This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 20, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: So, talking about history, the impeachment trial is now upon us and it starts tomorrow. We'll be in Washington, covering it all, but the bickering over how it's all going down has already begun.

Mitch McConnell moments ago, has laid out the ground rules that everyone has been waiting for, including 12-hour days for both sides to present their cases. That will get rolling on Wednesday at 1 PM to accommodate the justices, the Chief Justice's schedule.

Chuck Schumer says, well that means the evidence is going to be presented into the wee hours of the night when the American people can't hear it. He says that's exactly what the Republicans want. So, is the Senate majority and minority leaders hammer out these details no matter how you slice it, it's a painful process folks, painful for the White House, people for Democrats who are hoping for a do-over on witnesses, and for the 2020 candidates, they get pulled off the campaign trail during this whole thing just weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

It is also painful for Republicans for many reasons. Some want witnesses. Others just wanted to be over calling for an immediate dismissal. So, tonight, we will talk to Republican Senator Tim Scott about all of those questions. He's going to serve as one of the jurors in this trial. Also, Democrat Debbie Dingell is here to react to what is going on and what we're learning about the rules tonight. Karl Rove and Chris Hahn also here about this New York Times endorsement of Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. 
Pretty opposite in terms of the way they approach policy, so why did they endorse both of them against President Trump.

Also why is Netflix courting Meghan and Harry. But first up, Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and Fox News Contributor, and Jim Trusty, former DOJ prosecutor. Great to have both of you with us tonight, gentlemen.



MACCALLUM: Hi there. Have been ruled out, I should say. Andy, what's your reaction to what you read from Mitch McConnell?

MCCARTHY: Well, I think Martha that it's pretty much what we expected in terms of the sequencing. In terms of time, he's clearly putting the pedal to the metal maybe in a way that that is even faster than we all anticipated. But you know, it strikes me that the framers talked about impeachment in terms of how divisive it can be and what social upheaval it can cause in the country.

The Democrats at least feigned that they were pained to do this, because of how difficult it is for the country. The Republicans have been adamant that this is terrible for the country. If everybody feels that way, there is a good argument for the sooner we get it over with the better.

MACCALLUM: So, Jim, you've said since the beginning that you think that there aren't any impeachable offenses here because especially with regard to the obstruction of Congress charge. How do you think, and I want to ask Andy this question too, because I know he commented on it? How do you think that the President's team is doing so far on these questions, because a lot of them have been out there for the past 24 hours? Do you think they're doing a good job?

TRUSTY: Yes, I think so. They're hitting the sequence right. I think the starting point here has to be essentially like a motion to dismiss in a civil case. And that doesn't mean tomorrow versus at the end of the arguments. But it's something where you basically say, we don't really care what the exact facts are, because it could never be a crime. It could never be an impeachable offense.

And keep in mind, the Republicans have the benefit of looking at the plain language of the Constitution, bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. It doesn't say abuse of power in this kind of squishy stuff that we're seeing in the impeachment articles. So, I think they're in a good spot to start off pounding away on kind of a legal defense only, a constitutional offense.

Then turning to the practice in terms of how this thing got here and focusing mighty heavily on Adam Schiff and what happened below and then really in last place, but still important would be to talk about the actual facts, but they don't want to start off with the facts, they don't even want to start off with Adam Schiff. They want to start with saying, this is not an impeachable offense and they've got good precedent for saying that.

MACCALLUM: So, Andy McCarthy, do you agree with that? Because you seem to suggest that you felt like they did get a little bit into sort of arguing the case on its merits rather than that there is no impeachable offense out of the gate?

MCCARTHY: Well, yes Martha. I think Jim is right. And I think, if you looked only at the very brief submission that the President's lawyers put in over the weekend which was only seven pages and really emphasized a lot on the facts that was what stuck out to me. I detect something of a kind of an internal battle in the lengthy trial submission, the memo that they filed today, close to 120 pages, it seems to me that the first two-thirds of it does exactly what Jim is talking about which is pounding away at the point that these allegations do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

The last third of it gets into the facts of the case which is where I think there's peril for the President, because if you argue too much on the facts that helps the case of the people who want more witnesses and new documents to be called. And I think the division here is that the lawyers see their job, I think quite rightly as they need to prevail on whether the President gets acquitted of these articles of impeachment.

