good evening, we begin with breaking news on the undocumented immigrant and woman he allegedly killed who president trump made twin centerpieces to his campaign.

kate steinle and the man charged in her murder. jose inez garcia zarate. jury found him not guilty and could have repercussions. what happened? what have you learned? >> reporter: within the past few minutes acquitted him of murder, first, and second and involuntary manslaughter. this is the case that brought the term sanctuary city to the forefront. person deported five times to mexico, would have been a sixth time but san francisco is sanctuary city and doesn't comply with federal immigration detentions and therefore let him go. many thought would be a slam dunk case for the prosecution, kate steinle, walking along this pier, this well-known pier in san francisco, july 1st, 2016. with her dad. gunshot rings out. within an hour police had their man. but defense did a very good job

in poking holes in prosecution's theory. remember, the profession said it was intentional murder, that you had this person point a weapon at kate steinle and pull the trigger. but prosecution doing an effective job raising reasonable doubt. one thing we know, anderson, the bullet ricochetted before striking kate steinle. that helped the defense. also, the defendant had little gunshot residue on his hands which some argue would show it's unintentional. the defense claimed as improbable as it seems, garcia zarate was sitting on chair, looked down and saw an object wrapped in cloth, unwrapped it and gun went off. jury apparently bought that story, anderson.

>> the defendant had given several explanations to law enforcement is my understanding, not only idea of gun just going off but said at one point he stepped on it or kicked it, didn't he? >> reporter: he gave rambling and conflicting statements. doesn't have all his cognitive abilities, acknowledged. jury seemed to overlook it. at one point said he was aiming at sea lion. another point said just five feet away from kate steinle when the gun went off, when in reality, about 100 feet away. whatever he told the police, jury didn't put much credence in it. >> and it's interesting that prosecutors gave the jury a number of options. as you said, first, second degree murder and manslaughter and found him not guilty on all countries. >> reporter: certainly did. conventional wisdom was if not going to find him guilty of murder, at least of involuntary manslaughter. but that was not the case. one thing that we should point

out anderson, the weapon used in this, it was stolen from a bureau of land management agent. in san francisco with his family on vacation and gun was stolen. they were never able to link this gun to garcia zarate. nobody knew how the gun wound up in his hands and defense had an expert who said this particular weapon is prone to accidental discharges. perhaps the jury bought that as well. >> prosecution said it would have required a fair amount of force to actually pull the trigger on this weapon. and zarate, my understanding, actually did -- the think the defense admitted this -- disposed of the weapon in the san francisco bay. is that not correct? >> reporter: exactly right. as soon as the gun went off threw it into the san francisco bay which prosecution said

denotes guilt. but again the jury seeming to overlook that anderson. it's just been a stunning case. we can tell you fact that he was undocumented immigrant is of course what brought so much attention to the case, played absolutely no bearing in the trial. simply about whether this accident or intentional shooting. >> and he was found guilty of a lesser charge correct? firearm possession or something? >> reporter: that's correct. because he does have some felonies on his record, multiple felonies, and drug offenses, found guilty as felon in possession of a firearm. >> is it clear what happens to him? where is he now? >> reporter: could get prison time for the lesser charge but get credit for time served. it's possible if he doesn't get prison time, we'll have to see what happens. could be just transferred back

to immigrations and customs enforcement to deport him back to mexico. had already been deported five times, some might make the argument would come back into the country again. >> we'll have more over the next two hours. dan simon, appreciate that. more breaking news tonight. on capitol hill, republican-sponsored tax bill might have hit a major snag. new report showing proposal would increase the debt by $1 trillion is not sitting well with some republican senators. the drama is playing out in washington. we'll get to that coming up. but first president trump, retweets of anti-muslim propaganda and continued fallout. calls his twitter modern-day presidential. if it means factually inaccurate and dangerous. dangerous, because today state department worried about new and violent

demonstrations in embassies in the middle east. in britain's house of commons, lawmakers lined up to join prime ministerer the theresa may in admonishing the president. >> wouldn't the world be a better place in the prime minister could persuade the president of the united states to delete his twitter account? >> press secretary sarah sanders was peppered with questions about the reason of retweeting of the three videos from the british hate group. in a minute, we'll get into the hate group and who it is because you ought to see what the leader of the free world is endorsing by spewing out to his twitter followers. first play what sanders said in defense of it. you might not believe it unless you hear it for yourself. >> look, i think what he's done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue, real threat, extreme violence and extreme terrorism, something we know to be very real and president feels strongly about talking about every day.

