Former Fox News executive: I stopped Stormy Daniels story because it had no proof

close

Video

Former Fox News executive: I stopped Stormy Daniels story because it had no proof

Former Fox News executive disputes New Yorker article claiming he blocked Stormy Daniels story to protect Trump White House ; 'MediaBizz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 8, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Hey there, Chris. Thanks, good evening. Good evening, everybody.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, AMERICAN ACTOR: I kept walking and then I heard, -- Empire -- So, I turned around, and I said, "Did you just say to me?" And I see the attacker, masked. And he said, this MAGA country -- punches me right in the face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, “The Story” that actor Jussie Smollett told the nation and told the police twice, has now led to a 16 count felony indictment that was handed down just moments ago by a grand jury in Chicago.

He's accused of staging a hate crime against himself in January. He's already been charged with one count of disorderly conduct and tonight he is facing many new charges.

Trace Gallagher, live in our West Coast newsroom tonight with this breaking news and what we know. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. This is the worst case scenario for Jussie Smollett because the indictment actually expands the case against him in two ways. He was facing one felony count for disorderly conduct. Now, he's facing, as you say, 16 felony counts but the grand jury also returned two separate sets of charges for making false statements to two different Chicago police officers, and those stories were different.

Remember, he gave one statement shortly after the alleged attack and another later the same day where he told police about the racist and homophobic slurs that they yelled MAGA country beat him up, put a noose around his neck and poured bleach on him.

Each set of charges carries a possible penalty of four years in prison. Experts say it's highly unlikely he'll serve eight years. But it's now more likely that he could face some jail time, though a plea deal is also a strong possibility.

Police say, bottom-line, Jussie Smollett directed two brothers to buy a noose at a hardware store. And buy hats and masks at another store. Then he paid the brothers $3,500 to stage that attack.

Police said the brother wore gloves and did strike Jussie Smollett, but the scratches and bruises on the actor's face were likely self-inflicted. Investigators say he staged the attack because he was unhappy with his salary on the Fox T.V. show, "Empire".

On top of these new counts, Smollett could also be facing federal charges for mail fraud. Investigators have indicated that before the alleged attack, Smollett also sent himself a threatening letter on the set of "EMPIRE" that contained a white powder that turned out to be acetaminophen or Tylenol.

The letter is now at an FBI crime lab. So far, no word from the 36-year- old actor or his lawyers. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Joining me now, criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh. Mark, good to have you with us tonight. First of all, your reaction to this 16 count indictment by the grand jury in Chicago?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MIAMI: Well, as you said, I am a criminal defense attorney. It's my job to go to court every day to defend people like him accused of crimes.

But first and foremost, I'm a human being, and I've never lied or misled anyone on your show, and I won't do it for the first time now. What he did is outrageous and offensive, again, allegedly, assuming they could prove it. You know, they have things like allegedly, a check that he sent these two guys to pay in checks to call them in advance, so unsophisticated.

But I am outraged and offended. And I think anything short of prison time would be a miscarriage of justice. Future victims, Martha, will have to go to extensive scrutiny because of what he did. No, prison time.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, on the personal level which you mentioned first, you think about people who have perhaps been in a similar situation that he was in. And what it does to their claims now? You know, he sort of robbed people of the assumption that if you, you say you were attacked, you know, that the people will be sympathetic towards that. And they're going to want to help you, and they're going to want to find the people that did it to you. On top of that, he put a political layer on it.

EIGLARSH: Right.

MACCALLUM: You know, sort of -- with a broad-brush, offending anybody who supports President Trump, saying that these people said to him, you're in MAGA country now.

I mean, it's all made up. It's all -- it all doesn't -- it didn't happen according to this indictment, and as you say, we'll see what happens in the courtroom.

EIGLARSH: And he did it for weeks. Understand I represent people who are accused of let's say, identity theft. They assume the identity of someone else.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

EIGLARSH: That's a horrible bad crime. They get two years minimum mandatory in prison for that crime.

