thanks for joining us. i'm dana perino. it's been quite an interesting day. i'll be on "the five." martha and bret baier will talk about the alabama senate race. i'm dana perino. here's shep. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast, 2:00 in alabama and 3:00 in washington where dozens of democratic lawmakers are calling for a congressional investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against president trump. and the new york senator kirsten gillibrand saying the president cannot silence his accusers. >> the allegations should be investigated and investigated thoroughly. that is the right thing to do. >> now the president taking aim at senator gillibrand calling her a lightweight that begged him for money. said she would do anything for it. expect questions about this in the white house briefing. role tide and war eagle. they're casting ballots in sweet home, alabama.

roy moore accused of sexual misconduct and rolled up on a horse to cast his vote. he's railed against gays and twice been forced from office, but don't say the moore's aren't fond of jews. his wife says one of their lawyers is a jew. as for roy moore's opponent, doug jones is looking for alabama voters to send democrat to the senate for the first time in 25 years. today alabamians have their voice. let's get to it. a live look coming at the white house briefing room. sarah sanders set to take questions from reporters right now. that should be interesting. as voters head to the polls down south in alabama, the special u.s. senate election is underway. the president has doubled down on his support for roy moore. the republican candidate faces accusations of sexual misconduct of teenagers when he was in his 30s.

he denies it. the president says people in alabama need to vote for robert mueller because his democratic challenger doug jones will help the trump agenda. this morning roy moore showed up to vote on his horse, sassy. he says it's a family tradition and maybe a superstition. the republican candidate rode that same horse before the voting in the august primary, which he won. despite the president's endorsement of roy moore, some republican leaders called for him to quit the race. today moore talked about facing a possible senate ethics investigation. >> judge moore, if you win, are you prepared to face an ethics committee investigation? >> we'll take those problems up when we get to the senate. >> shepard: doug jones says roy moore is getting ahead of himself. >> i don't think roy moore will win this election. >> analysts say the key for doug jones is getting out the vote. specifically educated women, african americans and suburban moderate republicans.

if there's a rode to the united states senate for a pro choice democrat from alabama, those voters may well pave the way. john roberts is live in the briefing room where we're waiting. hello, john. >> good afternoon, shep. one of the big questions running around washington, if roy moore does prevail and win the election tonight, what happens to him then? it's a question we've been wanting to ask the president, would he support roy moore being seated in the senate. we just got the two-minute warning but the president has not answered any questions since he endorsed him last week. at every public appearance, the president just walks away or refuses to take questions. he's taken one questions since he endorsed roy moore at a cabinet meeting last week. the question was about whether or not there would be a government shut down. the president certainly has been active on social media talking about roy moore saying this morning the people of alabama will do the right thing. doug jones is pro abortion, weak on crime, military and illegal immigration.

back for gun owners and veterans. jones a pelosi-schumer puppet. roy moore always vote with us. vote roy moore. i don't expect we'll hear from the president other than a social media statement until after the election. i'll lay a dollar to say that's when he will start taking questions again. >> shepard: big spender. we're waiting to hear from the white house after more than 50 democratic congresswoman have called for the house oversight committee to investigation accusations of sexual misconduct against the president. president trump is calling the accusations fake news. he blasted senator kirsten gillibrand. she called on the president to step down over the accusations. the president tweeted light wait senator kirsten gillibrand, a flunky for senator schumer and someone that would come to my office begging for campaign contributions and would do anything for them is now in the ring fighting against trump. very disloyal to bill and

crooked. used! bill and crooked, president and mrs. clinton. gillibrand says that bill clinton should have resigned during the lewinsky candle. it's the line from president trump saying she would do anything for campaign contributions has her responding. >> i see it as a sexist smear. that's what it is. it's part of the president's effort of name-calling and it's not going to silence me. it's intended to silence me. it's not going to silence the women that have stood up against him and it's not going to silence the millions out there every day since his inauguration. >> senator gillibrand says the accusations against the president are credible. moments ago, a reporter asked mitch mcconnell about calls for an investigation into the president. >> should congress investigate sexual assault allegations against president trump? >> what we're in charge of here is the senate. the ethics committee upon

