I think the House managers really made the case for that over the last two days, I mean, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden are central to this inquiry because the House managers whole case is, President Trump couldn't have been interested in anti-corruption in Ukraine because, of course, Burisma, there was no corruption, of course, with the Biden's, there was no corruption. And so, I think if we're going to call witnesses, we absolutely have to hear from Hunter Biden and probably the Vice President to get to this material fact. I think the House managers opened the door to that yesterday. They put it front and center and we may well need to call them.  MACCALLUM: We're going to hear a lot more of that, I think, in the coming days from the White House defense team. Senator Hawley, thank you. Always good to see you, sir.

HAWLEY: Likewise.

MACCALLUM: Still ahead, we talk exclusively to a member of President Trump's defense team on the eve of their turn on the Senate floor.


MACCALLUM: So, can you believe it? Ten days out to the Iowa caucuses, folks, as if there wasn't enough entertainment going on already. And the latest Real Clear Politics average shows that Joe Biden is in the lead at 21 percent right now in Iowa. Bernie Sanders trailed by 3.7. But the first time ever, multiple candidates might be able to claim victory with reporting of the raw vote count. One pollster explaining to the New York Times you could have one candidate who gets more delegates and another who attracted more people to actually show up for them, so you might have more than one kind of victory. Riddle me this, Chris Stirewalt, Fox News politics editor to explain -- this -- I was talking to Donna Brazile about this. This is confusing, Chris. Explain.

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS POLITICS EDITOR: Well, Iowa has had trouble forever. Right. Because this is not a primary, this is a caucus.


STIREWALT: It's run by the state party and the rules are smoky.


STIREWALT: Opaque. So last time around, Bernie Sanders is very angry because they were not raw vote totals that were reflected in the estimated delegates that were going to be reached at the national convention and it also look like a shell game and they complained about the process. So, after he extorted a bunch of changes out of the Democratic National Committee, he not a Democrat, got all these changes out of the Democratic National Committee. In front of the line, what do we do in Iowa to make it simpler, which we would like on election night because you would like to be able to make a clean call?

MACCALLUM: I'd like to have three different winners.

STIREWALT: Right. Well, we would like for the long term, do doubt. More to cover. But a clear call, a quicker call, and something that people can say, OK, he had more than the person. But it's possible that you could still have three -- if it's a very close race, you could still have three different people claiming victory. One on the first count, one of the final count, and one of the delegate estimate.

MACCALLUM: That's going to be fascinating. I'm looking forward to that. You also have an Iowa caucus in Scotland which we'll explain on another time. But I do want to get to this Elizabeth Warren video because I want to get your thoughts on this. Let's play this very contentious exchange with Elizabeth Warren and a voter talking about student debt. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just wanted to ask you one question. My daughter is getting out of school, I've saved all my money. She doesn't have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you're going to pay for people who didn't save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?

WARREN: No. It's not anybody got screwed.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of course, we did. My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations. I saved my money. He made more than I did. But I worked a double shift, worked extra. My daughter has worked since 10. So, you're laughing at her.

WARREN: No, I'm not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. We did the right thing, and we get screwed.


MACCALLUM: Wow. What do you think?

STIREWALT: So, Elizabeth Warren is one of many Democrats who misjudged what the Democratic electorate looks like because they spend too much time on Twitter and think that woke activism is where it's at. There are millions of Democratic voters out there who do the right things, who worked two jobs, who pay their dues, who do all of the right stuff to send their kids to school. And what Elizabeth Warren is proposing is for a lot of people with master's degrees and doctorates and highly educated folks to absolve them of debt that they racked up along the way. That's why Joe Biden is winning. That's why Joe Biden is ahead is because he can talk to that voter. She just can't figure it out. And just on a stylistic note, her almost contemptuous attitude toward him, the disdain, the mockery almost that she treats this person with tells you why she has never lived up to the hype that was created for her by the political press. She has been the great bust of the cycle.

