Activist says NBC buried her rape allegation story

close

Video

Activist says NBC buried her rape allegation story

Domestic abuse awareness activist Sil Lai Abrams speaks out on 'The Story.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," October 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: That's a lot of spooky. Thank you, Bret.

So, good evening, guys. Anger on all sides tonight as impeachment hearings dissolve under a stampede of Republicans demanding transparency.

Tonight, we're going to hear from Congressman Mark Meadows, who was in the room officially as a committee member. Also, Senator John Kennedy, on President Trump's move in Syria today. And activist Sil Lai Abrams, who claims that NBC executives killed her rape story allegation against Russell Simmons. She is here exclusively tonight to speak out. Plus, is Hillary Clinton about to get back in the race for president? Jesse Watters weighs in.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is “The Story” tonight. Dozens of House Republicans who are not members of the committee's investigating the president stormed the secure room where the latest deposition was about to take place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Behind those doors, they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election? We want to know what's going on.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: It's finally reached the boiling point, where members just said they are so frustrated at the idea that they can't be a part of this and see what's going on.

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA: Maybe they do that in the Soviet Union, but that's not acceptable in the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Chairman Adam Schiff, the Democrat leading these proceedings walked out of the room while his colleagues slammed the whole thing as a desperate move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: This effort I view as Republican obstruction of Congress. At the behest of the president, they're going to pull stunts like this. It's not going to work.

REP. VAL DEMINGS, D-FLA.: I guess when you're desperate, you go back to complaining about the process, and that's what they're doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, regardless of optics, today's move certainly served its purpose. It drew a lot of attention to what is a secretive process by their own admission, the House Democrats want this to be behind closed doors and they have demanded that process from the very beginning.

So, joining me now from outside that meeting room, Republican Congressman Mark Meadows, a member of the House Oversight Committee. Sir, thank you very much for being here tonight. Good to have you.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Great to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, thank you. So, you may -- you've heard some of that intro. And basically, Democrats are saying that, that was a desperate move. That it's all about process in terms of what Republicans are complaining about and not about substance. What do you say?

MEADOWS: Well, I think we're complaining about both. It's the substance of what is happening behind closed doors in this fact that your viewers can't judge for themselves. I mean, I've never seen anything quite like this. And Jim Jordan was right. It's reached the boiling point. I think that we're giving Adam Schiff the opportunity to open the doors, let the cameras come in, let the American people judge for themselves.

I mean, what is there to hide, Martha? I mean, if we're talking about transparency, let's let all the testimony be out there. Listen, here's what they're afraid of. They're afraid that the leaks that they've been putting out over the last two weeks will start to have the rest of the story that we're hearing behind closed doors, and that all of a sudden their impeachment narrative will start to fall apart.

So, we believe that it's time that we have an open and fair process, fair to the president, and fair to the American people.

MACCALLUM: So, we had Congressman Ratcliffe on the show last night. And he basically said that he questioned Mr. Taylor and asked him -- you know, whether or not there was any quid pro quo, which we talked about a lot with regard to this story. Whether or not there was anything withheld. Now, when you look at Taylor's testimony from yesterday and this is one of the - - you know, sort of more prominent pieces of it that has gotten a lot of attention.

He says, "Ambassador Sondland said, everything dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance." And that he wanted President Zelensky in a public box to make a public statement about ordering such investigations.

Now, what is there -- what more to “The Story” was there when you were in that room that you want people to understand?

MEADOWS: Well, we can't really talk about specifics in there. That's one of the reasons why we want an open and transparent process. But I can say these two things. That narrative that we heard from Bill Taylor yesterday, or Ambassador Taylor, that narrative was not consistent with other testimony we heard from two other witnesses, at least, two other witnesses. And it was not consistent with other cross-examination done by John Ratcliffe and others.

And so, when we start to see those inconsistencies, we think that that's the important thing that for a full picture on an impeachment process that not only the American people. But every member of Congress who's going to be asked to vote for this one way or another should have that benefit.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, tonight there is a request for Adam Schiff. It's coming from Jim Jordan and Representative McCaul and Devin Nunes. You may be part of that letter as well.

