This is a rush transcript from "The Story with Martha MacCallum," January 31, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right. Breaking news tonight, it looks like there will be a vote on Wednesday in terms of what we're hearing. We're going to have Chad Pergram in just a moment to get us - get all this figured out. But we're getting some details tonight. We're moments away from the Senate getting back into session to formalize the plan going forward. They will vote to set the final ground rules for the trial and that will resume on Monday with closing arguments. We have word that the votes on each article of impeachment will come sometime after 4 PM on Wednesday when this trial finally does come to an end, if there is not more twists and turns, which of course there could be.

No one expects that the outcome will change ultimately. But tonight, Democrats are offering us a preview of what their messaging will be on this. Watch this.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The acquittal will have no value, because Americans will know that this trial was not a real trial.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA): You cannot have a true acquittal if you've not had a fair trial.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Trial without witnesses, no trial at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: An acquittal on an incomplete record after a trial lacking witnesses and evidence will be no exoneration.


MACCALLUM: So, both sides of the aisle weighing in this evening with Republican Senator Mike Lee and Democratic Senator Bob Casey. A short time ago, I spoke with Utah Senator Mike Lee, a member of the Judiciary Committee.


MACCALLUM: How do you respond first of all to the senators in that sound bite and also the House manager who was speaking there as well. Sylvia Garcia, who say even if there is an acquittal in the next few days, it won't be real.

SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): First of all, they've got due process wrong, due process really is about the rights of the accused relative to the government. They are the accuser. The President is the accused. In any event, they're misapprehending the nature of a trial court. In every trial court in America including the federal district courts, the trial court here within the federal judicial system. It is not only possible; it is the obligation of the court to not allow the case to proceed to a full traditional trial if the civil claims or the criminal charges at issue are legally defective or in many cases there are no genuine issues of material fact.

The material facts are not in dispute. Both are acceptable answers here and that's why we're not proceeding to trial. But it doesn't make the President's exoneration any less significant. It just means that there was no reason to proceed to a full trial.

MACCALLUM: So, the other concern on the part of some is that this is going to go on and on and that more of this information whether it's coming from John Bolton's book or whether it's Lev Parnas' documents is going to continue to trickle out and that it will make Republicans in the end look bad for not allowing all of this to be put into the mix when the opportunity was still there.

LEE: Well, look, it's not as if they're going to go away one way or another as a result of this nor is it the case that they wouldn't be able to bring additional charges if they wanted to and then perhaps secure a 33-day delay after passing subsequent articles of impeachment.

We've got a deal however with the Articles of Impeachment as they sent them to us. In addition to having some inadequacies in and of themselves. There is no genuine issue of material fact as to the evidence in this case, there's no reason to call additional witnesses.

MACCALLUM: So, let's talk about what's going on right now Senator, because there is a lot of behind the scenes, discussion that they - it's very difficult to reach an agreement on how to proceed from here to the point where you have a vote for acquittal and that some senators say they want to be heard. They want to have their moment to speak their mind on the floor of the Senate. How is this all going and where is it all going?

LEE: Martha, what we expect next is that there will be a series of motions made by the Democrats likely tonight that will probably stretch us for several hours perhaps to midnight or 1 or 2 in the morning, where they'll be coming up with a number of procedural motions. At that point at some point, it'll be possible for us to consider some type of resolution that will set an order moving forward that would allow us to break out of impeachment trial court mode to allow senators to make statements on the floor. That's a possibility.

MACCALLUM: So, I guess what's hard to figure out is when we went into this process, there were the rules that were set. Why didn't the rules govern what would happen at this juncture. Why does it feel like it's sort of thrown up in the air now for new discussion about how it's going to proceed?

LEE: Yes, that's a good question. The reason that we didn't have that at the outset is that we didn't have consensus in order to set all that in motion. We were able to get 53 votes for the resolution that we got last week on Tuesday. We would have gone further than that if we had had 51 votes or even better 53 at that point. We didn't have them.

MACCALLUM: So, what's the nature of the dispute right now between some Republicans and Mitch McConnell?

LEE: There's been some back and forth debate today about what it would look like, about how far we would need to go if we didn't adopt a subsequent resolution at changing the procedure from here forward.

MACCALLUM: Are there Republicans who would like to speak on the floor and who want to make their feelings known about this whole case. Is that part of the dispute?

LEE: Look anytime you've got politicians, Republicans or Democrats, they're going to want to make a statement on the floor. But from the Republican senators I've talked to, they're not really that concerned about necessarily having to do that. And if it were an option, they would probably be just as happy debating on through tonight and through the weekend. It's not clear yet what will get enough votes in order for that to pass.

