>> greta, good evening. it was a very somber morning here at the white house listening to the president. i have seen him in a number of different happy and quizive. and as a matter of fact. first time since covering the white house. i noticed that he was really struck very emotional president today talking about the accident that cost the lives of not only an american hostage as you pointed out warren weinstein but also an italian hostage held by al qaeda giovani laporto. the two men were killed in a drone strike carried out by the cia. we're told, greta that happened back in january. many the among questions we had not only for the president but also for the press secretary josh earnst, for the record the president didn't take questions but josh did. why the delay? why did it take so long to tell the american people when in effect they didn't know for several weeks after the strike that weinstein and laporto were part of the scrims victims of the drone strike. a situation the white house is going to review further. >> you said they didn't know several weetion. several months out. several weeks would have brought us in late february. why didn't they tell us in late february. >> that's a great question. the way josh earnst laid it out the white house press secretary was this way. they actually reviewed what happened and didn't know until several weeks after that it was possible, repeat it was possible that weinstein and laporto were victims in that drone strike. after that they had to have further confirmation. then ultimately they felt like a few weeks ago they had it locked down. the president learned just a few days ago and informed, we are told, members of congress and then they decided to make a statement today. >> well, who is the target? i mean, were there specific targets? now, there were two americans who are part of al qaeda. they were also killed. were they the specific target? >> your lawyer, so you are going to love this because it sort of gets into the legal weeds a little bit because you have to be careful how you target some people. keep in mind as you pointed out a couple of the victims ahmed faruq and adam gadahn were american citizens although one had been charged with treason. the way the white house explained it today greta was. this. >> no one was specifically targeted. they were targeting a compound believed to be used by al qaeda. not any specific targeted personnel. that's the way they laid it out. and you can't argue that because we simply don't know what they knew but we can certainly tell you that. ironically or perhaps not so coincidently those drone strikes both on the 14th of january and january 19th were successful in eliminating two major al qaeda figures. >> kevin, thank you. >> you bet. >> so are those drone attacks making al qaeda in the region weaker or stronger, more determined? grn reporter jonathan boone joins us live from pakistan. jonathan has the news broken there in pack about these americans having been killed by these drone strikes? >> it has broken, although for the last year or so, the issue of u.s. drone strikes in pakistan have really fallen off the domestic agenda in pakistan. this was an issue of hot controversy some time ago but right now this is not of grave concern. anti-drone protesters, there are still some of those have used this instance to say that the fact that the united states did not know precisely who they were targeting, is, as they say indicative of the fact that these -- that this technology is not sufficiently accurate enough and backs up their claim that they have made for many years these things kill innocent civilians. >> all right. aside from the fact that it kills innocent civilians and may not be, you know, 100% efficient, i'm curious whether or not this is emboldened al qaeda or whether it has made inroads and really destroyed and weakened al qaeda. >> the u.s. drone campaign has been extremely effective in the jargon of this game, degrading and disrupting militant groups but especially al qaeda. what little we know of the group that was targeted by this -- these particular drone strikes is this was an emerging franchise of al qaeda that was focusing on south asia, the indian subcontinent. and this was the group that was being targeted, only formed some months ago and already senior leadership were targeted but also tragically wine stein and the italian as well. >> jonathan, thank you. >> so is bad intelligence to blame for the death of the american and italian hostage or was it a risk president obama needed to take? >> i want to express our grief and condolences to the families of two hostages. >> members of al qaeda reportedly killed in u.s. drone strikes. president obama today admits the operations accidently killed two innocent hostages. >> this strike was conducted by an armed drone under the operation of the cia. >> i profoundly regret what happened. >> the other near certainty assessment that no civilians would be harmed if this operation were carried out. unfortunately, that was not correct. >> i take fullability for all our counter terrorism operations,including the one that inadvertently took the lives of warren and giovanni. >> congressman adam kinzinger joins us. thank you, sir. >> i seized upon the words of our reporter in pakistan when i asked about whether or not it was effective or not in degrading al qaeda. he said it has extremely effective the drone program. that's not consoling to the families tonight. >> first up we have to put our hearts out and our sympathy to the families. this is terrible. they have to watch the news coverage of this and talk about their loved ones and it's a sad thing. the drone program has been effective. i want to be clear about something. this isn't the fault of the drone program. this isn't the fault even of president obama. i guess what he was trying to do. i was a little disappointed of him saying i bear responsibility of this. this is the responsibility of al qaeda. al qaeda kidnapped these people and put them in a position where they could be a legitimate target of a counter terrorism counter insurgency operation. look the geneva connection is very clear about when you hold prisoners you don't do it in legitimate targeting areas. unfortunately they don't follow the good geneva convention. one other thing we need to keep in mind human intelligence is very important in these operations. i fly intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. i did that in the air force and still do. you can only get so much information by looking at a facility. people are a blur. you can't identify specific targets