This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," January 26, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Welcome.

I'm Maria Bartiromo.

Joining us straight ahead right here on "Sunday Morning Futures," as we kick off the most consequential week for the president and the Senate, with his impeachment trial defense resuming tomorrow, this morning, the insiders are here.

First, Senate judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham will tell us what he has heard from the House prosecutors and the president's defenders, what questions are left to answer.

Then, key members of the president's defense team, Congressman John Ratcliffe, Doug Collins, and Mark Meadows make their case this morning.

Plus, we will hear from the president himself, as he spoke to leading business heads and heads of state in Davos, Switzerland, while the impeachment trial was unfolding. He sat with me which ahead of what could be another incredible week, with him signing into law another major trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

Also, hear one of the two congressmen who saw all of the redacted documents around the unlawful surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Trey Gowdy explains DOJ's admission of insufficient predication, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.

And we begin with the impeachment trial resuming tomorrow morning.

After three long days of opening statements from Democratic House managers presenting their case to impeach President Trump, senators finally heard from President Trump's defense team yesterday.

What do they make of the trial so far? Where does it go tomorrow?

We now turn to one of the jurors. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham joins me in this exclusive interview.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Senator, it's good to see you this morning. Thank you so much for being here.

GRAHAM: It's good to have a day off. Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: OK. I bet.

What have you heard from the House prosecutors and from the president's defense team? Tell us how it played out, from your standpoint.

GRAHAM: Well, I said early on that I thought the first day, the House managers were articulate. They were prepared. They created a compelling narrative, a tapestry regarding process and substance.

And I asked then publicly, will it withstand scrutiny? When it came to removing the president, their arguments became very political, very shrill.

And while Adam Schiff did a good job of presenting the facts, and at times the law, when it came to removing the president, he has got to go right now, it was more of an audition for a future Senate run than it was compelling.

But what happened yesterday, in two hours, the Senate -- the president's defense team destroyed the narrative created in 21 hours regarding process and substance.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about process and substance. Why the process? Tell me that.

GRAHAM: Well, so, the House managers told us on the floor of the United States Senate that President Trump got a better deal from the House than Nixon or Clinton.

And here's what the response was. Not so. They impeached president in 78 days, President Trump. Imagine 78 days to remove the president of the United States from office, nullify the 2016 election, take him off the ballot in 2020.

Do you think 78 days is proper consideration of something this grave? Seventy-one of the 78 days, the president was denied the ability to call witnesses on his behalf, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence.

So the Nixon impeachment lasted for years. He went to the Supreme Court. The Clinton investigation lasted for four-and-a-half years. So the defense was able to tell the Senate that all the due process given Nixon and Clinton didn't exist with Trump.

And then they -- the most stunning of all arguments, they impeached the president of the United States in 78 days. Why? Because they wanted to get it over by Christmas. Why didn't they pursue witness in the House? That would require court action. That would delay their goal of impeaching him before the election. I think that is devastating to the House managers.

BARTIROMO: OK. That process was also scrutinized and criticized during the House hearings, let's not forget...

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: ... because the president didn't get a chance to have due process and make his own case at that time.

Let's talk substance. What was your issue?

GRAHAM: OK.

Well, back to process, one last thing, if you contested a parking ticket it would probably take more than 78 days.

So, on substance, they told us that the president was unconcerned about burden-sharing, that he wasn't concerned about corruption, that the only reason he wanted the Ukrainians to look at the Bidens and look into 2016 election interference was for personal game.

They read the transcript for 21 hours selectively. In the transcript that the House managers never read to the Senate was an exchange between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, Zelensky, where President Trump was complaining about the Europeans not doing enough, and the president of the Ukraine agreed.

The president in the transcript from the Ukraine said to the president, Trump, you're doing more than the Europeans. It shouldn't be that way.

I'm paraphrasing.

So the transcript was devastating to their case. Then the witnesses that they called in their case -- they took snippets of hour-long testimony. And one thing for a young lawyer, if you want to use a piece of evidence from a deposition or a tape, make sure that other parts of the tape do not destroy the parts that you used.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: They were able to prove that the witnesses that were called on behalf of the government, when you hook at other things they said, completely destroyed their case, that the president had been concerned about corruption in the Ukraine.

He raised it with the past president of the Ukraine, raised it with this president.

