Will impeachment trial negatively impact Democratic senators in 2020 race?

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," January 17, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST, "TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT": Just 14 percent disapprove. Imagine that. Avoiding far off wars is popular. You can win an election on that. We'll be back Monday. Have a great night. Sean Hannity is next.

(MUSIC)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Hi, welcome to "Hannity". Tonight marks the end of yet a major week of accomplishments for the president and the Trump administration. Two historic new trade deals, a record-setting economy, major progress on the border wall, safety, security, and prosperity for all Americans. Nobody can dispute any of this. None of it matters to today's radicalized Democratic socialist party. Today, the president summed it up perfectly during an event with college football national championship LSU. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Just told the coach we don't normally do this but I'm doing it for this team. Anybody would like to come with me to the Oval Office, we'll take pictures in the Oval. It's a special place. We will take pictures behind the Resolute Desk. It's been there a long time. A lot of presidents. Some good, some not so good. But you have a good one now.

(LAUGHTER)

Even though they are trying to impeach the son of b****. Can you believe that? Can you believe that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Democrats know the president will be vindicated at the end of the Senate's trial. They don't care. They are more interested in finding an outlet for psychotic anti-Trump rage, tried to bloody the president up so it hurts him running in 2020. On Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi -- all smiles, there she is, literally signing off on her B.S. partisan impeachment articles, handing out commemorative gold pens with her autograph on them and taking -- well, pictures with anybody who wanted them. It was her crowning and only achievement basically as House speaker. That very same day Democrats tried to derail the Senate impeachment trial with a last-minute smear campaign disguised as important new evidence. The exact same tactic they used, remember, against Brett Kavanaugh. Did the same thing. Now, by the way, new evidence said that Joe and Hunter were innocent and that the prosecutor that was investigating zero experience Hunter was corrupt. Oh, that's new evidence? Oh, great. Glad they determined all of that right before their very eyes. And that night, the left anointed a brand new savior. This is Michael Avenatti 2.0, a man out on bail charged with felony campaign finance fraud and hiding -- get this, you can't make it up -- a million dollar payment from the country of Russia. Like I said, Avenatti 2.0; 254 appearances for Avenatti in one year. Just like their love affair with the currently imprisoned attorney, Democrats and the mob are willing to overlook massive credibility issues. Run with it, because that guy, yes, who's being charged with serious crimes, Lev Parnas, feeds into their anti-Trump hysteria. Same people who are lying to you then are lying to you now. Same cast of characters. Now, we'll break this down in detail coming up. And, of course, we're just beginning to scratch the surface of this week's jam-packed news cycle, and yet somehow, fake news CNN, they found time to spend an entire day whining about Republican Senator Martha McSally. How dare she call one of their reporters a liberal hack, when they are liberal hacks? One idiot called it a chilling attack. The mob and the media, they're so sensitive. Democratic allies truly live in this alternative reality. But buckle up, because -- well, if they get their way, well, in the come days, it will only get worse. In the days and weeks ahead, they want to drag this country through the mud and now the president has a chance to fight back, finally. He has now assembled a legal team to represent his case in the Senate, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone; along with the president's personal attorney, that would be Jay Sekulow; former independent counsel Ken Starr who conducted the investigation that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. Starr is joined by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and two other experienced lawyers. We know about Robert Ray and Jane Raskin. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz will also play a vital role, leading the constitutional oral arguments against impeachment. The president's legal time will easily destroy the Democrats' two bogus articles of impeachment.  Because this entire impeachment charade is nothing but a political smear campaign, Democrats -- well, they're going to try and drag the trial on for as long as humanly possible. They want to slow-walk this sham Schiff show and build the intensity and insanity so they'll have a major crescendo of conspiratorial drama. So, they're going to try to enter into evidence -- well, new things. They're going to try to demand that new witnesses testify. They're going to try and demand that new investigations based on new evidence, magically turns up at the last second, be introduced from the guy that is indicted. They're going to do anything and everything to derail the president's forthcoming acquittal. But their Achilles heel is none other than this guy, the real quid pro quo guy, quid pro quo Joe. And, of course, his son, zero experience Hunter Biden, who made millions and millions and millions from a corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company, all while his father was spearheading the Obama administration's policy on Ukraine. Vice President Biden even leveraged a billion of your tax dollars in order to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, son of a B., he did. Why did he want the prosecutor fired? He was investigating his zero experience son. What company would ever pay somebody millions if they have zero experience? None. Any of you ever get that deal? Now, that is the very real corruption, the very core of this impeachment charade. Democrats, if you want to draw this out, go down this road, well, now, it becomes a very dangerous game. And the Senate is now officially the new Schiff sham show. And, by the way, just like the Russia collusion hoax and the Kavanaugh smear and every other con job from the radical left, the Trump-hating left, we know how this story will end. Complete vindication. Joining us now with more, two people who will play a very important role in the upcoming trial, including the author of "The Case Against Removing Trump", Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Good to see you both. Pam Bondi, let's start with you. Let's get a preview if we can of what you see, how this all goes down when it begins on Tuesday.

