i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. >> did you just do a shameless plug? i will go. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." guess what is going on? guested, the impeachment trial continues this hour. the president's legal team -- we will dip in light of anything is what happens. think back to 2016. donald trump used to recite a poem about a woman who took a dying snake into her house and nursed it 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.as yesterday "the new york times" reported that bolton's new book contains sections designed to help the democratic case for impeachment. walton accuses the president of delaying military aid to ukraine in order to pressure his government into investigating hunter biden. again, people in washington seem stunned by this or claim to be.t 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 ki regime change there long before he became national security advisor. watch. >> 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 regime in tehran. [cheers and applause] and that's why before 2019, we hear will celebrate in tehran, thank you very much. >> tucker: in tehran! but iran wasn't bolton's only target, he also wanted more war in syria and venezuela too. he wanted the war in afghanistan to continue until your great grandchildren are old to serve. and of course by all neocons who wanted war with russia! lots of it. in 2016, bolton cited russia as one of america's greatest threats. can you imagine? but not china. for bolton, every conflict was the final test of america's resolved and a chance to his overwhelming military force. maybe because he never served in the military himself both and genuinely, passionately loved the war. in the end, of course, he didn't get it. trump blocked him at the brink of more than one conflict. bolton finally left and well well-deserved affiliation. his resignation w as one of the highlights of the president's first term.

a day of 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 get to move tanks around on the screen and talk about weapon systems. so suddenly for the first time they love john bolton. what a hero he was. >> bolton is something different. he's one of them. and he's not prone to just lying.us >> i do have to give him the benefit of the doubt on credibility because this president deserves zero. >> it did feel like we were marking time and this was becoming a planned acquittal. >> right. >> and yes we have a perry mason moment. >> who are you going to believe, donald trump or john bolton? >> probably a dead frog before you could believe trump at this point. >> john bolton is a lot of things, but able to be painted as the deep state actor is not one of them. so good luck withor that. republicans can now exhale and acknowledge that the earth is round, that donald trump is indeed corrupt. they can rely on a man who is thee republican version of

justice scalia. in foreign policy circles. a conservative conservative. >> tucker: a conservative's conservative says a liberal. in l fact, the only thing john bolton helps conserve over the past 20 years in stock prices, he did a good job there. the many pointless conflicts he's been pushing are not conservative, they're just the opposite ofve that. they are a big part of the reason our middle class is dying. that seems obvious to you, it's not obvious here. in washington counterproductive wars are a virtue, not a vice. just ask mitt romney, one of their biggest champions. over the last week inf the senae romney has made a ton of ambivalent noises about having relevant witnesses testify to the public. hunter biden, adam schiff, the whistle-blower who shall not be named. i'm not sure. not really necessary, says mitt romney. but john bolton? mitt romney would love to see his old friend john bolton testify before congress. keep in mind that bolton was once a "senior foreign policy advisor" to romney's doomed presidential campaign and clearly they are still friends. >> i think that a story that came out yesterday, it'say

increasingly apparent it would be important to hear from john bolton. it's pretty fair to say that john bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice. >> tucker: john bolton testify? who knows. either way it won't change the outcome. trump will be acquitted. it's a totally stupid stage show that we will be impressed about later. it's worth taking this moment to pause and think about john bolton himself for a moment anyway. how could a guy who disagree so completely with everything that donald trump ran on an won on, how to back i wind up in a position of power in the white house? question. because is not the only one. doug mcgregor is a retired u.s. army colonel come off of the book "margin of victory," our first choice for foreign policy analysis, glad to see you tonight. what do you make of john bolton's turn? >> first of all, i'm impressed with washington, d.c. it is no other place on the planet where a man who could not be confirmed for the job as the u.n. suddenly

overnight is transformed into the minister of truth in the paragon of virtue. >> tucker: [laughs] >> this couldn't happen anywhere else but washington, d.c. the second thing is, what's really disturbing is something that you mentioned earlier. this is someone who probably is the most strident advocate for the use of american military power everywhere that we've ever had in the white house. certainly in the job is national security advisor. in this from a man who announced very glibly to the american public in numerous publications that you know, gosh, i didn't see any point to serving in vietnam because by the time i might have been over there, gosh, the war was probably over anyway so i saw no point and found a place in the national guard. so -- >> tucker: the irony coming from someone who has a spouse keeping troops in place as long be on the possibility of victory. >> absolutely. and clearly he was fired principally -- not just for the broader issues of iran and venezuela and syria and so