that we're looking at the best ways to protect americans. >> elevate the conversation she said. elevating the conversation by giving the presidential seal of approval to videos from a hate group. originally tweeted out by jayda fransen. second in command at the group called britain first. anti-immigrant but mostly anti-muslim. example how she elevates the conversation confronting muslim woman in front of her young children. >> you're being because you can't control our [ bleep ]. >> earned a conviction for religiously aggravated harassment. not a one-off, it's what the group does. march into muslim neighborhoods wearing paramilitary style uniforms harassing residents. what the president is retweeting. in armored suvs go to places in britain they call muslim-occupied. here's the leader of the organization the president is retweeting.

>> we're in east london. in the heart of muslim east london. armored land rover full of activists. we're just headed down now into the brick laying white chapel area. we've received new information that muslim gangs are trying to enforce certain parts of shariah law and quite frankly we're not having this. we've got activist teams out across the country carrying out similar christian patrols in muslim areas. >> and it goes on and on beyond that. last year jo cox was murdered by a man shouting britain first as he shot and stabbed her to death. i spoke to jo cox's spoke to the widower last night. >> this is like the president retweeting the klu klux klan. it's not a mainstream organization and president of the united states, our greatest ally as country to be retweeting and providing a microphone to

those voices, think everybody, no matter what your political persuasion in the u.k. has been shocked by this. >> these voices are a minority in britain and a minority here. and exponentially amplified by the president of the united states who white house now says may not have known who he was retweeting. >> when the president retweeted jayda fransen know who she was? >> no. i don't think so. but he knew what the issues are and that is that we have a real threat of extreme violence and terrorism, not just in this country but across the globe. particularly in europe. that was the point he was making. don't have much to add beyond that. >> president trump, most powerful person in the world with access to reams of information and internet probably doesn't know anything about the person whose propaganda he's spreading. elevating the conversation.

joining us now former director of national intelligence and national security analyst james clapper. fears that president's retweets could spark violent protests in middle east, do you share the concerns? >> i do. i have lived through this in previous incidences of inflammatory videos which can really incite people in certain parts of the mideast. i recall our closing temporarily two dozen or so diplomatic facilities because of the concern about safety and security of diplomatic missions. these things have a way of inciting -- may think they're innocuous. in certain parts of the world, they are not. tweeting is a great way to communicate, i just wish the president would exert more discretion and have people fact

check things before he tweets them out. because some of these -- to me, this is -- smacks of recklessness. if not abject carelessness. it's very concerning to me to see this unnecessary risk to our people overseas. >> you know, radical islamists are one thing, britain first, they're accosting muslims on the streets of england, obviously many people in the united states who try to do similar things on the internet, trolls who do this thing, accosting muslims, not radical islamists but just living their lives. as somebody focused on national security and intelligence for your entire career, does the idea of painting all muslims with a broad brush, does it hurt

u.s. diplomatic but more importantly military efforts? we have u.s. soldiers and marines and sailors who are risking their lives in support of regimes in iran, afghanistan, helping people in somalia, predominantly islamic countries. >> it does. and particularly to have the commander in chief, leader of the free world, seemingly endorse such inflammatory and looks to me like contrived or phony videos. and just makes -- unnecessarily complicates what our people overseas, diplomats, military people are trying to do. i just don't see the point of it. because it just generates unnecessary risk. and domestically, if there are some, whatever the number, 44 million followers of the president's tweets, some number

of them, some small number of them are at various stages of radicalization. what does something like this do to them here in this country? so i think the press secretary should be considered for the fred astaire/ginger rogers tap dancing award for trying to defend what's indefensible. >> you're saying this could push some individuals predisposed or disturbed in some way or religiously motivated, push them into radicalization if they feel there's blanket war against islam or hatred towards muslims or fear and dislike? >> exactly. deem demonizing all muslims or the muslim religion, and i just think -- that's what's happening here, i think is really reprehensible.

