we believe it is sensible to have an international unbiased frank investigation into this incident. a group of professionals of unbiased experts has to be dispatched to the place where chemical weapons were used, as well as to the airport where our american partners say was used as the starting point from which took off the plane delivering the chemical weapons. we are not convinced that this was the case. nor are we convinced by the tv images or by the statements of people who were at the airport. there were no signs that would support the statements, the allegations, that chemical agents were used there at all.

sorry for taking so long to comment, but i would like to underline that we are 100% sure that if our colleagues at the u.n., as well as the hague tried to avoid this investigation, this will signify tha reluctant to find out the truth. but we will insist that the truth should be found. thank you. >> thank you. secretary tillerson, i want to ask you about your conversations with president putin about syria. you predicted assad will leave power through a political transition. how will you compel assad to participate in a political transition that leads to his own ouster? are war crimes charges on the table? and how long will the united states wait for russia to come around? and for mr. lavrov, if i may,

your government and the united states government seems to be miles apart on the syria issue, ukraine and other issues. did you feel that you've cleared up any of those issues you mentioned earlier today since you've had those discussions with secretary tillerson? >> we did discuss at length the future role for assad, whether it be in a future political process or not. clearly our view is that the reign of the assad family is coming to an end. and they have, again, brought this on themselves with their conduct and war these past few years. we discussed our view that russia, as their closest ally in the conflict, perhaps has the best means of helping assad recognize this reality. we do think it's important that assad's departure is done in an orderly way, an orderly way, so

that certain interest and constituencies that he represents feel that they have been represented at the negotiating table for a political solution. how that occurs, we leave that to the process going forward. we do not think one has to occur before the other can begin. and it will take a pace of its own. but the final outcome, in our view, does not provide for a role for assad or for the assad family in the future governance of syria. we do not think the international community will accept that. we do not think the world will accept that. >> what about the war crimes charges? >> we discussed the issue that as time goes by and more and more evidence continues to be gathered, it is possible that the threshold necessary to charge individuals, including bashar al-assad, this may be

achieved. this is a very high legal hurdle in order to bring such charges against an individual, so i would not suggest to you that all of that evidence is in place. but i think the longer time goes by, it's possible that the case will be made. there are certain individuals who are working to make that case. >> i for one would like to say that i do not think russia and the u.s., it cannot be breached on in issues of the international agenda, both with regard to syria and ukraine, it's not impossible. in our introduction remarks with mr. tillerson we mentioned the agreement that related not just to preserve it, but also to intensify the communication channels with regard to syria

and ukraine. for syria and bashar al-assad. we have had sort of a historical background. rex said that he's a new guy and not looking to make history, but to deal with the matters of today. the thing is, the world is built in such a fashion that if we do not take lessons from the past, we will hardly be able to keep success and the president. and i record certain situations when groups of countries, primarily western countries, major countries, were fixated on eliminated the to tatalitarium

order to oust the former president of yugoslav sra. they launched a war in 1999. a tv station was bombed, which incidentally as a military crime, however you interpret the geneva convention. residential areas were shelled. the chinese embassy was also attacked. civil trains and bridges were bombed. the shelling went on for three months. and then they ran out of targets that could be qualified as double use facilities. there was another dictator,

sadam hussein who was hanged when no invasion was justified. since then i think tony blair was the only one to defend publicly, admitting that it had been a fake, or the ground for the iraq invasion. there was another one, moamargadafi. it had been said there was no place for the man in that country and that democracy would prevail, but we know full well what is happened in libya. the libyan state is all but nonexistent. our president talked about that yesterday with the italian president. right now we're trying to restore the libyan statehood through reconciliation. we're trying to put an end to the situation in which this

country turned into a channel of human trafficking, as your media reported today. incidentally, there are other examples, not so recent. the president of sudan, there has been a warrant for his arrest issued by the international court and civilly the obama administration decided to settle this problem, sudan had to be split into two parts. south sudan was established and the obama administration tried to help them secure al-bashar's agreement to this splitting up. president bashar held up his end of the bargain.