forth, but because specifically 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 the war on the korean peninsula, that's the great tragedy. and finally president trump said that's enough. >> tucker: i wonder, what every 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 since he was the principal force behind it but i'm sure that john bolton would have been much happier with hillary clinton, certainly are satisfied with george bush than with donald trump and here's the final tragedy. everyone knows donald -- everyone knows that mr. boltonlt has strong views. no one questions that. everyone knows his advocacy for wars in many places, and yet

somehow magically he got the j job. and then managed to keep large numbers of people in national security council staff who were all committed anti-trumpeters and to bring in new anti-trumpeters like elliott abrams, jeffrey sent others -- he thought he was president. that's ultimately what did him in. >> tucker: it seems like by his behavior that he was working to undermine the president while he was there. this doesn't seem a departurear from what he's been doing for the last couple of years. >> absolutely. and remember he is very much in line with those four stars that brought the president over to the pentagon, sat him down in the tank and said we will straighten him out. we will explain to him why none of these wars can end, why we have to have troops everywhere. that's john bolton. this town is full of people like john bolton. the only difference is that bolton didn't even bother to disguise it.

we walked in, actively subverted, try to replace donald trump's policies with his own. the tragedy aspo he was there so long and did so much damage. >> tucker: there are so many people in this city who have made fortunes pushing these wars and i really hope that we take time on the show to expose them because they deserve to be exposed. >> absolutely. >> tucker: thanksu so much. >> thank you. >> tucker: represent the state of arizona, also a member of the president's defense team. thanks much for coming on. what would you say if you could boil them today to a theme for the president's defense team, what would it be? >> well, that the president did nothing wrong and that there's nothingg impeachable. the house didn't prove their case at all and that the senate should acquit him. i mean, i think that's the bottom line and everything. there's nothing impeachable and all these calls for witnesses are just wrong, because the house could have called the witnesses themselves. they chose not to. they didn't subpoena john bolton

and now they're claiming that they should talk to them? while, they should have done their job in the house. >> tucker: mitt romney though, was a republican from a contiguous state, utah, senator, tais now saying that john bolton should beor a witness at the trial. what you think of that? why do you think senator romney would say that? >> i think mitt romney has had some sour grapes, quite frankly. i don't know him personally. i haven't talked to him recently, but that's my guess. >> tucker: so you said that the theme tonight for the course of the day was the president did nothing wrong and should bere acquitted. but is that -- would you say that's an open question? the rest of us were watching it or more likely not watching it with yo the assumption that we w the ending. is that a doubt? >> i think it's wise for the president's legal team to prove their case and they prove the case at the house had the burden of proof. they didn't evenoo come close to approving any evidence of impeachable offense. that all it's been it's a bunch

of rhetoric, fluff, and really all it is by the democrats, and it has been all a of 2019, is to influence the 2020 elections. that's what all this is about. it has nothing to do with the truth or anything else. it's about taking back the pow power. >> tucker: i think they're>> doing that. bernie sanders has been rising in the polls. that's not what they intended shen they started us all. they intended to boost joe biden but it hasn't helped him one little bit, which is maybe something that they regret in the end. finally, do you think it wouldn't be interesting for the rest of us to hear from hunter biden? >> i think it's interesting to hear from hunter biden, but i don't think it needs to be done in an impeachment trial. i mean, i don't think -- 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 tomp do.