referral, if it determines it should, takes a look at senatorial conduct. that's what we're dealing with here. >> process. john roberts, this has heated up very quickly and democrats on the hill seem very motivated. >> it started to heat up yesterday, shep, when the four women came out and re-aired their accusations. it take it to a new level when senator gillibrand said she should step down. you saw the tweet from the president. the president tweeting despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the democrats have been unable to show any collusion with russian so now other moving to false accusations from woman that i don't know and never met. fake news. we're not sure how narrowly the president is targeting that tweet. some of the women that made accusations are some people he knows from the past. it's interesting to see how

senator warren leapt to the defense of senator gillibrand. do you know who your picking a fight with that? good luck at real donald trump. in all of my years in covering the white house, i never heard a senator use the word "slut shame" publicly. that's where we are with the level of public discourse these days. it trickles out of here. we'll see where this goes. >> shepard: we're expecting questions on those two matters, the senate race in alabama and this bigger sort of what is up with the president questions from the democrats. you wonder if that is not territory they try to choose to avoid. >> let's see. sarah is about to come out. i keep looking over my shoulder. we got a soft two-minute washing, this could go a number of directions. we didn't know what direction it was going to go yesterday when it erupted into a fight between sarah huckabee sanders and a couple of my colleagues. we'll see where the line is.

it's always interesting to watch the very directions that this goes in. >> shepard: i know we have a wide shot. i heard them laughing at you. tell your friends hello. >> i will. shep sells hello. >> shepard: look at that. it's tv magic. >> good afternoon. let me start by introducing the district or the of the united states citizenship and immigrant services. he's here to provide a briefing on the attempted suicide bombing in new york and how it's enabled by flaws in our immigration system. after that, i'll have questions. if you can as always stay focused on the topic at hand, that would be great. thanks so much. >> hello. here to talk to you about yesterday's incident and kind of give you some context and perspective in the immigration

system, how it works or didn't work in this case. and what are the source of things that our administration is proposing to change to make it better. as you all know, yesterday the suspect, akayed ullah was arrested in an attempted bombing in new york city. there's an immigration aspect to this. immigration aspect is that he immigrated to this country, a green card holder, lawful permanent resident. he came to this country based on a family connection to a u.s. citizen. he was a national bangladesh. the u.s. citizen in question was his uncle. that u.s. citizen many years ago came to this country originally as a visa lottery winner. so this is the general back grouped. i now want to explain what that means, where those terms come from what the significance of that is. first, i would explain that for those that aren't aware, our immigration system has two

principle components. there's a family-based component through which the suspect in yesterday's attack alleged bombing incident came through and there's an employment-based component. in any given year, we have about one million immigrants. one million people come here get green cards, immigrant visas. in fiscal year 15, for example, of that one million, about 72% of our immigrants came based on a family connection. only 6%, one out of 15 came based on unemployment or job connection. the immigration system is hely weighted towards family migration. there are other categories of people that immigrate as well, besides family employment based, refugees, the lottery program, but those are smaller. i want to talk now about these in particular. the family-based employment-based and the visa

based lottery. the family-based, there's multiple categories of people. the principle category are called immediate relatives. these are people that are the spouses or children, family members of u.s. citizens. in a given years, you have about half a million people in that category. in fact, better numbers than that. in fiscal year 16, these are people that are the nuclear family members of citizens. 566,000 people that entered. an additional category, in the family-based universe, these are preference based categories. these are more extended family members. these include unmarried sons and daughters of u.s. citizens. second category, spouses of green card holders. another category is brothers and

sisters of u.s. citizens and their children. that's the category that yesterday's suspect came in under. the suspect in yesterday's bombing came in under the most extreme remote possible family-based connection that you can have under current u.s. immigration law. that being the child of the sibling of a u.s. citizen. under the employment-based categories, that is a much smaller number. only 140,000 slots are allocated in that category. but you get half that number of workers because the spouses and children count towards that cap. you have the number for extraordinary ability workers, people with advanced degrees, skilled professionals and immigrant investors. multiple categories. a smaller number than the family-based categories. i remind you, 1 out of 15 of immigrants come in under those skilled categories. let me turn to the diversity visa, the other visa program