>> goes without saying perhaps that president should have taken this into consideration before retweeting videos from anti-muslim far right activist. at very least if he had no idea who the group was, he seems internet savvy, could have at least googled them. >> or somebody could on his behalf. as i say, tweeting is obviously a very powerful form of direct communication. that in itself is not bad. i just wish there would be more discretion, more care given to what is the content of what is tweeted out? has huge impacts not only in this country but rest of the world. and it's just inconceivable to me that that is not done. and that he's not more careful about what he tweets. now he poisoned a relationship with our closest ally, the u.k.

u.k., and set off a firestorm of controversy and criticism there. for what? i don't understand it. >> appreciate your time, general clapper. return to the steinle case. bring in our legal experts and check on areaction from the white house. later breaking news on taxes and bill that could be far more expensive than promised. angus king with that. at t-mobile, when you holiday together, great things come in twos. like t-mobile and netflix. right now when you get an unlimited family plan, netflix is included. ho ho ho! t-mobile covers your netflix subscription... best christmas gift ever! ...so you can binge watch all year long. now you're thinking christmas! and now when you buy any of this season's hot new samsung galaxy phones, you get a second one free to gift. that's one samsung for you. and one to give. t-mobile. holiday twogether. mopping robotthe from irobot. its precision jet spray and vibrating cleaning head

loosen and scrub stains. all while navigating kitchens, bathrooms and those hard to reach places. you and braava jet from irobot. better together. whstuff happens. old shut down cold symptoms fast with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels.

more now on breaking news. jury found undocumented immigrant not guilty of murder in killing of woman in san francisco, kate steinle, a

case that president seized on to bolster anti-immigration campaign. family member brad statement. i'm not surprised. system failed kate from this start of this events. why would it be any different? from the drug charge to the detainment to not being detained by i.c.e. failure after failure. the culmination of events is an epic fail. doesn't affect us in any way. kate is gone. strength we've drawn from kate, memory with us. good come from this. raised money in her memory for challenged athletes foundation and students rising above youth, organizations kate was involved in. day kate died at 1:00 a.m., posted whatever is good for your soul, do that. dan simon is following the case. back with us. you've been following this trial. is the not guilty verdict a surprise? there was a lot of evidence

stacked up against the accused. >> reporter: i think it was surprising he was not found guilty at least of involuntary manslaughter. i do think the defense did an excellent job raising reasonable doubt. prosecution though said it was slam dunk case, defendant jose inez garcia zarate was especially playing real life version of russian roulette, at pier with full intention of killing somebody. brought on a witness who actually said that garcia zarate was sitting in his chair, laughing at smiling at people as they went by on the pier, laying the theory that garcia zarate was intent on killing somebody, if it wasn't kate steinle. fact that this bullet ricochetted off the ground i

think helped out the defense in very significant way. you had a gun specialist testify if it did not ricochet off the ground kate steinle would be alive. made the argument that not even best marksman in the world could make that kind of shot and seems like the jury essentially bought that version. >> and had made various statements to law enforcement when interrogated after being arrested. i assume the defense was able to raise enough questions about his understanding of what he was talking about or saying? >> reporter: the police interview was essentially meaningless, gave conflicting answers, sometimes implicated himself, sometimes said things that made no sense. at one point he thought he was

pointing gun at animal. so essentially what he told police, jury just -- what i think is they couldn't make sense of it, left with some of these questions about the ricochet shot, questions about the gun itself, questions about gunshot residue. the defense made the argument, if he has a gun in his hand and fires, there's going to be all kinds of residue particles on his hands but just a single particle. that bolstered the argument that the gun was wrapped in a cloth and that he found it. so from the jury's point of view enough questions to raise reasonable doubt. >> appreciate that. president talked about kate steinle repeatedly on the campaign trail. here's what he said at a rally in phoenix in august 2016. >> in my first day of office i'm also going to ask congress to pass kate's law, named for kate steinle. to insure that criminal aliens

convicted of illegal re-entry receive strong mandatory minimum sentences. strong. and then we get them out. >> let's go to the white house and sara murray. any reaction so far? >> reporter: we've asked for a statement to see the president's reaction. as you pointed out, talked about it numerous times in the campaign. haven't heard from him but attorney general jeff sessions put out a statement. i'm going to read a portion of it. when jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the state rather than turning over to federal authorities put the public safety at risk. san francisco's decision to protect criminal aliens led to preventible and heartbreaking death of kate steinle. already taking aim at san francisco's position as sanctuary city. heard the president decry them numerous times in the campaign