PAM BONDI, SPECIAL ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, Sean, and it's an honor to work with all of these great people, and I can tell you, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, they were ready to go a month ago. They are ready to go last week. They are ready to go today and next week. We're ready to get this behind us because, as you said, the president has done absolutely nothing wrong. If they had articles of impeachment of an alleged crime, they should are been presented in the House. If the president was a clear and present danger, really, that should have been sent over prior, way prior to Christmas. Remember Pelosi's comments. Yet, they held it because they have nothing and they still have nothing. So, what we are going to have here, Sean, is a fair trial. And we're very excited to put this behind the president, get this behind him as soon as possible because he did nothing wrong. They have sent over the flimsiest of flimsy evidence if you can even call it that. And so, I think this is going to go very quick. And I think it's going to be put behind the president, because, as you said, while he is signing the China deal, one of the greatest deals in our lifetime with China, what is she doing? Signing the impeachment articles and giving out ceremonial pens? That's shameful. That's nothing. Trying to impeach a president should not be a day of joy and celebration. It should be somber and, frankly, shameful for all of them.

HANNITY: Professor Dershowitz, I know you're going to do -- deal with the constitutionality of this. Constitution is clear about the specific role that it's solely in the House's power, their realm to impeach. They've done that. Now, they have House managers chosen. They will present their case. Trials to be held in the Senate. We have -- the presiding judge will be the Supreme Court chief justice, John Roberts. Question is, why do some Republicans want to somehow do the House's job if they didn't do a good job which we know they didn't do a good job and this is a nothing case?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, "THE CASE AGAINST REMOVING TRUMP" AUTHOR: Well, my job next week will be to present the constitutional case against impeachment. A case that I've been presenting on your show, in two books and 25 articles. I will not deal with the nitty-gritty of the facts and whether there should be witnesses or not. But just from a personal point of view, the Constitution approach, which was suggested in prior impeachments, was always to have the facts presented to the House of Representatives, cross-examination, you then get a report. And the report is what's put on trial. The one thing that's critically clear is that if the Democrats are allowed to call witnesses, President Trump's lawyers will have to be allowed to call witnesses. And they're going to determine initially whether the witnesses are relevant. On CNN all day, they've been saying today that Hunter Biden wouldn't be relevant. But, of course he'd be relevant if witnesses were called because the issue is, was he corrupt? Did the president legitimately have an interest in ferreting out corruption, including the corruption of Hunter Biden? So I think if the Democrats begin to open the door, they will regret it. Also, it will put the trial off for months, maybe even longer than that, because they're going to call Bolton. Bolton will want to testify. The president will invoke executive privilege, and then, the Senate will have to take that case to court. And the court will have to decide either on a blanket way or question by question way whether or not Bolton has the right to answer these questions. Remember, he doesn't get to make the decision. It's made by the president in the first instance and then the courts.

HANNITY: OK. So, John Bolton says, well, it's the president's executive privilege.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

HANNITY: He gets to invoke it. The president said he will invoke it, by the way, like all prior presidents have.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right.

HANNITY: You know all the instances, even in the Obama years. So the question is and he says, well, I want to testify anyway, that would then have to be litigated separately, Professor?

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely. Now, there are two ways you can litigate it. One, you can make a motion to the chief justice. I think he would defer to the Senate. And then the issue, if the Senate votes, they will probably agree that it's executive privilege. Then, the Senate probably could take it to the courts and seek to have a redetermination in the courts. But, it would take forever. Remember, the Democrats said the reason they didn't bring the Bolton subpoena to the courts because it would take so much time. Now they want to do it again, which will make even more time and postpone the Senate trial for possibly months until they get a definitive decision from the United States Supreme Court. So, they're trying to have it both ways.