The President wants factual vindication. I don't think that's likely or maybe even possible to happen. He's going to have to just consent himself with being acquitted.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean what do you detect in all of that, Jim? Because I think that's pretty interesting. You know, the President likes to counter punch and there's sort of two ways to go at that. And the choosing of these members of the legal team suggests that he really wants to hear from them. 
He wants a vociferous defense of him by a number of these individuals, it looks like.

TRUSTY: Right. But you want to get back behind closed doors with the President and say look, you know right now you're in a position where you're going to win, maybe on legal grounds, maybe on a straight vote down the road after testimony. But the only way it gets better for the Democrats and to have any chance of removal is if some Hail Mary comes through by way of witness testimony.


TRUSTY: So, you know as much as the horse trading makes it different than what we're used to in criminal cases or civil cases, we can talk about Hunter Biden, we can talk about John Bolton and whether or not that's going to move the needle in any direction. But at the end of the day, there's some risk there. And so, I think you have to say, Mr. President be satisfied that you'll have a full-throated defense, you will win in terms of this not being an impeachable couple of articles or at least win on the merits.

But the longer this thing goes, the more likely the Democrats are going to at least pronounce that they found something exciting and new at his expense.

MACCALLUM: And you know with regard to witnesses Andy, do we ever see John Bolton at that table or is there a possibility that he's interviewed outside of the room and some of that is entered into this case. How do you see it?

MCCARTHY: Yes, I think Martha that if we get to the trip wire and we get over into witnesses, the best proposal will probably be what they - something like what they had in the Clinton impeachment, which is you won't be able to hold it to Bolton I think and that's even more reason to do this. You interview them outside the main trial. I think in the Clinton impeachment, there was one member of the Senate from each party present and then you can argue over what's admissible and what's privileged and all that stuff.

And after they interview them, probably a fairly short subset of snippets would be played on video in the main trial and then they can say, we did witnesses. Now let's move on to a final vote.

MACCALLUM: We will see. Andy and Jim, thank you very much. Good to see both of you tonight. Thanks for being here.

TRUSTY: See you.

MCCARTHY: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: All gets rolling tomorrow. Andy McCarthy and Jim Trusty will be involved in all of it throughout the coverage of the - I don't know, days, weeks, however long this is going to go on. Thanks, you guys.

TRUSTY: All right.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, a story exclusive with Republican Senator Tim Scott after the White House calls on the Senate to swiftly reject the impeachment charges. He's next.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, just moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has now revealed the rules for this impeachment trial that gets underway tomorrow. Among those guidelines of which there are many so-called kill switch option. That's what people are - look at this whole thing are calling it. It leaves open the possibility for the President's legal team at some point after the arguments to move to dismiss the two articles of impeachment.

Fox News Congressional Correspondent, Chad Pergram has all of this for us tonight from Capitol Hill. He's going through it all and tells us what it looks like. Hi, Chad.

Well, you know if you get through the guts of the trial. You get through the opening arguments, you get through the presentation that the House managers will make and the defense that the President's attorneys will make up, then they get into this question of witnesses and documents. And around that point is when they could consider as you put it, the kill switch.

It says on page three that other motions are in play according to the Senate's impeachment rules. There is some support for that. Once they get to that point, they've heard a lot of the evidence not to have an up or down vote by some senators maybe to exonerate the President, but just cut this off at the pass. What we don't think will happen is that early on in the process meaning tomorrow or Wednesday that there would be any process there. There's nothing in the rules that would provide for that.

So that's something that would have to happen after they answer this question about witnesses and documents.

And let history be our guide in 1999 with President Clinton's impeachment trial, there was a motion to dismiss by the legendary West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, the former Senate majority leader. The Senate voted 56, 44 to reject Senator Byrd's motion to dismiss. All Democratic senators voted to dismiss save one that's Russ Feingold who at the time was a Democratic senator from Wisconsin.

So, we don't think that they would get to that if that's in play at all until maybe the middle of next week. Now what we have here is a very compressed schedule. Wednesday and Thursday is when the House of Representatives will present its case, 12 hours and then the defense later on. Tomorrow is going to be a lot of wrangling about how they get there including the very high probability of a closed session. Tomorrow night, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Chad, thank you very much. Here now exclusively, Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. Senator, always good to see you. Thank you for being here tonight.