sudan was split in two parts in accordance with the obama administration's plan and right now washington -- and then washington insisted sanctions would be executed against the country they helped create. so the fixation on trying to oust this or that dictator, authoritarian leader, we know how it ends. a successful ouster of a dictator is to me very hard to remember. if you have any examples, i would be glad if you could share them with me. on syria, as our president has stated on many occasions, we are not trying to put our thoughts

on anyone or assad or anyone else as they do in libya. we want them to sit at one negotiating table. as a resolution state, they have all gathered together. this has to be with syrian dialogue. as the council resolution states the future of syria has to be determined by the syrians themselves without any exception. the most important thing is not to eliminate a political leader from the chess board, so to speak, but to agree on how the country is going to be built. it has to be democratic. has to be secular, which is something the high negotiations committee speaks against. all ethnic and religious groups have to feel safe, have to feel represented at government

agencies. and only if such a consensus is achieved, which has to be done for elaborating a new constitution will the issues related to certain personalities be settled very efficiently without any tragic consequences for the country or for their people. >> thank you. comments and news people, please. >> your question? >> thank you. i have got a question to secretary tillerson. have you talked today about the alleged interference of russia into the american election? in what way do you think russia's actions are different from the american actions in cyber security in accordance with what the american media say we know that the iranian nuclear program was compromised by american created virus right

now. u.s. is trying to present the north korea from using the same means. and another question to both men. a working group has been set up talking about resuming the work of the presidential commission. do you plan to do that? thank you. >> we touched on it briefly, on the issue of cyber security and, in particular, on the challenges that it is placing on everyone, in terms of a new threat, an emerging threat. i think i do make a distinction when cyber tools are used to interfere with the internal decisions among countries as to how their elections is conducted. that is one use of cyber tools. cyber tools to disrupt weapons programs, that's another use of the tools. and i make a distinction between

those two. clearly this is an issue that has emerged in our time for which we have yet, as an international community, come to some conclusion on how we want to respond to that. so there will be further discussions. and it is on the agenda. and it is in the agenda that mr. lavrov has to meet for us to have further discussions in the future. >> i can only say that we are both interest in close cooperation and fighting cyber crime. you have probably heard, we said that on many occasions. 18 months ago we proposed to the obama administration given concern about the activities of the so-called russian hackers they started to pursue over the

world. without resorting to the procedures that exist between russia and the u.s., they started to detain these hackers and prosecute them after extraditing them from third countries. back then we said we were not interested, and our citizens being involved in these crimes. therefore, we suggested that a special mechanism should be created that would exchange information in real-time about anyone trying to breach the international or national norms of both russia and the u.s., the obama administration refused. they didn't respond, but then at the end of the obama administration in november last year, they proposed that we should meet certainly our relevant government agencies

agreed, but at the last moment, the obama administration changed their mind because they were probably very very interested in underminding the relations of the new administration in power. that's why we once again confirmed the interest of ours today. this is a relevant matter. and that is why we suggested that our contacts should be resumed at the level of special envoys of the u.s. administration and the russian president. also contact at the level of relevant authorities. we feel that this time the result of these efforts might be different leading to the establishment of new channels of communication and cooperation. and what is your second question? the ballot for presidential commission? no, we have not yet touched upon this matter.

it has been buried, so to speak, but maybe it must be resuscitated. still, we've got channels to discuss some serious issues in our relations. it might be not under this umbrella structure, no. it might be in a different format. we have designated special persons who will sit down and look at our grievances, to look into those, and to look into how we can overcome these difficulties that exist. >> thank you. secretary tillerson, did you discuss today with president putin or foreign minister lavrov sanctions or other concessions that the u.s. might make in exchange for a change in behavior from the ugs

government? and also speaking about what you just answered previously, did you present to president putin or the foreign minister specific evidence the russian government interfered in the u.s. election? and foreign minister lavrov, if an independent investigation finds the assad government attacked his own people with chemical weapons, what will russia do? president putin said there's an effort to blame assad and plant evidence. did you present that evidence to secretary tillerson today? and would russia refuse to consider to agree to any circumstance that results in the ousting of bashar al-assad. >> we discussed no change in the status of sanctions that have been in place with russia as a result of certain actions taken in ukraine, as you know. i think as to the question of the interference with the election, that is fairly very well established in the united states. that has been spoken to on the hill as well, with the congress.