MACCALLUM: So, if you don't want to have a beer with her, you get this apparently.

STIREWALT: Right. Exactly.

MACCALLUM: Let's watch her response on this one.


WARREN: But there was --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying tough luck to these people, Senator?

WARREN: No, what I'm saying is there was a $50 a semester option for me. I was able to go to college and become a public school teacher because America had invested in a $50 a semester option for me. Today, that's not available.


MACCALLUM: But that's what not what this gentleman is saying. He is saying, I paid -- I paid off her student loans --


MACCALLUM: -- because I was really careful and responsible and people who didn't do that are going to get relief by raising taxes on everything else, essentially.

STIREWALT: She had two bites at the apple.


STIREWALT: And in either case all she had to say was, I hear you, I understand why you are frustrated --


STIREWALT: -- and here is my answer to that and that's what I want to do. Instead, always she has a lot of the same problems that Hillary Clinton does is that she seems vexed for having to explain herself, she seems frustrated by the necessities of running for office, and that's not going to feed the bulldog in Iowa. Not never. No matter how they count them.

MACCALLUM: We will be in Iowa in, I don't know, seven or eight days. Something like that.

STIREWALT: It will be good.

MACCALLUM: We'll see you there. Chris, thank you.


MACCALLUM: Great to see you tonight. So, coming up next, could 2020 Democrats lose key battleground states for the sake of saving the planet? Interesting question. We'll tell you why when we come back.


MACCALLUM: So, the so-called shale revolution is estimated to account for more $1 trillion of economic output from the U.S. with more than 1.5 million American employed -- Americans employed in U.S. oil and gas production. But some 2020 Democrats have declared war on fracking. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren say that they would seek an all-out ban on fracking if they are elected. And here is Joe Biden on this issue.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three consecutive Americans have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth even though knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?



MACCALLUM: Interesting. Interesting question. So, my next guest argues that that is a risky position to take and that it could cost Democrats in key battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Stephen Moore writes this. "Ohio and Michigan, rather, have more than 400,000 shale workers, and Pennsylvania alone has 320,000." Stephen Moore joins me now, former senior economic advisor to President Trump and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Steve, good to see you tonight.


MACCALLUM: You wrote a very interesting piece on this. And you know, they - - a number of candidates as we pointed out in the into, have really staked out a claim against this. How will that work for them electorally?

MOORE: Well, the timing couldn't be worse for the Democrats because we are in the midst of the biggest oil and gas boom in the American history right now. And by the way, it's just not in, you know, traditional oil states like Texas where by the way, two million people are employed in the oil and gas industry in Texas. And they want to turn that state purple. But think about, as you just mentioned, Ohio. Ohio's entire economy has been revived because of the Marcellus Shale. Pennsylvania -- I mean, Pittsburgh is now one of the biggest oil producing areas in the country as an oil -- I mean, not oil, natural gas. And so, you are talking about -- one thing, you know, as you said, there's hundreds of thousands of workers, yes, directly employed. But think, Martha, about all the Americans employed at service stations, the steel producers, the car manufacturers, the people who are the welders and pipe fitters. And so we estimate somewhere between five and 10 million Americans would be -- would lose their jobs if we eliminated oil and gas.

MACCALLUM: Well, and those are obviously important states.

MOORE: Yes, exactly.

MACCALLUM: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

MOORE: New Mexico is another one.

MACCALLUM: New Mexico.

MOORE: New Mexico is a battleground state and New Mexico is also a state which is in the Permian basin where we produce a lot of oil.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, this is one of the reasons. These are a Rolling Stone headline here. America's radioactive secret oil and gas wells produce nearly a trillion gallons of toxic waste a year. An investigation shows how it could be making workers sick and contaminating communities across America. And that's the reason that you see this stance being taken by these politicians.