HANNITY: Pam, where do you weigh in on the witness issue and the executive privilege issue? Because those are now front and center, and I do agree with the professor, there's got to be reciprocity here. If we're going to have witnesses, I'd like to hear from the congenital liar, Adam Schiff. I think he's compromised in this case. I would like to hear from the non --

BONDI: Hunter Biden.

HANNITY: Hunter Biden. Do you know any company in Florida when you were attorney general that paid people millions of dollars that had absolutely serious experience? I've never heard that.

BONDI: Absolutely -- no. Absolutely zero experience.

HANNITY: Professor Dershowitz never got me that gig.

BONDI: Absolutely zero experience, Sean. And, you know, Professor Dershowitz is, of course, right on this. You know, first of all, this should been handled in the House, it wasn't. They punted. They want the Senate to do their dirty work. Now, they can't get a redo and that's what they're trying to get in the U.S. Senate. But, you know, executive privilege is very important, not only for President Trump but for every future president.

HANNITY: Sure.

BONDI: Can you imagine if that got waived for every future president when national security issues that that just could be said and talked about all the time? It would be horrible for country for centuries to come. So, I doubt that's going to happen. If it does, though, and if they want witnesses, bring it on because we're going to have plenty of witnesses to call. If they want witnesses, we're going to have them, too.

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: The reason I have agreed to do this over the great objection of some of my family members and many, many friends -- one of my relatives today wrote to me and said, will you please change your last name? The reason that I agree to do this --

HANNITY: I think Alan Hannity sounds pretty good. You can take mine.

(LAUGHTER)

DERSHOWITZ: The reason is because I'm concerned about future presidents. This will weaken the presidency if this is a precedent. It will make impeachment a weaponized tactic to be used any time a president who's controversial faces a House that has a majority on the other side. That's not what the Framers had in mind. I will lay out the debates over the Constitutional Convention. Lay out what happens, why the Framers picked these four words -- treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors, four concepts. And hopefully, my goal is to persuade some Democrats. I'm a Democrat. I want to persuade some Democrats that this is not an impeachable offense and have them vote, not to impeach and not to remove the president.

HANNITY: All right. Professor Dershowitz, former Attorney General Pam Bondi, thank you both. Now, the ongoing impeachment sag a go will have major negative ramifications for the upcoming election, I don't believe for the president. Now, several Democratic candidates are now being dragged off the campaign trail in the height of the primary season in order to attend the Senate's trial. You got socialist Bernie Sanders complaining that he would much rather be in Iowa. Sanders, along with his good friend, you lied about me, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Amy Klobuchar will now have to spend their time in Washington, D.C. at their day jobs. The longer the Senate trial lasts, the longer these three candidates will be off the trail. And for what? President Trump will be acquitted, vindicated, articles of impeachment are bogus. And, recently, former congressman and prosecutor, Trey Gowdy, pointed out the president's single best piece of evidence is the transcript of the very call in question. Joining us now to explain, FOX News contributor, Trey Gowdy. Well, we know what we have. We have the transcript. More importantly, they never talked about aid in that call. Would you do us a favor because, you know, we hear about election interference. And separate and apart from Russian interference, we know Ukrainian court determined so, "Politico" wrote about it in January of 2017. So, my question is, how do you see this going down? And where do you see legally the best arguments for the president?

TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, he's going to be acquitted. The question is, how many Republican senators are caught in crossfire with multiple votes about witnesses? You know, Sean, I never thought this was about removing Donald Trump from office. I think it's about removing Cory Gardner, and Martha McSally and Joni Ernst. The very best piece of evidence President Trump has is the transcript itself. We don't need to know how anybody else felt that was on the call. We don't need to know what they thought. We have the transcript. It was the second call between President Trump and President Zelensky. If President Trump were really hell-bent on conditioning aid on investigating the Bidens, why did he not bring it up in the first call? Not a word in the first call. The second call is because Rick Perry wanted him and bugged him to call Zelensky again. Need you to do us a favor. Who is us? Well, he answers the question -- our country has been through a lot. Who brought up Rudy Giuliani? It was President Zelensky, not President Trump. Who brought up Bill Barr and in what context? And I'm sorry, Sean, but if it is an impeachable offense to the have attorney general of the United States call about potential evidence or impropriety, then God help every president hereto come because your A.G. is going to be in a lot of trouble.

