chad, thank you very much. good to see you. that is "the story" off monday january 27th, 2020. but this story is going on, we will see you back tomorrow at 12:30 for our coverage and 7:000 tomorrow night. tucker is up next. >> did you just do a shameless plug? i will go. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." guess what is going on? guess that the impeachment trial

continues this hour, the legal team currently speaking. we will dip and live if anything newsworthy happens. think back to 2016. donald trump used to recite a poem about a woman who took a dying snake into her house and nurse dates back to health. the snake to become healthy and then whipped around and bit the woman, as she breathed her last breath, the woman asked to the snake, wide did you do this? because i am a snake was the reply, that's what we do. all of which somehow reminds us of disgraced security advisor john bolton. republicans in washington shocked to discover that john bolton has betrayed his former boss president trump. but they should not be shocked. that's who john bolton is. that's who john bolton has always been. that's what john bolton does. and not to brag, but we called it long ago. last year "the new york times" reported that john bolton's book design sections for impeachment. accusing the president of delaying military to ukraine to pressure the government into investigating hunter biden.

again, people in washington seem stunned by this or claim to be. if bolton dislike trump so much, why did he join the administration? the answer is simple. bolton wanted war with iran, he has always wanted war with iran, he is obsessed with it. here he is gleefully looking at change there long before he became a national security adviser. >> i have said for over ten years since coming to these events that the declared policy of the united states of america should be the overthrow of the mullahs regime in tehran. and that's why before 2019 we hear will celebrate in tehran, thank you very much. >> tucker: in tehran! but iran was not the only target. and when and more war in syria and venezuela. one of the war in afghanistan to continue until your great grown children are to old to serve. and he wanted war with russia!

lots of it. in 2016 bolton cited russia as one of america's greatest that's the limit threats. for bolton, every conflict was the final test of americans resolve and a chance to use military force. maybe because he never served in the military himself, bolton passionately loved war. in the end he did not get it. trump locked him at the brink of more than one conflict. he finally left in well-deserved humiliation. bolton's resignation was one of the highlights of the president's first term. the celebration for normal people everywhere. but not in america's newsrooms. the media were sad to see john bolton go. they love wars. wars mean they can move tanks around on the screen and talk about weapon systems. so suddenly for the first time they love to john bolton. what i hear hero he was. >> bolton is something different, he was one of them. he is not prone to just lying. >> and you have to give him the benefit of the doubt on credibility, because the

president to serve zero. >> it did feel like we were mocking time and this was becoming a planned acquittal. and yet we have a perry mason moment. >> who are you going to believe? donald trump or john bolton? you could believe probably a dead frog more than you could believe trump at this point. >> bolton is a lot of things, but able to be painted as the deep state actor is not one of them. so good luck with that. republicans can now exhale and acknowledge that the earth is round and that donald trump is corrupt. they can rely on a man who is a republican version of justice scalia. a conservative conservative. >> tucker: a conservative's conservative says a liberal. the only thing john bolton helped conserve was beyond stock prices. he did a good job there. the conflicts are not conservative, they are just the opposite of that. they are a big raise in the middle class is dying. that seems obvious to you. it is not obvious here. in washington, productive wars are a virtue not a vice.

just ask mitt romney, one of the biggest champions. over a week ago and the senate, romney made an big lament noise about testifying to the public. the whistle-blower who will not be named? i'm not sure, not really necessary. but john bolton, mitt romney would love to see john bolton testify before congress. keep in mind that bolton was once a senior correspondent advisor to romney's doomed presidential campaign. and they are still friends. >> i think the story that came doubt yesterday is increasingly apparent that it is important to hear from john bolton. i think it is very fair to say that john bolton has a relevant testimony to those who are sitting in impartial justice. >> tucker: will john bolton testify? who knows? either way will change the outcome. if trump will be acquitted. it is a stupid sideshow. we will be embarrassed by it later. but if they can think about john bolton himself for a moment anyway, how did a guy who

disagree so completely with everything donald trump ran on an won on, how did he wind up in a position of power in the white house? good question. because he is not the only one. doug mcgregor, retired u.s. colonel, author. colonel mcgregor, what do you make of john bolton's term? >> first of all, i am impressed with washington, d.c. there is no other place on the planet where a man who could not be confirmed for the job as ambassador to the u.n. suddenly overnight is transformed into the minister of truth in the paragon of virtue to listen to. this cannot happen anywhere else but washington, d.c. the second thing what is really disturbing is something that you mentioned earlier. this is someone who probably is the most strident advocate of use of military power everywhere that we have ever had in the white house. certainly in the job as national security advisor. this from a man who announced