And when it comes to the meeting, the managers said that the president was telling the Ukrainian president, you will never meet with me in the White House or any place else unless you give into my demands.

In the transcript, the president of the Ukraine suggested that the -- President Trump meet him in Poland September the 1st. The president agreed to that meeting. And the only reason he didn't go was because of hurricanes, and he sent the vice president in his place.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: Within two hours, they devastated the process and substance argument.

BARTIROMO: And I know that there is still evidence that the president's team and the American people have yet to see. There were 18 witnesses in the House hearings. We have only seen 17 transcripts.

We are going to talk about that coming up with Congressman John Ratcliffe and Doug Collins and Mark Meadows...

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: ... because I want to get their take why we actually haven't even seen all of the evidence.

OK, so, we have a new FOX News poll that I want to bring your attention to. And what we have seen from this poll, 48 percent of the American people who have been spoken with say there is enough info at this point to make a judgment.

After we hear the rest of the president's legal team tomorrow and perhaps part of Tuesday, you're going to -- you will have the opportunity, you and your colleagues in the Senate, to ask questions.

And, then, ultimately, the question becomes, will there be a vote on witnesses?

Do you have enough information, or do you want more information, based on what you know today?

GRAHAM: I have more than enough to make my decision.

But here -- here's what I have never seen before. I'm not Perry Mason, but I have done my fair share of trials in the military and civilian world. Never in my life have I started the trial asking the following of the judge or the jury: Do you mind calling witnesses now that I chose not to call before? Do you mind seeking evidence that I chose not to seek?

Because I want you to do it, because if I had called Bolton and Mulvaney in the House, the president would have gone to court to exercise executive privilege. And I didn't want him to do that, because I couldn't impeach him before Christmas if we had to deal with this thing called the court.

So, I am stunned to hear from the House managers that they want the Senate to call witnesses now they could have called before.

And they're putting us in the box of destroying executive privilege or delaying the trial.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: The reason they didn't pursue Bolton or Mulvaney or anybody else is because any president would say, this is the core of my national security team. I'm going to go to court, like Nixon and like Clinton did.

They decided not to give the president a chance to go to court. And they're warning us now to call these witnesses. What do we do? Delay the trial, so the president can go to court?

Or do we, as the Senate, destroy the president's ability to go to court? A bad spot to be in, in the Senate.

BARTIROMO: Yes, real quick.

I have two questions for you, real quick. Number one is on Hunter Biden.

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: If you do not call Hunter Biden as a witness this time around...

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: ... if you don't get to witnesses, what are going to you do? You have talked about an independent counsel before.

GRAHAM: Yes. Right.

Well, so what -- why Senator Biden, if he is not relevant now, then you're just blind by partisanship.

They have said there is not one scintilla of evidence that the Bidens did anything wrong in the Ukraine. They said it has been debunked. By who?

Nobody has looked at this. The president has had his life surveyed from top to bottom by Mueller. Not one person has looked into what Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine.

And if you can find one scintilla of evidence, not a herd of scintillas, just one, their whole class collapses. So, I think you're going to see the defense present evidence that there are real legitimate concerns.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: And when this trial is over -- I don't want to call Hunter Biden now -- we will do oversight of the Bidens to give the vice president the scrutiny that the president has had regarding the Ukraine that has yet to be had.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will watch that.

Final question here. Do you believe the president will get acquitted? Could that happen this week?

GRAHAM: Well, if we seek witnesses, then we are going to throw the country into chaos.

We either stop the trial to go to court to allow the president to litigate executive privilege, or we destroy it ourselves.

Here is what I think. I think he is going to get acquitted. Mueller came after him for two years. There was no there there. He was stronger after Mueller. He is going to get acquitted because this has been a railroad job by the House.

He is going to be stronger after impeachment than he was after Mueller. He is now the prohibitive favorite, in my view, to get reelected. And this is the boomerang party. Every time they go after Trump, it hurts them. They throw rocks at Trump, they get hit.

Mueller investigates Trump. What happens? The FBI and the Department of Justice falls apart. They try to accuse Trump of corruption in the Ukraine, and we find out that conflicts of interests by Joe Biden really stink.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: Yes.

Well, we got news this week from the Department of Justice on unlawful surveillance of Carter Page. We are going to talk about that, because this is all connected, as we all know.