MEADOWS: Right.

MACCALLUM: To Representative Adam Schiff, saying that they want an interview with the whistleblower and any individuals that the whistleblower relied on to assemble that complaint. Where's that going to go?

MEADOWS: Well, I think it will go nowhere with Adam Schiff because he wants to make sure that this whistleblower's allegations many of which, by the way, I don't know that this has been reported, but many of the allegations that the whistleblower has put for has been directly contradicted by even the Democrat star witnesses.

And so, we want to hear from them -- it's in America, you should be able to face your accuser. And I can tell you that when you find this out when we start to look at the whistleblower and hear from them, we will see that they didn't have any first-hand knowledge, we want to talk to those people that have first-hand knowledge.

MACCALLUM: All right, you know, I think a lot of people would look at the process and say that a number of the people that have been brought into that room. And I think you're right, I think Americans want to be able to see these transcripts and hear this process. Because after all, we're talking about something enormously serious here.

MEADOWS: Right.

MACCALLUM: About the potential to impeach the president of the United States 12 months from a national election. We -- this has never happened to someone who is in their first term and headed towards election. And that that's clearly unprecedented. But I want to know if these polls concern you, the new poll today from Quinnipiac shows 55 percent of those polled approve of the impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

I should also point out this other poll from New York Times Siena that we showed last night, which is, you know, at this point, it's a little bit of an outlier. But I think, it's interesting because it's a battleground state poll. And it shows, 53 percent oppose impeachment and removal of the president.

But you know, do you think you're losing the public argument on this because the president called for folks to get a lot tougher on your side?

MEADOWS: Yes, well, I think when you only hear from one side, Martha, certainly, the polls will move that way because all they're hearing is one side of the story. Then, all of a sudden, I trust the American people. I know you trust the American people.

When they look at the facts, they say, well, they did this with a whole Russia collusion conspiracy and there wasn't support for that, that's why they're having to do a different tactic here.

Here is how bad it is, Martha. I've been in the room for almost 70 hours now of testimony. I can't go in to review the depositions that I was a part of -- that I listen to in real-time without a Democrat staffer looking at it and looking over my shoulder. It's just --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's true. I mean, you are on the committee, you know, do you think that was just a good stunt or a bad stunt today to force their way in? Because, you know, people remember Trey Gowdy, in the Benghazi situation saying, sorry everybody, the only folks who get in this room are those were actually on the committee.

MEADOWS: Well, the difference on the Benghazi committee was the Benghazi committee was designed to create a report that was coming to Congress. This is actually different. Every member is going to have to vote on it and when you start to look at this, this is very different when, when you look at what we have, there's not a single classified thing that's been discussed.

There's no reason why the cameras can't be there. Benghazi, you had a lot of classified, a lot of privileged information that we didn't want to share with our enemies. This is a totally different scenario.

MACCALLUM: All right. Any big headline from the -- Mrs. Cooper -- Miss Cooper's testimony today before I let you go?

MEADOWS: No big headlines. I will say some of the facts that she gave today contradicted the witness from yesterday. And so, we're going to have to go back and reconcile that. And so, you'll see that in the coming days, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Contradicted in what way?

MEADOWS: Well, I think they contradicted some of who she said was involved in making certain decisions was directly at odds with what we heard from the ambassador yesterday.

MACCALLUM: OK. Congressman Mark Meadows, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight here.

MEADOWS: Thank you. Take care.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next. President Trump says that his Syria plan is working and that he stands by it. Senator John Kennedy has some thoughts on that. He's up next.

ANNOUNCER: This program is sponsored by the all-new 2020 Lincoln Aviator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, despite overwhelming criticism from a lot of sides on Syria, tonight, President Trump celebrated what he considers a step in the right direction. A promise from Turkey to end its attacks on the Kurds in Syria. He says it's a permanent ceasefire, but he says -- you know, how things go in the Middle East, so we'll see.