MACCALLUM: Good point.

EIGLARSH: Now, he assumed the identity of a true victim. He should, at least, get two years for that.

MACCALLUM: Well, do you think, he will? I mean that, you know, that's the question on everyone's minds tonight.

EIGLARSH: No.

MACCALLUM: Is there going to be a pleading? So what's going to happen? You know, look in your crystal ball. What -- how do you see this playing out?

EIGLARSH: OK. If he's one of my clients, I look him in the eyes and say, "The acting is over Mr. Primetime, you're done. Look at me in the eyes, do you not want to go to prison? OK, I might be able to help you. Let's get real now." And he says, "OK, OK, I was wrong."

So, here's what you do. You go in and you apologize. And now you do the tour. You let everybody know how sorry you are. And you throw yourself at the mercy of the court, and you pray, and you hope that somehow the judge has leniency on you.

And what will help him is there's a presumption in Chicago of probation for these types of offenses. It will take the judge saying, "Ah, not for this."

MACCALLUM: You know, and I also wonder, you know, what he launches in terms of the phrase that's been used in this case is victimhood chic. You know, that he was depressed, or that he had a drug problem, and I don't know what it's going to be, but you know, that he's making his case.

There's also another element to this. So you've got the, "Will he play the victim part?" And then you have all the leaks that happen from the hospital and the police as well, or is any of that mitigating for him in the eyes of a judge?

EIGLARSH: Well, there's always mitigation. I'm a mitigation specialist. If this was -- he's never been arrested before, there you go, let's start with that. You would argue it's an isolated incident. In an otherwise, exemplary life and everyone he's ever said, "God bless you too," could be paraded into the courtroom.

Every act he's ever done, I'm sure there's plenty. And I know his family members who were initially defending him will probably come in and say, "What a wonderful person he is."

He got depressed, he fell into drug abuse, and all that should be considered. On the other hand, however, some of the things I mentioned to you work against him. Also how about all the man-hours?

All the honest, dedicated police officers who spent countless hours chasing after this bogus claim, because he chose to cast himself as a victim.

MACCALLUM: Mark Eiglarsh. Thank you, Mark. We will see where it goes from here. Breaking story tonight out of Chicago.

EIGLARSH: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you, Mark.

EIGLARSH: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, her anti-Semitic comments gave way to a very broad anti- hate resolution this week that was voted upon. And tonight, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, is again, sparking some controversy. This time about comments that she made about former President Obama.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, striking again. Fresh off of the anti-hate resolution in the House. First, going after late Senator John McCain, after his daughter Meghan, said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGHAN MCCAIN, CO-HOST, THE VIEW, ABC: And just because, I don't technically have Jewish family that are blood-related to me, it doesn't mean I don't take this seriously. And it is very dangerous, very dangerous. And I think, we all collectively as Americans on both sides, and what Ilhan Omar is saying is very scary to me, and it's very scary to a lot of people. And I don't think you have to be Jewish to recognize that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, then, the freshman Democrat retweeted an Al Jazeera host who said this. "Meghan's late father literally saying, 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.' And insisted on referring to his Vietnamese captors as blank. He also lest we forget gave the world Sarah Palin." He wrote. So, a little less faux outrage over a former refugee turned freshman representative, please."

Now, Omar has also made some negative comments about former President Barack Obama. POLITICO summarized her comments this way, "Omar says the hope and change offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the caging of kids at the U.S.-Mexico border and the droning of countries around the world on his watch."

She argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor." And when it came to his policy on drone attacks, likened him to a pretty face who, "got away with murder."

Here now, Tammy Bruce, president of the Independent Women's Voice and Fox News contributor. Robert Zimmerman, Fox is Democratic strategist and DNC member. Great to have both of you with us tonight.

ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Good to be with you this evening.

MACCALLUM: Let's jump in here with the Meghan McCain back-and-forth. Tammy, let me give you the first crack at that.

TAMMY BRUCE, POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Sure.