HANNITY: What's your thoughts on the obsession of Lev Parnas, you know, basically 2.0.? That a foreign minister of Ukraine said, don't trust this guy. We don't trust that guy. And he's being charged by the Southern District of New York, campaign and finance regulations, and trying to hide a billion -- a million dollar payment from of all countries, Russia. But yet, he's the new Michael Avenatti.

GOWDY: Yes. Well, the new Michael Cohen or the new John Dean -- yes, the Democrats are on a roll now with either calling convicted felons or people who are about to be convicted felons. Look, I actually watched the interviews. The headlines are much more dramatic than the interview. The headline picks out one of his four answers to the same question. So, take Mike Pence. Did Mike Pence know about it? Absolutely he knew about it. Then three seconds later, well, it's improbable that he didn't know about it. And then three seconds later, well, it's possible. That's great if you're picking out a headline for "The Hill" or "Politico". It's a lousy witness if you're calling them an impeachment hearing. So, if you're going to call Lev Parnas, if you're going to call him and make his credibility, his believability an issue, then let's call 20 people who have an opinion on whether or not you should believe Lev Parnas. And now, we're up to, what, 21 witnesses? I mean, you can do that -- you can do any witness that Schiff wants to call. Then Republicans have the right to say, you know what, the credibility, believability of this witness is at issue. Let's call a bunch of witnesses that have an opinion of whether or not you should believe him. It could go on -- it could go on past the election, if they want to play that game.

HANNITY: What about the two issues we're talking about with Pam Bondi and Professor Dershowitz?  That being, of course, executive privilege, and this whole issue -- the Constitution is clear. This is your wheelhouse. You're a former prosecutor. And the Constitution gives the sole power to impeach to the House. They have impeached him. Now, make your case, why would Senate Republicans want to try and do the House's job when they have failed pretty spectacularly in my opinion?

GOWDY: They shouldn't. And I hope my -- I hope my friends on the Republican side will ask Adam Schiff, why should we call witnesses that you didn't think were important enough to call yourself? If Mike Pompeo was an indispensable witness, why did you not call him, not to go to court, not sort out privilege? On the issue of privilege, Sean, every privilege that exists keeps you from accessing information -- priest-penitent, doctor-patient, attorney-client. Every privilege keeps from you accessing information. But we value the relationship more than we do the information, which is why we have privileges. If Adam Schiff wanted Mulvaney and Giuliani and Pompeo and Bolton, he had months and months to go to court and get a ruling that they had to talk. He didn't want that. He wants Cory and Martha and Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis to vote on these witnesses. He knows he's not going to get a conviction. He wants to take the Senate so the second Donald Trump term beginning in 2021 is neutered because Chuck Schumer is the majority leader. If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, nothing can share you, Sean.

HANNITY: Well, yes, I wonder -- what do they want to do then? Put another 13 million Americans on food stamps? They want to bribe the mullahs with more money in Iran? Good point, Trey Gowdy, thank you.

GOWDY: You see the new -- yes, sir.

HANNITY: Go ahead, sir.

GOWDY: Well, you see the new ploy is that Pence -- is that Pence was involved. So, how about we get rid of Trump and Pence, and I wonder who's in third in line for the presidency? Let me think for a second. Oh, yes.

HANNITY: Yes, that's very -- that's called the nightmare, you know, horror show --

GOWDY: Armageddon.

HANNITY: -- version. Kind of, sort of like that. Thank you, Congressman. When we come back, Senator Martha McSally calls out fake news CNN in a huge way yesterday. And the fake news network, they're outraged. Senator McSally, she's not apologizing nor should she. She's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

HANNITY: Animosity between the fake news media and conservatives is now reaching a fevered pitch. Last night, we played tape of Senator Martha McSally shutting down a fake news CNN reporter. In case you missed it, it's a good moment. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Man, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.

REPORTER: You're not going to comment?

MCSALLY: You're a liberal hack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Following the exchange, fake news CNN was thrown into an unhinged meltdown. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow, if you can't answer that question, maybe you shouldn't have been elect you had to the Senate. But, oh, sorry, Martha McSally actually wasn't elected.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It just demeans the office.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her behavior was disgraceful.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If hey did the right thing, she would personally call you and say, I'm sorry, it's an awful, awful thing that she did.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's harmful to democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unbecoming.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a nice word.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the very least, at the very least, that's what it was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they tell the news media to go away, they are telling you at home to go away. When they won't answer your questions. that's not about us. It's about you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Here with reaction, Senator Martha McSally. Senator, I applaud what you did. I'm going to tell you why. They lie daily. They lie constantly. They went for three years, all in -- Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia. Russia.