this is their whole goal. their whole goal is not about impeachment. they know that he's going to be acquitted. they're trying to influence the 2020 election. if they're trying to drag this out as long as they can and t quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if the house does other articles of impeachment up until thele election. >> tucker: yet. i don't think it will work. thanks so much for coming on, we appreciate that. >> thank you. >> tucker: we are going to continue to monitor the nonsense ongoing in the senate. the legal team currently speaking, we will take you livel as warranted, but first, a medical emergency. well, the coronavirus, which is incubated in china for some unknown period of time and now has escaped china is getting worse by the day. more than 80 people are dead so far. that's the official number, it could be vastly larger, thousands of cases have been confirmed. ated least five of them here in the united states. again, this is an illness with an incubation period of two weeks, so there could be many,

many more and we don't know about yet. but so far, and this is the fascinating part, travel to and from china and the united states remains completely unaffected. chinese citizens, even people coming directly from wuhan, the place with a started, can travel to and from the united states whenever they want. bizarre. during the sars epidemic 17 years ago canada failed to check on flights between china and toronto. the result was a major outbreak that killed dozens. it was so bad that singapore band flights from canada. amazing. so, are we risking something like that today? dr. marc siegel is a medical contributor if he joins us tonight. doctor, thanks much for coming on. you don't want to be alarmist about this, but it sounds pretty serious and i'm kind of struck by the fact that nobody seems to be in public anyway talking about a travel ban. why? >> you know, tucker, i'll get to that but i want to say that i've been studying contagions for really long time, as you know that i have never seen anything like this. the amount of suppression from the chinese government.

now they are settling cordoning off all-city spirit of the fact that this part and we don't know how contagious this is or even how deadly it is. the world health organization has yet toy call this an international emergency and n.000000000 people in china are already involved? and then to your point about the lack of a true travel ban and the idea 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 they get hysterical and they spread morean virus. a shining light in the darkness is our own centers of disease control here. which is looked at 110 cases already,d found five, all of whm traveled from the city and ruled out 32 cases. didn't have it. so they're teaching us as we go now how contagious this is. i'm very proud of our own government cdc. not what's going on in china, which is really reckless and really, really scary. >> tucker: well, it is scary i guess the most obvious question

is is the chinese government providing our centers for disease control with all the information that it needs to make informed decisions? >> i have reason to believe that that is still not true and i'll tell you what. how the numbers have suddenly skyrocketed and for months there was word coming out of china that people were getting sick from aeo strange illness and people were dying. are they really all the death certificates, this virus?ir do we really know all the people who had desk -- w or do they thk they had the flu? we don't know if this is more contagious are deadly than the flu and we need to know that. we are studying these five people very, very carefully, but that's what should have been done in china from the beginning. and it wasn't, and i'm positive there's thousands and thousands and thousands of cases that never came to light here. c >> tucker: so given that we know -- it's no surprise 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 shutdown travel to and from trying but if you're asking the public 'has best inference, wouldn't you do that? >> i want to make a point here

that you know well. the state department to sing level three to china, meaning you can go if you have an essential reason to go. but here's what our viewers need to know. you can get there also according to the state department -- china can say you can't go back. you can't leave. we are not letting you out. we are afraid you a might have e coronavirus, so i would tell everybody -- everybody, and must absolutely have to, to stay out of china and i'm not trying to say, by t the way, that all pars of china are equally affectedha pure, that's not my point. but you could go there and they could decide now you're innd the area we are worried about and not let you go home. >> tucker: especially, as you point out in the first sentence, we just don't know because it's an okay dictatorship that lives for a living. a terrifying know we will see you again. >> we need to know how contagious and how deadly, they are not telling us. >> tucker: thank you, doctor. good to see you. with got a d fox news alert for you, the president's legal team speaking at his impeachment trial at this hour on

capitol hill. alan dershowitz is currently at the microphone. and it's a go he said this. "i voted for hillary clinton and it would have made the same argument for her but i'm currently making for president trump." let's listen in. >> justifying impeachment is the manner by which the word incapacity, focus on that word please, incapacity, was treated. madison and others focused heavily on the problem of what happens if a president becomes incapacitated. certainly a president whose 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 provision. 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 term.