that is relevant to yesterday's events. the diversity visa or visa lottery as its called is a program that was established back in 1990. there was some precursor programs before that. basically the program as we know it established in 1990, that lets in about 50,000 people a year based on immigration lottery. the qualifications for registers for the lottery are that you have to be from a country that had low immigration in previous five years and the person who is applying for the lottery has to either have a high school degree or if they have no education, at least two years of experience in a job that requires two years of training. so the criteria are very low. the problems with the visa lottery are various. first, because the criteria are so low, you have no education at all and very little skills or you have a minimum of education

and no skills at all. and if it's a lottery, anybody on the planet who is from a qualifying country can take advantage of this. the state department in 2003, the state department inspector general office observed that this low eligibility criteria can lead to exploitation by terrorists. they warned about this in 2003. the gae echoed that same warning. warning that terrorists could take advantage of the diversity program. also the program is racked with fraud. in 2003, the state department ig 15 years ago noted the program was racked with fraud. the fraud, the lower level eligibility standards is exploited by terrorists and other actors. bangladesh is an interesting case. that's the country where the suspect came from yesterday. that country was a high user of the visa lottery program. in 2007, which was the peak year for that country's use of the

visa lottery, 27% of the immigrants of that country came through that program. uzbekistan, which is the country of origin of the alleged -- the truck driver from october 31 in new york city, in 2010, 70% of immigrants from uzbekistan came from the visa lottery program. finally, let's me touch on chain migration. what -- when i use that word, what i'm talking about is a person that comes to this country and who in turn employs one of these many avenues i described to sponsor relatives in the home country to joan him or her. because the categories that i described in family-based migration is so extensive, it's not just nuclear family. you have adult unmarried children, nieces and nephews. you can sponsor a person like

yesterday's alleged terrorist at the extremity of that chain and that person in turn can sponsor people indefinitely. hundreds of thousands of people come into this country every year based on the extended family migration categories. and it is my view, our administration's view that that is not the way that we should be running our immigration system. a system like that that includes something like the diversity user program, the extended families are not the way anybody would design this season if we started from scratch. we need an immigration system that is selective. select the people that come on criteria that ensure success in our country. random lot reese, extended family connections is not the way to run an immigration system. i appeal, we appeal to continue to consider these matters in the

coming weeks, to seriously take into account these concerns that we have with the way the immigration system is structured and its vulnerabilities and correct that. at that point, my formal comments are concluded. i'll answer any questions you have. >> quick question. >> thanks, mr. cissna. i want to ask a question about what you're suggesting. is it your belief that the only changes that can be done to the immigration system are ones that emanate from congress? are there things that the president can do by executive action to change the process for either chain migration or the visa lottery? >> well, that's something that we're looking at right now in uscis, my agency that administers these visa programs. there are some things that we could do. there's some things that the president has directed us to do

by executive order in particular with the temporary visa categories. we're talking about green cards. but yes, a lot of things we can do and we're going to do to increase protections of american workers. in the green card domain, it's harder. congress has kind of occupied that field a little more densely than in the temporary visa area. there could be. there could be some things that we can do to clarify how these categories are administered. yes. sir? >> there's so much talk about the daca legislation right now. do you think any daca bill would have to be tied to bring in a merit-based system? >> well, we -- about two months ago, the president announced his immigration priorities. you can independent if it on the white house website. a long list of a several dozen priorities that we, career officials at dhs and the other relevant immigration agencies

came up with as the things that we need to be able to do our jobs. in that list, there are these fixes that i'm talking about, including getting rid of the visa lottery program, ending chain migration. these are things that we talked about. so we hope and expect congress will take the priorities seriously and will do as much as they can to accomplish the goals we set forward. >> [question inaudible] >> i can't speak for what the president wants. what i want is something that i can implement and i can implement well to get at the priorities that we need to do our job. yes, sir. >> would you be in favor of extending the blanket travel ban as far as the countries that are concerned? such as bangladesh, which isn't

