This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," January 28, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: For Republicans, less is more, more or less.

They had 24 hours allotted to state their legal case to defend the president of the United States. They used about 12 hours in total. Democrats used -- those were the House managers we're talking about -- every last minute of their 24 hours.

What is it Republicans ended briefly to say succinctly? It's over. You make no case, House managers.

That is where we stand. Tomorrow, of course, the question-and-answer session begins. And that could drag on a while here, but, of course, the devils in the details and what they say about witnesses.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto, and this is YOUR WORLD, where they wrap things up earlier in Washington, D.C., and a lot earlier than thought.

Chad Pergram in the Capitol with what happens next -- Chad.


Right now, the Senate Republicans are meeting behind closed doors talking about etching out their questions for those two eight-hour sessions on Wednesday and Thursday that they will pose to the House managers and the defense counsel here, also discussing witnesses.

That is issue A number one, because you have, depending on how you calculate it, two to three senators on the Republican side of the aisle seriously considering witnesses. Lindsey Graham is also somebody who's talking about this as well, but, in particular, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah have said that they are for witnesses. Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, says she might want to hear more specifically from John Bolton, the former national security adviser.

Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, said that John Bolton is central to this case.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): It's clear, I think, today that they are still reeling from the revelation of John Bolton's book and what he has to say, the very relative -- relevant and probative quality of the testimony that he should give the Senate.


PERGRAM: Now, how would they deal with this?

Adam Schiff during this press conference a few minutes ago said -- quote -- "If they want a one for one," meaning they're going to call Bolton, maybe somebody on the other side, he said, call Mick Mulvaney.

You know, what this raises, Neil, is the specter of a potential tie vote on witnesses. The Constitution and the Senate impeachment rules are kind of vague about how you would address that.

If you were operating under normal procedure in the Senate, the vice president would break ties. There were three ties back in the Senate impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868. And Salmon P. Chase, who was the chief justice at the time, he broke two of the three.

But I'm told that because the Senate rule is, if a tie vote would fail automatically here, that Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn't weigh in.

So if you're looking at those three senators who I mentioned in particular, Murkowski, Collins and Romney, you can see where a tie vote fails. It's all about the math, and that's what people have to figure out about Friday.

Once they get through this question-and-answer period, this is how it will work. You will have the Republicans pose a series of questions. Then you will have the Democrats pose a series of questions. They will toggle back and forth hour by hour.

Chief Justice John Roberts told everyone, he said, I want to keep these answers limited to five minutes. And already some of the Republicans are teeing up their questions here.

Josh Hawley, the Republican senator from Missouri, indicates that he wants to ask specific questions to Adam Schiff about potential contacts with his staff and the whistle-blower, and also questions about the Bidens and Burisma.

Remember that some Republicans have wanted to make Adam Schiff a witness in this case. That's not going to happen, necessarily, unless they vote on that Friday or Saturday. But they could make him a de facto witness during this Q&A period on Wednesday and Thursday, Neil.

CAVUTO: Is it your sense that this takes the full amount of time? In other words, they're allowed up to 16 hours? Could you explain that process?

PERGRAM: Yes, 16 hours, eight hours a day.

And it was funny when Chief Justice Roberts read what the standard was for 1999. He said that they had advised them back then to limit their responses to five minutes. And he said the congressional record from then was met with laughter.

And, of course, everybody laughed as well. So maybe they eat up all that time. It just depends how productive they want to be. Again, they are allotted 16 hours.

You could see maybe a scenario where Democrats chew up all their time and Republicans taking the lead from the defense counsel for the president, that they only use minimal time -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much, Chad Pergram.

Let's go to John Roberts at the White House with more on how this is falling out -- John.


We might hear from the president in about a half-an-hour to 40 minutes' time. He is scheduled to leave the White House to go to a campaign rally in Southern New Jersey down around the Cape May area for Jeff Van Drew, who you will remember was a Democrat, changed to a Republican, and was one of two and three votes against the articles of impeachment.

But, clearly, what is -- this coincidentally timed disclosure of what John Bolton is talking about is hitting home and causing some consternation here at the White House.

The president tweeting yesterday that it's the job of the House, not the -- well, that's not the tweet. Let's hold off on that for a second.

The president talking yesterday that it's the job of the House, and not the Senate, to call witnesses such as John Bolton.

But you can bet, Neil, that if John Bolton were to be called, or least there was a push to call John Bolton as a witness, that the gloves are going to come off, and it's going to be a free-for-all in terms of calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and everybody else.

Now, to that tweet that you just saw up on the screen, the president reminding Americans what's at stake here in terms of the push to remove him from office, saying: "Are you better off now than you were three years ago? Almost everyone says yes."