and whengu we have an incapacitated president, in the end of the woodrow wilson second term, he was not impeached and removed. a constitutional amendment was carefully drawn procedural safeguards against abuse was required to remedy the daunting problem of a president who was deemed incapacitated. now another reason why incapacitation was not included among impeachable offenses, because it's not criminal. it's not a crime to be incapacitated. it's not akin to treason. it's not akin to bribery and it's not a high crime and misdemeanor. the framers believe that impeachable offenses must be criminalem in nature and akin to the most serious crimes, incapacity simply 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 tont consider seriouy that important part of the history of the adoption of our constitution. i think that blackstone and hamilton also support this view. there's no disagreement over the conclusion that the words treason, bribery, or other high crimes -- those words require criminalim behavior. the debate is only over the words "and misdemeanors." if the framers of the constitution were fairly calledy cognizant that it was a species of crime. the book that was most often deemed authoritative was written by blackstone and great 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 inub violation of a public law either for bidding or it, the general

definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors, which properly speaking are near synonymous terms. near synonymous terms. he then went on though in common usage, the word crimes is made to denote such offenses are of a reeper and more atrocious die while smaller folds and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors only. interestingly though, he pointed out that misdemeanors were not always so gentle. there was a category called "capital misdemeanors" where if you stole somebody's paid or other fowl, you could be sentenced to death, but only for a misdemeanor, don't worry. it's not for a felony, but there were misdemeanors that were capital in nature. moreover, blackstone wrote that parliamentary impeachment "is a prosecution" -- a prosecution -- i've already known and established law presented the most high and supreme court of

criminal jurisdiction analogous to this great court. he observed that a commoner can be impeached, but only for high misdemeanors. appearer may may be impeached for any crime -- any crime. thisri certainly suggests that blackstone deemed high misdemeanors to be a species of crime. hamilton is a little less clear on this issue and not surprisingly, because he was writing in federalist number 65 -- he was writing not to define what the criteria forti cpeachment were. he was writing primarily in defense of the constitution as written and less to define its provisions.in but he certainly cannot be cited in favor of criteria such as abuse of power and obstruction of congress. nor of impeachment voting along party lines. he warned that the greatest danger -- these were his words. "the greatest danger is that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of

parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." >> tucker: alan dershowitz, formerly of harvard law school, continuing to monitor the president's defense team this hour, bring you any key portions of it live as warranted. of course while official washington has spent the last weeksp breathlessly obsession or a cell impeachment ritual, whose conclusion we already know, something actually newsworthy and remarkable really has happened in the rest ofnoin ame. bernie sanders became the democratic front runner. bet you didn't think that would happen. just had a heart attack, he's like 77. and yet h with one week to go before the iowa caucuses, newly released emerson paul has sanders up nine points in the first contest of the nominating process. the biggest lead in iowa for any candidate in the best two and a half month. t it's real. after iowa of course is new hampshire on february 11th. new polling in that state show sanders up seven points. and it's not an outlier pole. sanders has led every poll in new hampshire in the last two weeks by an average of eight points.ve historically candidates who win the 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 portably white states. it is not representative of the new democratic party. okay. the third contest is in nevada. now called nevada. the democratic primary electorate is heavily hispanic. so how is bernie sanders doing their? he's risen to within a single point of joe biden and he still rising. so suddenly it's pretty clear whether you like it or not that the momentum is withhe bernie sanders.e as of today, he could easily become the democratic presidential nominee. and that's a very big deal. ifif not least for the people wo control the i democratic party. despite superficial similarities, fighting and buttigieg, two other frontrunners and really elizabeth sanders, are not like bernie sanders. if bernie sanders wins, he won't just mandate vendor neutral bathrooms at the local chick-fil-a or seize guns from mean old republicans in rural america. those are lifestyle issues and there are beloved by the democratic donor class because they don't cost them anything. theyat are free and they get to

feel virtuous. but bernie doesn't plan to stop there. he's got biggerr ideas. he intends to upend america's economic order. that's bad news for a lot of us, but it's especially bad news for the liberal finance establishment and the tech world, which have become richer than any group in history over the past 20 years. democratic donors hate and fear bernie sanders for that. so they put up their p.r. department to attacking. first, cnn, the head of the p.r. department of the liberal astonishment teamed up with theo warren campaign to denounce sanders as sexist. they base this on a single improvable allegation from a year old private conversation. if anything, that attempt was counterproductive, it was too obvious and dumb and ham-handed like everything they do. but they kept trying. if a headline in "the daily beast" this morning really sums it up. "worry democratic operatives scramble to find a network to take down bernie sanders. well, if you live through the 2016 campaign, it may sound a