very bravely to the american public in numerous publications that gosh, i did not see any point to serving in vietnam, because by the time i might've been over there, gosh, the war was probably over anyway. so i saw no point and found a place in the national guard. >> tucker: the irony coming from someone who is espoused in troops in places long beyond the publication of victory. >> absolutely, and clearly he was fired principally, not just for the broader issues of iran, venezuela, syria and so forth, but because he spoke publicly and said that libya could be a good model for north korea. at a point in time when the president of the united states was building a policy to defuse the conflict, the crisis, the war, and to the war on the korean peninsula. that is a great tragedy. and finally president trump said that is enough. >> tucker: i wonder, what any sane person say libya that went from a dictatorship, for sure, to a place of total chaos where

there are markets in the capital, would anybody look at libya today and say, we need more of those? >> probably hillary clinton said she was the principal force behind it. but i'm sure john bolton would've been happier with hillary clinton, certainly more satisfied with george bush then he served with donald trump. and here's the final tragedy, everyone knows donald -- excuse me, everybody knows that mr. bolton has strong views. nobody questions out. everybody knows his advocacy for wars in many places. and yet, somehow magically he got the job. and then manage to keep large numbers of people i in the national security council staff who are all committed anti-trumpers and to bring in new anti-trumpers. in. he thought he was president. and that's ultimately what he meant. >> tucker: it seems like from

his behavior he was working undermine the president while he was there. this does not seem a departure from what he was doing for the last couple of years. >> oh, no, no, no. absolutely. he is in line with the four stars that brought the president over to the pentagon sliding down the tag and said, we will straighten him out. we will explain him why none of these wars could end. why we have to have troops everywhere. that is john bolton. this town is full of people like john bolton. the only difference is that bolton did not even bother to disguise it. he walked in actively subverted, tried to replace donald trump's policies with his own. the tragedy was that he was there so long and did so much damage. a >> tucker: there are so many people in this city who have mae fortunes pushing these wars. and i really hope that we take time on the show to expose them. they deserve to be exposed. thank you so much for coming. congressman debbie lesko represents arizona, also a member of the president's defense team. congresswoman, thank you so much for coming on.

what would you say if you could boil down today to a theme for the president's defense team, what would it be? >> well, that the president did nothing wrong and there is impeachable. the house did not prove their case at all, and that the senate should acquit him. and i think that is a bottom line of everything. there is nothing impeachable. and all of these calls for witnesses are just wrong, because the house could have called the witnesses themselves. they chose not to. they did not subpoena john bolton. and now they are claiming that they should talk to them. they should have done their job in the house. >> tucker: mitt romney who is a republican from a contiguous state, utah, senator, is now saying that john bolton should be a witness at the trial. what do you think of that? why do you think senator romney would say that? >> i think might romney has some sour grapes, quite frankly. i don't know him personally. i have not talked to them recently, but that is my guess. >> so, you said that the theme

tonight for the course of the day was the president did nothing wrong and should be acquitted. but is that an open question? i think the rest of us watching this or are likely not watching it with the assumption we know the ending. which is acquittal. is that even in doubt? >> i don't think it is in doubt. but i think it is wise for the president's legal team to prove their case. and they prove the case that the house had the burden of proof. they did not even come close to approving any evidence of impeachable offense. that all it has been is a bunch of rhetoric, fluff, and really all it is by the democrats, and it has been all of 2019 is to influence the 2020 election. that's what all of this is about. that is nothing to do with the truth or anything else, it is about taking back the power. >> tucker: i think they are doing that. bernie sanders has been rising in the polls. that's not what they intended when they started this all. they intended to boost joe biden. but it has not helped one little bit.

maybe something they regret in the end. finally, do you think it would be interesting for the rest of us to hear from hunter biden? >> i think it is interesting to hear from hunter biting, but it does not need to be done in the impeachment trial. i would advise against the senators voting for more witnesses. because that really just plays into the democrats hands. all they want to do is prolong this and they want to muddy up the presidency. they have tried to do it for years now to impeach him. and that's what they want to do. this is the whole goal. their whole goal is not about impeachment. they know that he is going to be acquitted. they are trying to influence the 2020 election. they are trying to drag this out as long as they can. and quite frankly, it would not surprise me if the house does other articles of impeachment up until the election. >> tucker: out. i don't think it will work. congressman, thank you so much for coming. we appreciate that. >> thank you. >> tucker: we will continue to monitor the nonsense ongoing in