and since taking office. >> seen in the clip and spent time on the campaign trail. huge issue he brought up many times. >> reporter: it was. immigration was central issue when he entered the presidential race. campaigned on. when he learned kate steinle's story, something the president latched on to and used as example, rallying cry for tougher immigration policies throughout the presidential campaign. so we're waiting to see if the white house and president weigh in. >> joining me for legal perspective is jeffrey toobin. my understanding is prosecutors gave juries a number of potential -- murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter. fact they didn't convict on any surprise you? >> it does but san francisco juries are unusually favorable

to defendants. it's a liberal city and more sympathetic to defendants than you might see in different cities. jury was specifically instructed not to consider anything regarding immigration law. >> policy. >> policy or fact he'd been deported five times. that was not before the jury. now, who knows if they read the newspaper. obviously something that was much in the news. but the issue before them was entirely on the basis of shooting kate steinle, not anything about his immigration status. >> the attorney for this man said that it was clearly an accident and that -- i'm wondering, that's what the evidence showed. yet he did give a number of statements to the police. >> but as dan said, those statements were so contradictory and confused that the argument that was made to the jury, disregard them all and

apparently that's what they did. did convict of illegal possession of the weapon but when you consider the magnitude of the loss and death of kate steinle, it's a very minor conviction. >> i want to bring in laura coates, as well. if he's guilty of possession of the weapon and it was fired, why wouldn't that be manslaughter? a much lower bar to meet. >> of course. seems counterintuitive to people, however the possession has to be different from manslaughter. matter of intent. way the law structures different levels of intentional or unintentional killings, is how you frame narrative of intent. reckless, careless, intentional, trying to harm somebody? was it an accident? seems like way it was framed to the jury, ricochet had the ultimate impact. and being able to undermine any conceivable notion perhaps this was intended to shoot the person who was shot, kate steinle in this case.

although the possession would tell you that obviously had it and possession led to a killing of this young woman. but the intent portion of it is so pivotal to any jury considering it, i find it not shocking to me they didn't have conviction in this case based on that theory. >> important point. if hadn't been ricochet but direct shot, might have been manslaughter or something else? >> would have been a very key and pivotal change to the entire prosecution's case. theory of course is they thought would be a slam dunk. this is the person with residue on his hands, seen throwing the weapon into the san francisco bay. probably banking on the notions of the court of public opinion where somebody who is repeated felon or returning to the united states after having been fortd acting in disregard of the law. would naturally follow in their minds somebody who disregards law in one context is willing to do so in another.

but talking about intentional or unintentional killings, you have to prove the two actions are related. i intended to shoot the weapon and not intended to hit sea lion or part of the pier but had to be aiming for a particular person. there is theory of transferred intent, aiming at another person and killing somebody else but all would be undermined by the notion it ricochetted. sounds more like accidental killing. that's neither voluntary, involuntary or intentional homicide. >> we'll have more coming up. coming up, latest from capitol hill and fate of the tax bill right now. as you can clearly see, the updates you made to your plan strengthened your retirement score. so, that goal you've been saving for, you can do it. we can do this? we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement

while saving for the things you want to do today. nana, let's do this! aye aye, captain! ♪ and as you go through life -whoo! -♪ tryin' to reach your goal (toots) but you know it's you. so know this. the activated charcoal in charco caps adsorbs gas for fast gas relief without passing the gas. charco caps: put less boom in the room. no matter what it brings. wevery day.sing the gas. or where he is. and pain doesn't hold him back. thanks to dr. scholl's running insoles. the only ones proven to relieve and prevent pain from runner's knee, shin splints and plantar fasciitis. dr. scholl's. born to move.

wifiso if you can't live without it...t it. why aren't you using this guy? it makes your wifi awesomely fast. no... still nope. now we're talking! it gets you wifi here, here, and here. it even lets you take a time out. no! no! yes! yes, indeed. amazing speed, coverage and control. all with an xfi gateway. find your awesome, and change the way you wifi. with time running out for the president and republicans to rack up only major legislative accomplishment of the year, tax bill through senate hit a snag.