little familiar to you. bill kristol tried the same thing in the republican primaries four years ago. how did that work? well, donald trump is not a president. lesson? it isn't easy for 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 haven't learned it. now they are attacking broadcaster joe rogan. why? for the crime of giving sanders a half-hearted endorsement. rogan, who hosts one of the most popular podcast in america, infuriated the establishment and "new york times" by saying this on his show last week. >> i think i'll probably vote for bernie. but him as a human being, when i was hanging out with him, i believe in i him, i like them. i like him a lot. he's been insanely consistent his entire life. he's basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. and that in and of itself is a

very powerful structure to operate from. >> tucker: not exactly a full throated endorsement, but it didn'tr: matter. immediately the hack he figures in the democratic establishment swung as one into action. in washington, the human rights campaign demanded that sanders disavow joe rogan's endorsement. on what grounds you ask? a major fixture in the world of mixed martia martial arts, oncee biological men have a physical advantage in mma valves againsty women. because theyst do. for this, hrc denounced him has alt-right and joe biden sensing opportunity immediately piled on. he issued a statement that declared "transgender equality is a civil rights issue of our time. if there's no room for compromise." in other words, joe rogan may seem like a likable guy with the popular podcast, and on vital question of civil rights, for which future generations will judge us, joe rogan -- he's a bigot. it's hard to know who really believes stuff like this.

no one has ever heard joe rogan's show considers him a scream. he doesn't even especially political, doesn't seem that interested. most of the time to just ask questions, often about mma but cnn, as if on cue, always on cue with them, probably attacked joe rogan as a bigot. that's what their masters and required and to do, they were just following orders. one of the many, many ironies here is the people now calling joe rogan immoral invariably grovel for al sharpton's blessing every election cycle. and in fact they've also been begging for joe rogan's support. watch this. >> they all keep asking to be on the show. i've had requests from all of them. >> really? >> yeah, biden, warren. >> how do you resist that belief? >> i talked to my friends. i like tulsi gabbard and i like bernie. that'si it. >> tucker: so the other candidates flatter him. now they're denouncing him. whatever it takes. and honestly, the democratic establishment is getting a little tired of all of this.

the endless wrangling and whining over piddling littlewr primary elections and irrelevant outposts like iowa. where is that? why can't voters just shut up and accept michael bloomberg as president? he did great in manhattan. and as an attempt to give an elderly billionaire a shot? why shouldn't someone worth $50 billion finally have a say in this country? it's all very frustrating to them. democracy, that is. jason nichols is a professor of african-american studies at the university of maryland, he joins us today. why can't youth just be quiet ad except michael bloomberg, he's a billionaire, look what do you a know? >> exactly. michael bloomberg a week ago -- we can go on and on about him. there are three words that will always remind me of michael bloomberg and those are "stop and frisk." >> tucker: that was the best part of michael bloomberg. [laughs] >> kind of problematic taking away the fourth amendment rights of african-americans and latinos in the city. >> tucker: i'm against taking away rights. but since your question, bernie, i'm obviously not endorsing bernie -- i've read bernie's

rain. but i can't b help but notice tt similars between what they're trying to do to bernie now and what they tried to do to trumpet four.tr i think it's stupid, it's counterproductive, but it's also so fascinating. so like joe rogan is now they get? are you listening to this? >> yeah, so i think with joe rogan -- the opinion that joe rogan had is not one that i would necessarily endorse or agree with, but one of the things that i will say is that there are many people who feel that way both on the right and thee left. so i think if anything, joe rogan probably needs a conversation, maybe you should bring me on his podcast. >> tucker: shouldn't we have a national -- i mean, this is a sidebar, but a biological man competing in a blood sport against women. some of us would say it seems like maybe he has an advantage. if you think he doesn't -- or whatever, we can debate it. aich is to dismiss them as bigot because you want to hurt bernie sanders seems like -- >> i agree. i think that that's, you know, probably not the route that i would have taken. i think that bernie sanders -- there are people who want for