the senate. the legal team speaking. we will take you there life as warranted. but first -- ♪ [sirens] while, the coronavirus, incubated in china for some unknown period of time has escaped china is getting worse by the day. more than 80 people are dead so far. that is the official number. could be larger. thousands of cases confirmed. at least five of them here in the united states. again, this is an illness of an incubation period of two weeks. so there could be many, many more. so far, and this is a fascinating part, travel to and from china in the united states remains completely unaffected. a tiny citizens, even people coming directly from wuhan, the place where it started can travel to and from the united states whenever they want. bizarre. during the sars epidemic 20 years ago, canada failed to shut down flights from canada toronto. and there was a flight that

killed thousands. singapore banned flights from canada. amazing. so are we risking something like that today? marc siegel is a fox medical contributor. he joins us right now. a doctor, thank you for coming on. you don't want to be alarmist about this, but it sounds pretty serious and i am struck by the fact that nobody seems to be talking about a travel ban, why? >> you know, tucker. i will get to that. but i want to say that i've been studying contagions for a really long time. and i've never seen anything like that spread to the amount of suppression from the chinese government. now they are coordinating off seas. the fact that this bar and we don't know how contagious this is or how deadly it is. the world health organization has yet to call this an international emergency when 1.5 billion people in china are already involved. and then to your point about the lack of the true travel ban and the fact that people are going back and forth semifreely. and if you do quarantine entire cities, by the way, people try to escape the quarantine. and to get hysterical and spread

more virus. a shining light in the darkness is our center of disease control here. and they have looked at 110 cases already, found five. all of whom have traveled from wuhan, and ruled out 32 cases that did not have it. they are teaching us as we don't know how contagious this is. i am very proud of our own government cdc. not what is going on in china, which is really reckless and really, really scary. >> tucker: it is scary, and i guess the most obvious question is the chinese government providing our center for disease control with all of the information that it needs to make informed decisions? >> i've reason to believe that that is still not true. i will tell you why. how the numbers are suddenly skyrocketing. fern months there was word coming out of china that people were getting sick from a strange illness. and people were dying. are they really on all of the death certificates, the virus. do we know people that had this? or do they think they had the flu? we don't know if this is more contagious or deadly than the

flu. we need to know that. we are studying these five people very, very carefully. but that's what should've been done in china from the beginning. and it wasn't. i am positive that there are thousands and thousands of cases that never came to light here. >> tucker: given that we know, and it is no surprise that the chinese government is lying about a matter of life and death, as they have so many times before. corporate america wealth and wine if we shut down travel to and from china, but if you are acting in the public best interest, when it to you do? >> i want to make the point and you know welcome the state department is saying that we will stop trips to china, you can go if you have an essential reason to go. but here is for the viewers need to know. you can get there and it is also according to the state department, china can say that you can't go back. you can't leave. we are not letting you out. we are afraid that you might have the wuhan coronavirus. so i would tell everybody, everybody unless they absolutely have to to stay out of china. and i'm not trying to say, by the way, that all parts of china are equally affected.

that is not my point. but you could go there and they could decide, whoops, now you're in the area we are worried about and not let you go home. >> tucker: as he pointed out in the first sentence, we just don't know, because it is a dictatorship that lives for a living. terrifying. i know we will see you again >> we need to know how contagious and find out the next way to wellness. >> tucker: thank you doctor. we have a fox news alert for you. the president's legal team speaking at his impeachment trial at this hour on capitol hill, alan dershowitz is at the microphone. he said "i voted for hillary clinton and it would've made the same argument for her that i am currently making for president trump." let's listen in. >> justifying impeachment is the manner by which the word incapacity, focus on the word, incapacity was treated. madison and others focused heavily on the problem of what happens if a president becomes incapacitated.

certainly a president who is incapacitated should not be allowed to continue to preside over this great country. and everyone seemed to agree that the possibility of presidential incapacity is a good and powerful reason for having an impeachment position. but when it came time to establish criteria for actually removing a president, incapacity was not included. why not? presumably because it was too vague and subjective a turn. and when we had an incapacitated president, at the end of the woodrow wilson second turn he was not impeached and removed. a constitutional amendment was carefully drawn with safeguards against abuse was required to remedy the problem of a president who is deemed incapacitated. another reason why incapacitation was not included among impeachable offenses, because it is not criminal.