Senator, it's very good to see you this morning. Thank you, sir.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Quick break, and then we get reaction from a member of the House who has joined president's defense team, when Georgia Congressman Doug Collins joins me, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Now the defense.

More reaction now to the Senate impeachment trial from a member of president's defense team, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins.

Congressman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thank you for being here.

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Glad to be here, Maria.

BARTIROMO: So, your reaction what you heard yesterday.

And I think it was a -- it was, I don't know, interesting, maybe, strategy of the House prosecutors calling out the Senate. You had comments from Adam Schiff, saying that the White House must have warned you that, if you go against the president, your head will be on a pike, or Jerry Nadler saying to the juror -- the jury, the senators, you are involved in a cover-up.

Your reaction?

COLLINS: It is pretty amazing.

If you're a lawyer and you're going to present the case to the -- quote -- "jury," the first thing you don't do is go insult them and actually make a case in which they are turned off by what you're saying.

But it is not a shock, because here's what happened with the House managers. The reason they did it, number one, is the president is not guilty. He did nothing wrong. The facts and the truth are on the president's side, and the House managers know that.

We knew that coming over from the House.

Number two, we knew it was a political impeachment, because when they actually looked at it from the perspective of what do they want to do, they didn't want to go to court, they didn't want to take the witnesses, they didn't want to do the due diligence that they should have done in the House. So it was a political impeachment.

So, what are you left with? Well, I guess we're left with it. Let's see if we can shame the Senate into doing our job for us.

But I think it backfired on them, especially when Chairman Nadler said that, if you don't agree with me, then you're -- then you're basically -- you're corrupt, that you're hiding something.

That's just -- that just should show the American people in a clear form that the House managers have nothing on this president, except smear, innuendo, and an election in 2020 in mind.

BARTIROMO: Well, Adam Schiff got choked up toward the end of his closing arguments.

And then you had Nadler calling Trump a dictator who needed to be removed.

COLLINS: It is amazing that Chairman Nadler has just been so obsessed really with this president and trying to impeach this president. He ran on it to become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, because he wanted to -- just wanted to impeach the president.

But Adam Schiff getting emotional is a little bit farcical to me. Here's the same man who is the -- if you want to talk about witnesses, he's the number one fact witness. He should have been called. He had contact with the whistle-blower.

And claiming that he doesn't know who the whistle-blower is or anything else is really too much. But for him to get emotional, he shouldn't be emotional about the tragedy he put this country through the fall of this past year to attack this president.

If he wants to get emotional about something, get emotional about the fact that you have smeared a president who has done his job and put America first and put us in a position of world leadership, not the tearing down politically that you have tried to do to him.

BARTIROMO: Well, that's a good point, because this is what I referred to earlier with Senator Graham.

And that is that there is a transcript of the inspector general, who was one of the witnesses in the House, that we have not seen. And I know that Congressman Ratcliffe is going to talk about that as well.

Why hasn't that transcript been released?

COLLINS: Well, that's a great question for Adam Schiff.

It's a great question to understand, how did -- how did the House managers -- how did the House send over documents and begin this impeachment, when they're actually still in violation of their own resolution, which, by the way, was set up after the fact?

I think the House -- the president's lawyers did a great job yesterday of showing how the sham impeachment started by Nancy Pelosi just deeming it to happen had to be corrected, when they passed House Resolution 660 almost a month-and-a-half later.

This just goes to show that they're still in violation of their own rules. It is just an onerous attack by Democrats who had only one thing in mind. Let's impeach the president.

Remember Nancy Pelosi's words. He's impeached for life. He will never get rid of this.

That sounds more like somebody on a vendetta to smear somebody than it is to actually find truth, because the truth is, he did nothing wrong.

BARTIROMO: And Ted Cruz on this program last weekend said he will be acquitted for life, by the way. That was from Senator Cruz.

Let me ask you about where this is going. How does Monday, tomorrow, play out? And do you have any sense of what your colleagues in the Senate on the Democrat side are feeling here, because there is some suggestion that at least three Democrat senators perhaps will vote to acquit the president?

COLLINS: Well, if they honestly look at the evidence, that's what they should do.

There should be more than three on the Democratic side. But partisan politics is always at play here. I think what we have seen -- and it's just amazing -- the -- that, once they made their case, they used -- as Senator Graham said earlier, they pick and choose facts that they wanted to use.