bernie sanders to disavow this endorsement. it like you said, it was half-hearted atik best. if i i were bernie, i would certainly not do that. i think, you know, there is a segment of his following that is really important to the democratic party. and if we can get some of those people who i think would otherwise be trumped voters, if we can get those disaffected guys that are kind of a political, kind like rogan, if we can get them, you know, to listen to what t bernie sanderss saying, i think that that's so important. >> tucker: if i were in the democratic party i would agree completely with what you just said. it's a last question. i know that everyone thinks -- biden is the top of the national polls. i think most people in washington, those who know him, don't think you should be running in the first place. and don't think is going to be the nominee. i think most establishment democrats arent assuming it's michael bloomberg because he's got all this money. if you wind up inbl a place whee bernie wins the first three contests, iowa, new hampshire,

nevada and maybe wins some more, you're going to look at the democratic primary electorate and say sorry, you get the billionaire because he's got more money. it is not going to work? what's going to happen? >> i disagree with the idea that michael bloomberg is going to be thede nominee, even though he hs tons of money. number one because again, you will not win a democratic primary without african-american voters. and he came along at the 11th hour and said oh, sorry, after all those years of leaning in on stop and frisk, i'm going to change my mind. so i think it's definitely not -- >> tucker: but the macro question is at this moment in american history, is the lesson really billionaires need more power? why is no one listening to the billionaires? is that with the democratic party is really telling us? people say why not bloomberg and it's like really? that's the lesson you've learn learned? >> i agree. i'm trying to get rid of a billionaire right now who i don't necessarily think is suited to be president. so i'm not asking for any more new york billionaire socialites to be president. what iiali do think is that we e

a great stable of people with different ideas. hopefully it won't come down to a brokered convention. we are going to have somebody was going to emerge -- right now it's looking like bernie sanders, but i'm not sure how he's going to do throughout the south where it seems like joe biden has a good grasp of -- >> tucker: maybe. i just hope -- for biden. i feel sorry for him every time he talks. professor, great to see you. >> great seeing you, thank you. >> tucker: fox news alert for you, alan dershowitz still speaking at the president's senatete trial. he just began making references to past presidents and what they did that could be constituted as an abuse of power is interesti interesting, soliloquy. let's listen back. >> for his party. but the president as a president and as a party leader, a commander in chief made a decision with life or death consequences. " professor blackman drew the following relevant conclusion from this and other historical conference he said politicians

routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare while in the back of their minds considering how these actions will affect their popularity. often the two concepts overlap. what's good for the country is good for the officials reelection. all politicians, he said, understand that dynamic. allke human beings, presidents d other politicians persuade themselves that their actions, seen by their opponents as self-serving, are primarily in the national interest. in orderer to conclude the sortf mixed motive actions, constitute an abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the president. and attribute to him a singular self-serving motive. such a subjective 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 with the managers are claiming. here's what they said.im "whether the president's real

reason, the ones actually in his mind, are at the time 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 a 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 what not. and heremp i come to irrelevant and contemporaneous issue. even if a president, any president, were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed mannerco in this case.

that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power. consider the following hypothetical case that is in oua news today is the israeli prime minister comes to the united states for meetings. let's assume 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 israelis stopped building settlements. quid pro quo. i might disapprove of such a quid pro quo, demand on policy grounds but it would not constitute an abuse of power. quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power. it's part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. the claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or so

motives for the president was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers ofan employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase "abuse of power" as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of the president. now, it follows -- it follows from this that if a president, any president, were to have done what the times reported about the contact of the bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. let me repeat. >> tucker: alan dershowitz, professor emeritus at harvard law school and improbably a key member of the president's defense team. interesting. we will continue to monitor the impeachment trial now into progress in the senate. we expect the defense team to wrap up shortly. we will bring you anything interesting that happens. in new york the empire state is being lit up with purple and gold in honor of nba playerth kobe bryant, who was killed tragically over the weekend. jason whitlock joins us after the break. ♪

i got this mountain bike for only $11. dealdash.com, the fair and honest bidding site. we sold an ipad worth $505 for less than $24. a stand mixer for less than $20. a 4k television for under $2. a macbook pro for under $16. as well as a playstation 4 for under $16. and brand new cars