MOORE: Well, actually, you know what's interesting? Because this Oregon shale. Shale is really a natural gas phenomenon. That's what we're getting with the shale revolution. And natural gas is a wonder fuel. It is abundant. It's made in America. It's cheap, it's reliable, and it's clean burning. Actually, the united -- Trump is right when he says this, United States of all the countries that sign the Paris climate accord, you know, we pulled out of that, we're reduced our climate -- our greenhouse gases more than any of these countries.

MACCALLUM: These are fascinating.

MOORE: And the reason is because we are producing natural gas.


MOORE: Now if you are concerned about climate change then you should be in favor of natural gas and nuclear power, which they are against too. But I do think that's the big problem for the Democrats here on this issue, it pits what I called the blues which is the blue-collar industrial union workers versus the radical green environmentalists who want to put the end to the industrialization of America.

MACCALLUM: That's how Trump won.

MOORE: And that's exactly right. That those are the blue-collar workers that Democrats want to win back.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So which candidate if, I mean, I guess Joe Biden would be the candidate who's trying to win back those blue-collar workers as you point out, but the stance that he's taken, it'll be interesting to see if he changes his tune on this.

MOORE: The other thing --


MACCALLUM: If he, you know, sort of amends his answer there a little bit to address this issue.

MOORE: Well, they -- what Joe Biden would say if you're in it, well, we're going to replace all these jobs with people who like to make, you know, solar and wind power. But, you know, Germany tried that approach about 10 or 15 years ago and it led to a kind of a collapse of their industries and they had to abandon it. You know, the other thing is, I go to a lot -- you know, remember, Hillary in 2016 she promised she was going to eliminate all the coal jobs and then she lost Pennsylvania and Ohio, and West Virginia. Now the Democrats are talking about the oil and gas jobs. And the tragedy of this, go to some of these towns because I do. I traveled on the campaign where the Democrats have killed the coal industry and you just see deserted towns that have been completely obliterated by these radical --


MACCALLUM: But some of those polled towns as Barack Obama said, probably are not coming back.

MOORE: Well, some of them may not but it's not -- look, if it's just economic factors, but it was a -- it was a, you know, deliberate policy by the Democrats to eliminate coal. And by the way, you know, China is consuming so much coal even if we didn't produce any, it would have almost no impact. So, we'll see whether the Democrats can pivot back to say wait a minute, we didn't really mean what we said.


MOORE: And we're going to save your jobs, so I think it's a fact one.


MACCALLUM: Yes. This whole, the fracking issue in those states is a very interesting issue --


MACCALLUM: -- to watch in this election moving forward. And thanks for noting down for us, Steve.

MOORE: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you. Thank you, Stephen Moore. Hours from now the White House legal team will take the floors of the Senate. Hours meeting tomorrow to argue that President Trump should not be removed from office. We're going to speak exquisitely to White House principal press deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley. That's next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But that is the very definition of public service. That we are here to give --




SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): The court case that's been presented by the House managers is that President Trump put his own personal political interests ahead of our national interests. And that he directed the firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch, and he put a hold on badly-needed military aid to our strategic partner, Ukraine, because he was trying to extract from the newly elected president of Ukraine a commitment to open a sham investigation on Joe Biden and to announce an investigation into the 2016 election.


MACCALLUM: A pretty good summary actually of the Democratic -- of what the Democrats have said over the past few days. That was Democratic Senator Chris Coons earlier on the show saying that House Democrats have proven their case in his opinion against the president over the past three days while they have made their arguments on the floor of the Senate. Tomorrow, the White House will have its turn. Here now with a preview, Hogan Gidley, White House principal deputy press secretary. Hogan, good to have you here.


MACCALLUM: I do want to talk to you about the defense and about what's coming and all of that. But first I do want to ask you a question about this Lev Parnas story that has come up and get your reaction from the White House. Let's play Lev Parnas' sound bite that sort of was the beginning of the story with Rachel Maddow.


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Do you believe that part of the motivation to get rid of Ambassador Yovanovitch to get her out of post was because she was in the way of this effort to get the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden?



MACCALLUM: That was the only reason he said.