We saw this all throughout the House process. And every time that we would bring up the witnesses, the fact that there was no firsthand witnesses that actually said the president did anything wrong, even Sondland, who is their main witness, who said -- he admitted that it was his presumption, when they -- this could have all been stopped with one thing.

And the president is fond of saying this, but that's also something that is very true. If Nancy Pelosi had waited one day, Speaker Pelosi had waited one day, and read the transcript -- just read the transcript. There's nothing wrong here.

They got their money. There was no pressure. And for the Democrats to continue to tear down President Zelensky and to try and tear down President Trump over this is just a shameful act.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, we will continue following this. We so appreciate your insights on this very important matter, Congressman Doug Collins joining us.

We will see you soon, sir.

We want to hear that sound bite of Ambassador Sondland. And we're going to play that in the next -- in the next segment, when we speak with another member of the president's defense team, Congressman John Ratcliffe, who was also involved in House hearings.

That's next, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

President's Trump lawyers taking center stage at his impeachment trial yesterday, beginning their opening statements arguing that the case for removing the president is politically motivated.

Joining me right now is Texas Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe. He is a former federal prosecutor who sits on House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. He is a also a member of the president's defense team.

And, Congressman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thank you for being here.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Great to be with you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: One of the most important and obvious pieces of evidence in this entire trial is the transcript from the phone call President Trump and Mr. Zelensky.

Did the House managers read the transcript?

RATCLIFFE: Well, you hit the nail on the head, Maria.

And I think I heard Senator Graham say that, in just two hours, the president's defense team was able to unravel 22 hours of testimony from the House managers. That was done very effectively yesterday, because the House managers have created a case out of nothing.

And they have done it by misrepresenting facts and making up facts. And you're right. It starts with the transcript.

If the transcript of the call between President Trump and President Zelensky showed anything wrong, much less anything criminal or impeachable, why wouldn't you just read that into the record?

Instead, what the House managers did was, they tried to make up their own transcript. They tried to make up one that was better, that said what they wanted it to say, what they needed it to say.

Adam Schiff did that. And that was made very clear to the audience listening yesterday.

So, that was just one example of where the House managers have overplayed their hand. They have tried to create facts, make up facts, misrepresent facts.

The people watching on Saturday got just a little taste of that. On Monday, that is going to continue. It's ultimately going to show that this whole thing was an impeachment that is a house of cards built on a bed of quicksand.

And I do think the president's going to be acquitted quickly later this week.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about that, because I want to show a clip of one of the clips that your team ran yesterday, because it feels like there was a fair amount of cutting and pasting here in terms of saying, this happened.

But then your team said, well, let's listen to the rest of the sentence.

Here is Ambassador Sondland and the clips that ran yesterday. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland used variations of words assume, presume, guess, speculate and belief over 30 times. Here are some examples.

GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: That was my presumption. My personal presumption. That was my belief. That was my presumption, yes.

As I said, I presumed that might have to be done in order to get the aid released.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: Is this best evidence, the best witness for the House prosecutors, as they try to impeach a president for the second time in two- and-a-half centuries, sir?

RATCLIFFE: Yes, that's what they said. They told you he was their star witness.

He was the one that Adam Schiff told you that clearly said there was a quid pro quo, and that Ambassador Sondland said that unequivocally, until you heard what Ambassador Sondland really said. And that clip tells it.

And his testimony also said, the president told him directly just the opposite. So it is that kind of misrepresentation, twisting of the facts that the Democrats did for three days that we're going to continue to expose on Monday to the American people and show what a hoax this thing really was.

BARTIROMO: So, tell me about the evidence that you have not seen. You are one of only two congressmen that were able to see the redacted documents throughout the entire Russia collusion narrative that went on.

It is you, because of you, Trey Gowdy, Devin Nunes, that I knew that this was actually not true that the whole media landscape was going with that there was any collusion. There was -- there were 18 witnesses that the House prosecutors had for this.

But you have not seen all 18 transcripts; is that right?

RATCLIFFE: That's exactly right, Maria.

The House managers kept putting up charts talking about the 17 witnesses. But there were 18. The 18th was the inspector general of the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson. He was the second witness interviewed on October 4. I was there.

