include pro golfers. and he is enjoying the rest of the day with no other news even events expected. by that i mean we had a lid, but a lid came off in a different sense with "the new york times" reporting about a meeting back in june where the president, according to their reporting, displayed anger, said some provocative things, as you outlined, in a meeting dealing with immigration and the numbers being admitted to the united states through visa, some of which would be short-term visa, torts a longer stay. the white house is pushing back saying that all of the principles who were in that meeting, including cabinet level officials like secretary of homeland security at the time, john kelly, now the chief of staff, secretary tillerson, secretary of state, of course, and others, say that as they call them outrageous comments did not happen. and sarah huckabee sanders the white house press secretary going on to say that it would only be "the new york times" that would go ahead and print anonymous sourcing that is at

odds with the official white house story. so what makes this interesting is that it ties in to an issue that is central to the president's sort of campaign life and what he tried to accomplish in his first year in office, but had a real struggle with, and that is dealing with what's been called the travel ban, where the president wanted to set limitations on immigration into the united states bordered by different federal courts overtime. and this relates to system of the same subject matter. and the policy review that the president was sort of wrapping this meeting around came from one of his top advisers, steven miller, who authored a memo the president was reading. steven miller has a hard line approach to immigration, influence to the president in that way. so it does have political ramifications. at the same time the paper of course notes that its sources did not want to be quoted on the record because the meeting happened many months ago in june, we don't know because of

the turn over at the white house if those sources still are employed at the white house, or not, that would be interesting to know. and certainly the white house is saying it didn't happen. so it's left to the viewer to assess does it sound like the president to you, is it an issue that matters to you, do you trust that reporting. those kinds of things are really where people consuming this news today have to kind of factor it all in. white house it saying it didn't happen. the times is saying it did a lot of reporting to back up that story. david. >> let me ask you, we didn't get an end of the year news conference from the president. he did field a few questions from the reporters and laid out what some of his pry yortioriti for the new year. where can we expect the new year to go with immigration? >> reporter: one of the big news has to do with what's known as daca, deferred action on alien

children program, meaning children were brought to the united states and they have been given some provisions to not be removed from the united states. they are the d.r.e.a.m.ers as they've been commonly known. the president has shown willingness to come up with some sort of agreement to permit them to have permanent residency. not necessarily a path towards citizenship. that's part of the political debate. but that's a topic where there could be expectation soon. the president has shown a willingness to talk about that. we know from the president's political history that he's much harder on other issues relating to ramping up deportation, being willing to separate families in order to do that, wanting to end what's known as chain migration, where when one individual comes to the united states, other immediate family members are given access because of their proximity in family ties. the president says that is something he wants to see changed. so in the new year, look for some of those developments oj immigration along with things like needing to fund the

government beyond the short-term patch they've created. as well talk about infrastructure another big project the president hopes to work on a bill with democrat support. >> thank you very much for the time this afternoon. let's bring in our panel now. joining me kevin surely, kirk ike walled, joe watkins and analyst bell cheer. let me start with you, you covered the campaign before that. ism gracious has been such a marquise issue for this candidate, for this president, play a little bit of anchor psycho analytical here. frustrated with progress on immigration. does reporting bertar that out, what has and has not happened? >> well, kelly spelled it out in terms of the premise of where folks are at with this "new york times" reporting. white house officials vee

continently denying this. we should note in the contents of the hiv aides epidemic that it's something that is not just impacting african countries. and in fact pet far started during the republican bush administration several years ago reporting out just this week, that more than 85 million folks worldwide received hiv aides testing and more than 13 million folks through pet far received anti-retro viral therapy as a result to combat that epidemic. in terms of answering your questions, i've talked to several senior officials on capitol hill before they headed out for the recess, and immigration is something they feel this administration has delivered on in terms of promises in the sense they've been able to stop illegal activity at the u.s. mexico border. but to kelly's reporting, you know, look, there is no question that when lawmakers get back on capitol hill they are going to have to deal with the d.r.e.a.m. er issue with daca.

