we need to give the personal who claims it a prompt and fair hearing. you can arrest a person on probable cause and put them into jail. i think it is appropriate to hold proceeds of a drug deal with probable cause. >> it is appropriate to hold them but not to take them until there has been a guilty finding. justice thomas criticized the forfeiture law. i hope we can have a longer conversation about this. i think this is an important issue. i always found it to be very fair. i feel we need to reform the civil asset forfeiture laws in the united states, we need to make sure people are protecting the fifth amendment. just as important as a first amendment and every other amendment of the constitution. i think we need to work together to >> some of the complaints you've read about are state and local

forfeitur forfeitures. i'm going to have an accountability office on all of these cases and we will not accept abuses of the law. >> thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the gentle woman from alabama, mrs. robey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a great to have you here today. we're really excited to have the attorney general sessions and we just thank you for your many years of service to the state of alabama and now your continued work as our -- for our 98s as our attorney general. i've known you a long time. you served our state and the people of alabama know you well. we've heard a lot about russia and things you may or may not have heard and that somehow

you're guilty of collusion with russia. so i have two questions for you. have you ever worked with russians to influence an election. >> no. >> have you ever in any capacity personally, politically or officially ever done anything to hurt our harm the national security of the united states of america. >> i don't believe i have. i've tried to protect the national security of our country. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to move on to a different subject. i was pleased to see that your first act, official act, after being sworn in as attorney general was to present president trump an executive order to strengthen the enforcement of federal law on trans national criminal organizations. this is an important initiative to curtail the international trafficking of drugs, weapons and human beings, often victims of sex trafficking, including

young children. one of the reasons that i was eager when asked to join the judiciary committee earlier in this congress was to work towards making a difference on this issue. we have worked with the department of justice already on some very important policy changes, particularly to our criminal code, to that effect. both the house and the senate judiciary committees have held hearings regarding specifically the legal liability of websites hosting advertisements for prostitution to include the prostitution and abuse of children. section 230 of the communications decency act shields websites such as back page, craig list, facebook, many other from legal liability regarding content posted by

their users. we had a hearing on this. i'm interesting in fining the right balance between protecting the freedom of expression and protecting the rights of young children that are victims, that are being abused without impacting the innovation of the internet. and so i would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. i know you were already asked a question specific to this. this is very important to get this right and do so working together. at the end of the day, we have to find a solution and we all want to do everything that we can to protect these children from these horrible, horrible abus abuses. >> thank you very much. it's a valuable thing for us to address. many recent days, i've talked about it with my staff. we haven't formed a clear picture of where we will go. to the extend to which we can work with you on that, i would

be pleased to. >> i do want to. like i said, the most important thing here is that we get this right and strike that balance. again, as a member of this committee to have this opportunity to fight for those that run able to fight for themselves is a tremendous privilege and i appreciate the partnership with the department making sure that we get this right. thanks so much. we appreciate you. thank you for your service. >> thanks for your service to the state of alabama and the united states. >> no doubt. >> the chair recognizes the gentlemen from texas. >> thank you. attorney general sessions, always good to see you. >> thank you. >> the short hearing looks like unless somebody else comes in. first of all, you know, seemed like to me, you got mistreated a little bit. there were questions about your

answer that senator franken's question. i've got a copy of what he said. now, he is explaining his question. he said if there's evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? then we even had somebody offer into the record that mother jones basically said you lied. i would submit this committee doesn't need mother jones to inaccurately describe or depict or tell us what happened when we can look at the conversations, see for ourselves. let me ask you. was your meeting with the russian diplomats, was that in the course and scope of your obligations with the campaign or in the course and scope of your

duty as a united states senator? >> well, really they were mostly official business. >> as a u.s. senator? >> i did speak at the republican convention but the conversation on the floor after i finished my remarks were brief. i was -- and then with regard to the meeting in my office, substantively essentially about foreign relations between the united states and -- >> so with you talking with them about the convention. it was not about the presidential campaign of donald trump. it was in your capacity as a united states senator, correct? >> well, i think so. you can say i was invited for other reasons. >> when you had talked before about -- that you had consulted with the career people about