on the list currently. >> my position on that is my agency needs as much information as it can get from the other countries to vet and ensure that bad people don't come in to the country. to the degree that that can be done through the executive order, i'm all for it. but i am not in a position to describe what the blanket ban, as you put it should or should not be extended. i want the information that we can get to screen people. >> how do you feel about people that have been here for years and become radicalized since they're here? how would any of that deal with what happened in new york? >> there's two points, i think. the criticisms that we have of the diversity visa program and chain migration, in particular with the visa migration program, the vulnerability to exploitation by terrorists because of the low eligibility criteria and the prevalence of

fraud that is not changing. it's a sad fact of that program. for that reason, regardless of when the person became radicalized, i just want that door shut. it's been recognized for 15 years. with respect to that particular in particular. my agency in particular and -- is focused very much so on ensuring that immigration doesn't stop when the person gets the green card. it's an ongoing process. i view it that way. i think that we have -- >> how so? >> what you want is an immigrant to become a citizen. we want people to naturalize because naturalization is one of the best -- it's one of the best signs that a person has fully assimilated. once you naturalize, it's one of the best guarantors that that person continues success as a society. we want people to naturalize. my agency is seeking people to

make sure people succeed in that quest. >> just to follow up quickly. is it your understanding that the suspect was radicalized before he came here or do you think it happened here? if it did happen before he arrived, then was something missed? >> i have no idea. i don't know. >> can you give us any -- >> i truly have no idea if he was radicalized at all. united nations about that part of the investigation. >> you said because of the criteria and how low it is, that chain migrants, diversity lottery immigrant are more susceptible to being self-radicalized. do you have data and that? >> no. if you have immigrant visa programs where the eligibility criteria are low, you're not selecting people that we want in this country according to criteria that will ensure their success in our nation, that will

ensure that they will assimilate well. >> i guess as a matter of priority, you want to select the immigrants, not just have them come in. i get that part. you're seeing these kinds of immigrants are more likely to become terrorists. >> no. what i'm saying if you have a system that doesn't select at all, you don't know what you're going to get. it's better if we take an active role and establish criteria and correspond to things that we want to see in the immigration pool. in the back. >> following from that. >> other than these isolated immigrants, are there any data behind the plan? >> i don't know if i agree with your first point. i don't know where the data came from. i can't comment any further. >> incarceration rates would be one example. >> that's a bigger debate that i don't know that we have time for here. based on my questioning, the

validity, the premise of your question, i don't know if i want to engage in that dial log at that time. >> a point of clarification. i have you saying with the very is a diversity program there's a certain vulnerability. i think you mean there's no higher education standard required? what is it that make these people more vulnerability to radicalization and becoming terrorists? >> well, there's two parts to that. my criticism of the diversity visa program eligibility criteria are minimal and next to nothing, a random element. the program is vulnerability to exploitation by terrorists because it's a combination of the low eligibility criteria and to defraud the system. if you're a bad actor and you

want to use that program to come into the country, it's easy to fake a high school graduation certificate. >> the suspect was supposedly radicalized in 2014 and entered the united states in 2011. that's why so many of us are asking the questions. sounds like you're implying that homeland security missed something and said this guy was radicalized. >> i'm not implying that at all. i'm talking about the immigration program. i'm not talk about this one guy. >> so you're saying when they get here, because these people are more vulnerable if they come under this program, they're then subject to exploitation more easily? >> what i'm saying -- >> the nexus to terrorism. >> the nexus to terrorism -- >> do you know if he did that? >> he didn't come in on the visa lottery program.

he came in as an extended immigration. with respect to the diversity visa program, that program is at the state department found 15 years ago as a gao confirmed exploitable by terrorists because the criteria are so low and easily faked. and it's a lottery. so multiple levels. it's an open door. it's problematic. needs to shut. that's what i'm saying about that. with respect to the individual in yesterday's attempt, i would say i don't know. i don't have a command of the facts as to whether or if he was radicalized. what i'm saying is if you have any sort of visa program which is minimally selective, which is based on chance or lottery or low eligibility criteria, we as a government are not doing our job in picking the people that come to this country in a competent and careful and intelligent way. if we're not doing that, bad