Earlier today, the president doing the business of the nation, hosting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, as the president outlined his long-awaited Middle East peace plan, at the same time that one of his attorneys, Jay Sekulow, was up there on Capitol Hill suggesting all this was political, pointing to the fact that Nancy Pelosi held onto the articles of impeachment for a month before handing them over to the Senate.

Listen here to Sekulow.


JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It was such a dire emergency, it was so critical for our nation's national interests, that we could hold them for 33 days.

Danger. Danger. Danger. That's politics.


ROBERTS: Now, it's interesting that Alan Dershowitz, who made a presentation yesterday, was at the ceremony at the White House today.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, very critical of the presentation that Dershowitz made yesterday, saying, it didn't make any sense to her. She didn't understand it.

Dershowitz firing back at her. And don't forget, they were colleagues at Harvard Law School not so long ago.

Dershowitz saying -- quote -- "If Warren knew anything about criminal law, she would understand the distinction between motives, which are not elements of crime, and intent, which is. It's the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law"

Questions tomorrow, possible push for impeachment -- sorry -- possible push for subpoenas to call witnesses. The White House was hoping that they might get a vote to acquit as early as tomorrow. Looks like none of that is going to happen, Neil, and this thing could go on God knows how long.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you, John Roberts at the White House.

So, how long is God knows how long?

Let's ask Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner. He is the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senator, how long do you think this goes on now? I guess, if there's a battle over witnesses, it could -- it could go on quite a while.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Well, Neil, I don't know.

I mean, Mitch McConnell has 53 votes. You know, that's the majority. I think we have set out the period for two days of questioning. And then there's a period where we will vote on Susan Collins' amendment about whether we would have witnesses or not.

What I don't understand, and I didn't hear from the president's lawyers today, is, John Bolton -- and I have disagreed with most of John Bolton's policy positions for the last 30 years.

But no one would question his solid conservative credentials and bona fides. Why wouldn't we have him, since he was in the room? And I know the president's lawyer said the manuscript, hearsay, or whatever.

Well, let's bring him in the room. And if the president wants to also bring his own chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, in, and he will take an oath to swear to tell the truth, and he can exculp -- and clear the president, let's hear from him or other political appointees that still work for this president.

I just don't understand why we wouldn't, when we all realize how serious this is, that we don't want to do this lightly or quickly, but we want to do it with the whole truth out there, why we wouldn't have...


CAVUTO: But isn't it weird, Senator, that, for Republicans, Mr. Bolton has turned into a pariah? For Democrats, he's darn near a rock star. It's weird.

WARNER: Well, that's different than I guess it was two months ago or three months ago or even two weeks ago, you know, but there is this pattern.

I mean, one thing we would all -- I think you would acknowledge as well, is, this president -- and this part, I will give him credit for -- he is not partisan all at all in terms of, when he gets angry at you, if you stand up against him, he will focus all his attention and all of his supporters' attention trying to take you down.

And he's done that with Democrats and Republicans alike.


CAVUTO: I'm sorry, Senator.

You want to hear from John Bolton. You raised the possibility of Mick Mulvaney.

If the Republicans then come back and talk about, all right, we want to hear from Hunter Biden -- some have even suggested Adam Schiff himself -- if it were part of a deal to get the witnesses you want, vs. the witnesses they want, are you open to that?

WARNER: Well, Neil, I'm not -- really don't think this ought to be a deal.

I think, if there are 51 Republicans that want to hear from one of the Bidens or anyone else, they have got those votes right now. They don't need a deal on that.

I mean, if they -- if Mitch McConnell thinks he's got 51 of his 53 senators that will vote to call in Hunter Biden -- and I guess they don't even have to make the case of how that's -- has anything directly to do with the case that's posed against President Trump, but if they vote that way, I can't say, only call my witnesses, but don't call what the majority want.

CAVUTO: But you don't think that that raises the possibility that both sides could look very muddied here, that the embarrassment, and then bringing up, drudging through all the Hunter Biden and Joe Biden issues, and some of it that looked unseemly -- I think even Hunter Biden has acknowledged as much -- that it tarnishes everyone?

And then some are arguing, best to wrap it up now.


CAVUTO: You say?

WARNER: Well, Neil, I guess you can't argue it both ways.

You can't say -- and I would agree I'm not sure the case has been made about how the Biden involvement, whatever you think of it, in Burisma directly affects the withholding of military aid to an ally that's in war with Russia.