MACCALLUM: So, does it look like this is going to hang through the State of the Union at this point and will it have any impact on the State of the Union that you can tell?

LEE: It's a definite possibility that it will hang through the State of the Union. We can't rule it out. And there are enough procedural tools at the Democrat's disposal that they could choose to make it go that far if they wanted to. The question becomes what we do about that and that's what remains to be seen. I stepped out of a meeting moments ago with my colleagues where this is being discussed. I wish I could give you a more up to date analysis on that.

MACCALLUM: So, I just have one more question for you with regard to a sort of separate topic which has to do with John Bolton and his book and the information that has been coming out. So, the book is still under review as I understand it with the NSC and the White House. So, how could it be that some of it is coming out. If it's under review and what are the legal implications of the people along the way who have already seen the book if indeed there might be some reservations or classified or classified information that might be in the book.

LEE: Look if there's classified information in the book, which we have every reason to believe might well be the case, because of the fact that it's under review and if they have disclosed that to a third party there could be some very significant implications for whoever leaked it. That would be a problem. Now I don't know whether that would be John Bolton himself, whether it would be somebody connected to his author. I really have no idea, but if there's classified material in there and particularly if it's classified at the top-secret level that would be a problem.

MACCALLUM: Senator Lee, thank you very much. I know you guys are very busy, all the senators at this point in the evening and do you think is it fair to say that both sides would like to wrap it up soon or - and how many people do you think really wanted to drag on?

LEE: I don't think there are that many people who want to drag on. I mean look you've got different reasons on both sides. You've got Republicans who want to get the acquittal behind the President because we feel that he deserves it. You've got Democrats, many of whom are campaigning for President who'd like to get out of here and get to Iowa. I don't think there are a whole lot of people who want this to drag on for a long time. But we'll see what happens.

MACCALLUM: Senator Mike Lee of Utah, thank you very much. Good to see you, Senator.

LEE: Good to see you.


MACCALLUM: So, we are seeing a bit of movement here, but I also spoke with Democratic Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania during their break. And here's our conversation.


MACCALLUM: A lot going on the Hill tonight. So, tell us where it all stands as far as you can tell and when to expect a vote.

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): Well, we'll know in a few minutes where things stand. I think both leaders will come out and be able to tell us where we are. But I think the procedural posture of where we are right now is, I think less important in terms rather than where we are in terms of the big issue today. And that was witnesses and documents.

I thought that the best way for the Senate to proceed was to have relevant witnesses called, relevant documents part of the record because that's the only way to have a full and fair trial. But we now know that that's not going to happen. I think that's not good for the Senate. I think the country is seeing every day now disclosures that bear on the fundamental issues of this trial. So, we'll have to go forward. But I'm not at all happy about where we are.

MACCALLUM: So, what do you say to those who say look on the House side only the Democrats got to call witnesses, they called 17 witnesses, there were no Republican witnesses called and that the time for that part of this was then on the House side and that the Senate is to evaluate the case and to vote on it.

CASEY: Well, I think the only thing contrary to that or the fundamental contrary argument to that is every Senate trial whether a judge or of a president in American history has had witnesses, it just makes sense that when you have a trial you have witnesses. Now I think on the House there was also opportunities not just for witnesses to appear and witnesses to be called, but both sides got to question.

So, in a sense, they had a grand jury process which is what the impeachment process is House. But when you come to the Senate, it's a different process. And the gravity of this proceeding in large measure increases, because the determination you have to make about guilt or innocence involves removal. So, you'd want to make sure that you have every possible piece of evidence or at least reasonably possible piece of evidence on the record.

So, that I think the American people would be better off hearing from John Bolton because you have a basic issue of fact here. You have a dispute. John Bolton says one thing about his interactions and the President says another.

MACCALLUM: Very true, and is going to play out one way or the other as we watch all of this. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. Thanks for stopping by tonight.

CASEY: Thank you.


MACCALLUM: Well, it looks like we're going to hear from John Bolton one way or the other. We're going to talk to the White House about that in just a moment. Stay with us. Chad. Pergram has his hands on the actual resolution that they're about to vote on. He will explain it to us when we come back. Plus, the White House as I said is going to respond to the latest revelations and we'll take a quick break. We'll be right back after this.


MACCALLUM: So, senators moving back into the chamber now. You can see that the Chief Justice is back in place as well, as we continue to kind of gauge. So, let's just bring in Chad Pergram from a moment and then we may have to hop out of that if they begin. But Chad tell us what you know at this point?