SEN. TIM SCOTT, R-S.C.: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: I want to play something from your South Carolina colleague, Senator Graham who was asked about the possibility of an early acquittal in this case. Watch this.



SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: There are a lot of senators who I think will wind up acquitting the President, believe that we need to hear the House's case, the President's case answer to the House's case and ask questions and then that's when the witness requests will be. So, the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen. We don't have the votes for that.


MACCALLUM: So, no early dismissal. The early stages of this are going to play out. We're going to hear both sides, right. What do you think about how this is shaping up?

SCOTT: Well, I think its good news frankly. The President has not had an opportunity to respond publicly to the impeachment process. Remember that the House went through the entire process without allowing the President to position himself from a defensive perspective. That is just kangaroo court if there ever was one. For the first time, the American people have a chance to have the President's team rebut the House's case. That is necessary for everyone to have the type of illumination on what actually happened. I think it's a very important step. 24 hours for the House to present their arguments and then 24 hours for the President's team to pick it apart. I am actually looking forward to hearing that rebuttal.

MACCALLUM: So, am I. I am looking forward to hearing all of it. When you talk about a kill switch vote Senator Scott and you hear, the look back in history with Chad Pergram that Robert Byrd of West Virginia suggested that at one point and it was - it didn't go over, it was shot down. Are you in favor of a kill switch on this whole thing and not going to witnesses, would you be in favor of that kind of vote?

SCOTT: Well, I certainly think that the witness conversation won't happen until after the 48 hours and perhaps 16 hours of questions from all 100 of us will have a chance to ask questions and then there will be a chance for a vote. It's hard to determine what will happen in that vote. It's hard for me to tell you what I'll do in that.

What I do realize is that the whole conversation about witnesses have nothing to do with impeaching the President. It has everything to do with removing at least four senators from office who are Republicans. The entire process of calling witnesses that were not heard in the House is about getting Cory Gardner to take tough votes, it's about having Susan Collins take tough votes, it's about having Thom Tillis in North Carolina to take tough votes, it's about Martha McSally taking tough votes.

The subplot to having witnesses before the Senate has nothing to do with illuminating the case of bringing more information to the surface. It has everything to do with putting those pivotal senators between a rock and a hard place and that has unfortunately nothing to do with impeachment. I do think that we should not hear from witnesses who did not testify in the House.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to hear from Mr. Bolton, she can compel him to come before the House and start the process over on a different case.

MACCALLUM: I mean she certainly have that opportunity.

SCOTT: So, they still have that power.

MACCALLUM: To push for that and they said it was going to be too long and get caught up in legal wrangling, which is pretty - if you feel strongly about it--

SCOTT: Like the whole--

MACCALLUM: Here's Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer talking about forcing votes for witnesses. Watch this.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: We Democrats aim to get the truth. And make no mistake about it. We will force votes on witnesses and documents. We have the right to do it. We are going to do it. And we are going to do it at the beginning on Tuesday. If Leader McConnell doesn't call for these witnesses in his proposal.


MACCALLUM: What's that going to look like?

SCOTT: Well, you've just got to remember, Mr. Schumer wants witnesses now, but he didn't want witnesses under President Clinton's trial. So, there is a little bit of hypocrisy there. At the end of the day, he's right. They do have the opportunity to have votes. I look forward to voting no on any witness that was not a witness during the House. It is not our responsibility as senators to help improve or expand the case.

The way that we understand the process. The House sends over a completed case and we make a decision based on that completed case. If the House doesn't like the case is sent over, then they need to do something in the House to change that case.

But our responsibility as jurors is to hear the case, not add to it, not illuminate it, not expand it. That decision is a House decision and not a decision made by the jurors.

MACCALLUM: You know you spoke about tough votes and I'm wondering what your opinion is on how many Republicans would like to hear from witnesses. How many Republican senators feel like if they go home and say, we cut that whole question off at the knees and we decided not to bring in anybody, especially in light of some of this new evidence that has been coming out and some say, it's sort of been orchestrated in a trickle out for this purpose.

SCOTT: It's absolutely orchestrated.

MACCALLUM: How many Republican senators are going to be in a tough spot if they push this through and vote to dismiss or don't want witnesses?

SCOTT: Well, there is no question that this was absolutely orchestrated. It reminds me of the Kavanaugh hearing when late breaking information came forward with no basis whatsoever. I would say that there are certainly between four and seven Republican senators who may have a strong opinion on having witnesses testify or having an individual witness testify.