guys can come in. >> are lottery winners vetted? >> yes. >> so they're screened -- >> they're screened like any other immigrant. >> so that's an intelligence failure. >> i don't know if there was any failure. last question. >> we know from your confirmation hearing testimony that your mother and your brother-in-law are immigrants. how do their experiences shape your thinking on this position and do you have any reason to believe that they both still have been able to come in under the tightening that we're looking at now? >> the fact that my own mother and mother-in-law are immigrants has indeed influenced -- that's why i'm interested in this field. why i'm here. why i'm passionately carry out my duties every day. i think though that a policy maker or a citizen who is

examining all these questions should not be handicapped or shackled by previous programs -- everybody in this room has benefitted from the immigration laws of the past. that doesn't mean every generation has their own duty and responsibility to look at the situation we have now and determine for itself, ourselves, whether the immigration laws should be changed. it's perfectly rationale. moving forward, maybe we'll change things. >> thank you, director. continuing with national security theme as many of you saw this afternoon, the president signed the national defense authorization act, this legislation, which was approved with bipartisan support represents an important milestone in the president's plan to rebuild our military and bolster our national security. for the first time in seven years we're increasing rather than shrinking the size of our forces. this ndaa provides our military

service members with the largest pay increase they've seen in eight years. it authorizes one of the largest defense spending increases since the days of ronald reagan. previous administrations sadly oversaw deep cuts to our armed forces with serious implications for our readiness and capabilities. this hindered the fight against isis and made our people less safe. in signing this bill today, the president once again made it clear that we're serious about enhancing military readiness, expanding and modernizing our informations and providing our incredible men and women down range with materials what they need to do best. fight and win. president trump called on democrats to stop threatening to shut down the government. as the president said at this time of grave global threats, congress should send a clean funding bill to his desk that funds our great military. we hope that happens and we look forward to that taking place. with that, i take your questions. >> the president said today that

senator gillibrand would do anything for campaign contributions. many, many people see this as an sexual innuendo. what is the president suggest something. >> i think that the president is very obvious. this is the same sentiment that the president has expressed many times before when he's exposed the corruption of the entire political system. in fact, he's used similar terminology many times when talking about politicians of both parties, both men and women. certainly in his campaign to drain the swamp, the system is clearly broken, it's clearly rigged for special interests and this president is someone that can't be bought. it's one of the reasons he's president today. >> so you're saying this quote, senator gillibrand would do anything, is a reference to campaign contributions in washington, the swamp that has nothing to do with her being a female? what is he alleged would happen behind closed doors with her? >> he's not alleging anything. he's talking about the way our

system functions functions as it is. that politicians repeatedly beg for money. that's not something new. that comment isn't something new. if you look back at past comments that this president has made, yeah, he's used that same terminology many times in reference to men. there's no way that this is sexist at all. this is simply talking about a system that we have that is broken and which special interests control our government. i don't think there's probably many people that are more controlled by political contributions than the senator that the president referenced. steve? >> does the president want roy moore to be seated in the senate if he wins tonight and does he plan to call him? >> in terms of calls, i'm not sure if anything is scheduled win or lose. in terms of being seated, i can't speak on a hypothetical. not one that could influence an election one way or the other due to the hatch act. john? >> does the president agree with his outside legal counsel that a

special prosecutor should be appointed to look into the goings on at the department of justice during the election campaign in 2016 since the revelation about bruce orr? >> i think it's something that cause as lot of concern not only for the president and the administration but probably for all americans. something that if we're going to continue to investigate things, let's look at something where there's some real evidence and some real proof of wrong doing and this looks bad and it's something we should look at. dave? >> so would he support the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into this? >> i haven't asked him that directly. i know that he has great concern about some of the conduct that's taking place and something that we would like to see looked at. dave? >> congressional leaders are saying that they have no plans to reimpose sanctions on iran on the deadline that the president

initiated when he desert filed iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. is the white house okay with this no action and if so where are the teeth in the president's move to be de-certified? >> the administration looks to make continuing progress with congress to fix the long-term iran deal. there was no deadline to act by this week as the administration did not ask that congress introduce legislation to reimpose jcpoa-related sanctions. >> the white house has been asked to reconsider the supreme court nominations in texas. does the president plan to pull back? >> i'll have to check on that and circle back. >> and duarte has used the "fake