It's the one transcript out of 18 that hasn't been released. It's a 179- page transcript. And you can bet that if that that transcript was helpful to Adam Schiff and the Democrats and harmful to President Trump, everyone would have seen it by now.

But, instead, it's just the opposite. It's the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistle-blower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistle-blower.

What they don't know and what's in that transcript is that the whistle- blower wasn't truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff. This whole thing started, Maria, when a whistle-blower filed a complaint with the inspector general, under penalty of perjury, that wasn't true and correct, made representations in writing and then verbally that weren't true and correct.

And when we found that out and tried to get into the details of that, Adam Schiff, who was in charge of this investigation, shut it down, and now he's trying to bury that transcript.

BARTIROMO: Now, this is not very different than what we saw over the two- and-a-half years of hysteria the country went through, where Adam Schiff went on the news, went on a lot of TV shows, and I remember specifically what he said.

He said, there is collusion in plain sight. He said it over and over again. And what we have learned this week from the Department of Justice was that Carter Page FISA warrant lacked probable cause.

The Department of Justice admits in declassified assessment that there was unlawful surveillance against Carter Page, exactly the opposite of what Adam Schiff wrote.

Let's show this -- this tweet that Adam Schiff put out back in 2018 after your colleague Devin Nunes came out with the Nunes memo basically detailing all the wrongdoing that happened at the top of the FBI.

He writes: "The release of the Carter Page FISA application makes clear once again that the FBI acted lawfully and appropriately. This hasn't stopped the president and Republicans from repeating the same fraudulent talking points in the discredited Nunes memo."

Now, more than a year later, we know for a fact that the Nunes memo was accurate and the Nunes memo was truthful. And Adam Schiff, I don't know what he was looking at that you weren't. Isn't it true that you and Trey Gowdy were the only two congressmen who saw the actual redacted documents, and that's how you knew there was no collusion and that he was being framed?

The other person to see those same documents that you saw was Adam Schiff. How is it possible that you came on this program a year ago and said, Maria, there's exculpatory evidence, and Adam Schiff wrote a tweet like that?

RATCLIFFE: Yes.

Well, you're right, Maria. Trey and I were the designees on our side able to see those documents. Adam Schiff was one of the designees on their side that was able to see that.

So you can imagine how remarkable it was for me to sit in the Senate and for three days listen to Adam Schiff spin this Ukraine hoax without any evidence to support it, at the same time that these details that you just mentioned, Maria, are coming out about the last hoax that he played such a prominent role in, the Russia hoax, because it was Adam Schiff who was leading the charge on that, who said he had evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent, he had evidence of a Russian conspiracy.

And he was the one that came out and said, when we raised questions about the FISA process and the withholding of exculpatory evidence, the using of a dossier that was known to be fake and phony as the central part of it...

BARTIROMO: Right.

RATCLIFFE: ... he knew all of that, and he was the one that said, no, that's not true, put out a memo, said President Trump and Republicans aren't telling you the truth about that.

That's the very same person who is now out there spinning this Ukraine hoax, his latest impeachment effort.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: It wasn't true about Russia. It's not true about Ukraine.

And the problem...

BARTIROMO: So, part of your defense -- yes, go ahead, real quick.

RATCLIFFE: Well, the problem is this, is that Adam Schiff says things that he knows are not true with supreme conviction.

BARTIROMO: Right.

Congressman, thank you.

RATCLIFFE: And that's why Democrat -- Democrats think that makes him effective. We think that makes him dangerous.

BARTIROMO: Well, it seems that part of the defense is an indictment of Adam Schiff's character.

Do you believe the president will be acquitted?

RATCLIFFE: He will be acquitted, I think by the end of this week.

BARTIROMO: OK, Congressman, good to see you. Thank you, sir.

RATCLIFFE: You bet.

BARTIROMO: We will be right back with my sit-down with President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

I have breaking news right now. I am told by sources that President Trump will sign into law the USMCA trade deal this week. It is expected on Wednesday. That is breaking news.

I sat down with the president at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week. The president told me he expects Europe to buy more agricultural products from the United States as part of a new renegotiated trade deal there, on top of the phase one trade deal announced with China.

We discussed that and his economic priorities for 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've done, I think, more than anybody in three years.

We have a military like we have never had before.

We're going to be doing a middle-class tax cut, a very big one. We're going to be doing that. We have to win the House. But -- and I think we can. I think we will win the House.