it is not a crime to be incapacitated. it is not akin to treason. it is not akin to bribery. and it is not a high crime and misdemeanor. the framers believed that impeachable offenses must be criminal in nature and akin to the most serious crimes. incapacity did not fit into this category. nothing criminal about it. so the constitution had to be amended to include a different category of noncriminal behavior that warranted removal. i urge you to consider seriously that important part of the history of the adoption of our constitution. i think that blackstone and hamilton also support this view. there is no disagreement over the conclusion that the words treason, bribery, or other high crimes, those words require criminal behavior. the debate is only over the words "and misdemeanors." the framers of the constitution were causing the that the word

misdemeanor was a species of crime. the book that was most often deemed authoritative was written by a blackstone in britain. and here is what he says about this in the version that was available to the framers. a crime or misdemeanor is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either for betting or commanding that the general definition includes crimes and misdemeanors which properly speaking are mere synonymous terms." "mere synonymous terms." he went on in common usage, the word crimes is made to denote such offenses of a deeper or more atrocious dive while small faults and omissions of less consequence are under the general term of misdemeanors

only pretty pointed out that misdemeanors were not always so gentle. there was a category called capital s demeanors where you stole somebody's pig or other fowl, you could be -- it was only a misdemeanor, not for a felony, but there were misdemeanors that were capital in nature. moreover blackstone wrote to that parliamentary impeachment is "a prosecution of already known and established law presented to the most high and supreme court of criminal jurisdiction, and delegates to the great court he observed that a commoner could be impeached, but only for misdemeanors, and appear impeached for any crime, any crime. this certainly suggests that blackstone said misdemeanors were a species of crime. hamilton is a little less clear in this issue, and not surprisingly, because he was writing in federalist number 65,

he was writing not to define what the criteria was for impeachment, but he was writing primarily in defense of the constitution written, and less to define its provisions. but he certainly cannot be decided in favor of criteria such as abuse of power or obstruction of justice. nor of impeachment vote along party lines. he warned that to the greatest danger, these were his words, the greatest danger was that the decision could be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties then the real demonstration of innocence or guilt." >> tucker: alan dershowitz, formerly of harvard law school. bringing you any key portions of the impeachment trial life. while official washington has spent the last week breathlessly waiting over a ridiculous impeachment article that we are and you know. something newsworthy and remarkable is happening in the rest of america. bernie sanders became the democratic front runner. we did not think that was going to happen.

he had a heart attack. he is 77 paired with one week to go before the iowa caucuses, and newly released amber simple says he is up nine points in the first contest of the nominating process. the biggest lead in iowa for any candidate in the last two and a half months. it is real. after i wised new hampshire on february 11th. new pulling in that state shows sanders up seven points. and a sudden outlier poll, sanders is ahead of every poll in new hampshire by the last two weeks by an average of eight points. historically candidates who win the their first two primaries become the party's presidential nominee. but wait, you can almost hear cnn saying, and they will. iowa and new hampshire are in cordially white states. they are not representative of the new democratic party. okay, the third contest is in nevada, now nevada, with the primary electric heavily hispanic. so how is bernie sanders doing there? he has more risen within a single point of joe biden and is still rising. it is pretty clear whether you like it or not, that the momentum is with bernie sanders.

as of today he could easily be there presidentia democratic prl nominee. that is a big deal, not at least for the people that control the democratic party. despite superficial similariti similarities, joe biden and pete buttigieg, and elizabeth warren, are not unlike bernie sanders. he will not just -- or seize guns for a mean old purple republicans in rural america, but the love for the democratic donor class, because they do not cost them anything. they are free and they get to feel virtuous. bye bernie does not plan to stop there. he has bigger ideas. he intends to up and america's economic war. that is bad news for a lot of us. but it is especially bad news for the liberal finance establishment and the tech world, which has been richer than any group in history over the last 20 years. democratic donors hate and fear bernie sanders for that. so they put up their p.r. department to attack him.

first cnn, head of the p.r. department and the liberal establishment, teamed up with a worn campaign to denounce sanders as sexist! they base this on a single improvable allegation from a year outside the conversation. if anything that attempt was counterproductive and was too obvious, and dumb and ham-handed like everything they do. but they kept trying. a headline in "the daily beast" sums it up "democratic operatives scramble to find a network to take down bernie sanders." if you lived through the 2016 campaign, that may sound a little bit familiar to you. bill kristol tried the same thing in the republican primaries four years ago. how did that work? donald trump is now the president. the lesson? it is not easy for a bitter establishment dinosaurs to crush a political insurgency. and you think the ruling class would have learned that very simple lesson the last time they tried it. on the republican side, but no, they have not learned it. now they are attacking broadcaster joe rogan? why? for the crime of getting sanders