news" monicker and other governments have done the same. is the white house concerned about authoritarian regimes using this phrase and does the president take responsibility for using it? >> i think the white house is concerned about false and inaccurate information being pushed out to mislead the american people. i made that clear yesterday. in terms of other leaders, i'd have to look at their comments to be more specific on what they have said. our concern is making sure that the information that the people receive in this country is fair and accurate and when it isn't, it is corrected and corrected in the same fashion in which it was first presented when it was wrong, which is rarely the case. kristin? >> when you hear autocrats using

the term fake news, does that bring worry here? >> what i can talk about are the problems in this country with inaccuracies that happen frequently within news stories. so that i feel comfortable speaking about. without that information and that detail in front of me, i don't want to weigh-in too deeply. >> the president tweeted today that the accusations against him are false, fabricated stories of woman who i don't know and/or have never met. fake news. and yet the reality, he's pictured with a number of the women that have accused him of the misconduct. do you concede that that part of his statement is not true? >> the president is referencing the three individuals that were part of a press conference yesterday. simply stating that you don't know someone means that you don't have a relationship with them. [inaudible] >> correct.

>> and members of congress have called for an investigation. does the president feel confident they're not true? >> the president has answered these questions. he has spoken to these accusations. he's denied and pushed they're false and fabricated. if congress wants to be spend time investigating things, they probably focus on the things that the americans want to investigated like isis, how to pass tax reform and the borders. if you look at issues in poll after poll taken by a number of the outlets in this room and the issues that are top mind, number 1, every time, the economy, jobs, national security, immigration, healthcare. yet we never talk about those issues. in fact, 90% of the coverage that has happened -- hold on. it let you finish. 90% of the coverage out of media is negative and rarely covers

those topics. those are things that the american people want to talk about. if congress wants to investigate, they should look at the priorities of the people that they actually represent. >> -- there's been some -- a number of people fired over this. so why not allow this congressional investigation to go forward and president if he's confident in the accusations -- >> the has addressed the concerns, addressed them directly. you spent months talking about them on the campaign trail and the american people voted ford this president, they have connie dense in this president and they wanted him to lead our country and they want him to focus on things like the economy, focus on health care, focus on fixing our broken tax system. focus on fixing our borders and focus on national security. that's what we're here to do. that's what we're focused on the questions have been asked and answered and we're ready to focus on the questions of the day that the american people. have april? >> do you think senator

gillibrand is owed an apology because of the president's tweets this morning? many of the statements about sexual innuendos. >> only if you're mind? the gutter if you read it that way. so no. >> no, it's not. when he -- what he said was open. it was not mind -- >> obviously talking about political partisan games that people often play and the broken system that he's talked about repeatedly. this isn't new. this isn't a new sentiment. this isn't new terminology. he's used it several times before. as i said a few minutes ago, he used it referencing men of both parties in fact. so i think that there -- the you look back at the past comments, it was very clear what his reference was. >> looking at this issue with the system, the president gave almost $8,000 to senator

gillibrand. his daughter gave her $2,000. what did they get for these contributions that she was -- >> oftentimes what you do, you're getting access. a member of congress will take your phone call. they will take your meeting. if you're driving something as a business man, the president may or may not have been driving at any particular point. you can talk to that individual about it. sometimes they carry your water. that's the reason that we have a broken system. that's the reason that often special interests control our government more than the people do. that's one of the reasons that this president ran to be president. it's one of the top reasons that he won and that he's sitting in the oval office today and hillary clinton is not because he couldn't be bought and everybody knew that she could because they have seen it time and time again. >> is he admitting that he bought access in a corrupt way? >> he's admitting that he march tis pated in a rigged same. he says he knows how the system works. i think it would be disingenuous for anybody not to understand

that. but at least this president is being honest about the process and his willingness to actually fix it and drain the swamp. >> so kirsten gillibrand calls for him to resign. now he's tweeting about the campaign finance system. is that -- >> i'm talking about the fact that she's controlled by special interests. the fact that she's a wholly owned subsidiary of people that donate her campaign. she's a puppet for chuck schumer, a number of issues she has, none of which make her an independent individual and controlled by people that donate to her cause. >> what does the president want? >> the president has talked about the need for us to put a stronger ban on lobbyists participating in the government process. we have taken a stronger ethics pledge under this administration than previous administrations.