I think the whole hoax with the impeachment hoax, I call it, I think that it really helps us in terms of the House. So we'll be doing one.

BARTIROMO: Was that a tax cut for the middle class? Or do you just want to make that permanent?

TRUMP: No, no, I'm going to make a tax cut, and we're going to probably make the other permanent. It's got a long way to go, in all fairness, but we're going to make that permanent for the middle class.

So we'll be doing that. We'll be announcing it over the next 90 days.

BARTIROMO: Let me ask you about 2020.

Bernie is leading in New Hampshire, Biden is up in Iowa, and then there's Michael Bloomberg. Who do you think the Democrat nominee will be?

TRUMP: Well, mini Mike has spent a fortune, OK? I knew him very well. He used to like me a lot, until I ran for office. And he thought -- you know, they all think that -- they all thought Mike was going to be secretary of state if Hillary won.

And that was the deal they supposedly made. And Terry McAuliffe was going to get it, so they sort of gave him false information.

But he's spending a lot of money, but it's having no impact. I'm having right now my best poll numbers, as you know. You see it. BARTIROMO: At the same time, Bloomberg says he's willing to spend up to $2 billion to take you down. He said he would convict if he was in the Senate.

What kind of an impact does that kind of money have?

TRUMP: Well, right now, it doesn't have any impact. He's wasting his money. He's not going to win, because he can't. He's a terrible speaker. He can't speak properly. And he's -- he's not a charismatic guy.

He's got money. He'll spend as much money as he can. But it's had no impact. He's actually gone down in the polls. You look at his recent ones that came out today, Bloomberg's gone down in the polls.

I don't know exactly, but I can tell you, if you go before I ran for office, take a look at some of his statements. I would love to give them to you. He said the best things about me. He said great things about me. And I have helped him in the past. But he seems to have a problem. And that's OK.

I think that the other ones, crazy Bernie, I don't know, maybe he's really surging. He really is. Elizabeth Warren seems to be going in the other way. And Joe Biden doesn't seem to be doing too well, from the standpoint he can't -- it'll be very interesting to see whether or not he makes it.

BARTIROMO: Hillary Clinton, about Bernie, she said: "No one likes him, no one wants to work with him, he gets nothing done."

Pelosi has him, of course, in jury duty at the impeachment trial. Are they colluding against Bernie?

TRUMP: I mean, when Hillary says nobody likes him, nobody likes her. That's why she lost. I mean, nobody liked her.

She had every advantage. She had this big machine behind her. She had the Obama. She had -- she had everybody behind. And it wasn't even close. You look at 306 to 223. She's the one that people don't like.

I mean, I think if you had -- if I had my choice, in terms of personality, I might take him over her. But I probably would take neither.

BARTIROMO: Onto the impeachment.

TRUMP: And Biden is going to be interesting, because he can't string together a sentence. And if he makes it, if he makes it, you know, he seems to have a little bit of an edge right now, but it's rapidly disappearing.

Bernie is surging. There's no question about it. And Bernie seems to be the one the party wants. But my attitude is, whoever it is, it is.

BARTIROMO: Mr. President, I couldn't believe that the impeachment was still going on as we were getting here this morning.

TRUMP: Crazy.

BARTIROMO: Your critics are up to the same. They say that Pat Cipollone is now a material witness. They're accusing McConnell of colluding with you to cover a crime.

Are you concerned about getting a fair trial?

TRUMP: These people are crazy. They've gone nuts. And they've gone far left.

And Nancy is a woman who -- I call her nervous Nancy for a reason. She doesn't know what the hell's happening. She's lost her party. She didn't want to do this.

And we're doing very well. Look, you know, I always say, very simple, read the transcripts. And then, on top of reading the transcripts, speak to the president of Ukraine or the foreign minister, who say nothing happened.

BARTIROMO: What do you think is the best outcome here? Is the best outcome a quick dismissal?

TRUMP: I guess acquittal fairly quickly. These people are liars. They're horrible.

I watched this guy shifty Schiff. I watched him. And he makes a statement that I made, and it was a total fraud. I never made it.

BARTIROMO: He made it up.

TRUMP: That's why I released the conversation, because if I didn't release it, people would have said that I made the statement that he made.

This guy is a fraud. He's a corrupt politician. You know, it's a hoax. It's a terrible thing. And it's a hoax.