He is re-lifting all the sanctions on Turkey. And the president admits that a handful of U.S. troops will remain in Syria, but he made clear that he will not waiver on his original commitment to leave so-called endless wars in the Middle East.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We want other nations to get involved. We've secured the oil, and therefore, a small number of U.S. troops will remain in the area. Let someone else fight over this long blood-stained sand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, his usual allies, Senator Lindsey Graham was supportive but with a caveat. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: I agree with the president, without sanctions, there would have been no ceasefire. I am hopeful that we can make this a historic win-win. This could be a real success for the president or it could be his rock. So, it's up to him. I'm encouraging him to listen to the military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, joining me now, Senator John Kennedy. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, thank you for being here today.

You know, it's interesting when you look at the polling on this, 55 percent of Republicans out there in the country support what the president is doing here. 27 percent of Independents support it. Where do you stand?

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: Well, nobody wants endless wars. And I think that's what people are reacting to. I certainly don't want America being into in an endless war. The safe zone that the President has negotiated with President Erdogan of Turkey and President Putin can work if Erdogan and Putin behave.

Now, here's my concern. Number one, I assume that this means that both Erdogan and Putin are going to be responsible for ISIS and the ISIS prisoners in the territory that we're ceding to them. Number two, I worry about the Kurds. America made a commitment to our Kurds -- to our friend, the Kurds.

You know people with good intentions make promises, people with character keep them. Now, the Kurds are our allies. America has always had a foreign policy with a serious moral component. And value number one is that friends don't let friends get massacred. And President Erdogan hates the Kurds and I don't think President Putin cares one way or the other and I'm worried about it.

MACCALLUM: I want to play -- I want to play a sound bite from President Trump talking about President Erdogan today at that same moment at the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: President Erdogan of Turkey, a man I've gotten to know very well and a man who loves his country. And in his mind, he's doing the right thing for his country. And we may be meeting in the very near future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you think about that?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm sure President Erdogan does love this country but he hates the Kurds. And I'm worried that he is going to go further than the safe zone and go into Northeast Syria and try to massacre them. And if he does that, we've got to stand with our allies the Kurds.

And I'm well aware that Turkey is a member of NATO. But the Kurds, we would not have defeated ISIS without the Kurds. And besides that, we made a commitment. If we don't keep our commitment to the Kurds, it would be morally wrong, but I wonder what Saudi Arabia and Israel and Jordan and other countries throughout the world to which we've made commitments are going to thank if we break our commitment to the Kurds.

MACCALLUM: I understand that. I understand that, Senator. But you know, I think a lot of people look at this situation and they listen to what the President said today. You know, it was supposed to be a 30-day sort of effort to kind of hold that safe zone. We've been there for ten years.

I think people do look at that and say why are we -- I mean, I understand. Obviously, ISIS is a huge threat, but ISIS has been dealt with for the most part. Could they rise again? Yes, they could. And in that instance, we're going to have to deal with them.

But I think people look and say why are we protecting that border? You know, some people say you know, that they'd like to see that same kind of commitment on our own border in terms of securing borders and they've had it. They liked this notion that we've poured trillions of dollars into these endless wars in the Middle East and the President says, you know, what I don't care what you guys say on the Hill. We're out of there.

KENNEDY: Well, I think part of the problem, Martha, is that people are confused about our policy in the Middle East. And I wish the President would give a prime-time speech and lay it out. Here's what I think our policy is. We don't want any country in the Middle East with the exception of Israel which is our ally to get a nuclear weapon.

And we keep -- we keep one country, Iran and others, from dominating the Middle East by playing off and balancing the three major powers in the Middle East against each other, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. And we're careful not to let any one of them get the upper hand because if they do get the upper hand we're going to have war in the Middle East.

You know why we're going to have more war in the Middle East? Because Israel is going to start it. They're not going to sit there if Iran gets the upper hand and allow Iran to destroy them. They're not going to do it. And then we're going to get pulled in. Now, that's our policy -- our country's policy from my standpoint.