GIDLEY: Yes. That's completely ridiculous. Now listen, I understand Lev Parnas is doing a media tour. And if you notice he's going to the places like the New York Times, like MSNBC, like CNN, and now we know through leaked audio and video that those outlets have one desire and one desire only and that's to tear down this president and get him out of office. So, we know that's their stated goal so it makes sense they would have someone like Parnas on. Obviously, he's had trouble with the law, federal crimes, indictments, et cetera. But the fact is, the president has the right, just like any president in history to put the people in positions on his staff that agrees with his foreign policy. Ambassador Yovanvitch did not, it was pretty really clear in the conversation with President Zelensky, he even told President Trump, she's not good for the administration, she's not working well with us, it's not helpful, she's beholden to a different administration. So, it's clear he has the right to do it. Every other president in history has done it, and so the president made a move to put some in the position that more aligned closely with his foreign policy.

MACCALLUM: Let's play one more thought from Lev Parnas and just a little bit of a better -- another look at this. Watch.


PARNAS: She fired her actually at the dinner which was the most surprising thing ever. I do remember me telling the president that the ambassador was badmouthing him and saying that he was going to get impeached something to that effect. And at that point, he turned around to John DeStefano who was his aide at that time and said, fire her. And we all -- there was a silence in the room.


MACCALLUM: It's interesting on a number of levels. One question is the president has said he doesn't know Lev Parnas and Lev Parnas says that he was in a smaller group at a private dinner with the president and that they were communicating about this. What -- so did he not know her -- him?


GIDLEY: (INAUDIBLE) meeting knows him. I mean, he said sound with people all the time and I can't tell you how many conversations the president has with someone who he's just met for a brief moment, that person gives him some information and like any principal they turned to a staff member and say, hey, take care of this for me. Of course, we are going to look into that. But it's pretty obvious that Ambassador Yovanovitch did not agree with the president on foreign policy. She was actively working against him as we now know. So, it's his right just like it's any president's right to put that staff in place that agrees with him. She didn't, and so she's been replaced.

MACCALLUM: So, it feels like, and I think this is, you know, pretty orchestrated that there is going to be --

GIDLEY: of course.

MACCALLUM: -- continual drips of information, this videotape apparently is in the hands -- or audiotape, rather, is in the hands of the Southern District of New York and as part of their investigation. But do you have any anticipation that there's going to be an audio recording of a direct conversation between Lev Parnas and the president discussing this?

GIDLEY: I'm not aware of any. I mean, you know, who knows what's out there. Who knows if someone is making the whole thing up? Who knows if they splice it together and try to pass it off as real? Listen, this is all about the President of United States being impeached over a phone call in which he was trying to protect the American people's tax dollars. We see this right over your shoulder. I've been there all day. I've been with the legal team all day watching the Democrats trying to tear down a president with no proof, no evidence. It's all hearsay, it's all, you know, your father's, brother's, cousins, former roommates said this about the president. And the only two people that were actually brought out at all who talked directly with the president all said there was no quid pro quo because the president said he didn't want anything from Ukraine. So, all this other stuff is a big smokescreen. It's something the Democrats are going to try and use to hang their hat on to try and get the president out of office. It's not going to work. He's going to be exonerated because the truth, which as we all know will set you free, will prove the fact the president has done wrong. In fact, what he did was legal, it was lawful, it was constitutional, it was on behalf of the American people and their tax dollars.

MACCALLUM: Let's talk about the defense, because you said you were with the attorneys today and you also spoke to the president today. Did -- was the president did this Lev Parnas audio come up when you spoke with the president?

GIDLEY: I'm telling you, this whole entire illegitimate sham impeachment process is a blip on his radar. When you saw what he did with that China trade deal, at the very moment the Democrats are marching these ridiculous impeachment orders that don't even allege a crime, by the way. He goes to Davos with foreign leaders to talk about trade deals. They're still talking about impeachment. Today he went to the March for Life, the first president in history to take that strong of a stand and go to those tens of thousands of people who come to the city every year on behalf of the sanctity of life, something no one has ever done before. All of those things he's doing on behalf of the American people and these folks are focused on --


MACCALLUM: And we've reported on that tonight and last night, by the way.