they kicked the can down the road in one month in terms of the partial government funding bill, called continuing resolution, that will keep the government funded through january 20th. and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell saying at a press conference saying before leaving town that he feels that the d.r.e.a.m. er issue, daca issue they'll have enough time to address that sometime before march. >> kurt, let me ask you about this piece here, that is the press's frustration where immigration is, frustration with the policy making apparatus in washington d.c. how do you react to what you read in the times today? >> well, when you start off with the president saying something offensive and beneath the dignity of the office, it's sort of like, man, dog bites man. we are seeing this constantly. the rest of the piece i think is particularly important, because what you are seeing is, number one, significant chaos in the

white house. but number two, and i think even more important, there is a lot of information about white house aide steven miller who is administration hard liner, blocking data and studies from reaching the oval office. studies that contradict what steven miller and the other hardliners want to believe. things like lt contribution of immigrants to the united states economy, which is absolutely in disputable. and one of the things that's happened with this administration that is such a failure is the mixing up of illegal immigration, refugees, immigration, daca, all of these things are different issues. all of these things require different policy. and when you start throwing them all together, which is what they do, when you listen to what they say, they can say immigrants when they talking about illegal

immigrants. when you start throwing them all together, you don't know what the policy is. so i think, remember, the travel ban was supposed to be in place, this is what they said, for 90 days while they came up with extreme vetting. well, we are now way past 90 days, and i'm still waiting for that extreme vetting policy. so this is an administration in chaos. >> let me bring you into the conversation here. kurt talking about dysfunction within the administration here after these comments are made reportedly. john kelly and homeland security at the white house turn on secretary of state rhetex tillerson. let me have you react to this piece. >> we can't normalize this. when we have these conversations about hardliners, no, steven miller is not a hard liner, and steve bannon, they are

nationalist s nationalists, and when you have the president behaving this way, it's racism, nationalism run amuck. last time i checked haiti was not a hot bed of radical terrorism. nor was nigeria. so coming after them because they are black, right. this is not outside of the pattern of what we see here with this trump white house. and so for middle america, how does this impact us? well, you have america losing its leadership role across the globe because of this. you have the u.n. taking action against america unprecedented way just this week. you have the arabs and palestinians calling on europe to step up and take a leadership role because they can't trust america anymore. this fundamentally undermines us and take us years to recover from this. >> what do you say about

meetings privy to comments like this, talk about his role and where supporters of his outlook on the world fit into the republican party today? >> well, doesn't say anything good about the republican party. if those alleged comments are right, it says nothing good about the republican party. this is supposed to be the party of lincoln, and as an african-american man, comments like the alleged comments made in the oval office at that faithful meeting in june are hurt full to people of color like me and cornell and to other people of not color that doesn't like racist comments or categorizing people in such an awful way. so the republican party needs to, again, be the party of lincoln. needs to be a party that reaches out to people of all colors and backgrounds chl backgrounds. needs to be the party that welcomes immigrants to this country and not just immigrants from europe, but immigrants from other parts of the world as well. >> joe, are these comments particularly startling to you,

in light what we heard from the president before, be it what he said about elizabeth warren, are these different from what we heard from the president so far? >> these allegedly comments sound like things that we've heard before. and they are terrible and unfortunately they don't move us forward as a country and bring us together as americans. and particularly hurt full to people hurtful to people of color like me. so if true they are hurtful. i would like to know the unnamed sources. i've worked in the white house and i know when there is unnamed source that was said. they ought to step forward and say who they are. because i would like to see if they are true, because if they are, they are terrible. >> let me ask you about the role of d.r.e.a.m.ers in this conversation as well. later on the piece you heard talking about how conflicted the president is on issue of d.r.e.a.m.ers.