it is a serious issue. it's one that we know. it's serious enough to attract additional sanctions. and so we are mindful of the seriousness of that particular interference in our elections. i am sure that russia is mindful of it as well. >> secretary hasn't threatened at all. we have had a frank discussion about the issues from our agenda. and unfortunately, we've got some difficulty with regard to majority of those issues. now, as for the counts, this investigation revealed the government's implication in chemical attacks.

if so, if hypothetical, we do not want to speculate. we see how speculation can bring results. we see some statements from the representatives, the air strike against the air base. we do not want to speculate on what is really important on the serious matter of the use of chemical weapon, trying to exonerate anyone on the attempt staging an attack with the use of chemical weapons. what we want is to establish the truth in who complies with american legislation, the russian laws, legislation, the laws of any normal country. but the principle of innocent until proven guilty has to be

respected. today we sent an appeal to the hague to conduct an unbiased transparent investigation. but should there be an attempt at dragging on this investigation, we'll have to make the necessary conclusions. now, as for the allegations that the u.s. government has irrefutable proof that we interfered with the electoral campaign, i have to say once again that we have not seen any facts, any hint at facts. we have not seen any evidence. no one has shown us any evidence, even though we have requested on many occasions that these evidence has to be produced to us to support the allegations, the accusations we hear.

during this time, are there remaining people who want to under mind our relations, to pursue their internal or external political interest. these are just games. we want to hear concrete proof and then we'll respond accordingly. thank you. >> good evening. question to both ministers. the u.s. has sent a strike group with an aircraft carrier. has this issue been raised during the talks? and what are the risks that step might entail for the regime? and this question for secretary tillerson. if this group has been sent to the korean peninsula, does that signify the u.s. has some plans for military intervention in

north korea? thank you. >> the carl vinson strike group is routinely in the pacific ocean. it's in the pacific indicator. and its movements in the pacific are made in a way that's planned by the military planners. there is no particular objective in its current course. the vinson sails up and down the pacific routinely. and so i would not read anything into the carl vinson's current location. >> the only thing i can say is that among other issue, we have discussed the situation in the korean peninsula, as well as around there. as far as i understand, given all the answers, we still have a

common determination to resolve this issue through peaceful means to achieve the demilitarization through diplomatic talks. there are certain efforts undertaken by the participant of what used to be called the six party talks. we also have ideas of our own, just as our chinese counter parts do. we believe we have got to rally around the cause of finding peaceful solution to this issue. and the last question. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, before these meetings, you said you believed russia was either incompetent or complicit in these chemical weapons attacks. after your extensive meeting

with president putin and mr. lavrov, do you know which one is and what concrete thing can be done to rebuild that lack of trust? and minister lavrov, if i could indulge you in an answer in english, if you would, sir, president trump has called bashar al-assad an animal. this is the leader your government continues to back. can you tell us how long russia will be willing to risk the lives of its soldiers and spend its money to protect him? >> with respect to russia's complicity or knowledge of chemical weapons attack, we have no firm information to indicate that there was any involvement by russian, russian forces, into this attack. what we do know and we have very firm and high confidence in our conclusions, that the attack was planned, carried out by the regime forces at the direction of bashar al-assad.

>> i can only say once again that just as the case with the so-called russian hackers and the chemical incident in syria, we would very much like to get some concrete evidence, not just words. so far we have not seen any facts. let me highlight once again. in syria, we are acting at the request of the government of the country which is a member of the united nations. this country is under no sanction of the u.n. security council. we are acting there in order to fight terrorism. and it is in our interest to prevent damascus from being

engulfed by isis on that front. if you look at the facts, over the last 18 months, the coalition set up by the obama administration did almost nothing to achieve the objective that it had stated when being established. it had not fought consistently against the front for isis until the russian air base forces were deployed in syria. in essence, after the deployments of our forces, the u.s.-led coalition under the obama administration only performed strikes against certain places held by isis. and it was always sparing that front. we've got some suspicions we think that the front is still