MACCALLUM: Well, I think you're right. I think a lot of people would like to see an address on this from the President to get a clearer handle on where he stands on all of it. I think we got a little taste of that today in the diplomatic receiving at the White House. Senator --

KENNEDY: But there is a larger principle and that is when we make a commitment, we need to keep it, and we have to stand with our allies.

MACCALLUM: Senator Kennedy, thank you very much. Always good to see you, sir.

KENNEDY: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So the President insists that his effort to impeach -- that the effort to impeach him is illegitimate and purely political. Where did we heard that before?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: The real reasons they were zeroing in on anybody was to try to get any person in there no matter how uninvolved with Paula Jones, no matter how involved with sexual harassment, so they could hurt me politically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Karl Rove and Richard Goodstein were there back then and they join me here tonight right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: And I'm trying to be -- tell you the truth about what happened between Ms. Lewinsky and me. But that does not change the fact that the real reason they were zeroing in on anybody was to try to get any person in there no matter how uninvolved with Paula Jones, no matter how involved with sexual harassment, so they could hurt me politically. That's what was going on and so they just thought they would take a wrecking ball to me and see if they can do some damage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So 21 years later has much changed in how presidents view the efforts to impeach them and the toxic politics that can surround these efforts. Here now Karl Rove former Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News Contributor and Richard Goodstein a Democratic strategist who advised both Bill and Hillary Clinton during that time. Good to have both of you with us tonight.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hi, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know, Karl, it's just interesting I thought -- you know I went back and watched a lot of that deposition and you hear President Clinton, you know, railing against the process and feeling that there was an effort to pin him with something no matter what could be found. What do you think about that?

KARL ROVE, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, look, every president who gets attacked particularly a president who gets attacked in this way, you could go back in mind Richard Nixon's statements, and I suspect you'd find much the same.

You know, they have an important job. They're focused on that job and they view that anything that takes him away from that job is fundamentally unfair. I would remind you that while President Clinton was not removed by the United States Senate, he was found guilty in a court of having lied under oath and lost his law license as a result of this.

In retrospect, the Republicans probably would have been better off passing a censure motion much like it was done against Andrew Jackson and left it at that because it boomeranged on him in the 1998 midterms. And by 2000 -- by the 2000 election, the issue of impeachment for Bill Clinton was toxic, his favorabilities were up in the 60s.

And you'll remember that George W. Bush never talked about it. All he simply said was I'll restore dignity and honor to the White House and left everybody else to get mired back in the old Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton mess.

MACCALLUM: Richard, do you think that the Democrats are going to regret this process?

GOODSTEIN: No. There's a big difference that at its peak the public during the time of the Lewinsky affair, 29 percent approved of impeachment, at its peak. And that was months after the whole -- after Ken Starr took her away and basically threatened Monica Lewinsky back in January of 1998.

Today, a month after we've gotten wind of this transcript, the whistleblower, Taylor's testimony yesterday, virtually a majority the country is for not just impeachment but removal. This is shocking. So --

MACCALLUM: We have that. We can put them up on the screen for people to see because it compares, you know, at the same point in the process where President Trump's number is right now 50 percent, Clinton 23, Nixon 46. I think to a certain extent we are just in an accelerated time in the country.

You know, people back then we're not watching 24/7 cable news. They didn't have social media. And the process quite frankly no matter which side of the fence you're on was a lot more transparent than this process has been. And I think that, you know, some of that juice in that number, Richard, could be -- could be based in part on some of those things.

GOODSTEIN: Can I just talk about transparency. What happened in Nixon and happened with Clinton was there were special prosecutors who basically had grand juries, had tons of witnesses came in, and tied things up in a bow and issued a very lengthy report to Congress.

That's what the House is doing now. And asked Trey Gowdy next time you have him on this air why on page 360 of the Benghazi report he applauded the idea of having witnesses in private.

MACCALLUM: No, I brought that up in my prior interview.

GOODSTEIN: I saw that.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. So you know what, I want to just get your thought on one other thing because Peter Doocy was just in Iowa with Joe Biden, with vice -- former Vice President Joe Biden. And he asked him about this lynching comment which goes to the larger discussion about what we're having. You know, sort of that the toxic environment that surrounds these investigations. And here's what he said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER DOOCY, REPORTER: Did you know there was tape of you on the same thing?