MACCALLUM: Meghan McCain, obviously was -- you know, very upset about all of this on "The View". And then, you saw the back and forth that, that ignited.

BRUCE: Yes, and I think this is for not just Jewish Americans or the children of Holocaust survivors, but Americans in general. We have a history that is relatively recent.

Where those kinds of remarks in that attitude has led to massive atrocities. And we've always wondered, when we didn't have a backstory or that we could have imagined what it might lead to, we now know what it leads to. We wonder how could you have that kind of attitude and where could it ultimately take a civilization?

A great civilization, European civilization, and yet now, we know.

So, it's -- I don't think she was overreacting. I disagree with Meghan on a few things. But I do think that this is a realistic perspective here about a member of Congress who is issuing a point of view that terrifies many people around the world because of the end result of that point of view.

ZIMMERMAN: I've devoted a good part of my life to fighting anti-Semitism. Working through been a Brit-American Jewish Congress, my synagogue, standing up to hate crimes and harassment. And the assault on the Jewish community and what it represents.

And so, that's why the House resolution was so important and so critical, and that's why, I think it was critical to stand together. Make it clear that the assault on the Jewish community. Repeating of hateful Jewish tropes. Repeating of anti-Semitic rhetoric is very much in common with the hate against the Muslim community. Very much in common with the attacks on the Hindu and Sikh community, and the Catholic community.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But what does do -- what does the resolution do?

ZIMMERMAN: We're all together in -- we're all together in this battle. And the fact that's was the strongest anti -- one of the strongest anti- Semitic resolutions condemning anti-Semitism ever passed in the Congress is very important, because the resolution --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It didn't call her out.

BRUCE: Name her.

ZIMMERMAN: But it didn't -- because --

MACCALLUM: And she obviously isn't -- you know --

ZIMMERMAN: Because Martha --

MACCALLUM: She's not -- she's not affected by it because she -- you know, went right back in there today and sort of --

ZIMMERMAN: But the truth is we're all impacted by that resolution because it says that we're all in this battle together to fighting hate crimes --

MACCALLUM: I just don't know what that does. I don't know what that accomplices.

ZIMMERMAN: What it does -- what it does, it says to the Catholic community, the people of diverse -- of people of different color in our country, the black and Hispanic community.

MACCALLUM: Hate is bad. Who doesn't know that.

ZIMMERMAN: But the point is this. We're all in this battle together, and that's the matter. We all fight with the -- we have to fight together to condemn hate speech and that's the challenge.

MACCALLUM: All right. What about her comments about Barack Obama to which I should say that she has now responded. She said that the reporter distorted her words and that she is an Obama fan.

BRUCE: Well, there's an audio tape apparently of some of those remarks and they were clear and that's what she said. But I would also suggest that the point here of what I think the House is trying to do was to keep this from becoming and remaining a circus. But as we've seen, the resolution clearly meant nothing to the woman who prompted it effectively Representative Omar.

ZIMMERMAN: But it makes so much more of --

BRUCE: Let me -- let me just -- let me just finish please. Clearly it didn't stop anything. And this is going to continue. It will not end. It'll be lather, rinse, and repeat every other day. Now, the people of her district deserve representation. The Republicans remove Steve King from every committee.

(CROSSTALK)

ZIMMERMAN: They remove Steve King after ten years of advocating white supremacy and hateful rhetoric.

BRUCE: See, this is --

ZIMMERMAN: The point I'm making to you though --

MACCALLUM: Well, he was named and he was pulled off of his committees. And those are the two things that I think a lot of people feel ultimately - - and you can certainly criticize that it took too long but that has teeth. The issue here is that it looks like she and her group are winning, Bob.

ZIMMERMAN: No, quite the contrary. This is not a partisan game of one winning or the other. When you have the Congress --

BRUCE: Well, this conversation makes it seem like it is at this point.

ZIMMERMAN: Let me finish my point, Tammy. When we come together as a country, we come together and see the Congress come together and condemn anti-Semitism, stand up to Islamophobia and what it's representing.