There was also a case made by some of our colleagues that if we're going to call witnesses, let's make sure that we do it with the concept of reciprocity in the front of our minds. In other words, if we call to a House witnesses, we should make sure that the President has a chance to call two equal witnesses. It does get into a quagmire pit, because each state that I talked about, the politics in each state is very different.

I hope we focus on the truth and the truth of the matter is the House put together such a shoddy case, did not allow the President to respond to that case. And in America, you are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. And there was no criminal intent as a part of the impeachment documents, there's so many challenging aspects of this case that it breaks my heart that we are putting the President of the United States on what is basically a death row trial for the circumstantial evidence that we've heard so much about. It's heartbreaking to watch the Democrats just trash the Constitution in so many ways and to do it with personal venom.

MACCALLUM: Senator Tim Scott, always good to see you, sir. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.

MACCALLUM: We'll be watching.

SCOTT: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: As you are a juror in this trial. Thank you. So, the White House legal team is slamming impeachment today as a "brazenly" political act by House Democrats, very much along the lines of what you just heard from Senator Scott. Up next, Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Dingell responds to that charge when THE STORY continues. Stay with us.



MACCALLUM: Do you think that you know she prays that the President will succeed?

CHRISTINE PELOSI, DAUGHTER OF SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: I think that you can never stop praying for success. I think that you can't pray for a political outcome one way or another. And you know as it's often said, it's not whether or not, God is on our side, it's whether we're on God's side. You have to pray for the love in your heart and the strength to go get what you want and hope that that ends up in a successful way and that includes the President, that includes all of us.


MACCALLUM: Christine Pelosi on her mother's often cited prayers for President Trump. Now Senator Lindsey Graham is blasting Speaker Pelosi on that ahead of tomorrow's historic formal start of the President's impeachment trial.


GRAHAM: To my friends on the Democratic side, I like Nancy Pelosi, I've known her for years and I think she is a very religious person. But when it comes to Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi may pray for him privately, but she's orchestrated the Church of Holy Hell from the time Trump has been sworn into now has been one thing after another.


MACCALLUM: Here now Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, Co-Chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. Congressman Dingell, always good to see you. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL, D-MICH.: To see you. What do you think about that? What do you think about Lindsey Graham's comment there?

DINGELL: You know Lindsey is a friend and he tends to be colorful, but I'm going to tell you something. I'm Catholic woman. Just as the Speaker is. 
And I was raised by nuns. I went to boarding school for a very long time and quite frankly when things were hard at home, it was the nuns that made me who I am today. So, I understand what the Speaker is saying. And I pray every night for the country, for the people that are leading it, for all of us. And what you want is good somehow to come out of it.

So, I think he got to be very careful to separate state and religion. And I do believe her when she says that she is praying. I think she's praying for the country. And I think we all are. I'm worried. You've heard me talk about it all the time about how divided we are. So, I think we can pick our fights and talk about substance without attacking somebody because of their religion.

MACCALLUM: I mean I think you know when people see sort of the signing ceremony and the high five with Bill Maher, they think that some of that is disingenuous which is exactly why I asked Christine Pelosi, do you think that that when she says that and I think this is about a bigger picture that she wants - that she's praying for the President's success.

You know I think as a nation, we've gotten to a place where you wonder if there is at least across the board people in whatever form they do this wanting the President to be ultimately successful. And you know when you look at the White House legal brief, I'm just going to show you a bit of this, their fixation meaning Democrats on damaging the President has trivialized the momentous act of impeachment to base the standards of impeachable conduct and perverted the power of impeachment by turning it into a partisan election year political tool.

And then the Democrats have said, the President Trump's engaged in a trifecta of constitutional misconduct warranting removal. So, these two sides are pretty dug in, Debbie. So, how do we get to some place where people can feel like justice has been done here?

DINGELL: It worries me every day, because I'm home again and I'm seeing the division just in my district. And people really strong feelings. You should have been stronger before. You've got that even going into the Coney Island, the red hat on a man who started screaming at me and telling me what you know, how wrong I am.

We've got to find a way to come together. And I want to tell you something that I - even when the President made remarks in a moment of something that hurt in December, I will never not be grateful that when John died, he called me. And I want that -- I respect to the office of the president and we all need to respect the office of the president. But nobody is above the law.