chaperoned and spared to resort to plan b, to overthrow the assad regime with force. we know how this is going to end, because we saw similar situations in libya and iraq. and we do hope that the people will prevail and learn how to learn from history. now, as for who is responsible for the crimes committed in syria, we've got to look into that. but as one american counter part said, there will be time for everything with god's priorities and recently we've heard new priorities from washington, saying that isis is priority number one and as mr. spicer has said, we have the resources to defeat isis without doing anything to the assad regime. this is the same thing john kerry had told me. the u.s. administration, he said, was convinced that isis

was a more serious threat and a more important objective than the assad regime. so i think we think along the same lines. we have to see the common thread if they are apparent. and if we are to fight isis, if we are to emerge victorious from this fight without ousting the regime. when ousting the regime, this is no guarantee that we are going to defeat isis. on the contrary, they might emerge victorious if we oust the regime. so we should be guided by commonsense, thank you, not by emotion. >> colleagues, this is the end of the conference. thank you for participating. thank you. >> dana: rex tillerson and sergi lavrov wrapping up a press

conference after tillerson meets with president putin for about two hours. i'm melissa francis. tillerson told putin that he thinks u.s./russian relations are at a low point. they also talked about the russian's interference with the u.s. elections and whether syrian president bashar al-assad should go. lavrov saying they want an investigation into the chemical weapon attack in syria. we have team coverage with kevin cork at the white house, rich edson is in moscow. we are going to start though with fox sunday host chris wallace, who is in washington. chris, it was interesting to watch rex tillerson there. he was poised. he was firm during the long questions, he didn't take notes, he answered straight off. i don't know if this is what everyone expected. you remember before saying that maybe he was an inexperienced diplomat. what did you think? >> let me say first of all, we may not have a cold war, but that room was pretty chilly today. these two men held a news

conference for over half an hour and really didn't give an inch to each other, as you point out, secretary of state tillerson said relations are at a low point. he talked at one point about a steady degradation of relations. they were completely on opposite sides when it came to syria and assad's responsibility. i would have to say, i wouldn't give tillerson quite as strong as high grades as you apparently did, melissa. i thought you could see a contrast between sergi lavrov, who seemed very comfortable and completely unyielding, giving long complicated answers, in which he went back to u.s. foreign policy in kosovo and iraq and libya, and sudan, to say that the u.s. seems to have this fixation with ousting dictators and countries end up in much worse shape afterwards.

tillerson giving brief and not nearly as aggressive answers as lavrov did. he didn't seem to want to come looking for a fight. lavrov was very comfortable looking for a fight and taking the argument very much to the u.s. >> melissa: yeah. >> i thought lavrov was noticeably more aggressive and, frankly, dominated the news conference. >> melissa: he did hit very hard, especially on that point. he went through the litany of history of what has happened when secular deck taters have been deposed and how badly that has worked out for the u.s. tillerson was clear on what he thought assad's future role was. let's listen to that an get your reaction. >> we did discuss at length the future role for assad, whether it be in a future political process or not. clearly, our view is that the reign of the assad family is coming to an end.

it is possible that the threshold necessary to charge individuals including bashar al-assad may be achieved. >> melissa: chris, it's very clear where they disagree, right? is there any chance to come together? >> well, that's the point. that's kind of what tillerson's been saying for the last few days. that's fine. we don't like assad. we'd like to see him out. but he's got tremendous support from iran and from russia. and there wasn't the slightest hint on the part of sergei lavrov that the kremlin is going to back off its full support for al-assad. at the very end he said, just remember, we came in at the request of a legitimate government, no u.n. sanctions. he made a very interesting charge near the end where he suggested that the u.s. seemeded, while going after isis, they weren't going after an off shoot of al qaeda and seemed to suggest that we would be perfectly okay with an al qaeda regime taking over in

syria. i thought it was a very aggressive offensive by sergei lavrov without much push back by tillerson. tillerson stated his positions, but he sure wasn't in the mood for an agreement with lavrov. >> melissa: do you think he should have hit back harder? >> well, look, it's not my job to say what the secretary of state should do. i just think it was interesting to note the difference between the two. lavrov went on very aggressively stating the u.s. position and several cases making strong charges about the u.s. and tillerson did not respond in kind. >> melissa: it's interesting to note as well that he said along those lines that you were just mentioning that last time around when secretary kerry was there, that he seemed to indicate it was more important to fight back against isis than to depose assad. and if you think back to when secretary kerry went in 2013, he was kept waiting for, what was it, three hours before he could