i think those are some of the first steps. something that we're going to continue working on over the next seven years. john? >> sarah, you're familiar with the president's tweets. he tweets often. >> i've noticed that, too. >> in this particular case, his criticism, senator gillibrand was very important. why must he criticize in such personal terms? he called a sitting u.s. elected senator a lightweight. why got after her on a personal matter? >> i don't think that's all that personal. if you want to talk about personal, look at the comments that she's made about this president over the last several months. look, the president is always going to be somebody that responds, we've said that many times before. he's talking about a system that doesn't work for the citizens of the country. he wants to fix it. tray? >> one following up on john's questions earlier about a second

special counsel. does the president have confidence in the fbi as it exists today? >> the president has confidence in director wray and his able tip to clean up some of the left mess behind his predescenter and he has confidence in the rank and file of the fbi. >> today bloomberg has an article automatic about the trump administration encouraging saudi arabia to consider bids from u.s. companies as it relates to building nuclear reactors. does the president bring this up as a chance to bring up human rights issues? >> i'm not aware of this situation. i'd have to ask. one last question. margaret? >> thank you. h.r. mcmasters had some interesting remarks at a luncheon earlier today. he spoke strong about china and russia. he went on to talk about russia in particular. he didn't use the word election

meddling, but he talking about disinformation, propaganda and pitting people against each other to create conflict. does the president agree with all of general mcmaster's statements and is that a fore shadowing of a national security strategy that will take a harder attack on russia and china that the administration has so far? >> we've been very hard on russia from the beginning. there's been sanctions. we've increased energy exportation from this country. we've done things to put pressure on russia asking them to engage in a bigger and greater way on some of the common enemies that we face. in terms of a run-down, i haven't had a chance to sit down with the president and go detail by detail. general mcmasters understands and knows the president's feelings and our relationships

with foreign partners. something that we certainly feel confident in him speaking about. thanks so much, guys. >> could we please see the president here, sarah? >> shepard: don't think so. sarah sanders wrapping up the news briefing. if you want to continue the trend of the day, the day began with the president saying things about the junior senator from new york including that she would do anything for campaign contributions. and then from the briefing the question was asked was she right when she said this was sexist. the white house press secretary said your mind would have to be in the gutter to feel that way. the white house press briefing. john roberts was there. how was it? >> told you it could go in a number of different directions. certainly didn't disappoint as usually happens every day. sarah sanders insisting that this was not in any way any kind

of sexist reference that the president was engaging in with the tweet this morning. simply trying to point out through somewhat ambiguous language that she is beholden to special interests as far as the president believes. he's contributed to her campaign in the past as has daughter ivanka. sarah huckabee sanders was asked what did the president get in return for his contributions. she said access. you can make phone calls. that sort of thing. the white house putting to rest that there was anything more than what the president tweeted out other than a recognition this is the way politics works and that's why he's trying to drain the swamp. certainly the swamp campaigned against this sort of access that donors have been able to buy and he fully admitted that he bought access in the past. so they're trying to shoot this down. clearly, you know, given the charged atmosphere here in washington and everything swirling around, it would be

easy to see people read at this time way they did. >> shepard: very easy. what was that first thing about the immigration part? i think i he got up there and read us the law. >> well, he's the head of cis, which is responsible for bringing people in this country. the white house is making the point and this dovetails with what the president said in the campaign and said repeatedly as president, we need to reform the system, illegal immigration, change it from a family-based system and that's what the head of cis was talking about to a mer merit-based system and people don't get in because they're a relative or someone that won a green card in because of a lottery. they have to have qualifications to get in. the president is saying look, our neighbors to the north, canada, do this. so we should adopt a similar

system to that of canada. he was basically saying, shep, that we don't know who we're letting into this country through these visa lottery programs, particularly the diversity visa lottery program and that that needs to be tightened up. it's basically just, you know, an underpinning for the president's claims that we need to reform the system of legal immigration and change it from a family-based system to merit based. >> shepard: that -- they can do that if they want to do that, but this suggestion that it's called a lottery system and there's no vets is absolutely inaccurate. >> i don't know if i would use the word preposterous. that's your word. but i would say there's vetting that goes on here. their point is that the vetting is not stringent enough. this whole thing needs to be reworked top to bottom and that's what the president wants to do and that's one of his top legislative priorities next year. >> fair enough. have a great day. >> thanks, chef. >> anna palmer is here.