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I did. Yes, and I apologized for it. And what I wasn't using as a dog whistle, he's using as a dog whistle. So this is about --

DOOCY: So what does you mean when you said it?

BIDEN: I said it and I was wrong that said it and I apologized for having said it. I apologized for it then and I apologized for it now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Karl?

ROVE: Well, first of all, I don't think he apologized for it then. And just listen to what we just heard. President -- Vice President Biden called President Trump and said he was using it a racist -- a racist appeal, a dog whistle. Look, we've gone way too -- Jerry Nadler called the impeachment effort against Bill Clinton lynching, so did Charlie Rangel. so did Jim McDermott. And in this one, we have Steve Cohen Democrat of Memphis calling -- equating President Trump with Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

I mean, we -- let's lower the language here. And I appreciate that the vice president apologized in retrospect for having used the word lynching in 1998. But really he then suggests that President Trump is using it as a racist appeal. This is just -- we've gone crazy in this country. We got to stop.

MACCALLUM: It would be great if we lived in an environment -- I agree with you 100 percent -- where, you know, where somebody would say you know -- yes, and I would imagine the president didn't mean it that way either.

I mean, it wouldn't -- nobody would, you know, lose or there polls wouldn't change based on something that just sort of humane and adult --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- to address something like that but there always has to be the dig. Always has to be the dig. I'm going to leave it there, guys. Thank you so much, short on time tonight but good to see you both. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You too.

MACCALLUM: Very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, exclusive with a woman who says that she knows firsthand about NBC's history of cover ups for men accused of sexual assault because she came forward about being raped and they killed her story. She has her story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHANA THOMAS, PROTESTER & COFOUNDER, ULTRAVIOLET: It's not just a Matt Lauer problem, it's a companywide and it's one that Comcast and NBC need to take seriously and demonstrate that they are taking seriously.

They're totally rejecting the stories of survivors themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Protesters rallied today outside NBC headquarters in New York. They're demanding that the network take action against high-level executives, such as Andy Lack and Noah Oppenheim both stands accused of participating in the so-call catch and kill operation to cover-up stories of sexual abuse at the hands of Harvey Weinstein and Today Show host Matt Lauer.

But it turns out those are not the stories that NBC is accused of scrapping. My next guest is the author of a new piece in the Daily Beast titled "It's not just Ronan Farrow. NBC News killed my rape allegation story too." Sil Lai Abrams joins me exclusively in moments, but first, Jonathan Hunt in our West Coast newsroom with the back story tonight. Jonathan?

JONATHAN HUNT, CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. Sil Lai Abrams said she told NBC host Joy Reid in November 20 she was raped by music mogul Russell Simmons in 1884 and that in 2006, former extra co-host A.J. Calloway sexually assaulted her.

She says that over the following few months Joy Reid investigated the claims and that she handed to Reid legal documentation, hospital bills and introduced her to, quote, " more than a dozen corroborating witnesses."

But Abrams says NBC lawyers killed the story and she says Reed told her she had, quote, "never been through anything like this." Abrams wrote in the Daily Beast, quote, "I am one of the many survivors that NBC silenced and bore witnessed to how it treated one of their top talents for trying to break a story on sexual predators. This is a much bigger issue than their cover-ups, payoffs and excuses. The media is supposed to be a watchdog for abuses of power."

NBC Universal declined to comment to us today and referred us instead to a statement from June 2018 that said, quote, "When MSNBC pursues any investigative story, our mission is always to be as thorough as we can to scrutinize sources and corroborate information before we report. Anything else falls short of our journalistic standards."

Joy Reid also released a statement at that same time saying Abrams insisted that her allegations against both Simmons and Calloway be included in the piece and that NBC was unable to confirm significant aspects of claims against one of the men so therefore could not report on either.

And Reid added, quote, "Investigative reports like these take time and not surprisingly sometimes journalists get frustrated as well. I inappropriately shared that frustration privately with Sil Lai. I completely respect MSNBC's standards and practices."