see president putin? that was another one where they really sort of were very aggressive, as they're sitting there trying to have talks. where do you think it goes from here i guess is the question? >> well, you don't see any reason to believe that there's going to be any change. >> melissa: nothing. >> welsh russia has some very serious interests kind of laughing or scoffing at the trump administration talking about, well, this is what's in russia's interest. russia knows what's in russia's interests. we may not agree with it, but they have a port in the mediterranean in syria. they have air bases in syria. they srf a geo political view, as does iran, about what role they want syria to play in the power, the balance of power in the middle east. certainly nothing today indicated that tillerson and/or trump and/or the missile attack had changed russia's view of this position in the world, syria's position, in any way shape or form.

>> melissa: no, but maybe in those details you just mentioned, there's a deal. if that is their interest, does that outweigh or is there some way to negotiate within that frame work i guess is what we'll see. some have suggested that. it's possible to maintain their interest but still you don't have assad in position there. it's somebody else. i don't know how hard that is to achieve. >> that is certainly one of the things that the white house has been talking about. the possibility that while the allowites, the sect that assad represents, that could remain in power and the assad family would have to go. but there are limitations here. we're really kind of grasping at straws. there was no indication from lavrov that there's any intention to back off. >> melissa: chris wallace, thank you. always fantastic. thank you for enlightening us. rich edson joins us from moscow. he is in the room where secretary tillerson and foreign minister lavrov just wrapped up.

rich, you're the man that's there. what was the room like? yeah, melissa, it was a cramped room filled with russian media, all trying to get a question in to the secretary and the foreign minister. you have to imagine people were in that room for four hours today. there was this public relations dance going with the russian government as to whether vladamir putin was going to invite the secretary of state over to the kremlin to meet with him. they found out late in the afternoon that, in fact, secretary tillerson was welcome to come over to the kremlin, so they met for a couple of hours today. after a series of meetings today, hours of meetings with sergei lavrov, this afternoon with vladamir putin, it is clear that the u.s. and russia have essentially just decided to continue talking. there are major substantial disagreements even on a basic set of facts. when it comes to syria, when koeuplts to russian interference

in elections. in fact, you heard the answer that secretary tillerson gave to our question about whether he brought up interference in the u.s. election and the response from foreign minister lavrov was essentially, well, wasn't what we discussed in the meeting. so on the issue of syria, the resolve and the number of statements we have now heard from the trump administration on the future of bashar al-assad. the secretary of state reiterated again today that the long term solution is that assad will eventually transition out and just have to develop a process to do so. sergei lavrov talked about this obsession with deposing dictators and didn't seem like he signed on to that point of view at all. >> melissa: rich edson, thank a syndicated talk show host, mary anne march is a senior adviser to john kerry. thank you very much for joining us. chris, let me start with you. next up we are going to see

president trump come out and talk later this afternoon. what does he say about this? >> well, look, this is sort of a first meeting, a first go around. i think that the president meeting with nato leader, is probably going to talk about what role nato might play if there were requirement to go further with syria militarily. and it's good to get nato in line. also good for the president of the united states standing there with the leadership of nato when it is russia that is rattling the saber. they should be reminded that we are not standing here alone. >> melissa: mary anne, what's your take? >> the thing to look for, will trump take a tougher tone against lavrov and putin than tillerson did this afternoon? trump has been unwilling and unable to do it to this point. so was tillerson today. even though you could argue with sanctions, the united states clearly has the upper hand. the fact that lavrov pushed so hard on syria to get the resolution in the united nations

and then the national security council, which he objects to in that form, in the united nations. everybody knows russia and china can stop anything. that's what they're looking to do. so if trump isn't tougher than tillerson was this afternoon, then everyone has to question why neither one of them are willing or able to take on putin, lavrov and russia, especially over syria. >> melissa: chris, did you watch that and see a pushover in rex tillerson? >> no, i didn't see a pushover. i saw someone who wasn't there to pick a fight over bosnia and iraq and libya and sudan. by the way, if he wanted to, there's plenty of push back that is readily available. number of countries that russia and the soviet union rolled over. not to liberate, not to provide with democracy and elections, but to occupy. and, by the way, when we came up against milosevic in the former yugoslavia and against hussein in iraq and also bashar in