issued a report contradicting claim will pay for itself and new debt analysis. it was not what republicans needed or wanted. how did they react? >> reporter: didn't go over well at all on capitol hill and helped kill a lot of the momentum that republican leaders had been feeling for good portion of the day. especially earlier having john mccain say he supports the bill. but that report, bill would add a whopping $1 trillion to the deficit over a decade didn't sit well for deficit hawks. namely senator bob corker. promised not to get behind the bill to add the deficit. had been behind a deficit trigger. idea to raise taxes

automatically if growth projections were not met but late today, set up drama here because senate parliamentarian ruled that trigger would not be permitted and possibly loses his support of the bill. now there is a scramble to salvage people. by going to other ideas. what the ideas are, what changes are made, at this point, anderson, it's very unclear. >> where do republicans go from here? >> not going to vote tonight. first and foremost. will try tomorrow. debating through the night. looking at proposals and changes to be made. lot of talk about things that could be worked in but hours away from potential vote in senate on major tax bill and as of now, many are wondering what is the bill. they have to write it in and vote in short amount of time.

in flux. independence center. you were on the senate floor, part of the huddle with senator corker. explain what was going on and major sticking points. >> first the reporter is right, real question being asked is what tax bill. believe it or not anderson, nobody's seen it. going to be voting on one of the most important votes we'll ever take in this body, affect this country next 30 years sometime tomorrow and nobody's seen the bill. to call this circus would be insult to circus. talk about what is going on. submitted a simple amendment to

say send back to budget committee and send back a deficit neutral bill. group of republicans inclined to support amendment. threw everything in disarray. supposed to take 15 minutes and took an hour. ultimately voted against my amendment. but it's not settled. amendment straightforward. send back to committee, send us bill that doesn't blow a hole in the deficit. now we're faced with we don't know what, taking this big vote tomorrow. there are so many moving parts and would be fairly easy for them to fix this. so far they're not doing so. >> are there other options? >> will be discussions all night. >> phil mattingly is reporting

corporate tax rate going up after six years. >> that's one option. and to complicate, marco rubio and mike lee have amendment to provide higher credit for children. bump corporate rate from 20% to 22% to pay for that. lot of things in play. and really frustrating thing anderson, this is a bill that's never had a hearing. when we did tax reform in 1986, 33 hearings over ten months and bill passed senate 90-10. in this case they've tried to jam it through, no hearing, one week of committee consideration, no expert opinion from outside, no ordinary citizens and here we are, as of 8:30 tonight, still don't know what the bill is. people running this show don't know what the bill is. i just think it's ridiculous. what we ought to do is, take a

deep breath, stop and try to develop a bipartisan bill. could still be done, that everybody agrees -- not everybody but most agree we have to cut corporate tax rate to be more competitive and other things to do to stimulate the economy. but the report from the jant tax committee blew away the argument this is going to pay for itself, they're left trying to make it whole and i don't know how to do it. >> how can people in good conscience vote for a bill nobody has actually seen or read? could be favors to people and organizations and lobbyists inside there. >> anderson, the bangor city council wouldn't amend the leash law with a process like this. it's embarrassing, not the way the senate is supposed to work. i worked here as staff member many years ago, never anything like this. bringing a bill up and rewriting it -- bills always changed and complicated, but idea of having

us vote on one of the most important bills we'll ever vote on, going to affect every business and every american and entire economy next 20 or 30 years and we have no idea how it fits together, whether it does, unexpected consequences. hell of a way to run a railroad. >> what do you make of the president's comments saying this bill will cost him a fortune? will it in your opinion? >> impossible to assess that. never seen his tax returns. one summary from 2005, if i remember figures, $38 million in tax and $31 million of that because of the alternative minimum tax which high income taxpayers, says you can't deduct to nothing and clicks to high income. that's repealed in this bill. estate tax is repealed in the house bill and modified in this bill. those two provisions, can't see how couldn't help the president.

one thing to assert it will hurt him but evidence is to the contrary and could solve this issue easily by releasing his tax returns which every president candidate has done in the last 40 years. but for him to say it's going to hurt me, doesn't square with what we saw from his '05 return. >> appreciate your time, thank you. coming up, reports that secretary of state tillerson was on his way out. were they a plan to humiliate the secretary of state? we'll talk re-exit and the possible reasons behind it in a moment.

more breaking news. a source tells cnn the white house wanted to publicly shame the secretary of state rex tillerson with the news they were considering replacing him with cia director mike pompeo in the next few months. idea is shame him and force him to quit. sarah sanders was asked if tillerson was trying to be forced out. here's what she said. >> many of you like to write these stories. when the president loses confidence in someone, no longer serve in the capacity they're in. president was here today with

secretary of state. engaged in foreign leader visit and continuing to work together to close out what we've seen as incredible year. >> "new york times" broke the news. joins us on the phone. maggie, rumblings have been going on for some time. how did it come to head? >> it's a wonderful question. part of the issue has been this president been unhappy with him for months. not just president but almost everyone around him in the west wing. came to a head that tillerson was not going to survive many months longer shortly after the nbc report about him describing the president as moron which he was pretty slow to disavow that particular comment. looking for replacement for some time while john kelly tried to keep continuity through the year.