whether or not to recuse yourself, can you tell us whether or not one of those people with whom you consulted was rod rosenstein? >> yes, i could say how that occurred. >> did you -- i'm just asking if you did. >> i was thinking out loud if that's consultive -- >> i'm not asking you to reveal what was said. >> i talked to another senior official in the department of justice who holds a position. he also consults others in the department before he makes opinions. >> were you aware when you recused yourself of the investigation by the justice department into e-mail accounts,

was it your e-mail accounts in the criminal complaint? >> no. >> were you aware that --'s got a motion to seal here. >> i don't think so. i'll say it that way. >> yeah, this was the investigation into russian trying to corner the market with u.s. uranium. there is actually a motion to seal. i'm sure you filed them many times as a u.s. attorney. this was respectfully submitted rod j. rosenstein, u.s. attorney and adam ackey as the assistant u.s. attorney asking judge connelly to have this russian investigation, the investigation into the russian effort to corner our market to seal those records. so you were not aware that

rosensteined that had this prior dealing with russian uranium before you recused yourself, had you? you weren't aware of that, right? >> my recusal that we made public was for the mueller investigation, the campaign -- russian -- >> mueller was appointed. but you weren't aware that mueller had been central in the investigation before james comey took over the fbi september of 2013. so you were not aware of the mueller/comey investigation into russian uranium, were you, before you recused yourself? >> i don't think so. no, i was not. i wasn't in the department of justice and was aware of that when it was going on. >> my time is running out here. we have a chart here that shows

how integration the relationship with mr. rosenstein, mr. mueller into this whole uranium one thing. it stinks to high heaven and doesn't appear they ought to be involved in investigating. my time has run out. i appreciate your service. >> thank you. i appreciate your service. mr. chairman, i would just note on that, the matter that was prosecuted concerning uranium and russian business companies was two years after this investigation. that's when mr. rosenstein handled -- brought to his office. didn't hit his office until two years afterwards. really unrelated to the allegations about uranium one as i understand it. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, thanks for your service and your time here today. i'll try to make this as short as i can. but representing and speaking for the sheriff's across the country and other police as well, one of the issues that i know they have great concern about, there's your grand process, if you can have someone look at the situation where nonrelevant criteria are placed on grants to require agencies to meet some performance criteria. one i was familiar with is national implement management systems. had nothing to do with the grant but put that as a criteria for a

grant application. what it does, it takes away home rule from local law enforcement. i know several sheriffs and chiefs are concerned about that. have you had any issues with that that you're aware of? >> the statute congress passed for the grant program allows the department of justice to place special conditions on grants. but the one we placed that deals in the future with sanctuary cities does -- is minimal, simply require as cooperative relationship where federal officials can go to the jail, and that the people at the jail can communicate with the federal law enforcement offices. does not require the states to go arrest people or hold them past their release date. none of those things. it's a very reasonable thing.

may still be some conditions on those grants from previous administrations. but that's the one i think that we have added to it. >> well, i can tell you, that is not the one that i'm concerned about. >> okay. >> in fact, the sheriffs and chiefs that i've spoken to have supported that whole heartedly. >> i will be glad to look at that. >> the other issue, if they can force you to be nims compliant, they can force you to carry revolvers versus semiautomatics, it goes down a slippery slope. more important than that, i wanted to talk to you briefly about the vipr program under tsa. visible intermodal prevention and response teams. they work surface transportation. some around our rail or buses or subways, those sorts of things. there was a move at one time actually by tsa to move the vipr

operations out on public roads and highways. there's a lot of push-back within local law enforcement on those issues as well. have you looked into that, the legality of it? clearly those searches that you go through and every air traveler in america has been through that. it's a suspicionless search that you go through at the airport, as you know. it's based on special needs out of a supreme court decision that suspends the fourth amendment. under those special needs, that is you have a significant threat. you have a verifiable threat to public safety. none of that exists on those public roads. now, if there was a specific threat, then i don't think anybody would have issue with that. however, that's never been the

case. in fact, i was told they want to do that for training purposes within tsa. and that, i think, should be unacceptable. >> i have not looked at that. because they're not in the department of justice. we may have legal opinions that could be relevant to that. i have not engaged in that issue, congressman. >> that's why i bring it up here today, to see what is your legal opinion of those suspicionless searches by tsa without the special needs concerns out of that supreme court decision about significant risk and the verifiable public safety threat. >> all right. >> if you can look into that i'd appreciate that. >> i'll ask about it. i will. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you.