So, I think this is a really hard time for a lot of people as you struggle protecting the Constitution. Three branches of government, our democracy, how do you hold people accountable? How do you say the next president can't do what's happening now? It's not OK. But how do you keep our country together? And I think all of us need to be worried --


DINGELL:  -- at how divided we are as a nation.

MACCALLUM:  I think a lot of people are very worried about it and I hope that we can get to the other side of this and start to put things back together. But I do think also that people feel like, in some ways, that your side of the aisle has been how to get him since day one.

You know, you look at Maxine Waters, you look at Al Green talking about impeachment literally days after the impeach -- after the inauguration. And you know, what do you say -- what do you say to that?

DINGELL:  I would say that unfortunately throughout our history we have had far rights and far lefts after people. I certainly was not somebody that was out to get him from the beginning. As I've mentioned several times, Tom Steyer bought 40 ads against me because I wouldn't come out for impeachment until that President Trump and the inspector general said we've a problem. It's serious, urgent and danger to our national security.

But you know, voters need to be engaged on both sides. And their voters represent everybody. They've got to be engaged and they've to vote and they've got to stand up and say, we've got to stop this hate.

MACCALLUM:  Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, it's always good to talk to you. And I thank you very much for coming on. I hope you will join us again as we get through these next few weeks hopefully together across the board. Thank you very much.

DINGELL:  Thank you.

MACCALLUM:  Always a pleasure.

Coming up next, we got breaking new details tonight on the legal action taken by Lev Parnas against Attorney General Bill Barr.

Plus, Karl Rove and Chris Hahn on why front runner Joe Biden can't seem to get his party on his side.


MACCALLUM:  So former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas is demanding Attorney General Bill Barr recuse himself from a case he is fighting involving charges of funneling foreign money into U.S. political candidates.

Correspondent David Spunt has that story for us tonight. hi, David.

DAVID SPUNT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Hi, Martha. Lev Parnas and his team believe that Bill Barr, the attorney general presents a clear conflict of interest. Parnas and an associate were arrested at Dallas airport just outside D.C. on October 9th with one-way tickets to Europe.

The two men have ties to Ukraine. Parnas a close associate of the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani is accused of funneling money from foreign governments and U.S. candidates hoping to buy political influence. Parnas is also accused of trying to persuade Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden.

Now Parnas and his team want a special prosecutor at the helm, arguing that Attorney General Bill Barr is simply too close to the case. They sent a letter to the attorney general, faxed it to him and his team at the Department of Justice this morning.

Technically, Barr oversees U.S. attorneys prosecuting Parnas. While his case is in the Southern District of New York, Barr is at the top of the Department of Justice. Now Parnas and his team they believe that Barr, since they say that he is a part of the president's impeachment probe and matters related to Ukraine, he cannot independently be effective.

I want to read part of the letter from Parnas' team to Barr. It says, quote, "Due to the conflict of interest of you being involved in these matters as Attorney General and in an effort to preserve the public trust in a rule of law, we request that you recuse yourself and allow the appointment of a special prosecutor from outside the Department of Justice to handle this case."

Parnas has had numerous times in interviews, Martha, he is prepared to be called as a witness for the president's Senate trial underway tomorrow. I reached out to the Department of Justice, the team there declining to comment on Lev Parnas' request, Martha.

MACCALLUM:  Thank you, David. Also, tonight, the New York Times endorsing not one, but two candidates for president, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are the editorial board's picks to take on President Trump. Perhaps more telling is who they did not choose and why.

Quote, "Bernie Sanders would be 79. After an October health attack his health is a serious concern. Pete Buttigieg who is 38 has an all-star resume, we look forward to him working his way up. Mr. Biden is 77, it's time for him to pass the torch," they write, "to a new generation of political leaders."

Joining me now, Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff under President George W. Bush and Fox News contributor. And Chris Hahn, former aide to Senate Chuck Schumer and syndicated radio host.

Boy, Chris, you know, Joe Biden, all he keeps doing is, you know, landing on top in polls but he can't seem to get any love from a lot of places. Not from former Obama staffers like David Axelrod, and certainly not from the New York Times.

CHRIS HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:  Yes. Look, He is having a tough time with some of the big institutions. But it seems like the people still want to vote for him. At least that's what looks like in the polls.

