This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 23, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Day two for the Democrats in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. We're keeping a close eye on the Senate floor as House managers are on a break. We do expect them to be back shortly to continue making their case, while the President's lawyers are taking all of this in and planning their rebuttal. They will have their first crack either Saturday or Monday, it looks like right now.

But if you've been following along with this at home, you have noticed no doubt that Democrats appear to be using much of the airtime to repeat the arguments that we've heard when we were in the committees, in the House and now here in the Senate.

That's part of their plan essentially. They know that Americans tune in at different times of this process and they want to reach as many as they can and kind of drive home their point over and over so that it sinks in with the viewing public.

Now the start of these proceedings did not garner quite as much TV attention as the House inquiry into the President back in November and it drew far less of an audience than the bombshell hearings in recent memory from James Comey to Brett Kavanaugh, to the 22.5 million Americans who watched President Clinton's videotaped testimony back in 1998.

But could witness testimony shake things up. New polling indicates that most Americans feel that witnesses with first-hand knowledge should testify. Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell says that's the only way to get a fair trial. He joins me in moments. Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik also here. She's a member of President Trump's defense team and she says that Democrats already have their chance where that is concerned.

So, we begin tonight with Congressman Swalwell, member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, good to have you here.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: Of course. Good evening, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, do you think it's likely that you're going to hear from witnesses in this process at this point?

SWALWELL: If senators listen to their constituents who are saying across the country, trials should have witnesses and relevant witnesses if they could shed light on what the President did, why would you want to put this case to a verdict without hearing from them.

MACCALLUM: So, I think what a lot of folks look at this process and kind of wonder why the House, just from your own strategy, why did you let this process get out of your hands, out of your control. You could have harnessed it. You could have gone through the system. You could have pushed for these witnesses and said you know we don't really care how long it takes, we understand that it's our duty to investigate this situation and we will turn it over when our case is good and ready?

SWALWELL: Well, I believe the case we sent is good and ready and that it's worthy of impeaching the President for putting his personal interests over our national interests, Martha. But what I'm saying is that for senators who are saying that you still don't have first-hand information. Well, you have witnesses like John Bolton who would come forward. He wouldn't come forward by the way when we asked him to come forward. He was playing games in the courts and we didn't have time to waste with an election coming that the President was trying to rig.

MACCALLUM: Yes, but it was so urgent. I remember you talked to me about the - hold on. You said, it was so-so urgent, right. Then there was a four-week low, 33 day low in between. So, if it was so urgent and you were so worried that the President was going to wreak havoc on the coming election, why was there that big gap. And again, if that's the case, why not push for those witnesses like Mulvaney, who I know is also very important to Democrats when you had control of the situation?

SWALWELL: It wasn't urgent to see the Senate rig the outcome. It was urgent for us to protect the upcoming presidential election. But if Mitch McConnell is saying that he is essentially not going to allow witnesses. We were going to do all we could to make sure the public understood what that would mean. And I think we're in the best shot possible for them to vote for witnesses.

But I want to address one of your points. I think it's worthy of asking if what you say is true that the Democrats should not have gone through the way that we did and we should have waited and gone for the witnesses, if that's true, are you saying that now that it's in the Senate even if those witnesses are relevant and could provide damaging information against the President, you should just punish the Democrats and not hear from them. I mean that doesn't make sense to me either.

MACCALLUM: I'm not saying either way. I'm just sort of assessing the way this whole thing has played out. And the truth of the matter is that essentially now you have the defense in control of this part of the courtroom drama and I know we're not in a courtroom, but you know essentially now you have Senate is in control of Republicans. That is just what it is. And they get to call the shots.

So, it makes it less likely that your side is going to get what you want. It's not the President team's responsibility to prove him innocent. It's the other side's burden to prove that he's guilty. That's just the way that that these things tend to work.

SWALWELL: Yes. And if the senators truly want to give the American people a fair trial and show that this President did not jeopardize national security, then what is the harm in allowing these witnesses to come forward. It's not like Mr. Schiff's not asking for those witnesses to come forward. He's putting motions forward to ask them to come forward. And I just think that trials have witnesses and that if this trial does not have witnesses, it's a cover up for the President.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, if you went into court. I'm not an attorney, but if you went into court and you were defending your client, would you say at this stage of the game, well, let's start introducing new witnesses and let's try to make a real effort here to prove that you're innocent? Or would you just say look, here's what we've got, the cases in front of us, the evidence is the evidence and we need to move forward.