recognition this is not tenable. president and rex tillerson had a decent rapport in the asia trip. my understanding this was put out to say to tillerson, going to go soon, do it yourself or we do it for you and lock in president so he doesn't change his mind. >> why not just fire him? >> because the president of the united states despite getting elected in part for saying the line you're fired hates firing people. incredibly nonconfrontational. most of the firings have been at hands of subordinate. fired not by president but his son. doesn't like personal conflict. easier to swirl up this way and people to try to get tillerson

go of his own accord. tillerson has not been consistently happy, moments when he talks about leaving. doesn't seem like it's one of them but administration is preparing for the next act. >> michelle kosinski is reporting that this was meant to publicly shame him. >> i think it was meant in part as public shaming, but practical goal of making clear this is where it's going and letting the president see this is where it has to go. to my point about how he doesn't like to fire people, he often changes his mind when it comes to the moment of truth, when you actually have to make an adjustment. remember for how long jared kushner and ivanka trump have been urging him to get rid of steve bannon before john kelly arrived and finally took place. takes a while for these things to happen in trump land. >> reporting that white house is worried about other departures.

>> there are a number of people they're concerned are going to leave end of the year. not uncommon for staff members to last a year into a new white house and depart. it's a stressful job under typical circumstances and these are obviously atypical circumstances. they want to have handle on everything and looking across the board at who else could go but john kelly is keeping focus on things staying the same through 2017. after that, things will change. >> maggie haberman, thanks so much. >> joining me ryan crocker, former ambassador. cowrote "new york times" op-ed sounding what he called alarm bell about the president's dismantling the state department

and political commentator, former for obama administration. >> you served under both parties for decades. what do you make of this public shaming? >> i certainly have seen the reports anderson. we've never seen anything like this since world war ii. throughout the modern era. this is not -- well in sense that the white house will float out there that they're going to fire somebody, how unhappy the president is with someone. seen with attorney general, seeing it now with secretary tillerson and saw it a while back when it was leaked out that the president was considering firing general mickleson, combat commander in afghanistan, it verges on the criminal. weakens authority of a man fighting a war.

people can die for that. similarly with secretary tillerson, whatever time he has left, he's not going to be taken seriously by too many world leaders. that is also very dangerous. >> that's essential for secretary of state. >> this is not a celebrity tv show, you have to have credibility. when the secretary speaks, people have to know he's speaking for the president. puts tillerson in an impossible position. >> idea this is how the white house would deal with nation's top diplomat, fourth in line to the presidency by the way, is just stunning. one source telling cnn that west wing is just waiting for tillerson to punch out and clock is ticking. if you were advising secretary tillerson, what would you recommend he do to deal with this? >> the period of time where he could leave on his own terms has passed. there's been a long death march here.

president trump has been cutting him off at knees for months, criticizing him publicly and as ambassador crocker referenced, making foreign leaders question whether he's speaking on behalf of the president of the united states or on behalf of the united states. if i were advising him, i would say, leave on your own terms to the degree you can. go out gracefully, on your own terms before you're publicly fired and do it soon. and i certainly hope that's something he's being advised on internally. >> certainly no fan of tillerson's internal decisions at state department, you wrote a "new york times" op-ed about that last week. do you have any reason to believe things would be different if the president had mike pompeo, who he wants to replace him? >> i would like to think it would be different, that the president would put in place people in whom he has confidence. and then, maintain that confidence. i have -- my expectation that

will happen is under control, let's put it that way. >> we learned today that the state department has expressed concern at the white house about the president's anti-muslim retweets yesterday, warning they could be endangering u.s. personnel. whatever problem the west wing has with its >> secretary tillerson, what ambassador crocker wrote in the "new york times" is sported and greeted by anybody that works in the state department. that gutting the department is absolutely terrible. but he's also been aligned on some issues with the foreign policy establishment from both sides of the aisle, and expressing concerning certainly about the tweets that were made earlier this week. that president trump put out. staying in the climate change agreement. those are more aligned with what most people think should happen.