Look, the endorsement of Elizabeth Warren helps Joe Biden because it cuts into Bernie Sanders support somewhat. But of course, the endorsement of Amy Klobuchar cuts against him, because they might be competing for the same block of voters.

I get what they say. And there is a battle going on in the Democratic Party. between the people who want to turn the whole thing upside down and moderate progressives who want to keep things moving forward but don't want to completely to up turn the system.

Look, the Republicans went with a disrupter last time. I wonder if the Democrats are thinking the same thing and that's something we're going to find out about a week and a half.

MACCALLUM:  Which one -- which one do they want, though? I mean, it's ridiculous. It's like, you know, like Ben Shapiro said, breaking news, the New York Times picked the chiefs and the 49ers to win the Super Bowl, Karl.

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Well, I hate to say it, but I sort of agree with Chris on all of this. I would say I have one slightly different view is, I don't think the Amy Klobuchar endorsement hurts Biden as much as it hurts Buttigieg. If you are for Biden, you are for Biden.

And whether the New York Times endorses somebody else or not, then the Biden people don't care. But Amy Klobuchar, we've not got a bunch of people around the country who said, a star in the bates, now she's got the New York Times endorsement, let me find out a little bit more about her.

HAHN:  Yes.

ROVE:  So, I think this generally tends to her more Buttigieg and, you know, undecided than it does Biden.

MACCALLUM:  Yes. But, Chris, I mean, you know, just back to the basic point that they can't seem to make up their mind. I mean, usually an editorial board gets together and they write an editorial piece about why this person is what the country needs at this moment. Right?

But these two people have completely divergent views on how they should be handled. You know? I mean, Elizabeth Warren wants to tax everybody, a lot more from corporations to individuals up and down the chain. Also, you know, do Medicare for all, all of that. Amy Klobuchar has a totally different take.

HAHN:  Yes. Look, I think I agree. I think the editorial board should pick somebody. I have said a couple times today, I think this is a bit of a cop- out going both ways because the party is divided. Like I said in my first block here, the party is divided. The party hasn't made up its mind to where it wants to go. Does it want a disrupter or like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or it just want to go the moderate route? So, we'll see.

And the New York Times is trying to have it both ways, a little from column A, a little from column B. And the voters have to make the choice next week, starting next week. And I think it's going to be a very difficult choice.

But I do agree what Karl said, he is probably right about Buttigieg being particularly hurt by this.


HAHN:  They call out him out on his age, they call him out on that. They call, you know --


MACCALLUM:  I think his age --

HAHN:  -- Biden out on his age as well.

MACCALLUM:  I don't think age matters.

HAHN:  Yes, there's a little bit of like, you know, there's like a zone they're creating here.

MACCALLUM:  You know, Karl, I mean, what do you think about that? Like, you know, they crossed up the two guys off the top of the list because they're too old and the other one they throw up that guy because he's too young.

ROVE:  Well, we've now -- we've now learned something new, 77-year-old Joe Biden is too old. But the 70-year-old Elizabeth Warren represents a new generation of rising young leadership.

HAHN:  Right.

ROVE:  I mean, I agree with -- I agree with Chris, I'm not going to make this a habit, but I agree with Chris. This was a cop-out. This editorial started off by saying --

MACCALLUM:  Ridiculous.

ROVE:  -- there are two strategies. One is Democrats who believe that the country can return to normalcy --


ROVE:  -- and others like Elizabeth Warren who believe that the political and economic systems are, quote, "so rotten," end quote, they must be blown up.


ROVE:  So, they did make decision. And as a result, they made themselves both laughable and less influential in this process.

MACCALLUM:  I mean, it's the one place who you're supposed to have an opinion at the New York Times and they don't apparently have an opinion --

HAHN:  Yes.

MACCALLUM:  -- they like to be. So, we'll see where it goes. Chris, let the people decide. Chris and Karl, great to see you both. Thank you, guys.

ROVE:  Thank you.

HAHN:  Nice to see you.

MACCALLUM:  So, rapper Kanye West bringing his Sunday service to a Christian event build as a Jesus awakening. So why are the organizers being slammed as anti-LGBTQ crusaders. THE STORY investigates that next.


MACCALLUM:  Yes. That's not what it was supposed to sound like. It sounds great in the break. We'll get it when up and going again.