a half-hearted endorsement. rogan who is one of the most popular podcasts in america infuriated the establishment and "the new york times" by saying this on his show last week. >> i think i will probably vote for bernie. but him as a human being when i was hanging out with him, i believe in him. i like him a lot. he has been insanely consistent his entire life. he is basically been saying the same thing and for the same thing his whole life. and that in of itself is a very powerful structure. to operate from. >> tucker: not exactly a full throated endorsement, but it did not matter. immediately that hakki has to figures in the democratic establishment swung the wand into action. they demanded that sanders disavowal joe rogan's endorsement. on what grounds? rogan who is a major fixture in the world of mixed martial arts, one said that biological men have the physical advantage in mma bouts against women. because they do.

for this hrc said he was all right. and joe biden sensing an opportunity went on it. "transgender equality is a civil rights issue of our time." there is no room for compromise. in other words, joe rogan may seem like a likable guy with a popular podcasts, but on the vital question of civil rights for which future generations will judge us, joe rogan is bull connor, he is a bigot. it's hard to know who really believes like this. nobody has heard joe rogan show thinks he is extreme. not even political, not even interesting. most of the time he just asks questions, often about mma. and cnn, as if on cue, always on cue with them promptly attacks joe rogan as a bigot. that's with a masters and the establishment require them to do. they were just following orders. one of the many ironies is that people calling joe morgan immoral, groveled for al sharpton's blessing every election cycle.

in effect, they have also been battling for joe rogan sport. watch this. >> they all keep on asking to be on my show. i have had requests from all of them. a speaker really? >> oh, yeah, bidens, warren. >> how do you resist? >> i just talked to my friends. i like tulsi and i like. that's it. >> tucker: so the other candidates flattered him, now they are denouncing him. whatever it takes. and the democratic establishment is getting a little bit tired of this part of the endless wrangling and whining over a political primary elections in a relevant outpost like iowa. where the hill is that? why can't voters just shut up and accept michael bloomberg as president? he would be great in manhattan. isn't it time to give an elderly billionaire a shot? why should someone worth $50 billion finally have a say in this country? it's all very frustrating to them. a democracy, that is. jason nichols as a professor of african-american studies at the university of maryland. jason, why can't you just be

quiet and accept michael bloomberg? he is a billionaire, what do you know? >> michael bloomberg, we could go on and on about him, of course there are three words that will always remind me of michael bloomberg, those are stop and frisk. >> tucker: that was the best part of michael bloomberg. >> a little bit problematic for the for the moment rights of african-americans and latinos in the city. >> tucker: i am against taking away rights. so bernie, obviously i'm not endorsing bernie, but i cannot help but notice the similarities between what they are trying to do to bernie now and what they tried to do deterrent before. it is stupid and counterproductive. but it is us also -- coso joe rogan is now a bigot? are you listening the list? >> yes, so, i think that the opinion that joe rogan had was not one that i would endorse and agree with, but one of the things that i will say is that there are many people who feel that way on the right and the left.

i think if anything joe rogan probably needs a conversation and should bring me on his podcast. >> tucker: this is a sidebar, but a biological man completing in a blood sport against women, some should say it seems like he has an advantage. if you think he doesn't, whatever, we can debate it. but to dismiss him as a bigot seems like -- >> i agree, that is probably not the route that i would've taken. i think that bernie sanders coming you know, there are people that one for bernie sanders to disavow this endorsement like you said it was half-hearted at best. if i was bernie i would certainly not do that. there is a segment of rogan's following that is really important to the democratic party. and if we can get some of those people who i think would otherwise be chump voters, if we can get those disaffected guys that are apolitical, kind of

like rogan, if we can get them o listen to what bernie sanders is saying, i think that is so important. >> tucker: if i was in the democratic party, i would greet completely with what you said. i know that everything, bidens is a talk at the national polls. and most of the people in washington, do not think that he should be running in the first place. and don't think he will be the nominee. i think most establishment democrats are assuming it is michael bloomberg because of all of the money. if you wind up in a place for bernie wins the first three contests, iowa, new hampshire, nevada, and maybe some more. you are going to look at the democratic primary electric and say, sorry, you get the billionaire because he has more money? is that going to work? what will happen? >> i disagree with the idea that michael bloomberg will be the nominee, even though he has tons of money. number one, because again, you will not win a dynamic demand democratic party without african-american voters. and he came along at the 11th hour and said, sorry, without all of those years of leaning in on stop and frisk, i will change