CHAD PERGRAM, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well right now Mitch McConnell has just proposed the final framework for this trial. There's going to be a vote on that here shortly and then probably votes on four or five other Democratic proposals. But this is the course of action for the next couple of days. They will have these procedural votes to set up the final landing strip for this Senate trial over the next couple of days.

The Senate will be dark over the weekend. No Senate trial tomorrow even though the Senate rules for impeachment require a Saturday session. They will come back on Monday at 11 o'clock in the morning and that's when they will move to the final arguments by the House Democratic impeachment managers and the defense counsel up to four hours on that and then senators can also make their closing arguments on this as well during the day on Monday and Tuesday.

And then you will have State of the Union of course Tuesday and then in the resolution 4 o'clock. Let's listen.

MACCALLUM: Here's Senator McConnell. Let's listen.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE: Is there objection. Without objection so ordered. The Democratic leader is recognized.

SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice I have a parliamentary inquiry.

ROBERTS: The Democratic leader will state the inquiry.

SCHUMER: Is the Chief Justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson Chief Justice Chase as presiding officer cast tie breaking votes on both March 31st and April 2nd, 1868.

ROBERTS: I am Mr. Leader, the one concerned motion to adjourn. The other concerned a motion to close deliberations. I do not regard those isolated episodes, 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties.

If the members of this body elected by the people and accountable to them divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.

SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to subpoena Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffy, Blair and the White House OMB, DOD and State Department documents. And I ask that it'd be read.

ROBERTS: The clerk will report.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator from New York Mr. Schumer proposes an amendment number 1295. At the appropriate place of the matter following the resolving clause, insert the following. Section notwithstanding any other provision of this--

SCHUMER: The amendment be considered as read.

ROBERTS: Objection, so ordered. The majority leader is recognized--

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (D-KY): I move the table, amendment, ayes and nays.

ROBERTS: Is there a sufficient second? There is. The clerk will call the roll.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Alexander. Ms. Baldwin. Ms. Baldwin, No. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Barrasso, Aye. Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, No. Mrs. Blackburn. Mrs. Blackburn, Aye. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal, No. Mr. Blunt. Mr. Blunt, Aye. Mr. Booker. Mr. Booker, No.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, we're listening. You're going to hear all 100 senators voting right now. And this is a vote to table the motion that was brought up by Senator Schumer which asked to summon, a subpoena to summons, Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Blair, Mr. Duffy, the White House and the OMB. We're going to obviously come back to this live, but they're going through the 100 senators at this moment. I have Hogan Gidley, the White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary alongside here. Hogan, your reaction to how this is playing out right now and Senator Schumer's proposal there.

HOGAN GIDLEY, WHITE HOUSE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: Well, look obviously I'm not there, I've been over at the Senate pretty much the entire day watching this thing unfold and it looks like another desperate attempt by the Democrats to try and change the outcome and try and sully a process that was tainted so badly in the House and now the Senate is actually giving us a fair shake, a fair trial.

And he and the rest the Democrats are probably upset at the fact they didn't get witnesses in the Senate which is a ridiculous premise because they had 17 in the House. They could have subpoenaed John Bolton. They didn't. They had a chance to do more. They didn't. They had to rush through because they said it was in the urgency, because of the national security concerns they had about this President.

MACCALLUM: They would say obviously that John Bolton, there's been new information since that point. And also, since that point, he has said that he would be willing to come in and testify. So that's a new set of circumstances that didn't exist then.

GIDLEY: Right. But what's not new is the fact that Adam Schiff also said John Bolton had no credibility and he was just looking for a new job. So, it's pretty rich for Adam Schiff to use this as some type of ploy to try and pull in John Bolton when he himself has discredit him on many occasions. And look that follows a pattern. Anyone in Donald Trump's orbit, they hate and if they get out and say one negative thing about the President, all of a sudden, they're the toast of the town.

Adam Schiff has no credibility whatsoever. He's been caught lying about Russia collusion evidence he didn't have, about his staff talking to a whistleblower. He said they didn't, they did. He made up his entire speech to the American people and to his colleagues in Congress when he tried to pass off his own deranged demented words. Is that of the President's. I mean this guy has zero credibility on this topic whatsoever.

MACCALLUM: So, it appears that there are Republicans who also want to sort of have their moment on the floor to speak their mind on how they feel about all of this and we know that there were obviously some of them wanted witnesses. Susan Collins wanted witnesses. Mitt Romney wanted witnesses and ultimately Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee both decided to vote against that.

However, Lamar Alexander said that he felt that the President's phone call was inappropriate and spoke out about it. So, it may be that some of them want that opportunity to say that on the Senate floor. What's your reaction to that?