Would you advise your client, you know what, let's open it up? Let's start to add new information to this trial process. Let's start to bring in new people to voice their opinion. Is that what you would advise?

SWALWELL: Donald Trump is entitled to the best defense possible. What I would advise Senator McConnell though who is a separate branch of government is to allow those witnesses to come forward and then make their own judgment. This should not be up to Donald Trump. Mitch McConnell should say John Bolton, if you want to come in, here's your subpoena, come in and then let them decide whether this President put his own interests above the country's.

MACCALLUM: So, if you - last question for you, if you don't get what you want, will you be able to find ways to subpoena Mick Mulvaney or subpoena John Bolton just so that their stories are told on the House side after this process is over. Could that be done?

SWALWELL: Yes. So, all the evidence we know right now shows that Bolton and Mulvaney saw the shakedown scheme and would be relevant. We think the most timely place for them to testify is now in the Senate, but we're not going to rule out if that doesn't happen, calling them back to the House.

MACCALLUM: OK. Congressman Swalwell, thank you. Good to have you here tonight.

SWALWELL: Of course. My pleasure. Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Always. Also, here this evening, Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a member of the President's impeachment defense team. 
Representative Stefanik, thank you for being here tonight.

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Glad to be here, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, what do you say to Eric Swalwell?

STEFANIK: Well, I think we need to take a step back and remember that Adam Schiff did not allow Republican members to request witnesses. We had no subpoena power.

MACCALLUM: But he did say the President could come in and testify or his lawyers could come in--

STEFANIK: That was after all the depositions. That was after the closed- door depositions when the President's team was not allowed to have anyone sitting in that breaks the precedent of the Clinton impeachment and the Nixon impeachment process.

The President has a right to a fair trial, and he did not get that fair trial with Adam Schiff. It is because it's a weak case that you're hearing the Democrats talk about their need for additional witnesses. They understand how flimsy the evidence is. And again, you're hearing in their floor testimony on the Senate floor, Adam Schiff is relying on half-truths, but the witness accusation against Republicans is disingenuous by Adam Schiff, because again, we were unable to call a single Republican witness. We would like to hear from Hunter Biden. We would like to hear from Adam Schiff. We would like to hear from the whistleblower.

MACCALLUM: Would you like to hear from John Bolton?

STEFANIK: That should have been called on the House side. There was a subpoena issued and Adam Schiff chose to take back that subpoena. That was

MACCALLUM: But he referred to the polls. The congressman referred to the polls and they do show that an overwhelming - I've seen numbers from 61 to
70 percent of Americans say, sure, if it's going to - what would the President be worried about if John Bolton comes and if he's not concerned.

STEFANIK: That's up to the senators. But the mistake that Adam Schiff made was he did not allow us to call witnesses. It was not a fair process in the House. And now the Democrats do not have control over the Senate. So, I trust the senators are going to make the right decision for the information that they think they need to make a determination.

MACCALLUM: This is from Greg Sargent at The Washington Post today. He says, GOP Senators who vote against subpoenaing new witnesses and documents run the risk that more damning revelations will come out after any such vote. And after their inevitable acquittal, could these allow - this could allow these revelations - those revelations to be hung around their necks as examples of what they sought to help Trump cover up. What do you say to that?

STEFANIK: I say to that again it highlights how weak Adam Schiff's case was and how unfair this process has been. The Republicans role in terms of the Senate and Democratic senators is to be fair jurors and to listen to the case and all the evidence that was collected as part of the House process.

Again, this is the first time we're hearing from the President's defense team. We are 70 plus days into this process and this is the first time, not only the senators but the American people are hearing from the President's side. And I think that's very important.

MACCALLUM: So, what do you expect in terms of the President's defense, what do you think their focus is going to be because some even in the opening statements asked you know why they sort of weren't - for sort of more forward, more progressive in their perspective in terms of laying out why they think he's innocent or laying out why this would be you know what he's accused of is something that the President would never do. It's much more procedural in terms of their approach. Do you expect that to change?