my mind. >> tucker: but the macro question is at this moment in american history, is the lesson really billionaires me more power? why is no one listening to billionaires? is that what the democratic party is saying? they want to bloomberg, nmi, really, that is the lesson you have learned? >> i agree, i am trying to get rid of a billionaire right now why don't necessarily think it is suited to be president. so i'm not asking for any more new york billionaire socialites to be president. what i do think is that we have a great stable of people with different ideas. hopefully it will not come down to a brokered convention. and right now it is looking like bernie sanders, but i'm not sure how he will do throughout the south where it seems like joe biden has a good grasp of -- >> tucker: may be. just poor biden. i feel sorry for him every time he talks. professor, great to see you tonight. >> great to be here, tucker, thank you. >> tucker: fox news alert for

you, alan dershowitz still speaking at a president senate trial prayed he just began making references to past presidents, and what they did that could be constituted as an abuse of power. it is an interesting colloquy, soliloquy, let's listen back. >> the president as a president and as a party leader and commander of chief made a decision with life or death consequences. professor blackman drew the following relevant conclusion from this and other historical events. he said politicians routinely -- while in the back of the minds considering how these actions will affect their popularity. often the two concepts overlap. what is good for the country is good for the officials reelection. all politicians, he said, understand that dynamic." like all human beings, presidency and other politicians persuade themselves that their actions seen by their opponents

as self-serving are primarily in the natural it is trust. in order to conclude the mixed actions of constituting an abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the president and a tribute to him as singular self-serving motives. such a subjecting probing of motives cannot be the legal basis for a serious accusation of abuse of power that could result in the removal of an elected president. yet, this is precisely what the managers are claiming paired here is what they said. "whether the president's real reason, the ones actually in his mind, or at the time legitimat legitimate." what a standard. what was in the president's mind actually in his mind? what was the real reason? would you want your actions to be probed for what was the real reason why you acted? even if the president were, and

it clearly shows in my mind that the framers could not have intended this psychoanalytic approach to presidential motives. to determine the distinction between what is impeachable and. and here i come to a relevant and contemporaneous issue. even if a president, and the president were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed manner in this case," that would not by itself indicate in abuse of power. considering the hypothetical case that is in our news today as the israeli prime minister comes to the united states for meetings, let's assume that democratic president tells israel that foreign aid authorized by congress will not be sent or an oval office meeting will not be scheduled unless the giver is a --

settlements, quid pro quo. i might disapprove of such a quid pro quo demand on policy grounds. but it would not constitute in the base of power. quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power. it is the way that foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. the claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuse of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or so motives that the president was interested in only helping himself demonstrates the dangers of employing the vague subjective and malleable phrase of abuse of power as a constitutional criteria for the removal of a president. it follows, it follows from this that if a president, any president were to have done what the times reported about the contacts of the bolton manuscript, that would not

constitute an impeachable offense. let me repeat -- >> tucker: alan dershowitz, professor at harvard law school, and probably a key member of the president's defense team. interesting. we will monitor the impeachment trial now in progress in the senate. we expect the defense team to wrap up shortly. we'll bring you anything interesting that have been spared in new york, the empire state building is lit up with purple and gold in honor of nba player kobe bryant who was killed tragically over the weekend. jason whitlock joins us after the break. good morning!

oh no, here comes the neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks.

download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass. wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

♪ >> tucker: prince andrew, a long-standing member of the descending royal family across the atlantic step back from his family over the jeffrey epstein scandal. now though, he is refusing to help prosecutors untangle that case.

we turned to chief breaking news correspondent trace gallagher. >> it looks bad because it directly contradicts what prince andrew said publicly. back in november when he was accused of being part of jeffrey epstein's under age sex trafficking ring and having with then 15-year-old virginia griffey, he issued this statement that reads "i am willing to help appropriate law enforcement agencies with their investigations if required." they say that the princes help is required, but has not materialized. watch. to speak of the southern district of new york and the fbi have contacted prince andrew's attorney and requested to interview prince andrew. and to date, prince andrew has provided zero cooperation. >> it is unclear exactly what questions they have from blood prince. about the attorney also said epstein's charges contain conspiracy. which is very unlikely that he committed his crimes alone saying that the investigation is