GIDLEY: Well, I'm not going to get in trying to get to the head of the senators. I mean they have their own constituents to answer to. But the fundamental facts haven't changed here. We're not going to have witnesses in the Senate because this is supposed to be done in the house and it was. Now they don't like the way they did it. They have no one to blame but themselves.

As we move into the Senate, it's a completely different set of circumstances and as we've said many times had they decided to vote for witnesses then we can have some witnesses. But even Adam Schiff made the point yesterday, we can do this in a week. Let's just do this in a week.

So, let me get this straight. You guys had three months to do it in the House, do it the way you wanted. You completely colored the jury. You did it behind closed doors and now you're telling us you only give us a week and only let the witnesses come forward that you want and not us, they're trying to do it all over again. The fact is they ruin this process and our defense team lo and behold finally had a chance to defend this president. And on Monday let's not forget, Democrats were saying they're never going to get the vote for witnesses, and we got it, because the facts prove, the President did nothing wrong. What he actually did do was constitutional. It was legal. It was lawful. It was on behalf of the American taxpayer.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you about the topic came out today which was another account from John Bolton and there is a word this evening that they are not commenting on this latest report which claims that the President asked John Bolton to intervene for these investigations with President Zelensky and that Rudy Giuliani, Pat Cipollone, the defense attorney that everyone's become very familiar with now in this public forum, they were all in the room at the time when the President was asking this. That is what John Bolton contends.

GIDLEY: Right. And the President came out immediately and said this wasn't true. This meeting never happened.

MACCALLUM: Would that be a matter of White House Diary record. I mean wouldn't there be a record that would say whether or not they were all in the room or not in the room?

GIDLEY: Well look, let's be very clear. What's going on here is Ambassador Bolton who left the administration has a book to sell. And as you go back to Sunday evening when the first little news of this allegation broke on Monday morning. This was clearly coordinated. As it broke, the Amazon page for preorders of the book went up immediately.

A statement from his staff went up immediately. So, this has all been very planned, very coordinated. And when those statements did come out which we don't even know if they're true, these are allegations no one has seen this manuscript. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came out and said, not true. Attorney General Barr, the DOJ not true. Mick Mulvaney said the same thing. None of this is true.

So, this has become a pattern and a track record, and I hate to say it, but it's unfortunate because Ambassador Bolton, I worked together in the White House. He and the President had a good relationship as well. But so often people try to make money off of this President's name and it appears that's what's happening again.

MACCALLUM: Well, he came out and defended all the people who spoke out from his department and he said that it was not disloyalty. He said it's actually the opposite of that their decision to speak out. So, I mean what's clear is that they have very different views of what happened in the White House. Now, my question is, we all know that after this part of this process is over and I think it seems fairly obvious at this point that there will be an acquittal and the vote is expected to take place on Wednesday at 4 o'clock.

These questions are going to continue to go on and on and on and even to the point where you could see this issue of impeachment raised again over these same issues because there is no double jeopardy in impeachment. What do you say to that?

GIDLEY: Well look, the entire process has been political to this point. Six of the seven managers that Nancy Pelosi put in place all said they were for impeachment before this thing even started months ago. So, I think everyone knows what this is and it's a chance for Nancy Pelosi to try and put her own personal political gain and wants and desires above the needs of the American people.

This President though has done everything on behalf of the American people. He's worked hard. You see the successes. You see the gains. And that's something Democrats cannot contend with.

MACCALLUM: I just want to go back to this live, they just finished the vote. And Hogan, I'm going to ask if you can to stand by as we continue to watch this play out this evening. The motion was tabled and now we wait to see what the next motion is on the floor of the Senate this evening. So that was as I said Senator Schumer who had an amendment that he wanted to put into motion that would have had subpoenas for a number of the President's - number of White House employees including Mick Mulvaney that was immediately tabled by Speaker by Leader McConnell rather excuse me. Let's listen to this.

ROBERTS: The Ayes are 53, the nays are 47. The motion is agreed to. The Democratic leader is recognized.

SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to subpoena John R. Bolton and I ask that it be read.

ROBERTS: The clerk will report.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The senator from New York, Mr. Schumer proposes an amendment number 1296 at the appropriate place in the resolving clause insert the following. Section, notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules 5 and 6 that the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials. The Chief Justice of the United States, the Secretary of the Senate shall issue a subpoena for the taking of testimony of John Robert Bolton and the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize the services that the deputy sergeant at arms or any other employee of the Senate and serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section.

ROBERTS: The Majority Leader is recognized.

MCCONNELL: I move to table the amendment, ayes and nays.

ROBERTS: Is there a sufficient second? There is. The clerk will call the roll.