sudan, we're coming up against soviet and russian weapons systems, from their air defenses, to their tanks, to their rifles. they're all provided by russia and the soviet union. so the bad guys, who are not democratic, are backed by russia, and armed by russia. and when we go to knock out dictators that bring democracy, the russians are always there to trip up the freedom loving people of the world, the democracy seeking people of the world. >> melissa: mary anne, president trump was not tough with 59 tomahawk missiles? >> no. as i said monday morning on this network, the fact is that airport was up and running faster than delta. that's the problem here. you add to the fact that russia had soldiers on that base and they're either unwilling or also unable to say what they saw there and knew what was going on there. that's just impossible to believe. so at every turn russia is somehow involved. yet nobody, seemingly, in the united states government,

including the people in the white house and the secretary of state, are willing to call them out on it. >> russia having troops in the air base doesn't mean they're involved, other than the fact that we all know they are supporting the butchers in damascus. they were given a heads up. >> melissa: they didn't see the weapons? >> sure. we knew they were there. i believe we knew they were there. russians got a heads up so we didn't kill any of their people. you seem to be suggesting that we should have been harsher? there should have been more than 59 cruise missiles? >> melissa: we gotta go. >> if you're going to take out an airport, take out an airport. >> melissa: they did take out all the aircraft that were there. they did take out the munitions. >> should we take out all the air fields? >> melissa: we've got to go. sorry. what is the u.s. military's next step in syria? in nearly three years after scandal exposed patient deaths at the va, the new va secretary

is shaking things up. we'll talk to two combat veterans next.

>> we discussed the current state of u.s./russia relation. i expressed the view that the current state of u.s./russia relations is at a low point. there is a low level of trust between our two countries. the world's two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship. we further discussed approaches to improving our channels of communication. we had a lengthy exchange of views regarding the situation in syria. and shared perspectives on possible ways forward. >> melissa: so that was secretary of state rex tillerson with russia's foreign minister, sergei lavrov, wrapping up a press conference that happened just moments ago. so what is next for the u.s. in resolving this syrian issue? joining us now is staff sergeant

johnny jones, a retired u.s. marine corps bomb technician and michael wolf a former green beret commander former terrorism adviser to vice president dick cheney and a fox news contributor. gentlemen, i'll start with you. sergeant jones. what do you think is the logical next step given the new information we got just now from that press conference on where everybody stands at this moment and where they're sticking? >> well, first off i think we have to look at the air strike as a form of diplomacy. our missiles don't often miss. and if the air field went back to business, it's because we allowed it to. i think that we did take a step to say that red lines matter this time. but i do think we're in the diplomatic stage. i don't believe we're escalating war in syria. i don't believe that we're moving to topple the regime there, assad's regime. but i do think that we're showing posture, which is one of

the critical aspects of war. and i think we're showing we are willing to do something if our national security or if the interest of the humanity is what is at stake. >> melissa: lieutenant walsh, the.he's making is it looks like the administration is willing. i don't know about the american public necessarily. they're leary, if you look at the most recent polls. full u.s. military involvement, including u.s. troops on the ground in syria, 18% supported that. only u.s. air strikes with no ground troops, 30% supported that. you can see from the screen, that was sort of the most popular option. but while the american public is outraged about what they saw and felt perhaps good about the strike, greater involvement is another thing. >> well, i think that's right. i think the sergeant is right. in the sense that this was a limited strike to draw and enforce a red line against the use of wmd. inaction has consequences. if the united states has turned

its head yet again as we did for eight years under the obama administration at the use of chemical weapons, we would have green lighted its use not only in syria, but around the world. so that had to be done. what next? what happens when the assad regime continues to barrel bomb and use conventional weapons to conduct mass atrocities against its territory? i think we're seeing a broad outline of a policy shaping. one, we had a lot of talk of safe zones. and why to get to the point of the poll. is this in america's interest to stop? well, essentially, you know, the assad regime and russia have weaponized refugee flows. they've done more with 12 million refugees to destablize europe and provide terrorists a platform to penetrate the united states than the soviet union ever did. so i think safe zones in place and driving a wedge diplomatically between assad and russia's interest so that they say he can go. >> melissa: yeah, no, great