But with John Bolton, I don't think anybody denies that he was not in the room, that he wasn't very aware of what was going on. And I think we ought to not just bring in Bolton. If the president wants to bring in Mr. Mulvaney, who is his chief of staff, who was intimately involved as well, the other political appointees who were involved, I mean, that's the way I think most Americans, whether you're a supporter of the president or not, knows how trials operate.

I think -- one of the things...

CAVUTO: Do you have a sense that there are at least three of your Republican colleagues who -- ostensibly, they would need four -- who feel the way you do?

WARNER: I think -- I have a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues. Most of the evenings this week, a group of us have been downstairs actually eating together after we get our kind of scroungy food from our respective caucuses.

But I think there's a lot of questions. I mean, I think we all -- the vast majority of us are taking this with an extraordinary amount of seriousness.

CAVUTO: All right.

WARNER: I think one of the things that Alan Dershowitz said last night, this is a serious issue.

I do think that if the -- if the House managers are able to say that somebody withheld military aid to an ally for their own personal political interest, to me, that -- to me, that crosses a line.

CAVUTO: All right.

WARNER: But, again, I have got to hear the balance of this case before I make any final decision.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator Warner, we will see what happens. Thank you for taking the time.

WARNER: Thank you so much, Neil.

CAVUTO: Fair and balanced, a read from Senator Rand Paul, who has a slightly different view of things.

Stay with us.

You are watching YOUR WORLD.



SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): I'm encouraging the White House and anybody that I can talk to say, that manuscript is pertinent, and we should be able to get access to that manuscript to be able to see what they're actually saying.

And I'd encourage John Bolton, if he's got something to say, start saying it now, and so we will know the relevance of that.


CAVUTO: All right, I think his Republican colleague Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul might disagree with even that.

Senator, very good to have you.

You had said, sir, of Mr. Bolton that he strikes you as a disgruntled, angry man, and he just wants to sell a book. You feel -- still feel that way?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): You know, I think, if you look at what someone has to say, you have to ask if they have any motives that might be motives that are for their own self-interest, and not for the betterment of the country.

So, yes, I think he's angry he was fired. He spent his entire adult life arguing for a strong executive power and for expansive executive privilege, where the conversations between a president and their national security adviser would be protected by executive privilege.

His whole life's work, he's argued for that. Now he's going to argue that, no, no, no, now that I have a book deal for a couple million bucks, that it's OK for me to say and spill the beans on everything the president said to me privately.

So I think it should be taken with a grain of salt. Whether or not he's a disinterested or neutral party, I think he's motivated by his own self- interest. And that should enter into the equation of whether or not we want to hear him or not.

CAVUTO: Do you think he lied?

PAUL: Well, I think it doesn't matter what he has to say, really.

I think he didn't want to say anything to the House a month ago, and he was arguing executive privilege. But now that his book is completed, he's arguing the opposite. And that should just be taken into consideration.

I do think that Professor Dershowitz hit it pretty well last night when he said that, even if what John Bolton is now alleging is true, this is a policy difference, and not something that rises to the level of an impeachment.

And this has been the whole problem throughout this thing. Look, President Obama withheld aid to both Egypt and then also to Ukraine against the will of Congress, and nobody talked about impeaching him.

Now that President Trump does something they don't like, a policy they don't like, all of a sudden, they're up in arms and he should be impeached. It needs to be the same standard, whether you're Republican or a Democrat, or no matter which way we're looking at impeachment.

All of the managers that were arguing against Clinton's impeachment because it was partisan, their arguments were used against them today. In fact, there were titters running throughout the crowd as Chuck Schumer was adamant that you shouldn't be able to go after someone who -- that isn't in a high crime or a misdemeanor.

CAVUTO: He also took a swipe at the president's children. You didn't like that.

PAUL: Yes, because the thing is, is, there's evidence that Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden was getting a million dollars a year from one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine, and that his father was involved in the politics of firing the prosecutor investigating that company.

That -- those are facts. Chuck Schumer just threw out, well, what about the president? Maybe his kids are making money. It's like, he threw out something that's an accusation, an ad hominem, a scurrilous attack on a president and his family, without any evidence.

If he has evidence of that, that's fine. But his argument was, we just need to keep investigating until we find it, because, eventually, we will find out that this might be true.

That, to me, is defamation of character. And, surely, we should be above that kind of scurrilous behavior.

CAVUTO: You talk about roles that are reversed right now, people who said things a couple of decades ago vs. now, and as recently as a few weeks, few months ago vs. now.

The turnabout of Republicans for John Bolton, who used to be a conservative iconic figure, it's fairly remarkable. Now, to be fair to you, Senator, you have always been questioning of his more in-your-face militaristic ideas.

But do you find it surprising that Republicans who used to worship the guy now -- now all but call him a snake?