Kanye West spreading the message of his Jesus is King album. Here it is, that sounds better, right. At an event in Arizona over the weekend called awakened 2020, a free prayer rally described as, quote, "the first epic Evangelical stadium event of the decade."

But the rapper was criticized for being there and for participating in it after some of the other headliners and event organizers were described as anti-LGBTQ crusaders for their stances on homosexual -- homosexuality and the Equality Act.

Joining me now is event organizer, Dr. David Herzog, founder of David Herzog Ministries. Good to have you with us this evening, sir. Thank you for being here.

Thanks for having me on.

MACCALLUM:  So, what do you -- what do you say to that, where there are people who are participating in this who are anti-LGBTQ?

HERZOG:  Not that we know of at all. In fact, the whole movement was about love, peace, joy, unity. We had so many people from every walk of life. We had gay people there, we had Atheist. We had every race. We had the president of the Navajo Nation, government officials, you know, it's a secular -- ASU University. It was -- it was awesome.

So many reports we're getting from people there like, man, my life is changed. I feel so happy. People that were drug addicts. So really the message if you listen to every speaker, every single one was love, joy, peace unity that Jesus loves everybody regardless of who they are, their background.

And people like Brian Welch from Korn was there. Like his life was completely changed by Jesus. Kanye's was changed. And so, if God can do that with those people, he can do it with anybody. And that was really the message that people from it. And that's what we're getting from all over. 
Really exciting, just news that people are like, this is awesome, do it again, you know.

MACCALLUM:  So, I mean, obviously there are detractors. This is a quote from the Phoenix New Times.

HERZOG:  Sure.

MACCALLUM:  It says, "much like his love for President Red Hat, he is choosing to boost the signal of people who are propagating hatred against communities that have supported him for years and inspired and shaped his art and fashion."

I mean, there is no doubt that, you know, this change in his life has created some friction with people --

HERZOG:  Sure.

MACCALLUM:  -- who only like the old Kanye.

HERZOG:  Yes. Well, any time a superstar says, I believe in Jesus and I want to just live my life for God and live where, you know, live a good way. Yours is going to have -- yours is going to have haters in any side. Anyone that has a major change in their life, they are going to l get haters.

So, no matter what you do, it's going to be like that. You know, it happened with Brian Welch as well from Korn 10, you know, 10 or so years ago. When he changed, they couldn't believe it. Korn? From the rocker of Korn?

And so, it's an awesome testimony of the love of Jesus that anybody from any background who gives their life to Jesus and just say, Jesus, I'm not perfect, but change my life. You know, I need God. I need you. Because there is a spiritual awakening happening in America. It was like that in the 60s.

You know, there was the hippie movement, that the culture of, you know, drugs, rock and roll, all that free love, free sex kind of thing and then in the end of 60s and the 70s there was something called the Jesus movement. And the ones that were getting changed were those actual same hippies that the culture was like, what's going on?

And now in our modern day it's a spiritual awakening in America where even though as you would never think of --


HERZOG:  -- are giving their life to Jesus. Who would've thought the Kanye's, the Brian Welch's?


MACCALLUM:  I mean, there is always criticism about people who are part of something when you have a huge event like this, I think of the Women's March.

HERZOG:  Sure.

MACCALLUM:  When the conservative groups were unhappy that they weren't allowing or welcoming pro-life people to be part of the Women's March.


MACCALLUM:  So, you know, it's -- there are some similarities in some ways.

HERZOG:  Sure.

MACCALLUM:  Good to have you here, Mr. Herzog. Thank you very much.

HERZOG:  Thank you so much, Martha. It's great being on the show.

MACCALLUM:  You bet. Thank you.

So breaking news tonight on new additions to President Trump's legal team. Stick around, that's next.


MACCALLUM:  Well, the legal team for the White House just got a lot bigger. Adding a number of names to the list. Let's take a look at them. We've got Jim Jordan is on the list and others. Mike -- Doug Collins, Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows. He will be our guest tomorrow night. John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, and Lee Zeldin, all added to the legal team at the White House, so, more to come on that.

Also, tonight, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's decision to step back from the royal family, now a sharp severance following an agreement with Buckingham Palace. The couple will no longer use those royal titles. I'm sure you've heard that. They won't represent the queen or profit from their royal duties.