how does that play out today? >> democrats are united and really advocating for d.r.e.a.m.ers. and when lawmakers return in january they'll have to make a choice, is he going to negotiate with democrats and fulfill what democrats has said gone on at private meetings where they've made some type of deal. or is going to listen to hardliners like steven miller. look, on the issue, you know this david i'm a policy reporter, but where this gets interesting here is that chief of staff general kelly who has a lot of respect within 1600 pennsylvania avenue has brought in to sort through what information gets to president trump. and so the issue of whether the president is taking information from people like steven miller and steve bannon who of course is no longer in the white house, or whether he's taking information from general kelly, is i think really one of the back story here and the nexus of what, who, rather the president is going to be listening to in january, and something that i think a lot of reporters are going to be paying attention to,

especially as the issue of the d.r.e.a.m.ers continues to unfold in january of next year. >> cornell, let me gauge your optimism here that this issue of delayed action, as you assess the temperature there in washington d.c. on action on this, do you think it's going to happen? >> i hope it happens. but i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. you have the majority of americans look at the polling, majority of americans want this to happen, within our values, these are american children no natter where they came from. i think the broad american public would like to see this happen. but what you've seen happen in the past what they want to happen doesn't always happen in washington. >> thank you all, i appreciate it, joining me on saturday afternoon. thanks for your time. coming up, officials sign a letter in support of robert mueller. one of the signers will join us live. but first a brand new report from the "washington post"

andrew mccabe plans to retire in just a few months. more on that in just a minute. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further irreversible damage. this is humira helping me reach for more. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira works for many adults. it targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com. this is humira at work.

welcome back. i'm david gura with new developments in the washington investigation. "the washington post" deputy director andrew mccabe plans to retire when he becomes fully eligible for pension benefits. that has not confirmed that. mccabe reportedly testified before the house intelligence committee this week confirming

former fbi james comey account of conversations he had with president trump. that same committee reportedly sending out invites to chief strategist steve bannon and lewandowski, the pair has failed to respond to that question. joining me now. let me start with you on this report not confirmed by msnbc. remind us how how hot the seat has been in week, he testified before three committees. >> i think 17 hours of congressional testimony is enough to square someone towards retirement. it was eight hours with the house intelligence committee. we know it covered a wide range of topics, possible collusion involving the trump campaign and officials. thursday it was more than nine hours of testimony before joint meeting of the judiciary committee and over sight committee. that one was narrowly focused on the question of how the fbi handled the hillary clinton email during the 2016 campaign. that's part of what we have seen

the house republicans branching out from this question of russian interference towards bias at the fbi that they see as coloring the mueller investigation. this is what democrats are warning about under mining the confidence we have in our law enforcement officials. >> let me ask you about the unique ro unique role he plays. someone closely tied to the leadership of the fbi but does know hillary clinton as well. unique position. >> that's right. he worked closely with james comey. we know before his testimony before the house committee, sources are telling us he corroborated comey account of donald trump asking him to take a loyalty pledge. that's not surprising because we know how ma teparticul comey wa of the conversations. obviously the republicans are trying to put him under the spotlight as well. >> let me ask you about the

appreciate s pressure here a lot calling his professional credentials into account. what do you make of that here? >> he has an excellent reputation as a law enforcement officer and i think his credentials are beyond reproach. once he found out one of his chief investigators was involved in in rope rate comments about the president, he fired him. and that was the right thing. but let me also say that mccabe apparently was privy to conversation bs an insurance plan or plan b in the event that trump was elected. so we really need to have some transparency here. and rather than having these committee meetings in private i think the american people should have them in public. and mccabe needs to answer those questions. >> he answered a number of questions this week as mike was saying just a moment ago. john, let me ask you about what you are taking away from who the house intelligence committee in particular has questioned over the course of the week, reporting here first from nbc

news. what does that tell you about the direction of the house investigation in particular? >> i look at the house investigations as kind of the jv. the real game is what special counsel mueller is doing. and as you know there have been invitations out to lewandowski and also to bannon. those are not subpoenas. those are mere invites to come and talk to them. i suspect, and if i was representing them, that i would politely decline to speak to any house investigators right now. >> a lot of people in the house will bristle about this being a jv investigation. but when you look at it in contrast from bob mueller investigation to the senate intelligence investigation, it was slow to get started. none es hhow is it doing? how it proceeding compared to the other two investigations? >> they agreed on narrow inquiry