he has virtually no power and hasn't had power for some time. >> appreciate it. thank you. >> when we come back, breaking news. the president will hold a campaign rally just 25 miles from alabama next friday. that's just days before the u.s. senate election. that pits roy moore against doug jones. the president said he would not travel to alabama before the election. we'll get into that next. orked , it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible.

this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

it's just my eczema again,t. but it's fine. yeah, it's fine. you ok? eczema. it's fine. hey! hi! aren't you hot? eczema again? it's fine. i saw something the other day. eczema exposed. your eczema could be something called atopic dermatitis, which can be caused by inflammation under your skin. maybe you should ask your doctor? go to eczemaexposed.com to learn more. breaking news tonight,

president trump will hold a campaign rally in pensacola, florida next friday. which is just days before the alabama u.s. senate election that pits roy moore against doug jones. pensacola is 25 miles from the alabama border and is in a alabama tv market. gary tuckman joins us now with more. the white house pledged that the president would not go to alabama, but he sure is close. >> reporter: here's what it comes down to, anderson. roy moore who is behind me inside a church, about to start speaking at a campaign event very likely will come face to face with donald trump before the election a week from tuesday. what's happening here, is alabama, the closest point from alabama to pensacola is only 15 miles away. they're part of the same television market. people coming to this rally will be alabamaians, this will be on

alabama television. this is a campaign rally he's having. it's not stated it's for roy moore, you can bet it will be mentioned at the meeting and alabamaians will be at. >> gary, obviously roy moore continues to push back against the allegations concerning his behavior against teenage girls last night he said -- i want to play something for our viewers that he said last night regarding his accusers. >> let me state once again, i do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women. >> he said he didn't know any of the women. listen to what he said two weeks ago when he was on sean hannity's radio show. he had this to say about two of them. >> i do recognize the names of two of these young ladies. debbie wesson and gloria thacker, which they have -- that's their maiden name. i remember her as a good girl. i seem to remember her as a good girl. >> i know you've been talking to his supporters. some of his supporters about the contradiction. what did they think about it?

>> reporter: the last few minutes as his supporters -- his fur vent supporters came into the church behind me, we asked them about these different statements he's made over the last 2 1/2 weeks. we showed them the video, let them listen to the audio, here's what they said. >> i seem remember her as a good girl. >> my question for you is, he said last night he didn't know any of these girls. he said to sean hannity he remembered two of them as good girls. does that trouble you? that he said two different things about knowing his accusers. >> no, sir. >> we're talking about a guy who's older than i am, we're talking about 40 or 50 years ago, i don't know. >> two weeks ago he said he knew two of them, now he's saying he doesn't know any of them. does that mean he can't his stories straight? >> i don't know whether he does or not. >> it's whether you know them in an intimate way. let me just ask you, where were you on thursday november 9th at 2:00 in the

afternoon, four years ago. >> so the point is you're saying that doesn't mean anything? >> i know lots of people. i've met lots of people, but the ones i know. i know the ones i dated, as a close friend, but i know there's just some people you know as a happenstance. >> you don't think he's contradicting himself? >> i don't. >> could he be trying to change his story as this goes on? >> no. i -- there's a lot of things that occur to me at a second glance that's not a contradiction. >> you stand with him? >> yes. >> we talked to people off camera too who didn't want to go on camera, they felt the same way. nobody, at least the people who are supporting him in this church right now, are troubled by these very different statements that were uttered 17 days apart. >> coming up next more on the

acquittal of kate steinle's suspected murderer. will tax reform get through congress before the end of the year? >> we'll get into all of that when we continue. and saving so much money on their car insurance by switching to geico... well, just look at this setting. do you have the ring? oh, helzberg diamonds. another beautiful setting. i'm not crying. i've just got a bit of sand in my eyes, that's all. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. grandma's. aunt stacy's. what are the reasons you care for your heart? qunol coq10 with 3x better absorption has the #1 cardiologist recommended form of coq10 to support heart health. qunol, the better coq10.

the president made her murder the rallying cry of his campaign. the alleged killer the face of his central issue. beautiful kate as the president calls her. tonight a jury acquitted the undocumented immigrant on all charges related to her death. we'll have more o in the hour ahead. but tonight, the tax bill that had a blow tonight, the trillion dollar hole the tax cut could put on the country's finances. the tax bill today on the floor. what happened? >> reporter: what we saw is something that was hours of frustration, building up in a single senator boiling wide open.