necessarily. it's that human intelligence on the ground which we let kind of go away. capturing people instead of killing them. taking them back and getting information from them and unraveling like we did in the surge in iraq which was so effective. >> why don't we have human intelligence. with isis and use it more with isis? >> because it's high risk. i think this is a risk adverse president. i give him credit for taking out bad guys when he can find them in some cases. he is he risk averse, he doesn't like to put special forces on the ground for smash and grab missions. it's much easier to to have a drone in an area and drop a missile that way. again, i support using them at the same time, if you have a very high intelligence or just a medium intelligence assess set to grab him bring him back and find out who he knows who he has been talking to and where the rest of the network you cannot under estimate the effectiveness. we haven't held a prisoner american custody in a very long amount of time. >> the isis reference they are just woven in among the civilians so it makes it impossible i suppose to use drones against isis. >> it makes it hard. you see targets walking around. get out of a truck and mixed in with a bunch of people. you don't know who is a legitimate target and who isn't. you don't know if a hell fire missile is going to stand around people innocent. if you send helicopters in and special forces and they grab that guy, he can tell you who people are and where they live and everything else. can you unravel those networks very closely. >> how much are we using the drones these days? has the program been stepped up or stepped down? >> it seems like it's been probably pretty consistent. we use a lot in yes, ma'am member. that's been stopped because of the houthi takeover and houthi led to al qaeda being able to take hold in yemen there and chaos and they are doing it everywhere. obviously we are doing some over iraq. some over syria. but at the end of the day it's effective in taking out clusters of people but you are not going to destroy entire terror network with it. it takes human intelligence and human interaction. that also takes more risk. and you have to have a president not as risk averse as this one. >> the sadness of the two families. american family and italian family tonight with the terrible news. >> it's really heart-breaking. >> it's really awful. you are right it's al qaeda could end this. >> absolutely. >> congressman, thank you. >> yeah, thanks. >> developing now former secretary of state hillary clinton on the hot seat and alarming story involving millions of dollars flowing into the clinton foundation, reporting tonight chief white house correspondent ed henry. >> fox news add the "new york times" reporting the clinton family and foundation pocketed millions of dollars from donors tied to a business deal which allowed russian president vladimir putin to essentially corner the macket on american uranium production. a deal signed off in part by hillary clinton while she was secretary of state. despite an official memorandum of understanding signed by advisors of clinton and president obama to avoid such conflicts. >> i think the goal of the memorandum was tone sure that even the appear and of a conflict of interest was was avoided by ensuring that there was greater transparence. >> clinton campaign spokesman said nobody produced evidence that she took action as secretary of state to help clinton foundation donors. this story starts with a 2013 article describing russian atomic energy agency's takeover of a canadian company with mining stakes reaching from central asia to the american west. the deal making the russian agency one of the world's largest uranium producers and bringing russian president putin closer to controlling most of the world's uranium supply. there is more to the story. the leaders of the canadian mining industry are also major donors to clinton family charities. as the russians assumed control of the iranian company, canadian records reportedly show a flow of cash millions of dollars made its way from toronto to the clinton foundation in new york. the clintons did not publicly disclose those convictions. also shortly after the russians announced their intention to acquire the uranium company former president bill clinton received a half million dollars to speak at a moscow investment bank. hillary clinton may be facing heat on another front. republican chairman trey gowdy revealing today that he is going to call clinton for testimony. he says if he doesn't hear from her soon, is he going to schedule a hearing may 18th and force her to testify no later than june 18th, greta? >> that of course is ed henry filing that report for "on the record." this uranium controversy may have been a surprise to many people today but not for one united states senator. he began sounding laundry room bells about uranium one that company back in 2010. he even warned president obama. now he is here to go on the record. senator john joins us. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> i guess the i told you so is not conciliatory to you tonight back in 2010 you wrote a letter to the president. the two issues here one is clinton campaign and clinton global initiative or her campaign but the other is that russia now owns one fifth of our uranium capacity here in the united states as a result of this deal. you tried to warn everybody. >> we did. we tried to throw the penalty flag early on. we did that in 2010. people in wyoming were concerned that the administration was going to approve this sale. we talked to the administration ahead of time. we wrote to the president right after they approved the sale of american uranium product to a country controlled by putin and russia. we were very concerned from the standpoint of energy security for our country and national security since most of the uranium that he would use in the united states we have to import that we use for nuclear power and now you see vladimir putin owning 20% of american uranium, controlling that and we know that russia sends uranium to people who are not our friends to our bitter enemies including iran. >> so i mean, what was the response? when you wrote this letter back in december of 2010, it couldn't be plainer that you laid it right out this particular deal. what was the response that you got when you wrote your letter? >> three months later we the nuclear regulatory agent. >> not the president. >> not the president. we will keep an eye and make sure if there is any permits to export and make sure none of this uranium leaves the