whether they were colluding with them as part of that. what we've heard from mike conway they are already preparing part of a report. i spent pa lot of time in the basement of the capitol outside these hearings, there used to be one a week, there were three in one day this week sochlt really trying to wrap this up in a hurry. and democrats are really saying this is a sign they are trying to wrap this up. what we are hearing from republicans though democrats are extending this because they want a political issue in 2018. and they are also saying narrow scope of inquiry we agreed to, this is not a criminal investigation. mueller is the one doing the criminal investigation. and we are answering the questions we agreed we would ask. >> last question to you about speed. bringing that up. here you had nancy pelosi writing to paul ryan suggest thg w suggesting this was moving too quickly. what do you make of the pace of this at this point?

how problematic is it as you see it? >> it's all politics. and that's unfortunate. because these are very serious law enforcement issues. they need to be dealt with by special counsel mueller. he has sophisticated staff. fbi. terrific former prosecutors, and that's where the investigation should be. and we shouldn't be playing politics with. >> thanks to both of you joining me here in new york. and president touting his accomplishments saying he signed more bills than any other president at this point in a presidency. is that true or false? we'll check out the facts. >> plus a shocking turn around conservatives support td roy moore and slammed accusers now saying they believed him. that's coming up.

this is the cap because this is again the biggest tax cut, biggest reform of all time. this is something i'm very proud of. great for our country. great for the american people. >> those are remarks president trump did yesterday signing the tax plan into law. the law becomes the first legislative win for president trump who has been hit with set back after set back in his young presidency. we'll take a look at some of the president's actions and some of his closestal li allies in the

11 months. joining me now. let me start with another remark from president trump yesterday before he signed that tax legislation. >> legislative approvals for which i've given no credit in the mainstream media, we have, i believe, it's 88, which is number one in the history of our country. second now to harry truman. >> we crunched the numbers, 96 in the presidency. that is less than what bill clinton had at that point. let me go to you first and who do you place the blame on, is this the white house or congress, what do you base it on? >> well, first of all, merry christmas to you and happy holidays to everybody. >> to you as well. >> well, i think that you can look at congress as falling down flat on their face on many, in implementing many of the trump promises. it is significant. this is a giant tax cut for most

americans. it's a big corporate tax cut. it will help the economy, which is already doing well. we already seen 1.7 million jobs created this year. lowest unemployment rates. lowest in 17 years. gdp 3% growth in the last three quarters. those are great numbers. and i do think he has stig can't accomplishments. republicans have been pushing to open up drilling in anwr. and he got a partial repeal of obamacare. got rid of the individual mandate. and he should get credit for those accomplishing. s. >> you place a lot of the blame on congress. at this place in the administration, do you think that president trump and his colleagues in the white house have better sense of how to work with congress? is that your takeaway from what happened here over the last few weeks? >> well, they worked very well in the tax bill. obviously, there has not been enough cooperation on other itch use. president is going to push next

year for big transportation bill tan obviously the full repeal of obamacare didn't happen. but i think congress has done a terrible job. i think they get f minus marks for this year, maybe not plus, only because they passed the tax reform bill. but look at issue after issue, i think most americans look at congress and say what do these stand for. they know what president trump stabds for but don't know the leaders in congress stands for. >> let me ask you to respond to th . that's something you could levy on them. as you look to the new year, what are democrats going so say about that and the path forward? >> well, this tax bill is not an accomplishment for most of us. you know, the republicans will claim that it's a tax break for middle income americans. but i really think it's trying to break the middle class. the reason republicans aren't accomplishing much is because americans wholeheartedly do not agree with the direction that

donald trump or the republicans and leadership are trying to take this country. they spent the first nine months of this year trying to repeal popular health care. americans have spoken on this issue. they tried to sneak it into the tax bill again that's going to impact 13 million americans. this is wildly unpopular. congress is unpopular. donald trump is at 30%. americans understand what's happening here, which is that republicans are not fighting for them on this tax bill you are looking at over time, middle income americans and workers are going to see tax increases over 70% of them are going to see tax increases. poorest americans in this country over time will see nearly 30% increase. while the benefits of this tax go to the top 1%. >> actually, that's not true at all. >> brian get in here, but i'll say it is not a failure this wasn't a permanent tax cut for americans, not for corporations, and not as simplified one might have thought? >> i agree.