MCSALLY: Right.

HANNITY: A breathless hysteria. Daily, every second, minute, hour. They got so much wrong. And they're so sanctimonious that I actually think in their twisted brains they think they're a news channel. They're not a news channel. They're state-run, radical, leftist, socialist TV. So, you're saying, I'm not answering your liberal question. Good for you. I don't blame you.

MCSALLY: Thanks, Sean. Yes, their response has just been ridiculous as you saw. I think there was also another clip where they said something like, I can't imagine anyone ever voting for Martha McSally. My response is, why would anyone ever want to watch your channel unless they're trapped in an airport in a blizzard? I -- it's been amazing to me.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Fox needs to fix that. We need to be in the airports.

MCSALLY: Yes.

HANNITY: You go in an airport, you're stuck -- now, foreign countries are stuck with them. I'm like, wow, I would want -- they must think we're a country that we're not if you're watching them.

MCSALLY: I know, and, Sean, I actually thought they understood that they were liberal, that they were a part of kind of helping with the Democrat agenda. On a daily basis, you see whatever the Democrat talking points are, are the talking points in the liberal mainstream media, as you know. And I thought they were aware of it, but somehow, they just, you know, they checked their journalism objectivity at the door. What's fascinating in response is, it seems like they actually think they're neutral. They think they're objective. And that is more troubling. It's just delusional how they have responded to this. You know, never mind their hyperbolic words about thinking who he did she just have a bad day? Was she emotional? No, I was a fighter pilot. This was a choice I made. I did not crumble under their pressure. I have flown A-10s in combat. I decided to call a liberal a liberal, and for whatever reason, they couldn't handle it.

HANNITY: Senator, good to see you. Good for you. And I'm glad you're not backing down. All right. It's a sad moment for fake news when Jake Tapper actually had to call out the Democrats. I've got to give fake Jake some credit here and his fake news colleagues for taking the words of Lev Parnas, the new Michael Avenatti, as gospel. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: We can't ignore -- Parnas has a serious credibility problem. He's under indictment for campaign finance charges. The foreign minister of Ukraine told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that he doesn't trust the word Parnas is saying. And yet I see people out there in social media, Democrats acting as if this guy is the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Second -- good line. And, by the way, you did forget that he also is now being looked into, taking a million dollars and not reporting it to Russia. Then you got Lawrence O'Donnell -- I met Lawrence O'Donnell over at the conspiracy channel MSDNC. He's a nice guy. He revealed how the fake news media truly and in many ways believes all of this nonsense. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL FRANKEN, PODCAST HOST: CNN, which is sort of -- we're playing it down the middle, except we hate Trump.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: No, they don't. One-third of the people on their payroll love Trump. So, you're guaranteed on any hour of CNN to minimum, one third of the programming will be supportive of Trump. Someone on their payroll saying here's why Trump's right.

FRANKEN: Yes, well, they bring someone on to do that.

O'DONNELL: Yes. They used to have --

FRANKEN: But their hosts don't do that.

O'DONNELL: Their host don't but their -- but, you know, that's why -- it's one of the reasons why Trump kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC --

FRANKEN: Sure.

O'DONNELL: -- because he knows on MSNBC, there will be no one defending him because we don't bring on liars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: No one defending him. Everyone is a liar. Oh. Wow. Sweeping with a broad brush there Lawrence? Maybe ahead of yourself in n the hyperbole department. Anyway, he hasn't seen the tape of CNN's star reporter, that would be fake news Acosta yesterday. He was making a total fool of himself in a sad attempt to play gotcha with the president. By the way, Lawrence, we hope you are watching.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know. I never had a conversation that I remember with him. I certainly -- let me just tell you, you just have to take a look at the polls -- quiet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: All right. Here now with reaction, "The Hill's" Joe Concha, media observer. How wrong on a scale of 1 to 10 were fake news CNN and MSDNC the conspiracy channel when it came to Russia?

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER FOR THE HILL: Well, you are don't have to ask me, Sean, you can just look at the Mueller report and see there was no collusion between Russians. We were told Mueller was the bible.