STEFANIK: I expect that they're going to respond to all of the accusations from Adam Schiff and other Democratic floor managers. I think they are going to pick apart the case and I think as you saw on the House side when we had the open hearings, Republican members were able to bring the truth and bring the facts forward. So, some of the questions that I asked really focused on, do any of the witnesses have direct evidence of impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors, treason or bribery, and every single witness I asked that question said, no. Those were important questions to ask.

And as Adam Schiff is playing those videos, they're not showing the context of some of the Republican key questions in those open testimonies.

MACCALLUM: I mean their main argument is that the President abused his power that he asked President Zelensky to help him get information on Joe Biden to do an investigation into what was going on to see if there's any Biden related corruption there. And they claim that they've laid out a very substantial case that proves that we all remember the witnesses that we saw. There's also additional e-mail evidence that has come out since then that you know that shows that they were aware of what was going on.

What do you say to them when you look at the transcript as the President says everyone should do? What do you see in that reference to Joe Biden?

STEFANIK: I believe that the two most important facts of this case is that there was no investigation into the Biden's and Ukraine received the lethal security assistance. In fact, more assistance than Ukraine received under the Obama administration.

MACCALLUM: Well, that's true.

STEFANIK: And there are fair concerns about corruption in Ukraine. This is taxpayer dollars we're sending to a developing country. We ought to make sure that those taxpayer dollars aren't going to corrupt entities. And I think the Commander-in-Chief should be concerned about corruption. But again, there was no investigation into the Biden's.

MACCALLUM: I mean I think that's a very interesting point to bring up. The issue of national security which we heard quite a bit about today from Adam Schiff. When you do compare what the Obama administration actually gave in terms of - versus what the Trump administration has given in terms of lethal weaponry to Ukraine and assistance, there is no comparison.

STEFANIK: Absolutely. And the most important lethal aid that we can provide are javelins, that's the anti-tank to really target Russian aggression in the region. Ukraine asked President Obama, they chose not to provide the javelins. Under the Trump administration with support of Congress, we provided that defensive lethal aid.

Another important point that's being missed that I hope is raised by the President's defense team is, by law according to the National Defense Authorization Act which many of the Democrats, I think every single Democratic House manager and Republican voted for requires the President to ensure that security assistance to Ukraine is not going to corrupt entities.

MACCALLUM: So, it's interesting you know when you look at the recent polls, the President's numbers have strengthened a little bit over the last month or so I would say. On the other hand, you have this number of people who would like to see witnesses. And you have to sort of ask yourself about how people are viewing this whole process and what impact it has on them as they head into 2020. How do you balance those two things?

STEFANIK: I listen to constituents in my district. They are tuning this out. They are tired of the incessant impeachment coverage. They want us to get back to work. There are more people in my district who are talking about Jeter (ph) being admitted to the Hall of Fame. And they are talking about impeachment and you're seeing that in the viewership numbers.

I do think they will be tuning in to the President's defense team since it will be the first time that the American people will hear from them. But people want us to get back to work and they overwhelmingly want this determined at the ballot box. Polling does show that that this should be determined by election, by the American people.

MACCALLUM: We're nine months away from an election and we know that the founding fathers talked about the importance of allowing everyone to make these decisions at that point as well. Good points all. Thank you very much. Good to have you with us tonight. Elise Stefanik, representative from New York and Eric Swalwell from California. Thank you very much.

STEFANIK: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, Senator Tom Cotton who has spent all day, couple days inside the chamber with some milk and some water on his desk is up next.


MACCALLUM: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said a short time ago that he's hopeful that some Republicans will join his party in calling for witnesses and new evidence in this trial.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I am more hopeful than ever that four conscientious brave Republicans will come forward and tell Mitch McConnell you can't shut this down without witnesses, you can't shut this down without documents.


MACCALLUM: So, a short time ago while the senators were on their dinner break, I spoke with Republican Senator Tom Cotton, a member of the Intelligence Committee.


MACCALLUM: What about those senators who may be interested in hearing witnesses. What's your sense of how many there are?

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.: Martha, I've got to tell you after today if there are going to be any witnesses call, I think Hunter Biden and Joe Biden have to be the very first two witnesses. I was very surprised as were many other senators that the House Democrats put Joe Biden and Hunter Biden at the center of their case today and that case is very weak, when they're trying to defend Hunter Biden for going to work for a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for $50,000 or $80,000 a month at the very time Joe Biden was running Ukraine policy for the Obama administration and then intervened in Ukraine to have the prosecutor investigating that oligarch fired.