MACCALLUM: All right, so you get the idea here. This is probably the way this is going to go for quite some time this evening. There were requests for subpoena there for John Bolton, the move by Leader McConnell to table that. And now you're going to hear the roll call for the course of this.

I do want to bring in Chad Pergram one more time because there was an interesting exchange a moment ago with regard to the request establishing on Senator Schumer's part, the history of impeachment and that Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice who presided over President Johnson's impeachment did in fact choose in two out of three cases to get involved and to break a tie. Chad, give us some sense of that question? Why it was brought up at this point and the answer that was given by the Chief Justice?

PERGRAM: Well, Chuck Schumer in the past several days has talked about trying to get Chief Justice John Roberts to weigh in and rule may be in favor of witnesses or break ties in a Senate trial. Now if you notice that this was kind of prescriptive. If you're the Senate Minority Leader and you have the Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment trial, you're not going to try to trip him up.

So, a lot of times what happens in the Senate when you have a parliamentary inquiry that's where you're asking the status of what's actually going on, on the floor and you pose that from the floor to whoever is presiding, in this case John Roberts. You ask basically why can't you rule on this, why can't you interject yourself.

And if you noticed Elizabeth McDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, she had a piece of paper that had obviously been prescriptive for Chief Justice Roberts to read because they had worked this out ahead of time. And what he said was the following. He said, I do not have - first of all, I view those episodes with Chief Justice Chase and Andrew Johnson trial in 1868 as "isolated episodes." He noted that two of them were procedural, one was a motion to adjourn and he said, as such, I do not believe that I have sufficient authorities to break ties in the Senate.

So, what was happening there was Schumer was just trying to get the Chief Justice on the record and understand what the interpretation was because again you know you're into some pretty interesting parliamentary and constitutional turf when it comes to breaking ties. And if you look at the Senate impeachment rules, it says that the power of the Vice President will have "devolved" when you're dealing with impeachment trials, meaning that under Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution, Vice Presidents can break ties, but not in a presidential impeachment trial, because the Chief Justice is presiding.

And what is an unanswered question dating back to the precedent set by Chief Justice Chase in 1868 is can the Chief Justice acting as the presiding officer break ties. And again, the other issue here is sometimes you want the tie to go a certain way, because by rule in the Senate, a tie loses.

MACCALLUM: Chad, thank you very much. We're going to continue to dig into this. It's actually very interesting. It's a great lesson I think for everybody watching this in terms of how all of this plays out. And while this is taking place on the Hill. There's another big story that's unfolding. A major shakeup igniting outrage among some of the 2020 candidates, but not Mike Bloomberg who is going to get to beyond the debate stage. There's a big development today. Chris Stirewalt on that. Stay with us.


MACCALLUM: Mostly buried by tonight's impeachment news, a major announcement from the DNC. It plans to eliminate the donor threshold requirement ahead of the February 19th debate. So, what that means is that billionaire Michael Bloomberg who has not qualified for any debates so far will now be allowed on the debate stage.

One candidate particularly irked by this is Bernie Sanders whose campaign released this statement today to quote, "To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination is wrong. That's the definition of a rigged system."

Joining me now Chris Stirewalt, Fox News politics editor. So, Bernie is feeling like the system is rigged against him again and you know, they did change the rules midstream here, Chris. What do you think?

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS POLITICS EDITOR: Well, wait a minute, they said that they would have different rules for each debate. And as they've gone on, they've changed the rules as they've gone on to change this threshold or that threshold.

The part that I find funny Bernie Sanders surrogates as recently as this week were complaining about the fact that Mike Bloomberg wasn't in the debates. How come he is getting a free ride. He needs the full spectrum treatment. He's got to stay and toe to toe with these people.

And then he gets in or he might get in the debate and all of a sudden, it's a rigged system. So, guess what? His opponents are never going to be pleased with anything that he does. The question now is this good for Bloomberg? How does this affect Joe Biden and how does this affect the race?

MACCALLUM: And what does it say about the DNC? I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when they were deciding whether or not they are going to change these rules. Are they concerned about these candidates and do they feel like it will benefit them to sort of get him in the mix?

STIREWALT: So, you got 900 or so Democratic National Committee members and that is Tom Perez's their chairman. That's his real constituency. What do those folks want? How do they want it? How do they think this is going?

They are under pressure right now as a matter of fact to maybe change the rules at the convention so that the super delegates, those unpledged delegates members of Congress and other party leaders get a vote on the first ballot. because everybody is worried about, what? Bernie Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee.

MACCALLUM: Yes, it's crazy. Because that's what did was last time.