HANNITY: They're technically wrong. For almost three years, right, nonstop, breathless, we got him, we got him we got him. OK. So, the next question is how much of the abuse you have power let's see, dirty dossier, premeditated fraud on a FISA court, lack of candor, Comey and McCabe, the Clinton -- oh, subpoenaed emails destroyed, how much of that coverage did they get right?

CONCHA: Well, remember, Sean, that the dossier that you speak of would not be in the public domain if not for "BuzzFeed" and not for CNN. Every news outlet in Washington and New York was pitched that dossier and every other news organization rejected it with those two exceptions, and that's how we got to the FISA warrants that you're talking about. So, they are partly responsible for the Russia investigation happening.

HANNITY: Is it any different what we saw Michael Avenatti got 254 appearances in a year? Do you see the same thing play out with Lev Parnas, and, oh, wait, this is it, this is brand new information? A guy that is well under indictment for a number of things.

CONCHA: Yes. And you played Jake Tapper before and good for Jake being for not following the hive for the sake of following the hive's mentality. I mean, Lev Parnas is an extremely credibility challenged person, right? He is basically a bad Michael Avenatti sequel, he's the "Caddyshack" two of potential of impeachment witnesses. Everything he says should be treated as gossip, and not gospel, and we've gotten to a gospel already. And, again, you would think after Avenatti, that we wouldn't go down that road. But now, we are seeing it. But I think the American people know what's up, and that's why you see a press, a media that has a fracture of the influence that they used to because no one trusts the messenger anymore.

HANNITY: All right. Joe Concha, thank you. When we come back, things are getting vicious and nasty between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. We'll explain. Plus, we sent our own Lawrence Jones to Austin, Texas, to see what's going on with the homeless crisis in that state's most liberal city. Hint, it's just like San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, and Baltimore, where Lawrence has previously visited. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right. As the 2020 race barrels ahead to the Iowa caucuses, the feud between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, is showing no signs of calming down. Leading the former Vermont governor to say, Bernie is willing to play dirty in an attempt to, quote, "Hillarize" Warren. Squabble, well, could open things up for Joe -- quid pro quo Joe with Democrats reportedly no longer believing his campaign will self-destruct even though quid pro quo Joe continues making unbelievable gaffes like thinking Robert Beto Bozo O'Rourke is Latino. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Going to be Latinos in my cabinet. And I guarantee you, there are going to be Latinos in my White House. And both of them are qualified.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Well, one person who seems to be taking notice of all the turmoil in the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton, who appears to be leaving the door open yet again to jump into the race. Listen carefully to what she says in the trailer for her new docu series about, who else? Herself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: As long as she has been in public life, there have been these ups and downs. You know, be our champion. Go away.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: If you want to make a difference, you want to have an impact -- well, then, you've got to get in the arena.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: All right. Joining us now to react to all the 2020 political news, FOX News contributor Charlie Hurt, House Judiciary Committee member, Louie Gohmert. All right, Congressman Gohmert, I don't see anybody and I'll quote Van Jones and Al Sharpton -- they didn't see anybody in that debate that can beat Donald Trump. Now, you've got the impeachment, the Schiff sham show has now gone over to the Senate. So, we've got to go through this nonsense. Then, you got these weak candidates. Who do you think emerges? Who would be the toughest if any for Donald Trump?

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): Well, you remember 2016, the DNC and the Clinton campaign worked together to prevent the same Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. It sounds like they are trying to prevent that and Warren - - they're going it prevent these senators from having a shot at getting the nod from the DNC. And look at the impeachment, they're talking about this -- the Democrats are talking about adding witnesses to drag it out. Who does that keep from getting the nomination? Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, keeps them tied up, gives a better shot to poor -- low energy Joe, and also maybe if Hillary wants to get back in, it will help her again.

HANNITY: What about this exchange, Charlie Hurt, that took place after the debate the other night? You know, you called me a liar. Well, one of them is lying because one says it happened. The other says it didn't happen. Clearly, the fake news CNN moderator sided with Warren.

CHARLIE HURT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. And as I recall, I think they both called one another liars. But -- and it was kind of funny because, of course, it was the most interesting part of the debate. And it occurred after the debate was over. Yes, no, I think that what we're seeing right now and I think what we're seeing right there is the fact that Elizabeth Warren realizes what the rest of the Democratic Party realizes, you know, the party poobahs and what Hillary Clinton probably realizes, which is all the energy is with Bernie Sanders. And I think that Mr. Gohmert is exactly right. I think that DNC will do everything in their power to do what Hillary Clinton did last time. They are going to -- and if it goes to a brokered convention, they'll bring back Hillary if they have to. Anything -- they'll do anything to keep Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. I don't agree with anything Bernie Sanders says. But, he got screwed the last time. They stole the nomination from him last time. And the reason they don't like him is because they -- and, again, I don't like him but or anything he stands for --

HANNITY: OK, but there's not --

HURT: -- but they can't control him.