So, the Democrats might want to be careful what they wish for when it comes to witnesses.

MACCALLUM: Well, I was watching as well and Representative Garcia made some strong points about the timeline that you know Viktor Shokin and the prosecutor in Ukraine had dropped the case, moved on from it. And it was not really sort of on the radar when Vice President Biden made the call that he should be fired based on he says that the policy of the United States in terms of going after corruption.

COTTON: Martha remember we're only hearing from the House of Democrats now. 
I believe when the President's lawyers put forward their case starting on Saturday, we'll see more relevant facts about the exact timeline of when Hunter Biden went to work for this corrupt oligarch and when Joe Biden began to put pressure on the Ukrainian government to fire him or at least rein in his activities, because remember we're only hearing one side of the story so far, but even that side in defense of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, I have to say it's pretty weak.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, let's go back to my original question which was how many senators do you believe will vote in favor of hearing witnesses because that could change the dynamic of this whole proceeding.

COTTON: I don't know yet. Martha. We haven't heard the President's case yet. I do have to note though that Chuck Schumer had the exact opposite position 20 years ago during the Clinton impeachment on almost every point he takes.

I'd also point out that the Democrats have specifically requested subpoenas for some of the President's closest advisers inside the White House. The kind of advisers that presidents of both parties have long refused to let testify in front of Congress.

The Democrats--

MACCALLUM: All right. During the Clinton - I mean you're comparing to the Clinton impeachment, Clinton himself testified on video back then and a number of his top advisers did as well.

COTTON: Well, so first, Clinton and his White House fought at every single turn in the courts to prevent that testimony from going forward. That didn't happen this time because the House Democrats didn't even pursue this testimony in court until they came to the Senate.

Second, remember that was in a judicial proceeding, that was under the old independent counsel statute. I'd have to point out though Martha that the Democrats have not sought the testimony of Rudy Giuliani, a private citizen or say Secretary Rick Perry or Secretary Mike Pompeo who regularly testify in front of Congress. Why are they going after the President's closest advisers, those most likely subject to executive privilege? It's because they care more about trying to create a campaign issue against Republican senators than they care about getting relevant testimony.

MACCALLUM: Senator Cotton, thank you very much. I know you're all on a short break and we appreciate you taking a moment to speak with us. Good to see you tonight, sir.

COTTON: Thanks so much, Martha.


MACCALLUM: So, up next, new reports that Mike Bloomberg is trying to beat President Trump by copying his campaign's winning apparatus. Can he do that successfully? Mercedes Schlapp, Senior Adviser to the Trump campaign right after this.


MACCALLUM: So, Mike Bloomberg reportedly taking a page from the Trump campaign's play book. Axiom's (ph) reporters recently visited Bloomberg's headquarters and wrote, we were struck by how much his 1000-person team is learning from while trying to surpass the Trump campaign's 2016 and 2020.

Meanwhile, Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale dismissed Bloomberg as a threat. Here in an interview with Brian Kilmeade yesterday. Watch.


BRAD PARSCALE, TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: A couple days ago, I said he's got to get past Mayor Pete or Pocahontas for his performance, don't worry about him. I mean look about this, Brian. He's almost spent as much money as we spent to win the entire election in 2016.


MACCALLUM: But a new poll shows Bloomberg has surpassed Buttigieg in fourth place now nationally. So, is it time for the campaign to start paying attention to Mini Mike as he's called by the President? Here now, Mercedes Schlapp, Trump 2020 campaign senior adviser of strategic communications. 
Mercedes, great to have you with us.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, TRUMP 2020 SENIOR ADVISER: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: Great to see you.

SCHLAPP: Great to see you.

MACCALLUM: So, what do you think about that. Do you think, A, first of all, do you think he is trying to emulate and sort of figure out and learn from the Trump campaign.

SCHLAPP: Look, I think all these Democrats are trying to learn from the Trump campaign and our secret formula of being able to build such a strong army. And obviously we're at a strong position from a resource's standpoint, from an investment standpoint in our targeted states. We have started so early here for 2020.

With that being said, we don't view Mini Mike as a real contender. You know yes, you're looking at these national polls, but when you're starting to look at the state-by-state polls, he's very much behind when you're talking about Bernie, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, they're all in chaos trying to figure out who is going to be the frontrunner and what we're seeing right now is a lot of weak frontrunners at this point.