for less than $900. dealdash.com offers hundreds of auctions every day. all auctions start at $0 and everything must go. and don't forget, we offer a full 90 day money back guarantee on your first bid pack purchase. i won these bluetooth headphones for $20. i got these three suitcases for less than $40. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com today and see how much you can save. there are auctions going on right now, so what are you waiting for? ♪ >> tucker: prince andrew, a long-standing member of the disintegrating royal family across the f atlantic stepped bk from histe family over the jeffy epstein scandal. now though he is refusing to prosecutors untangle that case. forr details might return chief

breaking news correspondent trace gallagher. hey, teresa. >> hey, it looks bad because it directly contradicts what prince andrew said publicly. back in november after he was accused of being part of jeffrey epstein's underaged sex trafficking ring and having sex with then 15-year-old, the french issued the statement that reads in part "i'm willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigation if required. u.s. attorney jeffrey burnie says the prince's help is required but it has not materialized. watch. >> 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's unclear exactly what questions they have for the prince, but the u.s. attorney also said epstein's charges contain conspiracy and that it's very unlikely he committed his crimes h alone saying the investigation is still moving forward in virginia's attorney

said this "presenter'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. course, prince andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations, including during rehis disastrous bbc interview where he said he stayed at convicted sex offender jeffrey epstein's home because it was "convenient." tucker. >> tucker: was trace gallagher from los angeles, great to see you tonight. yesterday, as you know, if youno 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 a little north of los angeles, he was just 41 years old. kobe bryant was an interesting

man and worth talking about, ana so we are happy tonight to be joined by jason whitlock, host of "speak for yourself" on fs1. thanks so much for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: you covered kobe bryant for a long time. you live in l.a., he was on the lakers for 20 years. you think you had a complex record, but at the end, i don't know, he seemed what kind of different from a lot of people we see in professional sports. tell us your assessment of kobe bryant. >> listen, there's no question about it, kobe bryant fell down big time in 2003, was accused of doing something heinous. he and a young lady -- it was a sexual assault charge. they came to some type of understanding were no criminal charges, but there was a civil settlement where kobe acknowledged some level of wrongdoing and look, it was awful. but i love the way the guy got up. i love the way that he course corrected. i love his passion for his daughters. he had four daughters.

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

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

plus, new reports says the fbi is looking to allegations that ilhan omar married her biological brother. a question we've brought up many times on the show and it's a real question it turns out. we will continue monitoring the ongoing impeachment trial of the president, now underway in the senate. ♪ - do you have a box of video tapes, film reels, or photos,

that are degrading? legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.

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

doesn't have a lot to run on except for 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 in 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? derek dieter knows, he's a former south bend police officer and city council president. thank you for coming on. >> i'm honored to be here. >> tucker: thank you. i would never hold any executive, mayor, president, governor, responsible holding for crime numbers, but that is a massive 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. you have to experience. 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. so was he aware of this? attentive? did he try to make it better? what did he do or not to do? >> it is attempting to do things. his heart may have been 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 4 murders and 13 shootings. it is a horrific pace that we are on, and i just don't think right now in addition to basically throwing 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: no, 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 talk to officers daily in my security business. 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 been since the '70s, 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 policemen 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 in south bend, if they were determining 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 dieter. >> i would like to shout out to the dieter kids, and go chiefs. >> tucker: go chiefs. i'm for that. after a year of being elected into congress, ilhan omar is one of the most famous progressives of the country. press loves talking about her political views. suggest 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 a decade ago as a part of the her biological brother a decade ago as a part of the

immigration scandal. even her hometown newspaper who set up to disprove it could not disprove it. the fbi is investigating the matter. steve drazkowski, 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 as 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 petition 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. 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. a very productive discussion. they were utmost professionals, listened very closely. they told me they were going to share the information with i.c.e. 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 i.c.e. 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 an investigation and it sounds active. in any case, i hope we get to the bottom of this.

i hope we find the 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. >> 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 the 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 lying, pomposity, smugness, groupthink. sean hannity takes over next. good night from washington. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." fox news alert. finally, the adults are up to bat and they are absolutely eviscerating the schumer-schiff sham show. finally the truth is being told. to shreds. 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 joe and zero experienced hunter. paid millions.