look what happened during obama years, tax cuts expired, president obama allowed it to contin continue. i think this administration thinks it will be the same thing that happened. it's fake news to say these will go away. right now everyone is getting a tax cut. and when you look at your average american, they are not merely taxpayers, they also work, and they are consumers, and if you have lower corporate tax rates t will lead to lower goods and services and more jobs. >> let's talk about -- >> not every american will get a tax cut. >> most of them will. >> this is the old bait and switch. we might put $1 in one pocket, take two or three out of another pocket to pay for popular programs that will be need today p needed to pay this tax bill.

people understand it. and that's why it's wildly unpopular. as we look to 2018 democrats have a lead over republicans. they know they can't rely on corporations. they know as corporations are doing better they ought to be doing better to and they deserve that. >> i'll use the special election in alabama, let me ask you about what we have seen over the last couple of days, many people doubtly didn't believe it now say they have credence. what do you make of that? >> well, before the election said that i would have support td roy moore. i would have voted for them if i was in alabama because what happened right now, one step closer to democrat control of the house and senate thanks to roy moore losing. and you can believe most of the accusations, you can believe some of the accusations and still think he would have won.

>> how? >> he would have voted for trump policies and repeal and replace obamacare. he would vote for trump's priorities. and that's why many republicans still thought that he should have been supported. because the virtue trumpers said let's get rid of this guy, now you got what you wish for, now one vote closer and chuck schumer being there. >> it does beg one question where the moral high ground is on the republican party? >> well, they didn't want trump to be president either. and that would led to no tax cuts. led to some policies where you had supreme court that would have been controlled by liberals. it would have had dramatic policy implications. and i think that the policy

implications super she h implications supercede a lot of the problems. and he also one. >> thanks to you as well. >> thank you. well, new treat from president trump attacking fbi deputy director andrew mccabe from "the washington post" he plans to retire. we'll have more on the story after the break. ♪ almost think of the note prior to it as being your most important note. so [singing]... if you nail that, then you're golden. ♪ i look where the rim and the net meet. put that basketball right on those hooks, and that's what i lock in on. ♪ let's talk about the equation of cooking. ingredients, and execution. the ingredients are controlled by somebody else. execution is all about you. ♪

trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief. firing mr. mueller or any other of the top brass involved

in this investigation would not only call into question this administration's commitment to the truth, but also to our most basic concept rule of law. >> new calls from both sides of the aisle in support of robert mueller russia investigation. you heard from senator mark warren of virginia. on friday 40 former u.s. attorneys sent an open letter to president trump warning him of firing the special counsel. all of this while they report andrew mccabe plans to retire early next year. trump taking a break from his vacation in florida to tweet this. how can deputy director mccabe the man in charge with leaking james comey of the hillary clinton investigation fbi is racing the clock to retire with full benefits, 90 days to go.

wow. fbi james baker reassigned. joining us now, ethics lawyer for george bush will talk about the pressure on mueller. but let me have you react to the tweets. andrew mccabe under pressure as he sat through hearings. >> mccabe is loyal public servant and he has served his country well h and f. and for him to be attacked by members of congress the way he's been attacked over the past few years is unconsciousable. what's going on is mccabe is witness to the obstruction of justice by president trump. because he was there when fbi, when he learned of the president to sware loyalty to the