i recognize the gentleman from new york to place in the record. >> i ask to place in the record an article from today's washington as entitled, "has jeff sessions has the world's worst memory or what." >> without objection. >> and a parliamentary inquirin. >> and i want to put in the record, senate judiciary hearing on the nomination of the attorney general and october 18, 2017, a judiciary hearing on oversight of the justice department. parliamentary inquiry is to -- >> without objection. >> thank you. general said a number of things i hope we can work together on. but in particular, parliamentary inquiry to put in the record and require an answer to the creation of a task force on sexual crimes against children -- >> i don't think that's a parliamentary inquiry objection. >> if i can put it in the record please. >> it's a parliamentary inquiry objection -- >> i'm sorry? >> the parliamentary inquiry is

that we will have an opportunity for questions to be put in the record on the 702 reauthorization regarding sharing of information with a foreign entity that interfered with the election. >> you can submit questions. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize myself for five minutes. general sessions, you have to know that i hold you in tremendously high regard. i know you've had a bumpy ride. there's some of us that appreciate who you are. with that as the justice department knows, the house and senate have conducted investigations into the illegal sale of little body parts of little babies by some planned parenthood executives, as made clear via undercover videos that surfaced two years ago. according to a report yesterday published in "the hill", the fbi sought documents the senate obtained from abortion providers as a result of the sale of these

little body parts. if the fbi last requested what is several thousand pages of testimony and findings the senate has gathered through their investigation of planned parenthood, that could mean there could be readying indictments of individuals that have sold these body parts for profit. generally speaking, are findings made by any senate investigation, any subsequent referral sufficient evidence for the justice department to bring charges upon any party guilty of violating federal law? >> depends on the substance of those congressional findings. they certainly can provide a basis for starting an investigation. verifying the findings of the congress and could provide a basis for charges. >> i hope -- >> i think that's an appropriate way for us to relate to one another. >> yes, sir. i hope the justice department will take a very close look at

the evidence that the senate is providing to the fbi. given the standard that you have personally demonstrated for recusal to avoid the appearance of partiality, it seems clear to me, my opinion, that mr. mueller should recuse himself based on your standard here from investigating involving russian collusion a long time ago. they my perspective. i have suggested many times that the existing russia trump investigation that mr. mueller is conducting is a snipe hunt. as many of the members of this committee have indicated, however, there does seem to be damning evidence related to russia and hillary clinton's state department. if there's as much evidence in my judgment against the president as we have against the obama administration and mrs. clinton, i'm afraid mr. trump would have been burned at the stake by now. there's a clear inequity. the fbi and the department of

energy court documents detail an extensive coordinated scheme of kim backs, extortion and general wrong doing related to the acquisition of a uranium trucking firm in the canadian mining company uranium one but the russian company. the fbi obtained an eye witness account routing millions of dollars to the u.s. which benefitted the clinton foundation. despite this evidence, rather than bring charges in 2010, that was not on your watch, the fbi continued the investigation for four more years and allowed the acquisition of 20 percent of our strategic uranium supply to take place without informing congress. the head of the fbi was robert mueller. so general sessions, my question is sort of one for the record here. i think committee is about to close up here. what do you think the justice department can do to correct

this seeming lack of or reversal of priority here and what appears to be to some to be an injustice? how can we look at the evidence and the facts for what they are and do what appears to be the right thing? >> well, you have raised a question that we have much, much going on in the department of justice. yesterday i sent i believe to you and to the chairman 15 or more members of this committee a response to a request that you made some time ago that we're going to bring in independent prosecutors to review a host of matters out there so i can look you in the eye and tell you that we've done the right thing and we've done an objective evaluation of matters that have been raised and raised by this committee and hopefully we can decide if there's some matters that need to be investigated, some might need to be closed, some night need more money and