senior washington correspondent from politco. you know, anna, i guess -- this i'm sure. this whole issue is put to bed because this junior senator from new york said the president should resign. the president said she would do anything for a contribution. the junior senator said that that was sexist and demeaning, and the white house press secretary your head has to be in the gutter to think like that. sounds like a rap. that is over. >> i think that is probably not going to happen. clearly this is really touched a nerve in washington. you had three members of congress last week resign over allegations of sexual harassment. this is something that is not going away any time soon and not only did senator gillibrand called the president out for this tweet, so did other senators. you have six senators calling for him to resign, calling for an investigation. house democrats. this is not going to be put to bed today, tomorrow and the next

day. >> is there a strategy to deal with what appears to be from his detractors a rising chorus? >> you clearly start to some co -- coalescing. with all of this swirl happening on the environment in the workplace, sexual harassment what is happening in washington, this is a key moment that democrats are trying to seize upon. >> shepard: is there going to be a new tax law or not? >> that's the big question. >> shepard: no, really. it appeared just a few days ago they were well on their way. then we learned a lot more about the tax plan and that the people as a whole do not like it. i just wondered if there was any hemming and hawing. >> shepard: senately the gop leadership in house are moving as fast as they can. they want to tee it up for a vote next week, monday or

tuesday. they'll need vice president mike pence's vote in the senate. there's big gaps on what they're going to do with the state and local tax and other major issues. a lot of senators that haven't said where they're going to end up. doing a favor for the president, if you're bob corker or jeff flake is not where you want to do. >> anna, thank you. >> thanks. >> shepard: see you later. next we'll go live to roy moore's election head quarters in montgomery for an update on today's special senate election. roll tide/war eagle.

>> shepard: time for more open the alabama senate race. jonathan serrie is live in montgomery with roy moore. hello, jonathan. >> hey, shep. roy moore told birmingham radio station werc that a senate ethics probe would be unconstitutional because this type of investigation would be looking into alleged activity that occurred before he entered the senate and before the election. let's listen to that. >> this is a constitutional issue. like i said, the allegations

aren't true. i'm not voiding that. that is a fact. but you know, further than that is not constitutional for the senate to do that. you have to look at the constitution that we're sworn to uphold. it delineates what the senate can do and cannot do. >> so is that the case? we put that question before fox legal analyst judge andrew napolitano. he said if moore wins the election, the senate must seat him. however once he's seated, they can investigate his worthiness for office. that investigation can examine pre-election conduct. if they found any wrong doing, he could be disciplined for pre-election conduct. neither the house or the senate have ever expelled a member for pre election conduct. let's look at how close this race is. in orderly this would favor the republican nominee has shown how much the allegations have

affected this race. >> shepard: and his wife has taken some heat for the whole -- tell us about it. >> yeah, his wife has been taking some heat for some comments that he made -- she made at a rally yesterday. supporters say they were heartfelt statements that she made to the jewish community. critics say they fell flat. you can judge for yourself. >> fake news will tell you that we don't care for jews. i tell you this because i've seen it also. i want to set the record straight while other here. one of our attorneys is a jew. >> and that's what she said. back to you, shep. >> shepard: yes, it is. jonathan serrie in montgomery. full coverage on special report and beyond. cavuto is next.

at the lexus december to remember sales event. lease the 2017 is turbo for $299 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424.

>> neil: all right. blah, blah, blah. we interrupt this day for another record in the dow. welcome. i'm neil cavuto. this is "your world." the closing bell on the new york stock exchange and the nasdaq good enough for a record. good enough for record for the dow and the s&p 500. not so much for the nasdaq. nevertheless, this advance continues. we're halfway now as far as 1,000 point milestones to the next leap, 25,000. that could happen any day at the rate we're going given optimism about tax cuts that are still slated to happen before christmas. is that doable? we'll talk with kevin brady. he's coming up in just a moment. ahead of