president and obstruct the russian investigation. this is intimidation of witness by members of congress. now that he is retiring we see the president taking up on twitter to continue to harass this man who is not only a loyal public servant, but a material witness in the obstruction of justice case against president trump. this is shocking behavior on behalf of the president. and i would have to say in the bush white house when i was ethics lawyer, if any white house staff member had sent out communications some of those tweets we would have had them fired immediateliment and for thes president of the united states to be doing this is a disgrace. >> you signed one of the letters, along with some other republican members of the administration. let me read one quotation from that. it is critical that the special counsel be allowed to complete his review with the full support of doj and without interference for the benefit of the country as well as for that of the administration. what prompted you tand others t

write this letter? >> well, i took the lead on that letter, in soliciting former members of congress and other leading officials in republican administrations, because it's in our common interest. republican and democrat alike, to have robert mueller continue this investigation and find out who was collaborating with the russians, who has lied about the contents with their russians, and who has obstructed justice. this is not a partisan issue although robert mueller under president and president obama. but this is critically important investigation. and the threats to reign in robert mueller, to fire him, that we see em grating franatin president's allies are very wor worry some. >> you wrote about four things

you were worried about, including removing robert mueller. what's something that could be donor implemented here that secures robert mueller continuation in this position? >> well, i think that the members of congress of both parties ought to make it very clear to president trump that if he does anything to interfere with the mueller investigation, he is going to immediately be removed from office. and that message needs to come from the republicans as well as the democrats. this is not in the interests of the republican party to have members of congress piling on and attacking mueller and attacking the investigation and attacking mr. mccabe and retaliating against witnesses. it's going to be terrible for the republican party in 2018 elections. it's very important for both parties to make it very clear to the president, hands off robert mueller. >> does bob mueller need to say something about this? he's been silent throughout.

we heard guests earlier on the program that's wise for him to keep quiet. let the indictments do the talking. at some point does he have to defend the integrity of his investigation? >> i think he's defending integrity of the investigation by doing the investigation. we need to have people who are actually doing their jobs in washington instead of tweeting and talking about it and attacking other people. robert mueller is doing his job. he's doing it well. and he's not going to sit there shooting his mouth off or twilighti tweeting or anything else. when you hear from him it's going to be an indictment or something else like that. >> last question here, richard painter, you are part of crew, citizens ethics in washington, filed suit against this president using the emollient clause. judge ruled you didn't have standing. let me quote the statement while it is a set back we will not walk away from the constitutional violation. constitution is explicit on

these issues and the president is clearly in violation. our legal team is weighing options and soon layout our decisions how to proceed. help us understand what is next here, if the judge rules you don't have standing, what needs to come to the president and his properties? >> well, according to the new york, fulelt that was not prope court to bring this lawsuit. we'll appeal that. there are two others. one by the state of congress and district of columbia maryland. they have different standing arguments and in front of other courts. no court has ruled on the substance of the complaint which is that the president is in violation of the constitution. and in all three suits the plaintiffs feel very strongly that the president is in violation of the critically important part of the constitution that prohibits him from getting stuff from foreign

government without congress. so we expect the courts will enforce it and congress will do its job of enforcing the constitution, which isn't what's happening so far. >> richard painter, thanks so much for always, from minnesota, at the law school at the university of minnesota. up next, marine who planned to target san francisco tourist spot, he said he planned to do it because of president trump's policies. [music playing]

. pyongyang has chosen the path of isolation. as we have in the past, we will continue to match the kim regime choice of aggressive actions with actions of international sanction. >> welcome back. last nikki haley ratcheting up the sanctions in response to continued provocation after if tested a ballistic missile last month, after overwhelming condemning president trump's decision to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel, despite threats to pull funding. those who didn't vote for jerusalem had a friendship party

that will be convened next year. i'm joined by richard lighter who will take about israel and a recent foiled terror plot in a moment. we had adviser to the president on national security issues talking about the cyber attack and the limits on the president sanctioning this country. and what happened at the u.n. and what more are they able to do? >> i think yesterday's action in the security council on north korea is a tangible victory for the trump administration and for nikki haley. this is good news in terms of further ratcheting the sanctions on fuel to north korea and as tom bossert correctly said, there is only so much the u.s. can do alone and gathering the force of the entire united nations and in particular china to try to tighten the economic sanctions on north korea are really one of the few steps the president has short of force to try to bring north korea to the