PAUL: Well, I think the thing is, is that, when it appears as if you're doing things for your own self-interest, that his whole testimony and his reason for testifying is to gin up book sales...

CAVUTO: Well, we don't know that, right, Senator? We don't know that.


PAUL: We know he's no longer disinterested and that he has a monetary advantage that will come about by ginning up and having an interview.

And a month ago, he was opposed to, himself, interview. In fact, a month ago, he was joining in the lawsuit saying, executive privilege applies.

We know that he's written for decades saying that the executive should have broad, expansive war powers. He's never met a war that he didn't like, and now, all of the sudden, he's for, oh, yes, but private conversations should be revealed, and I'm going to reveal it, oh, yes, if you buy my book for $29.95.

CAVUTO: He wouldn't be the first author to maybe take advantage of the moment, deliberately or not.

But I am curious about how you think this affects the president. If he dodges impeachment, do you think, in retrospect, he ultimately provided that aid, as Democrats were pounding in the House managers' case, because he knew that whistle-blower was going to release things, he had to move fast to avoid anything incriminating?

We will never know, but is that something that looks unseemly to you?

PAUL: I think why people do things, their motives is very complicated.

And that's why Professor Dershowitz says you can't impeach people over trying to impugn their motives or have some kind of knowledge of their motives.

But another reason why he might have released the aid -- and I think this was part of the discussions -- was that the impoundment rule says that you cannot withhold money past the end of the fiscal year. The end of the fiscal year was September 30.

CAVUTO: Right.

PAUL: And he released the money on September 11.

I think there is evidence that, within the White House, people were saying, well, you can't hold it up more than about another two weeks.

CAVUTO: Well, but it might have been the revelation of the whistle-blower, right? That might have been another factor.

We will -- I guess we will never know, right?

PAUL: Nobody knows.

CAVUTO: All right.

PAUL: But I can't think -- you can't think -- you can't impeach people for thoughts that you're not sure of.

CAVUTO: Fair enough, sir.

Thank you very, very much. Good catching up with you, Senator Rand Paul.

PAUL: Thanks.

CAVUTO: We're going to get the read from a guy who could be very crucial in this ongoing debate, West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin.

He's next. Stay with us.


CAVUTO: Welcome back, everybody.

Now we're going to be in the question-and-answer phase after Republicans wrapped up their -- stating their case, half the time that they were allotted. They had 24 hours to make their case to respond to the House managers' case. They did so in about 12 hours.

What that means for the next phase and how quickly this goes or doesn't go, let's get a read from West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.

Senator, always good to have you. Thank you.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): And good to be with you, Neil. How are you?

CAVUTO: Well, if I'm to believe reports on sort of the wheeling and dealing maybe the Republicans have had to try to get your vote to opt against impeachment, you're getting a lot of attention.

Is that so? Are a lot of people, like, leaning on you?

MANCHIN: Neil -- well, Neil, here's the thing.

Any time you're a moderate, centrist, in the middle, you like Democrats and Republicans equally, and you want to work with both sides, but, basically, it comes down to the facts. Let's find the facts out.

And I have been saying from day one, I don't know how I go home to West Virginia and explain that I had to make a decision in a trial, the most important thing I will ever do, that I have ever done or will ever do as an elected official, an impeachment of the president of the United States, without having all the evidence and all the witnesses that have the knowledge that should be basically shared to make an informed decision.

CAVUTO: So, you want -- you want witnesses, right?

MANCHIN: Yes, I really do. I think it's imperative.

CAVUTO: Who -- would John -- John Bolton, he comes to mind, obviously, in light of his book.

MANCHIN: Yes, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, all the people that basically have -- and I know from all different sides, they are saying -- whoever's pertinent to this, to the charges against the president, should be the ones that should be considered.

I have no...

CAVUTO: What if you don't get the witnesses? What if they ultimately don't have the votes to compel witnesses? Then what are you going to do?

MANCHIN: That's challenging. I mean, that's extremely challenging to make it -- let me make it very clear.

The president, as far as the phone call, I do not think it was a perfect phone call. I have been on Intel. I'm on Armed Services. Our national policy is extremely, extremely serious and is extremely critical to the defense and well-being of the United States of America and our position in the world.

And with that, you can't have a rogue proxy, such as a Rudy Giuliani or anyone else, going out there, even though they're saying that, I'm here for -- as a private citizen, but I'm representing the most powerful person in the world, or a senator, or any of us. You just can't have that done.

So, we have got to be able to make some changes one way or another.

CAVUTO: So, if you don't have that opportunity, and hearing the cases you have heard from the Democratic House impeachment managers and now the Republican response, about half the time, how would you vote?