BARTIROMO: And it's not ending. Al Green said, look, if we don't get him this time, we'll keep going. Maxine Waters said the same thing. We'll try to impeach him again.

How are you going to deal with this for the rest of your presidency that they're constantly trying to take you down?

TRUMP: So, I think most people are now agreeing, nobody has done so much as I have done in the first three years of a presidency.

I saw Maxine Waters, what she said. I saw this guy Green. He said, we have to impeach him because we can't beat him. He said, we can't beat him. We have to impeach him. It's the only way we're going to win.

Can you imagine? This is what I have. This is what I have. But you know what? We'll just keep it going.

BARTIROMO: You have a 51-vote threshold in the Senate. Do you think there are four Republicans in the Senate that will vote for witnesses?

TRUMP: I don't know. We'll have to see what happens. I hope that they realize it's a hoax. I think it would be very bad for the Republican Party if we lost that great unity that we have right now.

Some of them are running. And I think it would be very bad for them, but I want them to do what they feel is best in their own heart. But nothing was done wrong. I think you'd know that better than anybody. I want to thank you, because you have been so incredible on this issue, and I want to thank you.

BARTIROMO: We've been seeking truth, and that's why the show is doing so well.

TRUMP: No. You have -- you have been...

BARTIROMO: Because people know that I have been honest about this.

TRUMP: You have been so fantastic. I appreciate it.

BARTIROMO: And it's because of this issue.

There is some question about this China deal. Some people feel like it doesn't have enough teeth, that, you know, you're not going to be able to get China to stop stealing intellectual property. It's their culture.

TRUMP: But here's what I do. OK, you ready? We have tremendous policing -- we have a policing aspect to this deal that's the strongest anybody's ever had.

If that happens, I will terminate the deal. If that happens, I will charge tremendous tariffs.

BARTIROMO: A.G. Barr says that there are some things that were done in the investigation that are not included in the Horowitz report. He's looking at Brennan. He's looking at other Obama officials.

How far up the line do you think this went?

TRUMP: I think it went right to the top. And I think that what they did is, they spied on my election. What they did is so illegal. Like, in history, there's never been anything like this.

They tried to defeat me before I got elected, and then -- and the insurance policy kicked in. You remember the famous insurance policy.

If he wins, we'll go get him here. And that happened. That happened. There has never been a thing like this. If this were reversed, and this was Obama, President Obama, where this happened to, people would be in jail right now for 50-year terms and 100-year terms.

I will tell you, we have a great attorney general. He's highly respected. He's a highly ethical man. He's doing a fantastic job. Let's see how it all comes out.

BARTIROMO: Mr. President, thank you.

TRUMP: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BARTIROMO: A short break, and then we are headed to week two of the Senate impeachment trial with Trey Gowdy and Congressman Mark Meadows.

They will join me live after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

President Trump's legal team resumes its defense tomorrow morning in the Senate impeachment trial.

His attorneys have indicated they plan to keep things shorter and less repetitive than Democratic House managers did in making their case.

Let's bring in a member of the president's defense team, Congressman Mark Meadows, Republican from North Carolina. He sits on the House Oversight Committee. Also joining us is former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, who served as chairman of the House Oversight Committee. He's a former prosecutor and now a FOX News contributor.

Gentlemen, it's wonderful to have you this morning. Thanks very much for joining us.

REP. MARK MEADOWS (R-NC): Great to be with you.

TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Congressman Mark Meadows, let me kick it off with you.

What can we expect from the defense team tomorrow morning?

MEADOWS: Well, obviously the two hours that was presented Saturday morning really went a long way to undercut the foundation of what Adam Schiff and his team laid out on three previous days.

I can tell you, it is more about what Adam Schiff didn't tell the American people than what he did tell them.

Mike Purpura did a great job of lining out those nine things. Why didn't Adam Schiff tell you these nine important facts?

And so what we will see on Monday is a strategic building upon that foundation to tell the rest of the story.

Trey Gowdy and I got to see the very beginnings of the whole Russia investigation. And we knew that Adam Schiff multiple times was, at best, mischaracterizing the evidence that he had.