resources and agents. i feel like that's my responsibility. i don't believe that is a giving in to politics. i believe that i should evaluate your request on the merits. you raised some matters that i think i'm duty-bound to respond to. >> well, general sessions, i'll just put it like this. that sounds pretty good to me. i appreciate you appearing for the committee today. we have other -- >> i don't have a question. >> the battle is over. they always show up for dinner. >> i was going to ask unanimous consent since there's been this stir about senators meeting or not meeting with russians. i would ask, have this part of the record, it is article from march 3, 2017, katie pavlich. it's a list of democrats who also met with the russian

ambassador and also this article from june 26 regarding senator mccaskill's tweet that she got no call or meeting with russian ambassador ever, and then it turns out the article points out actually she met with the russian ambassador at his home. i would like those in the record. >> without objection. now the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. sorry. you snuck up on me. >> i've been in that other little thing going on with tax reform. attorney general sessions, thanks for being here. now i will say, i'm from georgia. there was something that was said earlier in this hearing that i was going to pass by, was going to let it go. but that sound of fingernails on a chalkboard, especially this week when i heard "war eagle." you did well.

we didn't. but the biggest thing is, i want to thank you for coming. thank you for answering. i've listened to your questions, the answers. i appreciate your honesty. even if we disagree. i have sat here before and talked to previous attorney generals that i couldn't get them to admit that 65 and a 55 is against the law. >> it's a against the law. >> there we go. we're ahead of where we were next time. i believe this committee works and i do believe your work in the senate believes we can compromise. one of the areas very important to this committee and to our committee, justice reform. we seem to gravitate toward the sticking points instead of where we can work together. wouldn't you say an approach where we can find solutions would help us get to those points where we have sticking points? you think that would be a good thing? >> yes.

there's things that definitely are doable that we all could agree need fixed. >> i've worked across the aisles. we've worked together. doesn't matter. at the end of the day, those in our system are valued human beings by the gift of god. they've made mistakes, paying for them. it's a money and morale issue. are we doing what we can do redeem folks in there and giving them a chance to have a better life if they get out? we have a build call the redemption act. it's bipartisan. we've been working on this. it's for basically taking those once they get into the federal system, starting them early and making sure that they have a path toward getting back out and having -- lowering the recidivism rate what we have run into and talked with the white house, there's this knee jerk that we'll package it with a bigger bill. i would love to get your work on this. if the -- if we can work with

the bureau of prisons to give them goals that is about accountability and responsibility so when they come out, the recidivism rate is lower because they have skills. what i'd like to know. if you think we can work that in the house and the senate, get that to the president who has been supportive of this and his administration, do you believe that is a workable solution? given your time in the senate, we get so stuck on things we can't do. wouldn't it be good if we start on something we could do? >> i believe a prerelease program can be effective. most of the time according to my experience, they don't achieve huge results. if they choose 10, 15, 20% improvement, that's a value. what i have learned and perhaps you'd like to examine it, the inspector general at the department of justice has done a review of prerelease programs and found some of them are not very effective.

some are effective. not enough attention has been put on it. maybe the money could be better and more effectively spent. we have a new prison commissioner, bureau of prisons. he's open to this. we talked about it. i'm hopeful that we can improve that and fundamentally we do need to make sure that anything that is done with regard to entry programs that we studied the best ones and tried to make sure our money is going to the better programs as opposed to some that may not be as efficient. >> thank you for the endorsement of the bill. that's what it does. gives the people from the minute they start in so the bureau of prisons evaluates them and puts them on a plan while in prison. we're not talking about getting them out quicker. here they are serving their sentence where they have skill sets so when they do leave the recidivism rate is down.