MACCALLUM: All the more reason why he may say look, I've got a huge bankroll. I've got the ability to spend pretty much as much as I want to spend on this. And he's waiting until the Super Tuesday round. I think you know it appears that he's sorts of hoping that some of these people cancel each other out in the early primaries and that he'll kind of be starting at neutral because nobody still will be a frontrunner.

SCHLAPP: That could be a possibility. But we know the presidential nominations are sequential processes, right. So, you're going to see what's going to happen in the first two states is really going to create this momentum for a particular candidate. So, he really is going to have to figure out how do I beat a Bernie which has enthusiasm behind it or--

MACCALLUM: But it seems like the Democratic Party doesn't want Bernie. I mean listen to Hillary Clinton and also word today that President Obama is concerned about the momentum that he seems to have right now.

SCHLAPP: But Bernie is doing well in the polls and what Bernie has is a lot of that organic energy on his side. With that being said, you still have Biden trying to fill that role of being that somewhat moderate candidate.

But I just think for Bloomberg, some of his biggest problems is the fact, he doesn't really have a message. He's not really doing the connecting with the voter. I was just came back from Iowa and one of the things I learned being out there, it's about retail politics. It's about connection with the voter. It's something that President Trump has mastered which is that of how are you able to directly connect, and the President does this all the times, not only through Twitter, but in his rallies.

I think what we're seeing with Bloomberg is, he's spending a lot of money. 
Actually, I had my 12-year-old come up to me, at this morning and say, hey mom, I was on an app and a Bloomberg ad popped up.


SCHLAPP: So, if he's targeting the 12-year-olds, we're in big problem.

MACCALLUM: She can't vote yet, Mike.

SCHLAPP: Exactly.

MACCALLUM: You might want to direct it to somewhere else. You know with the point that you just made, I think is very interesting, because I remember in 2015, 2016, when President Trump was beginning to run, the buzz was that he wouldn't like campaigning, that this, you know, wealthy New York real estate developer was going to spend about two weeks on a real campaign trail and, you know, be tired of the whole thing. But the opposite was true.

SCHLAPP:  That's right.

MACCALLUM:  He turned out to actually love campaigning, still loves campaigning, essentially. And those stories about Mike Bloomberg the other night that he doesn't like someone to selfie and he said something like, you know, well, I only have a second. You know?

So, I wonder, and I could be wrong because we were wrong about this with President Trump in the early stages, whether or not he will fall in love with being out there pressing the flash and campaigning across America.

SCHLAPP:  Well, let's remember, President Trump didn't raise as much money as Hillary Clinton did.


SCHLAPP:  So, it's not about the money.

MACCALLUM:  It wasn't about the money.

SCHLAPP:  Right. It's about the connecting. It's about -- and I think when you look at Bloomberg, his first -- his first impression was that of the apology tour. It was, I did wrong with stop and frisk.

MACCALLUM:  On stop and frisk.

SCHLAPP:  And that -- that seemed to set off where he was headed, which is trying to find a place in this Democrats.

MACCALLUM:  But, let me ask you this, Mercedes, what if Democrats are disenchanted with their field and they look at Mike Bloomberg and they say, he's smart, built a big business, he's raising a ton of money, we ought to give him a look. we ought to give him a chance.

And also, the theory is that he could pull some Republicans who are not as big of fans as President Trump as they used to be for whatever reason. You know, I mean, obviously the economy is very strong so the people who fall into the category of just being turned off by certain elements might be open to a Mike Bloomberg cross over.

SCHLAPP:  No. I feel as in the Trump campaign, we're recruiting some of these Democrat voters. What you're seeing these rallies is there are many times, it's about a third of those going to the rallies are Democrats.

They are upset about the direction of their party. Why? Because they are going so far left.


SCHLAPP:  So, I think that that's going to be a big challenge --


SCHLAPP:  -- because I do believe President Trump does bring in these independents, does brings in -- he brings these Democrats, and I think at the end of the day we're building a much stronger coalition and the Democrats are having a problem figuring out what their final message is.

MACCALLUM:  Yes. Interesting. Before I let you go, interesting piece today in the Wall Street Journal about fracking in the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the fracking business in Michigan and Pennsylvania and we've heard a lot about Democrats, and you ow, I believe from Bloomberg as well, that he's against fracking. Joe Biden said, yes, I would shut it down even if it meant losing jobs.