MANCHIN: Well, I haven't made that decision, Neil. I really haven't.

I have been impartial. I took -- I really took that serious, the oath of impartiality. For people to say how they already have made up their mind or how they were going to vote before you even heard it, both sides, the prosecution, Neil, and the defense, the president's people and the House, they both did an excellent job, I thought.

They were very compelling. And they did a good job of presenting it.

And then you have to make a decision. But you need to have all the evidence for it.

And here's the hard thing I have a hard time explaining back home, the hypocrisy. If you start seeing basically all the clips from 20 years ago, whether it be the House managers, the prosecution now, the statements that they made, or Professor Dershowitz, or Ken Starr, or Chuck Schumer, or Mitch McConnell, they have all reversed their position 180 degrees.

Now, I'm sure the framers, the brilliant people that they were, didn't have that much wiggle room, and you could change your position in a 10- or 20- year period, Neil, for something they wrote that's been holding for over 220 or 230 years.

Something just doesn't resonate to me.


CAVUTO: It sounds like you're disgusted with the process, then.

MANCHIN: Well, is this a constitutional trial or is it a political trial?

CAVUTO: It looks like a political trial. Would you agree with that, that it's more a political trial?

MANCHIN: Well, when you look at basically the statements that were made 20 years ago vs. today, they can say, well, it was different. Clinton's was different.

Impeachment is impeachment. You want us to remove the president of the United States. I want to make sure that I have all of the evidence to do that, to make that decision. I want to make sure the president changes his ways of how he deals and who he has brokering for him.

I don't -- I don't agree at all, and I think it's wrong. So, I think, you know, we just -- we have got to do what's best for our country and come together in this.

CAVUTO: All right. Senator...

MANCHIN: I'm a proud West Virginian. I'm a proud American.

There's -- and it doesn't matter whether you're Democrat or Republican. Do the right thing and make sure you have the evidence and all of the witnesses that can help you make an informed decision.

CAVUTO: All right. We shall see if you get that opportunity.


CAVUTO: Senator, thank you very, very much, Senator Manchin of West Virginia.

MANCHIN: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Senator John Cornyn coming up on this, the read from a crucial senator who has enormous sway in this process and where we go from here.

Stay with us.


CAVUTO: Little bit of a comeback for stocks today, nothing focusing on impeachment, by the way, everything on the coronavirus and fears that maybe were drawn out too much yesterday, a little calmer today, just for today.

More after this.


CAVUTO: All right, we said in the beginning, less is more.

For Republicans, that was the strategy, to talk less and produce a cogent legal argument in about half the time they were allotted to go ahead and make the case that the Democratic House managers have no case.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn with me right now.

Senator, do you think too little time was given by Republicans, that they missed an opportunity to make that case even clearer? Or do you think that was just about enough?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): No, I think they did a good job.

The House managers, I think, made the mistake of allotting time to each of the managers. It's more like they weren't talking to us. They were talking to the TV cameras, and were enjoying their moment in the sun.

I thought the president's lawyers presented a concise and persuasive case.

CAVUTO: Rand Paul, your colleague from Kentucky, was very, very leery of giving an opportunity for John Bolton to testify, that he's just trying to hawk a book, sell a book.

What did you think of that?

CORNYN: Well, what I read in The New York Times that reportedly Mr. Bolton has said in his book doesn't really change the facts as we know them.

Well, we know that there were discussions about investigations and corruption, including Burisma, where Hunter Biden worked. We know there were some discussions about meetings between President Trump and President Zelensky.

But, eventually, the aid that was promised to Ukraine flowed, was paid by the end of the fiscal year, and the meeting that President Zelensky want occurred -- wanted did occur.

So, the question is, does that rise to the level of high crime and misdemeanor? And I think it doesn't. We don't need Mr. Bolton to come in and to extend this -- this show longer, along with any other witnesses people might want, and occupy all of our time here in the Senate for the next few weeks, maybe even months.

CAVUTO: So, you don't believe, if it can be verified, because we don't have proof -- it's quoting a manuscript from a third source that is quoted in The Times -- so there's a lot we don't know, sir, to your point.

But if the president did tell John Bolton that, indeed, there was a relationship between getting that information on the Bidens and aid to the country, that wouldn't be enough for you to say, let's look into this more?


As we have heard from all of the witnesses, presidents always leverage foreign aid, particularly here, where there's concerns about corruption. That's what President Obama and Vice President Biden did during the last administration.

CAVUTO: So, this would not be an impeachable offense to you?

CORNYN: That's correct.

CAVUTO: Got it. Got it.