HANNITY: There's not -- there's not a dime's worth of difference between frankly the two of them. Let's just go back to that moment, again, you're right, the most interesting part of the debate when the debate ended. Watch.

GOHMERT: It was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SANDERS: No, let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Anytime.

SANDERS: You called me a liar. You told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't want to get in the middle. I just want to say hi, Bernie.

SANDERS: Yes, good, OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: OK, not exactly a friendly moment. Louie, I can see you having that moment. You know, I'm -- but, seriously, not much difference between them.

GOHMERT: No. There really isn't. There's not much difference. I mean, you know, let's face it, Bernie is a Marxist and even taking his honeymoon over there, and there are lots of Marxists in the Democratic Party, but they don't want the public to realize that.

HANNITY: What do you think? How does this end up, Charlie Hurt?

HURT: And the other part of it though, this is where -- I think that two candidates are different. Bernie Sanders actually believes in all of this stuff. He is a dyed-in-a-wool communist and he has been his entire adult life. Elizabeth Warren is a faker. She's a fraud. Everything she says is a lie. I don't -- I'm not saying that she doesn't believe some crazy things. I think she probably does. But I think that that authenticity is why Bernie Sanders has that sort of momentum within the Democratic Party. And it's pretty scary that that's our opposition party.

HANNITY: All right. Thank you both. Pretty interesting times. All right. Up next, the "Hannity": investigative report. Liberal cities in crisis. Every liberal city run by liberals for decades, guess what, they are the worst cities to live. In that includes the one liberal city in Texas known as Austin. We sent our own 2020 correspondent on the ground, Lawrence Jones, to see what's really going on in the capital of the Lone Star State. You will want to see this, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: So, now, not only are Democrats in Washington attacking the rule of law on Capitol Hill, they are also continuing to cripple our major cities, for decades, liberal-run cities with their liberal, radical, socialist, weak-on-crime policies. We recently sent our own Lawrence Jones, our 2020 correspondent on the ground to Austin, Texas, to explore the worsening homeless crisis there like in L.A. and San Francisco and Chicago and New York. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAWRENCE JONES, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Austin, Texas, is known for its great food and live music. The capital of the Lone Star State was recently voted the number one place to live in America for the third year in row, but Austin has a growing problem. Like so many other big liberal cities around the country, Austin's homelessness crisis is spiraling out of control. Do you believe that there is a crisis in Austin, a homeless crisis?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe there's a crisis in Austin, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have a lot of homeless people in Austin, Texas, just like they do in California.

JONES: Is it as bad for you here? You see feces on the street? Needles, drug use? So, tell me what have you seen since have you been in Austin?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of homeless people, a lot.

JONES: Back in June, Austin City Council members lifted a ban prohibiting camping in city and public places, and that created an influx of homeless people sleeping in downtown sidewalks and under the highway overpass. Robert, how did you end up here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because in Houston, they throw in jail for being homeless. Up here, they don't mess with you.

JONES: So you came from Houston to Austin because they don't mess with you in Austin?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They don't. They leave you alone. The cops give you water. They give you food. It comes from everywhere because everybody knows they don't mess with you here.

JONES: So, would it be safe to say that Austin has created an environment that is friendly to the homeless population.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

JONES: So, how long have you been in Austin?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thirty years.

JONES: And this homeless crisis, when did it come here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It has always been here to a certain degree. I mean, it just recently really kind of showed its ugly head. I think the last two years, it's gotten really as progressively gotten worse.

JONES: When you say worse, what do you see?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are seeing camps like we have across the street. Every underpass downtown is full of 60 to 80 folks living under the underpass. They are on the street aggressively attacking citizens, panhandling.

JONES: The liberal city leaders and Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott haven't seen eye to eye on how to fix the homeless crisis in Austin. In fact, the Republican governor has had some harsh criticism for the Austin City leaders in the recent months for their failure to tackle the crisis.

GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): The city needs to realize that their ordinance that they have passed are creating a community danger to all involved, not just us but the homeless themselves. It just is a breeding ground for drugs and violence.