SCHLAPP:  Yes. And I think they -- their ideology that idea of trying to destroy our fossil fuel industry, going after fracking, those impact communities from an economic standpoint and at the end of the day the president wants to make sure that we create an environment where we have more jobs.

We're let -- you know, we want to have that balance between ensuring that we protect our environment, but at the same time we want to ensure that we continue with economic prosperity and energy independence.

And these are the Democrats sending a very clear message that they want to end the fossil fuel industry, that they want to make lose -- which leads to losing jobs and at the same time impacts those that are in the natural gas industry as well.

MACCALLUM:  Yes. I mean, those topics are obviously very popular in some of the population centers in California, in the New York area, but we'll see how it plays out in the middle of the country. Mercedes, thank you.

SCHLAPP:  Good to see you.

MACCALLUM:  Good to see you as always. Thanks for coming in.

So, a story exclusive next with Senator Lindsey Graham who just announced a possible investigation into how Hunter Biden got rich in Ukraine that would go on beyond this whole process that we're watching.


MACCALLUM:  So, there are still a lot of outstanding questions surrounding some of the subjects that we've learned about in this impeachment inquiry such as Burisma, and Hunter Biden, Ukraine. We heard a lot of this brought up today from the Democrats on the House side as they were making their case.

So, Senator Graham today saying that he loves Joe Biden but it's only fair, he said, that a potential conflict of interest be looked into. While the trial was on break, I spoke with Senator Graham about the potential for a future judiciary investigation. Watch this.


MACCALLUM:  I want to ask you actually first of all about what you spoke about this morning about your own Ukraine investigation, because it struck me that that signals that this part of the story, you all have no intention of dropping it after this is over.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.:  Well, here's what we were told by the House managers. There's not a scintilla of evidence. It's a fraud, phony story that there is anything wrong with the Biden's business dealings in the Ukraine. Nobody has investigated that.

We've got two years of Mueller looking at the Trump family and their business dealings, nobody has debunked this and here's what I think. 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, but because of their influence.

And the question is, did they use this influence to help this company when it came under investigation? I think there's a lot of questions about that and we'll get to the bottom of it.

MACCALLUM:  So today, you know, they went to great strides, as you point out, to make this point that there is nothing there. And you know, I wonder how much of this do you believe we are going to hear from the White House attorneys? Are they going to try to litigate that question as they come into -- into the -- you know, their part of all this? Or is that something that you see sort of taking a life of its own after this is over?

GRAHAM:  Both. Because what are they saying? That the president corruptly asked to look at the -- while the prosecutor was fired, they're investigating Burisma where Hunter Biden was a board member.

What if there is a legitimate question? What if there is a scintilla piece of evidence? Their whole case falls apart. What if Donald Trump had a legitimate reason to believe that this investigation was not only up and up in terms of what happened to the Ukraine?

So, I think you are going to hear from the president's team that there is a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of suspension about what happened with Burisma and what Hunter Biden did regarding the State Department and how the prosecutor was fired.

I think the story they told about what happened with Hunter Biden won't hold scrutiny. The prosecutor actually raided the president's home, Burisma's president's home was raided, that doesn't sound like a dormant investigation to me.

MACCALLUM:  So, we'll look to see, you know, whether that means witnesses in this trial or whether -- are you suggesting that your committee, that the Senate Judiciary Committee might call Hunter Biden as a witness after this is over?

GRAHAM:  I think it would be unconscionable to have a country where the Republican president or the Republican candidate for president has to go through two years of investigation about every business deal they've ever done with an independent counsel.

And a leading candidate for the Democratic Party who was vice president, in charge of Ukraine, didn't know his son was receiving $3 million of compensation from the most corrupt gas company and nobody do a damn thing about that? We're not going to live in that kind of country, I promise you.

MACCALLUM:  All right. Just last one quick question. Congressman Nadler, one of the managers in this process showed some video of you back during the Clinton impeachment --


MACCALLUM:  -- arguing that you don't need to have a crime to be impeached. And now you are arguing the opposite. Do you want to respond to that?

GRAHAM:  No, I still say you don't have to -- there is no requirement impeachment to be based on a statutory crime. There is a requirement, I believe, that the president's conduct, abuse of power here, falls well short of what anybody in vision.