CORNYN: It doesn't rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, stepping back from that, and witnesses in general, sir, I mean, do you get a sense that three or more of your colleagues would be open to that idea, regardless of how you feel, that there would be a push on at least a few of them?

All you need is really four to close it, maybe as few as three.

CORNYN: Well...

CAVUTO: But what do you think?

CORNYN: Right.

Well, we are having discussions. And I think there are a lot of questions. This is a unique role that we're playing. It's unlike any other court in American jurisprudence, because we're the judges of the facts and the law.

And I think senators are sort of digesting this information and trying to come up with their best answer.

But, for me, I have argued that we basically know what the facts are. That's what the House managers said. They said the facts are uncontested.

The conclusions that people draw or the inferences they draw from that evidence are different.

But, here again, I don't think, as Professor Dershowitz pointed out, that these kind of policy differences, these sort of temporary pauses in foreign aid, rise to the level of an impeachable offense, or else we're going to end up impeaching every president hereafter.

CAVUTO: Do you think there's any one of your Republican colleagues who would vote to impeach this president?

CORNYN: I'm very doubtful that that will happen.

And, of course, there needs to be a 67-vote threshold met in order to convict and remove the president.

CAVUTO: Right.

CORNYN: But what is so significant, Neil, is that, as the White House counsel pointed out, not only do they want to negate the 2016 election, where President Trump was elected. They want to bar him from being on the ballot in 2020. That's what this impeachment trial is all about.

That, to me, is a real threat to the American people's right to be heard at the ballot box, particularly here, nine months before the election.

CAVUTO: We shall see.

Senator, thank you for taking the time.

CORNYN: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: Senator Cornyn.

CAVUTO: All right, well, the question-and-answer phase tomorrow. What is legally at stake?

After this.


CAVUTO: All right, now, I know what you're thinking.

The question-and-answer phase comes next. How dramatic can that be? I hate to break it to you, but it won't be exactly what you're thinking. There's a process to this. Everything in Washington has a process.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, attorney Lisa Kuharksi.

Explain the process.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, the process is for written questions to be submitted to the chief justice, who will then read them, alternately, a Republican question to the House managers, a Republican senator's question, without saying who the senator is.

CAVUTO: But you will know whether he or she is Republican or Democrat.

NAPOLITANO: You will know from the tone of the question.

CAVUTO: But not the name?

NAPOLITANO: But not the name.

And then, alternately, a Democratic senator's question to the president's defense team.

That could go on for 16 hours. Now, it didn't in the Clinton case. They just got tired of asking questions, and it ended, and it was time.

CAVUTO: Did it go over two days?

NAPOLITANO: I don't think it went over two days, but they did order three witnesses deposed. And then they selectively read -- they didn't show videos -- read transcripts of those depositions.

And then the Senate voted.

CAVUTO: Got it.

LISA KUHARKSI, ATTORNEY: Kind of like the oral argument phase of this proceeding.

CAVUTO: And there's a time limit to it, or they suggest.

Justice Roberts had talked about a suggested time limit.

KUHARKSI: A suggested time limit.

CAVUTO: Well, what is it?

KUHARKSI: I mean, in all honesty, the time limit that he presides over will be dictated by the Senate. Again, he's not going to be able to make substantive decisions on what they're doing.

He's going to stay within the 16-hour time frame. I really believe that Judge Roberts is trying to stay out of any decision-making in this process, particularly because of what we have coming down the pike in the next two, three days after the 16-hour Q&A, when the decision comes to the witnesses.

I think this whole issue of executive privilege...

CAVUTO: So, that comes after all of this?

KUHARKSI: Yes, that comes after all of this.

CAVUTO: Does have the power to supersede what they do, Judge?

NAPOLITANO: Well, there's two ways for witnesses to be called in the president's trial.

One is -- quote -- "by the Senate." That's a quote from the rules. That requires 51 votes. The other is by the presiding officer.

So, if Jay Sekulow calls the Democrat from California whose name is now escaping me...

CAVUTO: Adam Schiff.

NAPOLITANO: Adam Schiff.

Or if Adam Schiff calls John Bolton, and the chief justice authorizes that, he has the power to do that. The only way to overrule that is to change the rules, and that would be subject to a filibuster, which would means 67 votes, which nobody is going to get.

KUHARKSI: But you're also opening up Pandora's box.



KUHARKSI: You're asking him now to decide something in chambers that puts him in the very...



CAVUTO: And he would avoid that, right?

KUHARKSI: Of course he would avoid that.

NAPOLITANO: And I think he would do everything he could to avoid that kind of...


CAVUTO: What if there are the votes right there to do that, in other words, to call for witnesses? You need four.