point. i want to turn you though three years since the phoenix va scandal broke. a new website was unveiled revealing exactly how we care for va's at the hospital and how it compares with nearby private sector hospitals and national averages. the site has put on 20 hospitals. the va said they are going to add more. sergeant jones, what do you think about this? is this a steup in the right direction or too little? >> i mean, i applaud and appreciate the idea of a transparent policy. in other words, stating publicly we are no longer trying to cover up where we're failing. but that's only if vets are allowed to go outside the system. current policy, you have a 29 day wait or 49 mile drive that's good to go as far as applying care. what's really the issue here is we're talking about getting veterans to their medical care.

we're not even talking about the quality of care they get once they get there, once they have waited and get there. it's good to know that there's places in los angeles. there's an 80 day wait. but the political pressure is there. >> melissa: gentlemen, thank you very much. i wish you had more time. thank you for your insight and service. >> thank you. >> melissa: while many have seen this troubling video of a united passenger dragged off the plane to make room for crew, we're just getting video of the moments before this. >> i'm not going. i am not going. i won't go. i'm not going. i stay right here. my insurance rates are probably gonna double. but dad, you've got... ...allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. it's good to be in, good hands. ♪ to err is human.

to anticipate is lexus. experience the lexus rx with advanced safety standard. experience amazing.

so you'rhow nice.a party? i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] hold on. don't wait for watchathon week to return. [ doorbell rings ] who's that? show me netflix. sign up for netflix on x1 today and keep watching all year long.

>> melissa: united airlines is scrambling to get out of a horrible night mare of a doctor dragged off of his seat from a plane. trace gallagher is live with more on that. trace? >> reporter: let's begin with the video of the man arguing. while dr. dow is confronting place, he reportedly is on the phone with his lawyer. very hard to hear, so watch and read along. play it. >> i have to work tomorrow. no, i'm not going. i am not going. you can take me then. i won't go. i'm not going. i stay right here. >> reporter: course, moments later dr. dow was pulled over the arm rest and dragged down the aisle by his arms. he remains hospitalized. the 69-year-old kentucky doctor is speaking out telling a tv station that he's not doing well when asked ab his injuries, dow replied, quote, everything.

the doctor's family is also commenting saying they appreciate the outpouring of prayers and support. the family has also obtained a lawyer. mean time united's ceo who initially commended his cabin crew for going above and beyond is continuing his apology tour. he told "good morning america" that the world saw united at a bad moment and vowed never again to allow law enforcement to remove people from its airplanes. listen. >> it was a system failure. we have not provided our front line supervisors and managers and individuals with the proper tools, policies, procedures, that allow them to use their common sense. >> reporter: remember, united said dr. dow was randomly picked by a computer to give up his seat, melissa. >> melissa: absolutely. amazing. we'll be right back with some early voting.

managing blood sugar is not a marathon it's a series of smart choices.

like using glucerna to replace one meal or snack a day. glucerna products have up to 15 grams of protein to help manage hunger and carbsteady, unique blends of slow release carbs to help minimize blood sugar spikes. every meal every craving. it's the choices you make when managing blood sugar that are the real victories. glucerna. everyday progress.

>> melissa: early voting is underway in georgia for the race to replace tom price and a lot of money is already being spent. jonathan serrie is in atlanta. who is raising the most money right now? >> that would be john alsoff. he's raised $8.3 million. much more than any of the other can did. this is a huge field. a total of 18 candidates, 11 republicans and five democrats. alsoff is a moderate alternat e alternative. this is a solid red district. it's affluent and educated. generally leans to establishment candidates. although trump won, he's he only carried the district by 1.5

percentage points. >> melissa: thanks for that report. i'm melissa francis. thank for joining us. there was a lot of news there that we had to cover. now here's shepard smith. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast, 3:00 in washington. 10:00 p.m. moscow with secretary of state rex tillerson met with vladimir putin. that was unexpected. moments ago, a remarkable moment as secretary tillerson came face to face with his russian counter part about the only agreement is how bad things have gotten. and "the washington post" with a blockbuster said that the fbi monitored carter