BRUCE: But when -- Bob, when you --

ZIMMERMAN: We're facing -- we're facing increases of hate crimes against the Jewish community near the Muslim community throughout our country and amongst other aspects of our society then it's important we stand together. Congress did that. That was Speaker Pelosi's leadership.

BRUCE: But when I'm getting filibustered -- and when anybody gets filibustered on this issue, it is partisan.

ZIMMERMAN: Not all. It's factual.

BRUCE: On your end. And this is the problem. This is understood by all of us. This is not a partisan issue. There should be no disagreement about the nature of how this should have proceeded. Ms. Omar and Miss Ocasio-Cortes were laughing in the process of this -- of this resolution as it was -- as it was moving.

ZIMMERMAN: Tell me, Tammy, where is the Republican outrage over Donald Trump's anti-Semitic tropes?

BRUCE: The partisanship is right here just now.

ZIMMERMAN: No, it's -- no, it's about being fair and about -- and holding all parties accountable. Where does --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I hear what you're saying and I hear what you're saying. But I'm not sure that that resolution moved anybody away from any of this frankly.

ZIMMERMAN: Either we do this together or we're going to be -- either we fight this together or we perish together. And that's the option.

BRUCE: The Democratic Party is going to be the first one to perish if this doesn't get resolved.

ZIMMERMAN: It's not partisan. It's got to be above partisanship, Tammy.

MACCALLUM: Bob, Tammy, thank you. Good to see you both tonight.

ZIMMERMAN: Good to be with you.

MACCALLUM: All right, so here's a question. Do Democrats coach Michael Cohen ahead of his Capitol Hill testimony. Jason Chaffetz breaks down how these things work next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Witness coaching and partisan coordination. Those are the accusations that are being leveled at House Democrats tonight in the wake of a bombshell Fox News reports that before Michael Cohen appeared before Congress last month, he met with staff of Intel -- of the Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for at least four times for a total of ten hours. And then there's this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: I spoke to Mr. Schiff about topics that were going to be raised at the upcoming hearing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: But that is not what Adam Schiff says. Watch this.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The extent of my contact was just inviting him to testify and also trying to lay his concerns about the President's threats against him and his family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Former chair of the House Oversight Committee and Fox News Contributor Jason Chaffetz joins me now. Good to have you with us, Jason. So tell me -- you know, tell everybody a little bit about because Adam Schiff has said that it's ridiculous, that what he did is absolutely procedure. It's exactly what the Republicans would have done in the same situation. What do you say?

JASON CHAFFETZ, CONTRIBUTOR: Look, Congress is not a court so the rules of discovery do not apply. You can contact and communicate with witnesses. But the case of Cohen and Mr. Schiff is highly unusual. I've never seen or heard of anything like that. When I did it with Mr. Cummings, we did in a bipartisan way. There's no way we would ever take a meeting without inviting the other side to be a participant in that.

When we did communicate with a potential witness to alleviate concerns or to know generally where they were going to go, we did it in consultation and with the minority, and we also did it by talking to their attorney if they had representations. So to spend that amount of time is really -- I've never heard or seen anything like that.

MACCALLUM: So you think -- you think they were coaching him? Is that what you're -- that's what the concern is?

CHAFFETZ: Well, I guess the first question is why not invite the minority? If you are truly seeking the truth, why not invite the other side to join you in that discovery.

MACCALLUM: But he had testified in front of every -- he had testified before you know, for hours and hours and hours, so would it be alright for them to assume that you know, everyone on the other side had heard what he said and that there wasn't really going to be anything new and there wasn't any reason for that?

CHAFFETZ: Well, then why for trips in ten plus hours? I think -- I think the world needs to know for Mr. Schiff who was in that meeting. I want to know specific names and how long did they actually meet. Because you're right. Cohen had been there for hours and hours and hours testifying previously. You would think they had exhausted all their questions.