But we're going to continue to see that on Monday, as the entire team builds step by step, block by block, the reasons why there's not only not an impeachable case, but certainly not even anything that comes remotely close to high crimes and misdemeanors.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

MEADOWS: And I -- this is all about politics, Maria. It has nothing to do with -- with witnesses or anything else. It's all about a political -- really a political allegation, trying to impugn the president's reputation.

BARTIROMO: And, Trey Gowdy, it's interesting, because the House prosecutors' strategy seems to be, let's shame the senators, saying, well, I guess you have to go with President Trump. Otherwise, your head will be on a pike, or, look, you're all involved in a cover-up.

But the legal team of the president, that strategy, partly, is including an indictment of Adam Schiff's character, looking back to what Adam Schiff said during the Russia collusion narrative, which, of course, was not true, and to show that there were lies throughout.

What do you advise the president's team to take, what tack to take?

GOWDY: Well, I would let them let Jerry never take all the time he wants to talk.

(LAUGHTER)

GOWDY: Jerry Nadler's trial strategy is to insult the jury.

I was in a lot of courtrooms, Maria. I never, ever saw a prosecutor have as a strategy let's see what we can do to infuriate, alienate and offend the jury.

What I would do if I were -- you know, the president has got a great team. Mark is great, Ratcliffe, Pat. But I would begin to ask questions of Schiff. And I would kind of connect the process with the substance. I would go line by line through that parody.

Adam Schiff had a chance to read the actual transcript, the actual evidence. He opted instead to create, to manufacture a parody. I would go line by line through that parody and ask Adam Schiff, why did you say that?

You -- you have the actual transcript of the call. Why was that not good enough for you, Adam? Why did you have to make up at a whole cloth?

I would also ask him, is it never OK to investigate someone who is running for office? I mean, if Joe Biden were not a presidential candidate, if he just like me and you, Maria, just a regular person, can you investigate him then? Does somehow this status of being a candidate means you are off- limits?

The only thing I would ask is, it took a conversation in a bar to investigate President Trump. That is all it took, a conversation in a bar to investigate President Trump.

What would it take to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden?

BARTIROMO: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

GOWDY: I mean, if it is just a conversation in a bar, is that the threshold to investigate?

BARTIROMO: Yes.

The other thing is, you haven't seen the 18th transcript, Mark. You haven't -- Congressman Meadows. You haven't seen the I.G. And that was the 18th transcript.

Let's take a short break, because there are other things to get to, including this news we got, an admission of guilt from the Department of Justice.

Congressman Mark Meadows, Trey Gowdy coming back with me -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Trey Gowdy, Congressman Mark Meadows.

I want to get to the news of the week, gentlemen. And that was an admission from the Department of Justice that the Department of Justice said that at least two of the FBI surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause, they were unlawful.

That's not what we heard from Jim Comey back in 2018.

Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI.

I think the notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: Nonsense, Mark Meadows. Your reaction?

(LAUGHTER)

MEADOWS: Well, Maria, you have been covering this.

Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, and I knew -- knew the facts of this. We knew that not only that that third and fourth FISA application had problems with it, but we also know that there were real probable cause concerns with the first and second one.

So, we haven't seen the end of this.

Why does it matter? It matters for this reason, Adam Schiff knew that there were problems with that. He purposely went out and suggested that Devin Nunes was not correct with his analysis, just like he's purposely going out right now spinning a narrative as it relates to Ukrainian aid being held up for some nefarious purpose.

It just didn't happen.

BARTIROMO: It's all connected, Trey Gowdy.

GOWDY: Yes.

Four different times, the United States government went and asked permission to surveil a presidential candidate. At least two of them, they lacked the lowest level of evidence needed, the lowest level of evidence needed.

This is not the search of some meth lab in a trailer park. It is surveilling a presidential candidate. And the FBI and DOJ struck out at least two out of four times, and maybe all four.

Schiff, Comey, McCabe, The Washington Post, New York Times, Politico, they were all wrong, and those crazy House Republicans turned out to be right after all.

BARTIROMO: And yet that's not what you heard from Adam Schiff in the trial.

Do you believe he will be -- the president will be acquitted, very quickly, Mark Meadows?

MEADOWS: He will be acquitted. We need to get this over with quickly, so it doesn't linger into the November elections.

BARTIROMO: OK, we will leave it there.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us.

Continue the conversation with me tomorrow morning on FOX Business, "Mornings With Maria," 6:00 to 9:00.

Have a great Sunday, everybody.

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