NAPOLITANO: Well, then it's going to open up a Pandora's box, because, if you call John Bolton, you have to let the Republicans call some.

KUHARKSI: Call witnesses.


NAPOLITANO: And so it will be back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.

CAVUTO: Guys, I don't want to jump on you, but I'm told that Lindsey Graham is addressing that very issue right now.

Let's go to this one.



SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): One witness, that's not remotely possible. And I think that'd be bad for the country.

QUESTION: Are there 51 votes right now for witnesses?

GRAHAM: You need to talk to the vote counters.

QUESTION: Fair to say that you made the point that, if there's going to be a lot of witnesses, this is going to drag out indefinitely.


GRAHAM: I just said I made the point, if you go down the road of witnesses, it's not going to be one. It's going to be many.

You will be ruling on privileges as a senator most likely. These witnesses that they're wanting now could have been called before. They should have been called. You could have litigated privilege in court, rather than the Senate having to decide legal issues.

There's a body of thought that, when it comes to deciding a privilege, it won't be the Article 3 courts. It will be the court of impeachment, and it'll be a bunch of senators.

And I think that's bad for the future of the country.

QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.

NAPOLITANO: So he's suggesting -- and we talked about this in the green room.


NAPOLITANO: There's a lot of legal thought that no federal court will interfere with this. No federal court will hear any application from anybody, including the president, because this is the highest court there is, and the chief justice is presiding over it.

But he's got to do all he can to avoid getting involved in something that he might have to rule on as chief justice across the street a few months from now.

KUHARKSI: That's the problem, right. So he has to stay out of this, because it could come down the pike.

If John Bolton is called as a witness, what can he testify to? Executive privilege will be raised. That could end up at the Supreme Court.

CAVUTO: But if it's in a book -- and we don't know this for sure, by the way, but if it's in a book and it's out in March, what's the harm in getting...

KUHARKSI: Because the book is not out. The book was given to the White House.

CAVUTO: But the book is being cleared right now by the White House.

KUHARKSI: But that's exactly the point, right? That's exactly where the leak came from.


NAPOLITANO: The flip side of this is, he can testify to anything in the well of the Senate, and is immune from any prosecution or civil liability.

That testimony is absolutely protected...


NAPOLITANO: ... whereas, if he came here and was interrogated by you or gave a press conference, he is not immune, and he could be prosecuted if he reveals secrets.

CAVUTO: I see. That's why he keeps declining...


KUHARKSI: Right, which is why the privilege was never invoked.



CAVUTO: Guys, thank you all very much for your patience with Lindsey Graham here.

In the meantime, we have not forgotten about this virus that's spreading across the globe right now -- what the Chinese are doing to contain it, and why at least those who bet money on it think they're going to succeed doing that -- after this.


CAVUTO: Air Canada is the latest airline to cancel select flights to China in response to the coronavirus.

Earlier today, United Airlines indicated that it was curtailing some flights to the region to address the declining demand.

FOX News's Steve Harrigan has a lot more on this -- Steve.

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, it's no surprise that demand is declining, when you look at some of these numbers just over the past 24 hours, the number of confirmed cases of the virus inside China jumping by 60 percent, that number now at 4,500, 100 people dead.

And it's not even clear that those numbers are high enough. There's a real shortage of some of the testing kits in China. So, the actual numbers could be even higher.

You really get a sense that the health care system is strapped and they are scrambling. They're trying to build some pop-up hospitals to treat some of those infected within one week. So there's a sense of desperation, as there are urgent pleas for safety-ware for the medical personnel, goggles and protective suits.

Now, China is doing extraordinary things to try to contain this virus. They have quarantined a number of entire cities, more than 55 million people under quarantine. It's really unprecedented historically.

But there's a question about how effective it will be. So far, at least 19 other countries have people who have been confirmed with the virus, but, so far, all the deaths inside China -- Neil, back to you.

CAVUTO: Steve Harrigan, thank you very much, my friend.

Emergency medicine physician Dr. Janette Nesheiwat joins us right now.

People panic when they hear stuff like that, and then the 60 million who are quarantined in nearly a dozen Chinese cities right now. Should they be?

DR. JANETTE NESHEIWAT, FAMILY AND EMERGENCY MEDICINE: They shouldn't panic, but it's only natural.

We should be on alert. We should be concerned, but panic, we shouldn't do. We have five cases in the United States, zero deaths. I'm more concerned right now, Neil, for the high numbers of influenza, the amount of deaths that that is causing.

Right now, what we need to do to protect Americans, to protect people, to protect the spread of this virus is strict adherence to infection-control policies. What does that mean?