So what really was the intent? Why did you door Devin Nunes and his -- and his staff and exclude them from those discussions. And then probably the most concerning part of it, Martha, is the deception that Adam Smith has when he -- or Schiff has when he's actually out there in front of the world on the CBS Morning program. Why not just tell the truth and he didn't.

MACCALLUM: Well, those are good questions. You know, another good question perhaps is if they were coaching him, you know, you could look at it at the end of the hearing and say they didn't do a good job. Because if they -- if they -- what they wanted was to establish you know, that there was some kind of collusion or you know, the Stormy Daniels story.

You know, they didn't really hit too many marks because he sat there and he said I never went to Prague. He threw cold water on you know sort of out there stories about a love child and things like that. He said no, I don't have any knowledge of any of that, and he didn't make any payments to other women. You know, and he also walked himself into a few different potential future perjury trap. So it would appear that all that prep did not work in his favor, let's say.

CHAFFETZ: Well, look, this is the same Adam Schiff that has promised us that there are witnesses, that there was evidence. None of this has ever materialized. So who knows what they were doing in those types of meetings. The fact that the matter is it should have never happened. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's again, Adam Schiff that's causing these problems. You don't hear about this with Mr. Cummings.

This is not an issue with their committee and what -- in the way he conducts business. So again more smoke and fire to just sort of say hey, you know what, the way Adam Schiff does business, it's not on the up-and-up and it's not his spirit of the way Congress is supposed to work.

MACCALLUM: Well, just -- one last question because we were all told that the Russian collusion issue was not going to come up in the public hearing, it was only going to come up in the behind closed doors hearing. So it just makes me wonder and all those discussions and hours that they spent together, did they sort of decide well, maybe we should we should also talk about that in the open hearing because they ended up doing just that.

CHAFFETZ: Well, they did. But again, why is it that one party is colluding the collusion here with Michael Cohen and trying to figure out how this is all going to go down and exclude the minority. We had contentious hearings when I was the chairman --

MACCALLUM: Yes, you did.

CHAFFETZ: But I tell you what, Mr. Cummings staff, they were in the room. They were there. We had those discussions together.

MACCALLUM: Jason Chaffetz, always good to have you. Thank you very much.

CHAFFETZ: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next tonight on “The Story,” Cardinal Ted McCarrick was once the most powerful Catholic official in the entire country. So what did the church do with him after he was convicted of sex crimes? Where is he? We investigated and we will show you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The person we'd really like to talk to is Ted McCarrick himself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, he's not giving any interview.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: He was once the most powerful Catholic leader in the United States, the archbishop of Washington, D.C. Friend to presidents, honored guests at society galas and frequently in the company of world leaders.

But today, former Cardinal Ted McCarrick is convicted of sex abuse by the Vatican. He was defrocked by Pope Francis and thousand he lives here in seclusion. Some might say in hiding in this rural town in Kansas.

Tonight, “The Story” investigates.

This is the place where Ted McCarrick, as he is now known cannot be reached, questioned by accusers or journalists, including our producer who attempted to reach him this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The person we would really like to talk to is Ted McCarrick himself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. He is not giving any interviews.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: In small town Victoria, Kansas, now former cardinal once called his eminence Theodore McCarrick remains. He lives here in seclusion weeks after Pope Francis expelled him from the priesthood.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If he is no longer a priest he should not be living there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: The Vatican officially finding the 98-year-old guilty of sex crimes against minors as well as adults.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is confined to the friary and that's why we are allowing him to be here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: McCarrick is the former archbishop of Washington, D.C. now the highest profile church leader to be ousted from the priesthood in modern times. Yet here he remains living on church property among priests and just yards away from the local public school.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's too close for comfort.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is a lot of concern from children.

KENT MICHEL, SUPERINTENDENT, VICTORIA SCHOOL: What we heard from social media he was here. As far as being notified that was the biggest thing. The church has done a good job since then.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're mainly giving him compassionate place to stay.