Prince Harry also had to give up his military titles after serving in Afghanistan and taking a prestigious title that was handed to him very ceremoniously. All of that, poof, gone. They are going to have to pay back the $3 million they spent on the renovation of their home. Also, pretty sharp rebuke from Queen Elizabeth. She wasn't too happy about all that.

Here is the duke of Sussex this weekend speaking out.


PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX:  The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly. It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges. And I know I haven't always got it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option.


MACCALLUM:  Joining me now to read all, unread all this, Neil Sean, a U.K. 
media correspondent. Good to see you tonight, Neil.


MACCALLUM:  You know, I thought it was interesting, you know, that he said that there was just no other option, and that he made it sound like they had been struggling over this for years. They have only been married for two years, right?

SEAN:  Yes, that's right. The problem is, Martha, really is simply this. Harry has never been totally comfortable in royal life believe it or not. But I think this is been accelerated since he got married.

And what happened really now, particularly in that speech, when you read the full speech, there's a bit of a sideswipe to her majesty, the queen. Because he's basically saying, look, you know, this wasn't really my final decision. We know what your decision was. You wanted it all your own way. And her majesty said, the royal monarch felt, no, you're not. So, I think she's woke up the woke prince. And of course, his wife felt, wow, and they are not happy at all. Let me tell you.

MACCALLUM:  Yes. I mean, I thought it was pretty amazing that, you know, Frogmore Cottage will still be in the family but they have to pay back the money that they used to renovate the whole thing. So that was just an obvious I thought, you know, slap on the wrist for all of the money that they spent on that.

I also thought it was interesting. He said in here in that same speech on Saturday, he said, but I hope it helps you understand what it had come to, that I would step back from my family from all that I have ever known, he said. You know, but I think a lot of people just still scratch their head, like, you know, what exactly did it come to? What was so horrible? What really did ultimately prompt this do you think behind the scenes?

SEAN:  I think, you know, basically, there's a lot of in fighting. The royal family, you know, whatever we talk about them is a soap opera, Martha. You know, you and me both adore them as you know.

MACCALLUM:  That's for sure.

SEAN:  And you know, there is a pecking order. The bottom line is this. You cannot have William and Catherine who are great, you know, king and queen in waiting. But you can't have them doing all the hard graph and then having, you know, someone from suits popping back and doing a premiere (Inaudible). It just doesn't work like that. There's a hierarchy --


SEAN:  -- that works. And Harry is further down the line. And I think, you know, in fairness, Meghan probably didn't understand how the intricacies of royal life work. And that really was a slip down. I think the removal of the military was another thing that's really going to hurt --

MACCALLUM:  Absolutely.

SEAN:  -- Harry and I think she is going to have to deal with it herself. 
That's going to be a big challenge for Meghan.

MACCALLUM:  I was struck by how similar this whole thing feels to, you know, Edward the VII and Wallis Simpson. You know, he marries the American divorcee, right?

SEAN:  Yes.

MACCALLUM:  And then, they just decamp, essentially, and he gives up his title. I mean, he was going to be king, but in this case it's the rest of his titles.

SEAN:  Yes.

MACCALLUM:  And they end up sort of tromping around the country and staying in people's fancy houses and being, you know, guests of honor at lots of parties. Is that, you know, is that the kind of future you envision or something different?

SEAN:  You know, my take on this is this. I think that there's a great part in this, Martha, where they've had a year to sort of make it work. That's how long Prince Charles is going to fund it. I think it was not working before a year. I think someone would advise him. If not, you know, there he says, one person might be returning back, maybe two, or maybe just one person alone.

There's not a lot of faith in the marriage here across the U.K. right now. 
I think, you know, Meghan has got her challenges with Harry and I think Harry has got his challenges to live beyond the royal bubble, as it were. 
And it's going to be a very tough time. A lot of similarities as you rightly said. We hope that it's a happier ending than really that particular story because it didn't work out too great.


MACCALLUM:  And we might be able to watch it on Netflix.

SEAN:  Yes.

MACCALLUM:  So, Neil, thanks. Always good to see you. That's THE STORY --


SEAN:  Always a pleasure.

MACCALLUM:  -- of Monday, January 20th, 2020. But as always, the story goes on and it's a big one. We'll see you live tomorrow from Washington, D.C. as the impeachment trial begins. Good night, everybody. Tucker is up next.

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.