Another former NBC employee, producer Rich McHugh who work with Ronan Farrow has a very different view.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICH MCHUGH, FORMER NBC PRODUCER: It's not right coming from the news organization --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.

MCHUGH: -- and it's just -- it's the very crux of what they do is to, their mission is to tell the truth. I think they not only lost sight of it but they just -- they didn't adhere to their basic principles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, by the way, Martha, that NBC News just renewed the contract of its president, Noah Oppenheim. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right. Jonathan, thank you so much. he now exclusively Sil Lai Abrams, writer and domestic violence awareness activist. Sil Lai, thank you so much --

SIL LAI ABRAMS, DOMESTIC ABUSE AWARENESS ACTIVIST: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: -- for being here to share your story with us tonight. What's your reaction to what Joy Reid said about respecting the process of what they did at NBC with your story and Rich McHugh who ultimately left because he did it?

ABRAMS: Joy is a woman of color in an industry where there are very few faces, very few people like her. This story isn't about Joy. This story is about NBC and the power that they used to silence their reporters irrespective of race or gender as you can see with Ronan Farrow.

So, when I think about what transpired, particularly looking at the statement which you referred to going back to the original publication of the Hollywood Reporter piece, I find it laughable because there's no statement on what I've shared recently. They're falling back on the same tired standard and practices excuse. But my story cleared standards and practices.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You, just so people know and I spoke with Sil Lai for my podcast which is going to come out as well, which is the longer version of her amazing story. They went -- they dug into every single thing about your life. They went back over and over and over again and you kept passing all those hurdles. You had written about this twice in your books.

ABRAMS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You had a rape kit done after what happened with Russel Simmons, correct?

ABRAMS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: It's hard to imagine that there wasn't a stronger body of documentation of what you were claiming. So, what was their problem with “The Story” and at what level was “The Story” killed?

ABRAMS: I believe the problem with the story is that NBC does not break the news. I think they -- at least when it comes to survivors of sexual assault --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Why not?

ABRAMS: -- like myself. I mean, it comes down to the bottom line. They're looking at the potential threat of a lawsuit and --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, did Russel Simmons' lawyers threaten them with a lawsuit?

ABRAMS: Yes. Absolutely. They went ballistic the day before when he was asked for comment and they capitulated to the -- to his attorneys. And so, again, that statement about not meeting standards and practices, this turned into a legal issue.

It was not an issue around journalistic -- it wasn't an issue around whether or not they believed me or whether or not they had enough information to move forward. They opted not to move forward after dragging me through almost six months --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

ABRAMS: -- of corroboration and for nothing.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, when we spoke before, this is not a case where the lawyers says, you know, there's not an affair let's not go with it. You believed that this -- that there were people at the very top of NBC who were involved in that decision. Why do you believe that and who do you think they were?

ABRAMS: I was told that it was the head of NBC Universal. The head lawyer. So, the head lawyer was talking directly with Simmons' attorney. That's what I was told. So, it became a fight between these two attorneys and the decision was made that my story, other survivors' stories as we've seen what happened repeatedly at the network doesn't matter. If you can squash it, if you can make it go away, all the better for NBC because then they don't need to take the hit.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And when you saw Ronan Farrow and Rich McHugh come forward you felt like that whole story, that scenario it made a lot of sense to you because you had been down that road yourself before.

ABRAMS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Sil Lai Abrams, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight. Thank you.

ABRAMS: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio refuses to acknowledge fourth graders who are asking to go to charter schools. He walked right by them. We're going to talk about that coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This mayor has put politics before children. It looks like the mayor is coming. Mr. Mayor.

(CROWD CHANTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, hundreds of charter school students in New York City flocked to the steps of city hall this week to confront Mayor Bill de Blasio over his two-year pledge to make room for them at a middle school. Their concern, the mayor doesn't make good on his promise they're going to have to go back to a different public school all over the city and here's the mayor's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROWD CHANTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: They are chanting kids over politics. Here now Eva Moskowitz, founder and chief executive officer of Success Academy Charter Schools. And you have had tremendous success. We had one of your teachers not too long ago whose all of the kids in her math class got perfect scores which is just incredible. So, what do you want from the mayor and what is he not giving you?