JONES: A recent fatal stabbing at the hands of a homeless man at an Austin shopping plaza has only magnified the issue, prompting the governor to tweet, quote, when all facts are revealed, I bet you will learn that the killer was a homeless man with prior arrests. If so, Austin's reckless homeless policy puts lives in danger to murders like this. Austin leaders must answer for their perilous policies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He went to a bus table, you know, a little cart where dirty dishes are. He picked up a coffee mug and he took the mug and slammed it into the back of my best friend's head.

JONES: He then leaves from the scene, goes across the street to Freebirds, and stabs two people?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He got a knife from his pack, apparently. He stabbed one man to death. He stabbed another man who is still seriously injured.

JONES: Governor Abbott has had enough. In the wake of the stabbings, he has directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to increase patrolling in the downtown area. What you have seen so far affects you coming back to Austin?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Probably.

JONES: If it continues to be a problem, do you leave Austin?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man, unfortunately, I have, again, been here 30 years and love this city with all my heart. I have so many memories. If it gets worse, you know, I have talked to my family about that issue. Yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: All right. Here with reaction, author of "Witch Hunt", "New York Times" bestseller, FOX News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett, along with "Wall Street Journal" columnist, FOX News contributor, Kimberley Strassel. You know, Kim, we have now sent Lawrence -- we have sent to San Francisco twice. People shooting up all over the place, defecating in the streets, urinating all over the place. It's a mess, Oracle pulled out $60 million worth of investment time that they spend there. Then you have L.A., we have gone to L.A., then we have been to Chicago. Then, we've been to Baltimore. Here's my question. Big cities, all the same pattern. They have the most crime, most drug use, and liberal policies have done, what, for the people?

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, and here's the thing that they also have in common -- huge homeless problems which are of their own making. And that's the thing that makes the Austin story so sad, is that homelessness is real. It's a problem. But there are cities that go about it in a better way and cities that go about it in a failed way. And Austin looked out there and it purposefully chose to mimic the actions of L.A. and San Francisco. They legalize panhandling, legalize staying on the street, legalize camping. And this didn't become an issue overnight. It became an issue for Austin in a space of weeks. So there is your direct connection. The policies are what causes the problem.

HANNITY: I got to be honest. I look at all of this. They are not helping people. It was amazing in San Francisco where all of this is like centered, all the drug use, all the urination, all the defecation. It's made it unlivable for the residents. One mile in one direction is Nancy Pelosi's multimillion-dollar gated community and a mile in the other direction is Nancy Pelosi's office. I don't see Nancy Pelosi going to her millionaire friends and saying, hey, why don't we help these people that desperately need help and build a shelter and get them food and drug counseling and a bed and clothes or whatever they need, showers?

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Nancy Pelosi -- Nancy Pelosi doesn't really care. I mean, you know, she spends most of her time in Washington, D.C. trying to impeach President Trump. Meanwhile, the city that I used to live in, San Francisco, once, you know, pristine and beautiful and clean is now a filthy mess, unsanitary conditions, needles, defecation on the streets. And homeless people everywhere and it's not just a health danger, it's a public safety issue as Lawrence's story in Austin just pointed out those are stories in homeless encampments everywhere, stabbings and murders. And, you know, I agree with Kimberley, there are some cities that have done it correctly. They have passed ordinances. They make it illegal to live out on the streets in public parks if there's available shelters. And the problem is in many of these liberal cities, they are not creating the shelters to put the homeless in. And one can only conclude that they just don't care enough.

HANNITY: All right, guys, thank you both. When we come back, a big announcement about the FOX News Channel, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right, unfortunately, that is all the time we have left this evening. Before we go, exciting new changes to the lineup on the FOX News Channel. Starting Monday, our very own Bill Hemmer taking over the 3:00 p.m. hour, "Bill Hemmer Reports." Ed Henry will be co-host of "America's Newsroom" alongside Sandra Smith, usual time, right after "Fox & Friends," 9:00 to noon. And congratulations to all of them, good friends, great colleagues. They do a great job. As always, we do thank you for joining us. And, by the way, we hope you will set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "Hannity." We will never be the hate-Trump media mob. Buckle up for next week. A lot to go, and we will be -- 298 days on Monday away from you having the final say. Let not your heart be troubled. Laura is next. Have a great weekend. Buckle up, busy week next week.

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.