GIDLEY: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: Because it is -- it is significant move.


GIDLEY: It's incredible. Every year.

MACCALLUM: There's no doubt about it, it's a significant move. So with regard to the Bidens and you heard Senator Coons say that it's just a scam investigation of the Bidens, that there's absolutely nothing to that. How much of an effort is the White House going to put into uncovering your perspective on that in the course of what we see over the next 24 hours of testimony from them?

GIDLEY: Well, it's interesting. Jay Sekulow and I talked about this briefly before I came over here.


GIDLEY: And he went right to the cameras and brought up the point to the press pool there at the capital that, you know, it's interesting that Democrats open the door to that conversation about the Bidens. They sure talk a lot about the Bidens, they sure talk a lot about Burisma. So just how far we're going to go in that defense I'm going to leave that up to the legal team. That one is at their hands.


MACCALLUM: But they were saying that only came up. I mean, you know, thinking about from their perspective. They would say well, it came up obviously because that's what the president was pressing for in the phone call, an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma.

GIDLEY: Right. But it's always funny to watch the media, and of course Democrats say there is nothing to see there. It's debunked. It's never been looked at strongly. But the fact is, you know, this team is ready regardless of what the Democrats are throwing (Ph). Because this isn't something that look, each day they are playing video clips multiple times, it's so repetitive. But it's not the last three days, this is the same argument they've been making for the last three months.

MACCALLUM: So, my question, we heard Rudy Giuliani laid out this morning on Fox & Friends. Are they talking about this together? The president's attorneys and Rudy Giuliani, you know, in terms of the way how this all lays out, and how they explain to the American people.


MACCALLUM: Well, here's what we see happened and here is why you should be concerned about it, is there coordination there?

GIDLEY: I'm not aware of any conversations between our legal team and Rudy. Obviously, Rudy is the president's personal attorney. You've heard the president speak glowingly about Rudy as a mayor as a crime fighter for a long time. But our team is focused on the exoneration of the president which we expect to achieve in short order.

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of timing, what did they say about it? Are they going to take the whole 24 hours?

GIDLEY: Well, again, that remains to be seen. The Democrats have to finish their case tonight. I can tell you the Senate made a point this evening, I guess, that they want to have our defense team began for about three hours tomorrow so we expect to fill some of that time there. Look, we are going to make a full- throated very strong defense. I don't expect a lot of boxing back and forth. I expect our team to come out and throw a few haymaker's early on and start to really put the Democrats in their place and show how they misrepresented the truth, they lied multiple times. And the case is so strong. When you have a firm case like we have or the facts are on your side, it doesn't take as long to present when you say here it is, here's the evidence. Whereas, the Democrats are trying to piece and parse things together that aren't really there.

MACCALLUM: What percentage would you say exists that there's going to be a call for witnesses here, that four Republicans will say we're not done, we want witnesses?

GIDLEY: Again, we'll see what happens as the president likes to say. We're ready. If they want to do a full-blown trial, we'll have that conversation and you better believe we'll be talking Hunter -- Hunter Biden, we'll be talking Joe Biden, we'll be talking the whistleblower, we'll be talking Adam Schiff as well. But if it's something --


MACCALLUM: And Mulvaney and Bolton on the other side?

GIDLEY: If it's something -- well, I will say this. Thankfully we are in the Senate where things are going to be fair regardless of how it ends up - -

MACCALLUM: Hopefully.

GIDLEY: -- shaking out, and regardless of what happens the president is going to be exonerated. He's done nothing wrong.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for coming by. Good to see you, Hogan Gidley.

GIDLEY: Absolutely. Thanks so much.

MACCALLUM: White House press secretary, deputy press secretary. That's The Story for tonight. We'll be back here on Monday.

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.