EVA MOSKOWITZ, CEO, NYC SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS: Well, we've got fourth graders who need a middle school. They amongst the highest performing kids in Queens. We need a school. It's that simple.

MACCALLUM: And he -- so they are saying the mayor's office says, the mayor understands the power of grassroots movement and supports the right of New Yorkers to make their voices heard. Success Academy will have the middle school's space they need next year in Queens next year either in a public space or a private space with rent paid by the city. Do you believe that?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, he's been claiming that for 33 months. You know, kids grow older and --

MACCALLUM: We sure do.

MOSKOWITZ: -- we've known that they were going to need a middle school. So, for 33 months we've been on our hands and knees saying give these really high performing kids of color a school. So, I don't believe him.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Here's just a little snippet of the kids, you know, asking for this space in New York City. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mayor de Blasio you walked past us. It felt like he was just ignoring us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mayor de Blasio, can I please have a middle school?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: it's just a building.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Give everybody of what your schools do. What's your focus, what's your mission?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, our focus is on excellence and on kids loving school through art and music and reading and writing and mathematics and science and chess. And our kids are performing at an extraordinary high level. They're number one in the state of New York. And yet, we have to fight this mayor for space every single year.

MACCALLUM: Why aren't they expanding these programs? Because you know, some people say well, this siphon off the talent, teacher talent, they siphon off and take away from the public schools. What do you say to that?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, I say it's political. The mayor has been, you know, working on behalf of the unions and the unions have their place but the mayor's supposed to work on behalf of children and teaching and learning and he has refused to do so.

MACCALLUM: All right. Eva Moskowitz, let us know. If you get your space, he says you're going to have it in the fall, and we certainly hope that that's the case --

MOSKOWITZ: Of course.

MACCALLUM: -- because that's what everybody wants is for these kids to have a school to go with. Eva Moskowitz of the Success Academy in New York City, great example of charter schools across the country. Thank you very much for being here.

MOSKOWITZ: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight.

So when we come back, why there is now a little bit more reason to believe that Hillary Clinton may actually be serious about potentially getting back in the ring and running against President Trump again.

Wednesday with Watters coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: So, may be there does need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Obviously she can beat him again because she beat him last time, remember? Or not. Maybe.

Tonight, there is even more reason to believe that Hillary Clinton is seriously considering potentially getting back into it and may be running again? According to the Hill, several sources say in Hillary land say that it is in her heart of hearts. Clinton would love nothing more than to take on President Trump again.

The New York Times adding, "Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win they would consider entering the primary."

Here now for Wednesdays with Watters is Jesse Watters, co-host of The Five and host of Watters World. I mean, it's like, wouldn't you do pretty much anything if someone said you if you do this you will definitely win? Right?

JESSE WATTERS, HOST: Yes. It's a no-brainer.

MACCALLUM: I mean --

WATTERS: That's a no-brainer.

MACCALLUM: That seems like a pretty big -- that's a pretty big hurdle to get over.

WATTERS: You know, I used to think this was a whisper campaign by people in the Democratic Party and now it's Hillary's own people saying she wants to get back in and I understand why. She won the popular vote, she got a ton of money, she has a political should.

But, Martha, on the flip side, she is still crooked, her husband got me toed. And if she gets back and Bernie is literally going to go crazy. She is going to steal another primary from crazy Bernie. He's going to have another heart attack. Poor guy. I don't see how she does this.

MACCALLUM: I don't think that -- I mean, I don't think -- I mean, Bernie is not at the top of the race --

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: I know. But Bernie feels robbed. And he just got endorsed by the squad. So, Bernie thinks he's got a little momentum.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: He feels like he is back. He is back. There is a lot of anxiety though, among Democrats when they look at this field.

WATTERS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: John Cole who has been a major donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton said they don't have anybody who can win the general election.