united states. well in fact unionian we do know has left the united states and gone overseas and under the direction of vladimir putin. >> why do you think the obama administration okayed this deal? >> hillary clinton had pressed that reset butt with russia earlier that year so we had problems with her trying to have a new relationship with russia. i have never trusted russia in this area specifically with our energy security and our national security and that's why i was so focused on this sale, this okay to transfer american reserves of uranium to the russians where they could then do what they want. my concern is iran. >> was it to try to curry favor with the russians? was that it? i mean, why would we have agreed to? it wasn't just secretary clinton that agreed to it. she is part of a committee who agreed to it. what in the world was in it for us? >> i don't think anything. besides we have lost one fifth of our nuclear capacity. >> i see nothing to us. the administration tried to reach out around the world trying to show themselves differently. this administration has been very naive. we have seen it in the middle east and certainly schlarb. >> the commission says i can't export uranium from the united states even if the russians own this unless they get a license to it do the nuclear export. is the nuclear agency now giving the license for these particular exports to these russian company? >> they have not given -- they were supposed to contact me immediately even if there was a request for a license. >> has there been a request? >> not that i know but i know uranium has lefts the country. shell organizations. >> but not -- this russian company hasn't been able to take out the uranium out of the country? >> when you talk to people on the ground, uranium has left the united states and gone to the united states and canada and overseas. at the monday mental 20% of our capacity here in the united states and for nuclear power we need to import uraniumian. we have continued to do that. power provides 20%. issue of national security as well as energy security and i worry about iran getting this uranium. >> i have got to tell you you did warn everybody. >> we're going to stay on top of it, greta. >> i know it's no pleasure having i told you so but you were right. >> thank you sir. >> thank you for having me. >> is the latest controversy a game changer for secretary clinton and her campaign? she wants to be president. what does charles krauthammer think? you will find out he is here next. new jersey governor chris christie goes "on the record." we're asking the question that everyone wants the answer to. that's coming so, what brings you to jersey? well, geico's the #1 auto insurer in new jersey, new york and connecticut. so i just came by to say "thanks." #1, huh? that's great. here you go. a little token of appreciation. oh, that's... that's... that's great... now i'd say you probably need a large. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. making a fist something we do to show resolve. to defend ourselves. to declare victory. so cvs health provides expert support and vital medicines. make a fist for me. at our infusion centers or in patients homes. we help them fight the good fight. cvs health, because health is everything. growing scandal surrounding the clinton campaign. >> the state department when it was under hillary's control signed off on a deal that allowed the russians to buy one of america's biggest uranium mines. >> this as money continued to flow into the clinton foundation and a lot of money, too. >> this smells awful. >> there has not been any evidence presented that would prompt the president or anybody at the white house to be unsettled. >> there wasn't a shred of evidence because they shredded everything, those 30,000 emails that were on a serve displer now former secretary of state hillary clinton in the line of fire arising out of the sale of canadian uranium company to russia among the many u.s. agencies that signed off on the deal was the state department headed by secretary of state clinton at that time. also the clinton foundation getting millions of dollars from foreign governments. so will the presidential frontrunner be able to get out of this mess. author of "things that matter," fox contributor charles krauthammer joins us. charles, we just talked about the global energy issue as well as the national security issue with this uranium deal, politically. pleasure. >> politically it will damage her but, you know, this is, people will say partisans will say number one it's a right wing conspiracy that little bit hard to maintain when the major story today is from the "new york times," not exactly part of the vast right wing conspiracy. i should know because i'm a part of it. and they aren't in it. so that's going to be hard to maintain. but the thing is there is so much in their history are. there have been so many scandals, this is a very complicated story. but it is essentially the same old story. they wield influence. they do it under the cover of a charity, which is not you know, this charity spent $80 million on travel, in its first 12 years or so. that's a lot of money to fly. so, it is really a piggy bank for the clintons. then there is the personal pocketing of these huge fees for speeches, which is obviously connected to influence. the story begins with kazakhstan in a speech by bill clinton. what i'm impressed by is the brazenness of this all. the clintons new this. they knew she would be running again. they want to go back to the white house. they do this knowing they are walking right up to the line. what they know is it could be almost impossible to prove to meet the legal standard which is a real quid pro quo. but, when you burn the tapes, when you eliminate the emails, and where possibly the evidence is. you feel prolty comfortable they are not going to find anything of that sort. pretty obvious influence can't show it with documentation, then you escape the criminal liability and with the clintons as long as they have skirted the criminal liability, they have gotten away with it. >> you know what i don't understand is that -- and i was thinking like i always put myself in people's shoes what would i have done? but i do not understand why secretary of state hillary clinton when she left the state department put her name on the clinton foundation. it became the bill, hillary and chelsea because at least if she hadn't put her name on it, a lot of this stuff well maybe some of it would be hidden. she jumps right into this. >> that is inexplicable. it's a blunder of the first order o. and the