moving forward. and virginia dupree's attorney david boyd said this "prince andrew's continued refusal to cooperate with authorities after freely acknowledging that he would be prepared to answer inquiries raises even more questions about the role he played in the international sex trafficking ring. jeffrey epstein and others operated. prince andrew should take most seriously the deeply held belief in this country that no one is above the law." of course prince andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations including during his disastrous bbc interview where he said he stayed at convicted sex offender jeffrey epstein's home, because it was "convenient." tucker. >> tucker: trace gallagher, great to see you. thank you. well, yesterday as you know if you were here, basketball legend kobe bryant was killed in a helicopter crash along with his daughter and seven others. they were traveling to his daughter's basketball practice north of los angeles, he was just 41 years old. kobe bryant was a interesting

man and worth talking about. so we are happy tonight to be joined by jason whitlock, host of "speak for yourself" on fs1. thank you for coming on. you covered kobe bryant for a long time, living in l.a., he was with the lakers for 21 years. you think he had a complex record, but in the end, i don't know. he seemed like kind of a different -- different from a lot of people in professional sports. to tell us your assessment of kobe bryant. >> there is no question about it, kobe bryant fell down big time in 2003 and was accused of doing something heinous. he and a young lady, a sexual assault charge, they came to some type of understanding. there were no criminal charges, but it was a civil settlement where kobe acknowledge some level of wrongdoing. and look, it was awful. but tucker, i just love the way that the guy got up. i love the way that he course corrected. i loved his passion for his daughters. he had four daughters, he had a

13-year-old daughter gianna onore that died with him, a pretty good basketball player. i love the commitment to his daughters. listen, if you are going to die, and you die in support of your family and doing something with your child, i think it is kind of heroic. and i think that the things that kobe was involved in, his support of women athletes and women athletics, i think it was part of the penance he paid for the mistake that he made in 2003. but i respected -- and i was a longtime critic of kobe bryant. but in the recent months and since his post playing career, i was a big fan of what he stood for and had a lot of respect for kobe bryant. >> tucker: if you are kobe bryant, one of the most famous people in the world, you can do whatever you want. on a sunday morning you're getting up early to fly your daughter and a couple of local coaches to a game or practice that you are coaching, that is really kind of revealing, i thought in a great way.

in a wonderful way. >> do something that everybody can relate to. i think that's why there is a great outpouring of love for kobe bryant. because listen, do most parents get in a helicopter to take their kid to a game, no. but they certainly getting cars. they certainly get on airplanes. they certainly live a life in service to their kids, and that's where i think kobe bryant was out at the end of his life. and i have nothing but respect for it. i think we need more of it. i do not have a problem saying kobe in the second act to that he had just started, he was a role model that i think everybody could be proud of. >> tucker: amen, i agree with that completely. a dying bringing your daughter back is heavy. jason whitlock, thank you so much for that perspective. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: pete buttigieg's case for the presidency depends on its record. what is its record? eight years of marriage as a place called south bend. in the midwest. but is that record one that he can be proud of? the retired south bend, indiana, police officer joins us next.

in the report says the fbi is looking into allegations make allegations that -- married her biological brother. a question we brought up many times on the show, and it is a real question it turns out. and we will continue monitoring the ongoing impeachment trial of the president now underway in the senate. ♪

♪ >> tucker: mayor pete buttigieg is one of the youngest presidential contenders

in the history of presidential contenders. not a lot to run on except for his mayor eight years, his record as mayor in south bend, indiana. but did he do a good job? here is one measure. during his eight years in charge of the city, crime and south bend surged. in 2012, the year that he became mayor, there were 233 cases of aggravated assault. in 2018, the number of aggravated assaults tripled to 711. what happened exactly? a former south bend police officer and city council president. thank you for coming on. >> i'm honored to be here. >> tucker: think you. i never hold any executive, mayor, president, governor, responsible holding for crime numbers, but that is a massive rate and rise that is really troubling. what did mayor pete do to cause that? or not do to prevent it? how is he related to that? >> it is a combination of things that are going on now that the personnel is at an all-time low

of officers, five officers just went to a neighboring city including the 2017 policeman of the year. three more are on their way. people have left at alarming rates both white and black. so i think it is the overall kind of negativity that he got into this stuff. you cannot read talley's corner and expect to know what is going on in the inner-city. since he got in, he got up on the wrong foot with the former chief. it has been downhill ever since then. >> tucker: but if you are a mayor or any leader, keeping your people safe is probably the most important job. keeping them from being assaulted. if they are being assaulted at three times the rate, then there is a huge problem. was he aware of this? did you try to make it better? what did he do or not to do? >> it is attempting to do things. his heart may be of in the right place, but he did not know what to do about it, in 2017, a record of 102 shootings occurred last year, that record was broke