We have to quickly identify suspected patients, isolate them, confirm if they have it or not, and then...

CAVUTO: Sometimes, they don't know, though, right?


CAVUTO: Because some of them have a two-week incubation period.


CAVUTO: They can arrive right here fine and dandy and then show symptoms.

NESHEIWAT: Absolutely.

It can take up to two weeks for symptoms to appear. And those symptoms, chest pain, shortness of breath, fever, cough, if you have any of those symptoms, call your doctor right away. Call the emergency room right away, because we want to prepare.

We know you're walking through the doors, we're going to quickly put you in a mask, isolate you, take a detailed history, ask, where have you been, where have you been traveling from? Or have you been in contact with someone that was just diagnosed or in that area?

CAVUTO: Now, see, that's the latest where -- right. In Germany, there's this 33-year-old man from Bavaria who never went to China, has apparently tested positive for this.


CAVUTO: And the only connection they can make is a colleague of his who worked in the office had come back from China.


CAVUTO: So got it from the colleague.

NESHEIWAT: So, sometimes, the symptoms, again, they don't appear for up to two weeks.

And the question is, are you contagious during those two weeks? That's a possibility. And so what can we do? In the meantime, take basic common caution -- common precautions. Hands, wash them clean. Don't rub your eyes. Don't rub your nose.

If you see someone's sick with the sniffles, stay away from them. And if you are sick, stay home.

CAVUTO: Well, some firms that have business in that neck of the woods, and they have workers who've just come back from China, they have been urging them, stay home. Do your work from home.

What do you think of that?

NESHEIWAT: Absolutely.

I think that's a great idea. Take every step that we can possibly take to help minimize the spread of this virus, especially knowing that it can spread from person to person without any symptoms.

CAVUTO: There's no vaccine for this, right?

Did we ever get a vaccine for SARS back in 2002-2003?


And you're right. There's no vaccine, Neil, but there's a vaccine in the works, but it's not going to come out for a few months. But, yes, we do have other vaccines in place, but it's a little bit too late.

But we're not...

CAVUTO: So, who is vulnerable? It's hitting young and old alike.


CAVUTO: It seems -- hitting a broad swathe of people.

NESHEIWAT: It can affect anyone. Anyone can acquire this -- the virus.

But, usually, people with an underlying immune disorder, diabetes, asthma, heart disease, if you're on chemotherapy. If you have cancer, you're probably more likely to have serious complications, viral pneumonia, which results in respiratory distress and death.

But it can affect anyone, any age.

CAVUTO: All right, Doctor, thank you very much.

NESHEIWAT: My pleasure, Neil.

CAVUTO: You're very calm in the middle of this crisis. We do appreciate that.


CAVUTO: In the meantime, hours away from the president's big campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, the crowds have been lining up for this event, I mean, like, early, early this morning, while it was still dark, and the place cannot hold all those who want to get in there.

The president just left the White House en route to New Jersey. We will keep you posted.

More after this.


CAVUTO: All right, looking live in Wildwood, New Jersey.

And the crowds are big hours ahead of the president -- is going to be there. That's pretty much norm right now for a lot of these presidential rallies.

FOX News' Kristin Fisher in the middle of all of that -- Kristin.


I have been to a lot of Trump rallies, but the crowd and location of tonight's rally really stands out. I mean, this is -- this is the Jersey Shore in January, which is usually a ghost town, and yet thousands, literally thousands of people camped out overnight in the cold and in the wind.

Remember, this is right off the ocean. Camped out overnight to be sure that they got in tonight to hear President Trump speak at his first ever rally in New Jersey. Hotels normally closed for the winter have reopened and are our sold out. Same for a lot of bars and restaurants, who are now offering specials, like the subpoena colada, MAGA margaritas, and impeachment punch.

And a lot of folks are enjoying those today, as we saw that in full effect. But the main reason that President Trump is coming here is to help Congressman Jeff Van Drew win reelection. This is his district.

And, remember, he is the Democrat who opposed impeachment, and a few weeks ago defected from the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans.

I just spoke to some folks that are here at tonight's rally with the Trump campaign who say they believe that Congressman Van Drew really personifies a lot of Democrats in the country, who have become disillusioned with their party over impeachment.

So, Neil, tonight, expect President Trump to really try to reach out and talk to some of those Democrats who perhaps might be convinced to cross parties. And, also, he's going to try to convince his supporters, the hundreds and thousands of them that are in this room, to vote for Van Drew in November -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Kristin, thank you very much, Kristin Fisher in Wildwood, New Jersey.

The president is due to speak there later on tonight. Let's see if he mentions what's been happening in Washington. He probably will.

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