we're not saying put them out. this is evidence-based approach that works in georgia, texas, kentucky. all over the place. conservative states that have said this is something we need to do. i appreciate your commitment to law and order. my father is a law enforcement officer. i forget after they paid their crime, what can we do as a society to make sure our money is well spent and say we're going to give you a chance but it's up to you. i appreciate your discussion on that. i want to see it move forward in the house and the senate and give the president and the department of justice something to build on as we get to the tougher issues of sentencing reforms and those things that we know bog us down. thanks for being here today. the president, what you're working on has been appreciated. always good to see mary as well. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman

from georgia for ending on a high note. i will say that general sessions, mr. conyers and i look forward to working with you and the administration on criminal justice reform. you'll find the approach here very bipartisan, perhaps in contrast to the other issues that have come up here today. but i also want to say to you, thank you for your time, thank you for the careful manner in which you have listened to questions and concerns here on this committee for the better part of 5 1/2 hours. and i truly believe that this has been a very, very good hearing. some of the members asked you questions for which answers have already been provided. apparently they have forgotten that those questions were asked and answered previously. you've answered all of our questions here today and what i think is a manner that befits

you as the attorney general of the united states. thank you very much for that. with that, i want to thank you and the members for participates. all members will have five legislative days to submit written questions for the witness or for the record and the hearing is adjourned. >> shepard: and that wraps up the hearing, the house judiciary committee hearing with oversight of the department of justice. quite a day it has been. among the headlines, the attorney general jeff sessions wrapping up his testimony on capitol hill. the attorney general says the accusation that he lied under oath is a lie. he says his story never changed though it did. lawmakers grilled the attorney general about the trump campaign's dealing with rush. attorney general sessions said he didn't have communications with the russians when he worked with the campaign and he said he was note aware of any staffers

that did. well, now we know attorney general sessions did meet with the russian ambassador twice during the 2016 presidential race. sessions says those meetings were not about the campaign. he was also a senator at the time and two former trump campaign advisers say they told mr. sessions about their dealings with russia. today the attorney general said he always told the truth to the best of his memory. >> i will not accept and reject accusations that i have ever lied. that is a lie. let me be clear. i have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards with the office of the attorney general which i revere. >> shepard: jeff sessions says me may not remember every detail of every meeting because working with the trump campaign is a form of chaos every day. but he added, a brilliant

campaign in many ways. the chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge live on capitol hill. catherine? >> the key moment came against an hour ago. the former fbi director said it was an exchange with the president that made him feel uncomfortable, a tipping point in their relationship. the attorney general said he never received a similar request from the president. >> did donald trump ever ask you to pledge oath of loyalty him? >> no. >> if donald trump were the ask you to pledge loyalty to him or take such an oath, would you do so? >> i don't know what a pledge of a loyalty oath is. we owe loyalty to our supervisors. i've always done that to my bosses and supervisors. you know, people are expected to be loyal to their executive branch head --

>> when democratic accused the attorney general of having memory lapses, at least 65 times in previous testimony. it was today under oath that the attorney general said only after he read media reports that he was able to refresh his memory about this march 2016 national security meeting at the trump hotel in washington. this is the meeting where campaign aide george papadopoulos broached the idea of setting up a meeting with then candidate trump and the russian president. sessions said he shut down the discussion. >> i believe that i wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorize to represent the campaign with the russian government or any other foreign government for that matter. >> after the meeting did you take any further steps to prevent trump campaign officials or employees from further outreach to the russians after you pushed back at that meet something. >> what i will say to you, you

say there were further contacts later. i don't believe i had any knowledge or further contacts. i was not in regular contact with mr. papadopoulos. >> the bottom line is that with 5 1/2 hours of testimony, both republicans and democrats were really relitigating last year's election and the events surrounding hillary clinton's e-mails and the fbi case, shepard. >> shepard: catherine herridge on the hill. thank you. republicans mentioned and sometimes asked questions about uranium one. the attorney general jeff sessions says he needs a factual basis to appoint a counsel to investigate hillary clinton. jeff sessions says he's asked federal prosecutors to look at uranium one. here's the exchange between jeff sessions with sessions and jim jordan of ohio. >> what will it take to get a special counsel? >> we will use the proper standards. that's the only thing i can tell you, mr. jordan.