MACCALLUM: And Hillary got those super delegates, she had so many of them locked up before they even got to the convention. And Bernie and his folks they never forget it, you know, turning around with their backs to Hillary Clinton all around that entire stadium that night.

So, I mean, he's got to feel. If you are Bernie Sanders you do feel like this thing is rigged against you.

STIREWALT: Well, it's also --


MACCALLUM: Or that everyone is out to get you.

STIREWALT: It's also a great sales pitch. Right? Because if what you are selling if you are leading a populist insurrection everything -- you just have a hot tea. Blank is evidence of a system rigged against us, blank is evidence of a system rigged against us. It works. You raise money. You get people upset.

But remember, when Bernie Sanders got to the convention last time, he couldn't have won even without the super delegates on Hillary Clinton's side. He is afraid that the same thing is going to happen this time. He's going to get into the home stretch against a more centrist Democratic candidate and get squeezed out.

MACCALLUM: He's got -- I mean, there is certainly a lot being written and said and reported on that Democrats are concerned with this strength that he has.

Here is the latest poll. This is the first national poll that puts Bernie Sanders in the first -- in first place here 27 to 26. It's basically a dead heat. Warren at 15 percent. One of -- Bloomberg is in fourth in this poll. And he has been, you know, getting some upward traction. We'll see if he can -- he can continue that.

One of the things that I find fascinating is something that we discussed briefly today is that Joe Biden has been in Iowa and he is declining. And the senators who have been in Washington, Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders have been going up while they have been stuck here.

STIREWALT: Well, Biden hasn't been declining but he has been treading water. It is true that --


MACCALLUM: And other people are gaining some traction.

STIREWALT: And other people are gaining some traction. That's true. The question for Biden now is, as Bloomberg looks viable what does that do to Joe Biden. It increases the pressure on Biden to have a really bloom (Ph) February and win two or three of the four contests in February because Michael Bloomberg is out there squatting on super Tuesday. He is waiting for him.

And he has already spent something like a quarter of a billion dollars on television ads. That is a lot of money. And if Biden doesn't go into super Tuesday strong, he can find himself delegate hobbled and unable to win decisively in Milwaukee whatever Bernie Sanders does.

MACCALLUM: Let's take a quick look this Super Bowl ads. Because the billionaires are going to be head to head buying their Super Bowl ads on Sunday. Here is the Bloomberg part of it, his, and part of the president's. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The child that I gave birth to is no longer here. Lives are being lost every day. It is a national crisis. I heard Mike Bloomberg speak. He has been in this fight for so long.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America demanded change.

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, CNN: Donald Trump wins the presidency.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And change is what we got. Under President Trump America is stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before.


MACCALLUM: Got a big audience for those on Sunday.

STIREWALT: Huge audience and both positive ads. Right? Bloomberg is there trying to stick to his brand on gun control with Democrats and the president with his best message, Donald Trump's best message the thing that will work for him that has worked for incumbent presidents before, we're at peace and the economy is good. Peace and prosperity sell pretty well as it turns out.

MACCALLUM: So, Chris Stirewalt, you have a plane to catch.

STIREWALT: Right now, Iowa awaits.

MACCALLUM: We're going to let you get out of here. We hope you make it. And we'll see you there tomorrow, Chris. Always great to see you, thank you.


MACCALLUM: More of The Story coming up next.


MACCALLUM: So, in other news a very big story going on. The United States declaring a public health emergency today in response to the coronavirus with at least seven confirmed cases now in the United States and a couple of others that are not confirmed at this point.

President Trump also restricting entry for foreign nationals who recently visited China.

Jeff Paul is live in our west coast newsroom with the story tonight. Hi, Jeff.

JEFF PAUL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Martha. We are learning tonight that President Trump as you said has signed an order for new travel restrictions. Starting at 5 p.m. Eastern on Sunday the U.S. will temporarily ban foreign nationals who pose a risk of transmitting the coronavirus from entering the country.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also announcing any U.S. citizen who has traveled to the Hubei province in the last two weeks must undergo 14 days of mandatory quarantine upon returning to the U.S.

Those who are coming back from the rest of mainland China in the same time period will be screened at ports of entry and undergo 14 days of self- monitoring. Also beginning on Sunday, all flights to the U.S. from China will be directed to just seven airports so passengers can be screened for the illness.


ALEX AZAR, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I want to stress, the risk of infection for Americans remain low and with these and our previous actions, we are working to keep the risk low.


PAUL: In the span of two months the virus has infected around 10,000 people worldwide. More than 200 people have died and so far, all the deaths have occurred in China.

In the U.S., a seventh case was confirmed in Santa Clara County, California, the third such case in the state. Health officials there say while the flu has been far more devastating in the United States, people are more afraid of the coronavirus because there is so much unknown.