We are talking about a phone call with a foreign leader to ask that leader to look in whether or not in the prior administration an investigation was terminated because of political influence. We're looking at as to whether or not Ukraine played any role in the 2016 election.

They did not hack into the server, but these are questions that I think are very legitimate. You have three United States senators threaten the Ukraine that if you don't work with the Mueller investigation, our view of the Ukraine as a good partner will change.

So, my view is that it doesn't have to be a crime, but I would say this. 
Nadler was right in 1998. Impeachment along party lines basically voids in the election and should never be done. That's exactly what happened. Not one Republican voted for these articles of impeachment in the House and I think I know why.

MACCALLUM:  Thank you so much, Senator Graham. Always good to have you with us. We'll see you later.

GRAHAM:  Thank you.

MACCALLUM:  Thanks, sir.

GRAHAM:  Thank you.


MACCALLUM:  So, President Trump poised to make history by doing something that no other president has done. That story is next.



PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  When we look into the eyes of a newborn child, we see the beauty in the human soul and the majesty of God's creation. We know that every life has meaning and that every life is worth protecting.


MACCALLUM:  That was President Trump of course, with a powerful pro-life video message to attendees at the March for Life last year, now he said to become the first president in the event's 47-year history to attend in person with a scheduled appearance here in Washington tomorrow.

The president of NARAL Pro-Choice America calling it a, quote, "desperate attempt to divert attention from his criminal presidency and fire up his radical base." So, you have that.

Joining me now is Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, a justice on the Vatican's highest court who is here to participate in the march tomorrow, and Marc Thiessen, co-host of the American Enterprise Institute's What the Hell is Going On -- excuse me, Cardinal -- podcast and Fox News contributor. Marc, OK.

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  I did not want the cardinal to know that was the name of the podcast.

MACCALLUM:  Exactly. But you know, here we are. Your Eminence, thank you very much. It's wonderful to have you here. What do you think about the president being the first one to actually attend the march tomorrow?

RAYMOND LEO CARDINAL BURKE, VATICAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE:  I think it's wonderful news. It couldn't be anything more important for a nation than to rather respect for human life. And that the president himself would be witness to this. It's really, it's a wonderful moment.

MACCALLUM:  So there was a -- this is a quote from the National Catholic Reporter about, you know, -- and we've seen a similar thing from the Christian Evangelical community where they are criticized for aligning themselves with President Trump even though he's sort of given them, you know, so many issue oriented things that they have been wanting for a long time.

So, this reporter, Michael Sean Winters says, "I question the moral integrity and political efficacy of the mainstream pro-life movement for a simple reason. By lashing themselves to President Donald Trump, they have morally and indelibly compromised their cause."

What would you say to that, Your Eminence?

BURKE:  The question is the truth that's being defended namely the unviability -- unviability of human life. That the president happens to agree that procured abortion is an attack on innocence and defense of human life.

He agrees with those of us who are working and fighting to restore the respect for the dignity of human life. It's not a political issue. It's a question of agreeing about a fundamental truth.

Then the fact that I can praise the president for this doesn't mean that I praise him for everything else that he says and does. So, this kind of -- this is making a political issue out of something that's fundamental and moral issue.

MACCALLUM:  Think about the fact that in the past he had said that he was pro-choice.

BURKE:  I have to presume that he's had a change of heart, that he's had some conversion with regard to this. I mean, I can only take him at his word what he's -- what he's saying today.

MACCALLUM:  Marc Thiessen, let me bring you in to this for a moment.


MACCALLUM:  You worked for President Bush.


MACCALLUM:  Prior presidents have chosen; even pro-life presidents have chosen not to be part of the march.


MACCALLUM:  Why was that and why do you think President Trump has taken another route?

THIESSEN:  You know, I don't know. I mean, it's hard to overstate how important this decision is by the president. Ronald Reagan didn't go. George H.W. Bush didn't go, my old boss George W. Bush didn't go. Many people urge them to go and they didn't. And I can't -- I don't know what the reason is.

But it sent the message, the failure, you know, doing this by it was so strange, you know, you're calling into a rally that literally you can see out of your Oval Office window practically.