>> i appreciate -- >> you can have your idea. sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard -- >> shepard: so what are the facts? what is uranium one. that is name of a south african based mining company. in 2007, it merged with a canadian company. in 2010, the mining arm of the russian nuclear agency bought controlling interests in the company. among other places, that mining companied that operations in wyoming that amounted to what the nuclear regulatory commission or the nrc said was at the time about 20% of uranium capacity in the u.s. today the nrc says it's about 10%. now, here's the accusation. nine people involved in the deal made donations to the clinton foundation totallying more than $140 million.

in exchange, secretary of state clinton approved the sale to the russians. a quid pro quo. the accusation first made by peopler schweitzer, the senior editor at large of the website breitbart in his 2015 book "clinton cash." the next year candidate donald trump cited the accusation as an example of clinton corruption. >> hillary clinton's state department approved the transfer of 20% of america's uranium holdings to russia. well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the clinton foundation. >> shepard: that statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. first, the clinton state department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. it could do neither. here's how it does work. by law, when a foreign company wants to buy anything with

potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. the committee was given a broad mandate under president reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions. that committee is called the committee on foreign investment in the united states. it includes nine department heads. the secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. the rest are the heads of the departments of justice, homeland security, commerce, defense, state and energy, plus the office of the u.s. trade representative and the office of science and technology. that's cfius. all department heads approved the sale, not hillary clinton. we don't know definitively if secretary clinton participated. the then secretary of state -- a assistant secretary of state

represented hillary clinton on cfius. she said the secretary teary never intervened. secretary clinton or the committee could stop a deal of this kind. the committee members evaluate a sale of anything related to national security. by law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. no committee member of the nine objected. federal approvals were also needed. the nuclear regulatory commission approved the sale on november 24 of 2010 and in doing so stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. so where does the uranium go? well, the energy information administration or eia reports that unless special permission is granted by the department of energy or other governmental agencies, uranium one sells the uranium mined in the united states to civilian power reactors in the united states. operators of the reactors have

many other sources for their uranium. last year, 89% of uranium used by power lantz in the u.s. came from foreign producer. regarding the donation to the clinton foundation, the accusation is that hillary clinton's state department a proved the transfer of 20% of america's uranium holdings to russia while nine investors funneled $140 million to the clinton foundation. most of the donations were from one man, the founder of the company in canada. he gave $131 million to the clinton foundation. but he says he sold his stake of the company in 2007. that is three years before the russia deal and 1 1/2 years before hillary clinton bake secretary of state. if true, the donation to the clinton foundation from

confirmed uranium one investors dropped from $140 million to $4 million. the clinton foundation did not disclose those donations. the foundation reported they made miss station, saying they disclosed money from a canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donations to the charity. even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that secretary clinton approved the sale. she did not. a committee of nine evaluated the sale. the president approved the sale. the nuclear regulatory commission and others had to offer permits and known of the uranium was exported for use by the u.s. to russia. that is uranium one. let's bring in alex eisenstat from politco. the fact is, the attorney general made one aer ssertion a

then we get the information from a man that turned state evidence and admitted he lied. semantics aside, he said one thing then and another thing now. is that accurate? >> yeah. but what you've seen over the course of sessions testimony, that he's been evasive. like what he's talking about today. saying he couldn't recall particular instances on the campaign until he remembered it when he saw news accounts. he remembered certain things just telling george papadopoulos that he shouldn't go and set up this meeting between trump and putin. so what you're seeing here with sessions is a pattern of shifting testimony of shifting answers to questions regarding russia. it's setting off red flags apong people watching this closer. >> shepard: are we getting closer to knowing whether there was something tantamount to collusion? >> what you see as mueller

intensifies his investigation is this broader mosaic that he's painting. you saw some new revelations emerge yesterday as relates to don jr.'s contacts with wikileaks. a broader mosaic of a campaign that was communicating with russia, had some contact with russian interests. as mueller builds his case, it's interesting to see exactly how deep those contacts were, how widespread they were and what the president and his closest advisers knew. >> shepard: alex, thank you. coming up, we go live to capitol hill where mitch mcconnell says he has looked at all of the options to keep roy moore out of the united states senate. after two women accused him of sexual miss conduct when they were minor teens. we'll hear from the senate leader who says he has new information and we'll hear from

roy moore next himself. that's next.