SARA CODY, HEALTH OFFICER, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: It's novel, it's new, there's a lot that we don't know. And so, I want to acknowledge that people feel rightly concerned because it's new.


PAUL: The CDC has also confirmed a case in Washington State, one in Arizona, and two in Illinois. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Jeff Paul, thank you very much.

So, if President Trump is acquitted in this impeachment trial, which it appears he will be, some Democrats are already calling the verdict illegitimate.

Guy Benson and Richard Fowler are here on that, coming up next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a trial without relevant witnesses and documents, that it's a sham. And there is no vindication in a fraudulent trial.



MACCALLUM: There is so much going on right now in so many places and also in other news, Brexit is now official. Think about how long it took for this to come to reality.

Less than two hours ago, the United Kingdom officially exited the European Union. It had been a member for 47 years. It comes more than three and a half years after the historic Brexit vote finally implemented. Here is British Prime Minister Boris Johnson just a short time ago.


BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The most important thing to say tonight is that this is not an end but a beginning. This is the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain go up on a new act in our great national drama.


MACCALLUM: Pretty remarkable when you think about how hard it was for Theresa May and Boris Johnson got it done. Now Britain enters the so-called transition period. They have until December 31st to hammer out the details like setting up trade deals with the remaining European Union countries and the United States which could get a little sticky but they are on their way.

So more than 28,000 pages of evidence, 22 hours of opening statements from House managers and nearly 200 questions asked by senators during the trial, but Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer are now saying that this process is illegitimate in terms of the trial as they brace for an acquittal which is expected to happen on Wednesday.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: The president's acquittal will be meaningless because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.


MACCALLUM: Here now Guy Benson, host of the Guy Benson show, and Richard Fowler, nationally syndicated radio show host, and both are Fox News contributors.

So, Richard, I guess, you know, obviously, it all depends on where you come down on this. But I think probably a lot of folks who have watched this whole thing feel like enough is enough.

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I think the American people are weary of impeachment --


FOWLER: -- whether you are a Democrat because you think it was a forgone conclusion that from the beginning of this trial it was going to fall along party lines or you're a Republican who feels as though the president did nothing wrong and it was a, quote, unquote, "perfect call."

I think with that being said, what makes this case very interesting to me, is that once this acquittal happens two months from now we'll all have a copy of the John Bolton book and if there are actual revelations in there Republicans will have some explaining to do why they didn't allow him as a witness, why didn't they discover this evidence because the American people will be able to read it.


GUY BENSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: First of all, happy birthday, Martha.


BENSON: It's so good to be here.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

BENSON: Look, I'm in the interesting position where I'm against impeachment and removal. I think that's the wrong remedy. I think the president did do something inappropriate here. And I would have voted with Senator Collins and Senator Romney to hear from John Bolton because the counter arguments are completely fair and they are actually quite compelling.

I think getting that piece of information outweighs those concerns. But I'm also very sympathetic to the many senators who had no appetite for this notion that the House of Representatives, the Democrats control it, it was their job to build the best, most thorough case that they could.

Instead they did a shoddy, shabby rush job and now they want the Senate to do sort of a cleanup job for them --


BENSON: -- at the end and I can understand why a lot of Republicans said if we want to talk about shams, there is a lot of sham to go around in Washington on this whole process.

MACCALLUM: You know, what strikes me is that from the beginning it was always going to be a completely partisan process because when we've watched this before, you think about even the Mueller investigation. You know, there was an outside counsel who was appointed. Robert Mueller did an investigation and for those years when that was going on both sides sort of said well, you know, we'll see what he says when it comes back.

But in this situation, it was led by Chairman Schiff. It went into the intel committee. Not the judiciary committee. So, it feels as if it was so dug in that that this was never going to be something that was going to get buy-in on both sides.

So, in that situation, Richard, when it does get to the Senate it's their House. The Republicans have the majority. They are saying, you know what? Once you left it from the -- let it go from the House, it did become our process and we are not going to, you know, help you find the president guilty in this case.

FOWLER: I get that argument. I'm very sympathetic to it. I think what makes this case so interesting is that last night, and I think Adam Schiff said and I think it was a moment that I remembered in the trial because I think it was stark and telling was, he's like, as we are sitting here talking about impeachment, the Justice Department is at the court arguing if the remedy for the president on abiding by subpoenas is impeachment. Right?

And so, I think that has been the Democratic case all along. That case did not -- did not pick up any Republican votes. Like Guy was in the Senate to vote with us and Guy will take a look but he was not.

And so now we sit in a place where this president will be acquitted but this Ukraine thing still looms over his presidency. I think now the question will be how will Republicans operate and how will this president operate?