And it sent a message to pro-life conservatives and pro-life Republicans that they're really the black sheep of the Republican Party, that they're needed because of their votes, that they're tolerated. But the prevailing attitude was like, those people talking about abortion again. So, it makes everyone so uncomfortable.

And that was the establishment view. The great thing about Donald Trump is Donald Trump doesn't care about what the establishment thinks. He came in to disrupt the establishment.

And so, he has not only been the most pro-life president in American history in terms of the policies that he's done putting people in the court, but he's been unabashed and without shame or hesitation to embrace pro-life conservatives and made them not just an appendage to his coalition but one of the centers of the coalition.

And that's why when they look at some of these other things, they put them into context.

MACCALLUM:  Cardinal, you know, you've spoken out about Joe Biden whose running for the Democratic nomination, Catholic, that he shouldn't receive communion because he is pro-choice, and has said privately he believes that abortion is wrong but that he stands by Roe v. Wade. What do you say about that decision?

BURKE:  Well, no -- no devout Catholic, no practicing Catholic can be in favor of abortion, can justify voting for legislation policies that promote abortion, and he has a consistent record of being pro-abortion.

And it's not that he -- this isn't a question of a confessional belief, this has to do with the natural law, the first precept of natural law is the defense of human life.

And so, you can't say why privately I think it's wrong, imagining means by that as a Catholic he thinks it's wrong, but then in his public life that he can act as if it's not morally evil. It's one of the greatest moral evils. So, for that reason --

MACCALLUM:  Before I run out of time, I do want to ask you a quick question about Pope Francis suggesting that perhaps in the Amazon region it would be OK for priests to marry because it's so difficult for priests to get to that remote area, trying to encourage people to be able to go to mass. What do you say to that?

BURKE:  I had the conversation in June of 2017 with a bishop in Brazil, I was in Brazil with the bishop would've been a bishop in the Amazon region for 14 years. And he told me, he said people in the Amazon are beings like the rest of us. If you teach them the truth of the faith you explain to them why priests should be celibate, he said, they embrace it.

He told me that he didn't have any problem with vocations. I think this issue of the Amazon region is being used by other parts of the world, the western world, who want to take away from the priesthood an essential part of it, namely perfect countenance, the celibacy.

Yes, there have been married priests in the church, but the church has always understood that the priests in its most perfect expression is celebrate even as Christ himself chose to remain celibate as the high priest, the priest of all priests.

MACCALLUM:  Cardinal Burke, thank you. Very good to see you tonight.

BURKE:  Thank you.

MACCALLUM:  I hope it's a very successful march tomorrow and it's not too cold for you out there. Marc Thiessen, always a pleasure to have you.

THIESSEN:  Thanks.

MACCALLUM:  Your Eminence, thank you very much. Great to have you here. 
More of The Story coming up next.


MACCALLUM:  So approximately half way through the 24 hours of the argument. There is Sylvia Garcia. Representative. We heard from her quite a bit this afternoon continuing to make the case this evening.

So, what can we expect in the coming hours and days? Fox news congressional correspondent Chad Pergram is live on Capitol Hill tonight. Hello, Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT:  Good evening. Well, they just came back to session a little bit ago. We think they might have one more break. And Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader has consulted with Adam Schiff. Indicates that they'll probably go until about 10.30. That's about 45 minutes later than last night.

And then the final day of oral arguments presented by the House Democratic impeachment managers will be tomorrow. Democrats think that they are having some resonance with the Republican colleagues. Republicans disagree.

Mazie Hirono, a Democratic senator from Hawaii, she says that she thinks her Republican colleagues are wrestling with their conscience. Now what about the political consequences of all this here.

The Democrats tell me that they are basically talking to 20 percent of the electorate that undecided 20 percent in the middle. We're talking about seven states, 25 counties. That's the group of voters that they hope to resonate with.

Look at Kenosha, Wisconsin went for President Trump by one point. They think that this type of conversation in the Senate trial might make the difference going into the fall, Martha.

MACCALLUM:  Chad, thank you very much. We continue to keep a close eye on what's going on on the floor. And we'll be back with our live coverage tomorrow at 12.30 in the afternoon when Bret and I join you.

This is the story of January 23rd. As always, the story continues. We'll see you back here of course as well tomorrow night at 7 o'clock for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump as it goes on. Tucker Carlson gets ready to take over here in Washington, D.C. We'll listen to this as we head to the break. Good night, everybody.

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.