>> shepard: breaking news on fox news channel. the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says he's spoken to president trump, vice president pence and the white house chief of staff about roy moore. senator mcconnell says he's looked at all options as he puts it to keep the republican senate candidate from alabama from getting to capitol hill. >> no questions there's a deep concern here. roy moore should step aside. the woman that come forward are credible. he's obviously not fit to be in the united states senate. we've looked at all the options to try to prevent that from happening. >> shepard: obviously not a fit to be senator. leader mcconnell said that once president trump is back in washington, they will talk more. two women have accused roy moore of sexual misconduct when they

were young teenagers. one of them 14 at the time. roy moore has denied the accusations. >> i want to make it perfectly clear that people of alabama know me, know my character, know what i have stood for in the political world for 40 years. i can tell you without hesitation, this is absolutely false. >> shepard: roy moore once -- he also once again said this is all about politician. our chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live on capitol hill. >> quite a war of words with roy moore's own brother attacking the senate majority leader. >> mitch mcconnell is scared to death that my brother is going to get elected and it's going to show up in washington what's going on. i think mitch mcconnell is scared to death. >> tension is building here on capitol hill with no sign that roy moore is going to get out of the race. ted cruz is the latest to ask

moore's campaign to remove him from his fund-raising efforts. a source close to ted cruz telling fox news a short time ago. >> number 1, these allegations are credible. number 2, he should -- if he cares about the values about the people aside. so multiple calls now for roy moore to go. >> shepard: mike, the attorney general spoke about roy moore as well. >> it's a delicate matter for jeff sessions. this is his former senate seat. he said the ethics folks at the justice department told him to stay out of it. there was this exchange with sheila jackson lee of texas. >> i have no reason to doubt these young women. >> with that in mind, if you believe these young women, do you believe judge moore should be seated in the senate if he

wins and would you introduce investigations by the doj regarding his actions? >> we will evaluate every case as to whether or not it should be investigated. this kind of case would normally be a state case. >> so the attorney general leaning towards allowing people in alabama to sort it out. >> shepard: elementary school today. record of children hurt and people that have died. the news is still developing. we'll have more next. hoose from,

depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients.

whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. >> there's breaking news coming from northern california. here's what we now believe. a sheriff says a gunman killed four people near an elementary school and injured children before officers shot and killed the attacker. investigators say the school is in rancho tehama reserve about two hours north of sacramento. a man tells the record search light newspaper that his roommate was the killer. the man said the roommate was

acting erratically and charging large amounts of magazines. trace gallagher has more. >> shepard: rancho tehama is a town of about 3,500 off of interstate 5 towards redding. the unidentified suspect stole a truck, armed with two handguns and a rifle and starting driving around and randomly shooting. there's seven crime scenes meaning those are the places along the way that victims were shot and in some cases killed. it's unclear in the gunman was targeting rancho tehama elementary school, but that is where he ended up. he was never inside the school building or on the property. witnesses saw a classroom window blown out. that's where two children were shot and wounded. one hit in the foot and chest and the other in the arm. both children were alert and talking when they were rushed to the hospital. the sheriff confirmed the

shooter was shot and killed by deputies. now, the motive remains unclear. a number of the gunman said the man was a known felon. if it's true, he would not be legally allowed to have weapons. the neighbor claimed the suspect shot large a amounts of magazines and said living next to the guy was hell. the fbi is also on scene. >> shepard: trace gallagher with that developing story. we'll have more an details come in. should news break out, we'll break in. breaking news changes everything on fox news channel. the dow is down today. oil prices took a big dip. in 3 1/2 minutes, neil cavuto sorts it out on "your world." people would stare.

psoriasis does that. it was tough getting out there on stage. i wanted to be clear. i wanted it to last. so i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. never give up.

see me. see me. clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts.

the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

>> neil: welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. this is "your world." stocks are off on signs that there might be progress on tax cuts in washington and more to the point combining it with progress on repealing obamacare. it gets kind of convoluted. suffice it to say, the feeling seems to be, in the united states senate, that they're going to try to marry something with repealing the individual mandate, the requirement that you have to get health insurance with whatever tax cut they ultimately cook up. on the surface, this would look to be a full quest, because they've had so many problems with this in the past. blake burman says there might be more to