MACCALLUM: I think the story doesn't -- the story does not die. We all know that because John Bolton is going to keep talking about it. His book is going to come out. It's going to continue to live in the world of media and everywhere else and be on people's lips, Guy.


MACCALLUM: So, it goes on and on and on.

BENSON: There's going to be an acquittal. The acquittal is going to count. Chuck Schumer can talk about asterisks as long as he wants. It's a real acquittal. Vindication is a separate question. Right? We can debate whether there is vindication here. But I do think there is a certain exhaustion.

We have gone through, what, three years of the Russia thing that went nowhere. And now we are on to Ukraine. I think it's interesting to see senators like Rubio and Lamar Alexander saying OK, I think the president did some things here that were inappropriate, it is not correct, therefore, afterwards to use our position in the Senate to uproot a duly elected president from the presidency with voters going to the polls in about nine months.

And I think a lot of people, you know, look, they could have gotten every witness that they wanted. The result of this trial was going to be almost exactly the same give or take two, maybe three votes.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, --

BENSON: They are not going to come close to 67.

MACCALLUM: Even if you look at, you have you John Kelly who came out and he said that he believes John Bolton, he was chief of staff at the White House, of course, for a time. And then he said in my view they kind of lead themselves open to a lot of criticism. It seems it was half a trial.

But what have you, Richard, is that, you know, the White House didn't say that wasn't said at that meeting. What he is saying is not true. John Bolton says it is true. And I just wonder when you go down this road, you know, whether you are ever going to get any sort of conclusive agreement on what happened.

FOWLER: And I think that's part of the problem as Republicans. And I think Guy brings up an interesting point. While Guy and other Republicans have been very outlet this call was not perfect. There was a lot wrong with it. We don't hear -- I think this would have went away a lot quicker if there were more Republicans who came out and said, Mr. President, your behavior on this call was unbecoming. It was unpresidential.

And to be frank with you, the reason why this impeachment is happening because there are some parts of these calls and part of this whole operation that raise questions to the American people. That what miss -- what was missing here is Republicans never did that and now as we get into this election, right, which literally starts on Monday.

BENSON: Some did.

FOWLER: Some did. Leaders there. But I think there should have been more --


BENSON: Yes, a number of them --

FOWLER: -- Republicans. So, I think anybody who understands foreign policy understands how incorrect his behavior was.

MACCALLUM: I think that credo came from the top and the president's attorneys were, you know --

BENSON: That's right.

MACCALLUM: -- he did nothing wrong. That was line and there are people who obviously disagree with that and think that the call wasn't perfect.

Let's go down and listen to Leader McConnell. Thanks, gentlemen. Stand by, if you will. Let's hear what he has to say.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: Either given or submitted during the legislative sessions of the Senate on Monday, February 3rd, Tuesday, February 4th, and Wednesday, February 5th. Along with the full record of the Senate's proceedings and the filings by the parties in a Senate document printed under the supervision of the secretary of the Senate that will complete the documentation of the Senate's handling of these impeachment proceedings.


MCCONNELL: Further, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes legislative session on Monday, February 3rd, Tuesday, February 4th, and Wednesday, February 5th the Senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each for a debate only.

ROBERTS: Without objection, so ordered.

MCCONNELL: And finally, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 11 a.m. February 3rd.

MACCALLUM: So, Mitch McConnell laying it all out, basically they have to -- let's go to Chad on this, he's standing by. Basically, they have to go into regular session, Chad, so that the State of the Union can happen on Tuesday night. Then they'll go back into the order of impeachment. The court of impeachment. Is that right?

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And what they just approved there are 53-47 was the vote approving the final trial framework for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday setting up the final arguments by the House Democratic impeachment managers on Monday, and also for the defense on Monday as well.

And then senators, you know, that was one of the big issues here, they wanted to have their say on the floor. They will get those opportunities, you know, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday during regular session. That will kind of be outside the parameters of this final trial framework.

And then of course 4 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon. That's when we will have two separate votes rendering verdict on the President of the United States on the two articles of impeachment, two separate votes. And in the impeachment rules, the senators rise from their desk and they vote guilty or not guilty. Again, a reminder it takes 67 votes, two thirds to convict and remove, Martha.

MACCALLUM: What a journey. All leading to Wednesday when we will see that vote. Chad Pergram, thank you so much. Great coverage throughout the day. Thank you everybody at home for being with us on The Story tonight as we watch this dramatic historic several days play out. And we head into -- tomorrow is off. And Sunday is the Super Bowl. And back at it on Monday. Thank you, everybody. Have a great night.

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