negotiating table. >> michael, i want your sense of the role ambassador haley is playingment we've seen more of here than rex tillerson. she's playing a paramount role here on the president's foreign policy team. what does that say that -- that say to you on the position of north korea and the role that she's playing. >> i think in every administration, the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. in certain circumstances is central. and i wouldn't read too much into it. because both of the actions were centered on the u.n. and in the case of jerusalem, it was condemning the united states and in the case of north korea, as i said, it really requires the u.n. because we have to work with china. and i think secretary tillerson played a valueuable role on the north korea front. being one of the seniors within the government and administration that are pushing for more engagement and more diplomacy which i think is really the most fruitful path

forward as difficult as that road may be to hoe. >> let's talk about the pair of votes at the united over the last few days, the first in the security council and the second before the entire general assembly and the ambassador and the president saying they were taking names before that vote took place. what do you think of that rhetoric or the lasting affect of the u.s. tabulating and nicki hailing tweeting out who voted for and against the u.s. and to welcome those countries who did vote alongside the u.s. what do you make of the lasting affects of that rhetoric. >> if it ends with this childish silliness, then probably not much. if we now take further steps to actually significantly cut funding toward the u.n. or even worse potentially cutting funding to some of those who did not agree with us on that issue, that is a real problem. because that will seriously undermine the u.s. ability to lead on a range of issues, to include like what we saw on north korea. again i think this sort of

petulence and taking names is certainly very frustrating to other countries in the world. i don't think they are going to shape the policy on that but if there are more man festations of that, it will make countries turn elsewhere and feel like the u.s. is not the global leader that it has been in the past and that could only hurt our interests. >> michael, i'll ask you about the attack in san francisco that was foiled. you are formerly head -- the department of justice unsealing that, that a young man planningplanning to attack san francisco and because the fbi of the center of the president's tweets over last few weeks. what do you make of what we know of this attack, how it was planned and so much as it was, the fact that it was modelled after this attack in new york city involving a car plowing into pedestrians on the west side of manhattan. >> i think it is really the proo

typical homeland threat out of isis. isis diminished and almost defeated in syria and iraq is continuing to be an ideology, the fbi has done here incredibly well over the past ten years when there is a homeland threat and that is identify people susceptible to the ideology and engage them before they move to attack, and use sting operations to actually get these people to move towards a conspiracy and arrest them before they can attack. this is good intelligence work by the fbi. it is good undercover work and what we expect out of the fbi and in light of some of the counter productive tweeting, andy mccabe for ten plus years has been one of the leaders in this. i worked with andy mccabe when he ran counter-terrorism operations at the fbi, both in the bush administration and the obama administration, and this is fundamentally what andy mccabe and the fbi is about and i hope americans recognize the

way in which both the leaders ship and the rank and file and the bureau has kept this country safer. >> thank you. appreciate your time. much more on the controversial comments made by president trump back in june. that is coming up. ♪

do you want clean, stain free dentures? try polident. the four in one cleaning system kills 99.99% of odor causing bacteria, cleans where brushing may miss. helps remove stains and prevent stain build up. use polident daily.

that is it for us. the news continues right now with my colleague richard lui. you pass the baton to me. >> you can't leave. you have two more hours. we have the wrong people in the wrong spot. thank you. for the last couple of hours.

i'm richard lui here in new york city. a new report saying the president used shocking language to describe immigrants who came to the u.s. from haiti and nigeria and the president and his party and republicans are on the same page and basking in the big tax victory but with that unpopular tax law and unpopular president, what is the plan to win over voters before the mid terms. and james comey former right hand man will leave the bureau soon. now the president is weighing in on twitter just within the last hour. but we begin this hour with a lengthy new york time article getting strong push back when the white house when the president was angered by the continuing influx of people from foreign countries in his pledge to stem migration. "the new york times" sources six officials who were briefed about this meeting. the president began readin