and already this year, south bend had 13 shootings. it is a horrific pace that we are on, and i just don't think right now in addition to basically during the police department under the bus, saying all police work is under the shadow of racism is not a good way to get in touch with all of your officers. >> tucker: it is completely idiotic, and does not help anybody of any color. i read a story that said under him, under pete buttigieg as mayor, police officers were warned not to fat shame people, what does that have to do with keeping the city safe? >> i guess you would have to ask him, i retired in 2014, but i talked to officers daily in my security business. so i always have. and i guess he may have not gotten good advice from people, he has his own idea how to do stuff, and until you have been on the streets and i have since the '70 is, and you see it and have anything to do with it, he

has not gotten to the point of what it should be in the city. and it is very disheartening for all of the policeman i have known. being there and growing up of what it is turn into now. >> tucker: very quick last question, you talk to current police officers and south bend, if they were to go in the election, what they vote for pete buttigieg? >> i can't tell you how one way or the other. >> tucker: i think we have a sense. derek theatre. >> i would like to shoot out to the dieter kids, and go chiefs. >> tucker: go chiefs. after a year of being elected into congress, ilhan omar is one of the most famous progressives of the country. she suggests frequently that her opponents must be racist, because why would you not like her? but they have no interest at all in her own past which is strange, because it is interesting. for years, credible allegations have swirled that omar married her biological brother at a decade ago as a part of the

immigration scandal. even her hometown newspaper who set up to disprove it could not disprove it. now the fbi is investigating the matter. steve rutkowski, minnesota state representative knows a lot about this case. thank you for coming on. so the fbi looking into allegations that she married her biological brother is part of an immigration fraud attempt, which was apparently successful. the first time i heard this, i thought that cannot be true. but it sounds like it may be or why else would the fbi be taking it so seriously? >> yes, we talked earlier at the end of last year, and developed an online admission omartruth.com to do an investigation. what i heard from people overwhelmingly was you need to do more. our investigative units and government need to act on this, i heard it over and over again. but back in october i sat down and was able to get in touch

with the fbi after talking to the u.s. attorney here in minnesota. she referred me to the fbi. i sat down with him for 90 minutes with staff, and we went over all the details that we have about ilhan omar's past, her marriage fraud, and to the very likely frauds and crimes committed as a result of that. very productive discussion. they were up most professionals, listen very closely. they told me they were going to share the information with ice and with the department of education i asked them if they would share their point of contact with me with them, which they did. and i have been able to follow up further with them. i am hopeful that we will actually have more discussion with homeland security and's before and sit down with them in the future as well. >> tucker: i'm confused at this point, so there is an active fbi investigation into whether ilhan omar married her

own brother to defraud our immigration system, but there is no house ethics committee investigation of it, how can that be? >> well, there is not yet. as a matter of fact they vent those health ethics investigation requests for quite a while on us continuing to ping them about that. and i should correct the record, tucker. i don't know if there is an investigation going or not. i can tell you and people of america, we have shared extensively the documents with the fine folks at the fbi. they have not told us they are doing an investigation. they have not told us they are not doing an investigation. that is the way that they operate. but they have been very cooperative. they have listened and given us an ability to talk to some of the other agencies. >> tucker: if they sit down with a sitting state legislator and ask him for information and he provides it, i think most of us would agree that that is investigation and it sounds active. in any case, i hope we get to

the bottom of this. i hope we find a brother in the u.k. you're one of the first people to bring it to public attention. thank you. good to see you tonight. >> thank you, tucker pray to >> tucker: the president's defense team wrapping up on capitol hill during an impeachment trial, they say that they are done for the day, but alan dershowitz responded to john bolton's leaked allegations against a president. here's what he said. >> now >> it follows that if a president, any president would have done what the times reported about the bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. let me repeat. nothing in the bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of the abuse of power or an impeachable offense. >> tucker: alan dershowitz speaking on the president's behalf in the senate tonight. we'll be covering any news out of the impeachment trial right

here on fox, but for this show, that's it for tonight. back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. the sworn and totally sincere enemy of line, pomposity, smugness, groupthink. sean hannity takes over next. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." finally, the adults are up to bat and they are absolutely eviscerating the schumer-schiff sham show. finally the truth is being revealed. the president's legal team is up ending every single one of these deranged democratic fantasies. earlier today, totally destroying what is nothing but two phony b.s. articles of impeachment. same thing we saw with alan dershowitz. pam bondi delivering important facts about quid pro quo