WATTERS: Well, you have to have knockout power because Trump's base is not crack, it's a hot economy. So, somebody has to literally go and take it from the president. And if you look at the field, Biden can't draw a crowd and he is cratering. I guess Liz Warren can draw a crowd, but only in Manhattan. Bernie can only do it in Brooklyn.

They can't go to Ohio, Florida, the Midwest and get 10,000 people. They just can't. So, you are looking at them and you got to think someone has got to save these people.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, are you abetting them?

WATTERS: Do you want to be?

MACCALLUM: Do you -- do you think?

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Will you --

MACCALLUM: I mean, what are the odds?

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: What kind of action are we talking about?

MACCALLUM: Do you think that she will get in?

WATTERS: If Biden falters again --

MACCALLUM: OK.

WATTERS: -- in the next few debates and he continues to not raise money and Liz Warren still can't explain how she is going to pay for Medicare for all. I think she starts to get in.

MACCALLUM: So, I don't think we can bet because I think you -- I agree.

WATTERS: So, you agree?

MACCALLUM: I think there is always that possibility.

WATTERS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You know, she's on a book tour so she wants -- obviously she wants a lot of attention right now and maybe just a way to get it. But I just think there something in her that is that she misses it and she's been talking about how it got robbed, you know, from her ever since could happen.

WATTERS: I mean, she feels like she's the rightful owner of 1600.

MACCALLUM: She --

WATTERS: But we were joking in the break --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

WATTERS: -- about doesn't she look like she loves the campaign?

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You know, we had to take care her of her campaigning. I don't think she likes campaigning.

WATTERS: She was not a happy warrior. She hated the press, she hated talking to people.

MACCALLUM: Do you remember the big sunglasses at like Wendy's or Burger King?

WATTERS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: It's supposed to be like she's raveling across the country in this white van, she's going to be talking to people all across America. She's going up for a fast food. She's going for fast-food and dark sunglasses and she's like, don't talk to me.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: There still be event. Right. But your husband was the political athlete. She's not a natural candidate.

MACCALLUM: Yes. He's an amazing politician.

WATTERS: Right.

MACCALLUM: Amazing politician. So, switching gears. Rachel Maddow believes that the expansion of the Russia origins investigation shows that something very dangerous as happening right now in the world. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: It really does seem like they are going to use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to help them make that case that the Democrats are the real source of the scandal here.

With what Barr and Durham appeared to be doing here to try to boost the president's campaign. They are crossing a bit of a Rubicon in terms of what the U.S. government is for. And part of what we are going to have to figure out when this is all over is how we cross back over it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: No, I mean, all the (Inaudible) in my mouth when I hear that is like, well, what are -- what is the U.S. government for? Is the U.S. government potentially for looking into potential presidential candidates?

Because Bill Barr said that he thinks that there may have been spying and he wants to know if it was predicated. That spying that he was talking about was coming from inside the United States government. If it wasn't there, he's not going to find anything.

WATTERS: It's actually she is accusing the last administration because the last administration abused their power to target a political opponent. That's exactly what happened the last time when the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA allegedly spied on Trump and tracked his people.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Which is what this investigation is about.

WATTERS: Planted evidence and illegally surveilled. So, it's no question why they want to look at that and yes, it will help Trump because the truth will help Trump if it comes out.

MACCALLUM: All right. Speaking -- let's get to the most important news.

WATTERS: Yes. Lets.

MACCALLUM: Here's Tom Brady talking about whether or not he is going to retire. Watch this.

WATTERS: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BRADY, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS QUARTERBACK: I'm just taking it day by day and I'm enjoying what I have. And I don't know what the future holds. The great part is, for me, football at this point is all borrowed time. One day I'll wake up and I feel like OK, that's got to be enough and when that day comes, that day comes and I don't know if it will be after this year. I don't know if it will be five years from now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: When it will be, Jesse.

WATTERS: I'm begging, please retire, Tom. As an Eagles fan. It's time.

MACCALLUM: His house is on the market in Boston, so that's “The Story” on this Wednesday, October 23. We will see you tomorrow night. Have a great night.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.