JERRY VINCKE, BISHOP, DIOCESE OF SAGINAW, MICHIGAN: He is a very frail individual, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Newly assigned Catholic bishop in this area, Jerry Vincke only recently arrived back in August.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you say to critics who say that, hey, you are providing this guy a shield?

VINCKE: Yes. I would say that he is in an environment that does not allow him to go out in public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Bishop Vincke says he is among those frustrated by this situation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINCKE: I was so upset with McCarrick and what he did and I have to admit I had to reconcile my own feelings because I had a lot of resentment towards the whole situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Vincke says he reluctantly gave his blessing as McCarrick was suddenly placed at the friary by embattled Cardinal Donald Wuerl who recently resigned himself as D.C.'s current archbishop amid allegations of covering up priest abuse while serving as a bishop in Pennsylvania.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINCKE: Cardinal Wuerl called me up from Washington, D.C. asking for my permission. I have never gotten an answer why.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Now Vincke is left to deal with the reality thrust upon his new community.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINCKE: What do I do when someone that's notorious sinner is thrown in your lap? And a lot of people want to just discard him and throw him in jail and maybe he should have gone to jail a long time ago. I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: To many local residents as well as clergy abuse victims and the Catholic faithful worldwide this still evolving McCarrick story is just another painful chapter in the ongoing global church abuse crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINCKE: I've been going to every parish in our diocese and there is 86 of them. I have been apologizing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: As for McCarrick having previously maintained his innocence claiming that he had no recollection of abusing a 16-year-old boy decades ago. The now former cleric has made no public statement since being hit with the Vatican's harshest punishment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINCKE: Yes, he is very aware of what happened. Is he remorseful? I do know this that he goes to confession on a regular basis. What he says I do not know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And while prior to the Vatican's verdict the pope ordered McCarrick to live in seclusion, prayer, and penitence. Technically, McCarrick is a free man free able to live wherever he might choose.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINCKE: He could go anywhere, yes. I do know that he wouldn't mind moving closer to his family. I think it's going to happen sooner than later that he moves. Maybe some place out east. Might be looking at an assisted living place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: However, still facing lawsuits and potential criminal charges in New Jersey and California, McCarrick remains in Kansas next to a basilica known as the Cathedral of the Plains. Built by sacrifice and donations from local devout farm families in the early 1900s. It is now a Catholic community like so many around the world praying for healing and for their church's survival.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a travesty, the whole circumstance of what's happened in the church and the church covering it up and all of those other aspects. I just hope that love reigns in hearts more than anything else.

VINCKE: I think healing takes place when we're honest and we get things out into the light and be totally upfront about what's happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Joining me now Raymond Arroyo, Fox News contributor EWT News managing editor and author of "The Will Wilder 3" series, "The Amulet of Power." Raymond, you know, your reaction to all of that? That bishop was, I thought very forthcoming, Bishop Vincke.

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Look, he was but there is a little something that's missing here. people should know. He was laicized. Cardinal McCarrick now Theodore McCarrick. That means he's stricken from the clerical state.

MACCALLUM: Right.

ARROYO: The church has no responsibility to him. They don't have to provide him housing or care or healthcare, any of that. And the fact that he has been remorseless, no public contrition to his victims, nothing, Martha.

I think that should also be held up and maybe if they wanted to be merciful to him, they should send him to a Catholic nursing home where he is isolated and away from kids. Having him a block away it rattles the community. It's a bad sign.

And one more thing, Bishop Vincke in your piece there talked about transparency.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

ARROYO: We talked about transparency. The Vatican needs to provide all of us with the background of who promoted McCarrick, who allowed him to arise through the ranks of the clergy to reach this pinnacle and use that power to abuse these children and adults, I might add.

I think even at 89, I'm sorry, he is the public face of this disaster. This horrible evil he should be sent away. He really should be in jail and maybe that's forthcoming.

MACCALLUM: And maybe it is. He still does face charges in New Jersey and California --

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- as was pointed out in that piece and it is mind-boggling that there still is the same kind of protection mechanism in place --

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- that has been in place for decades. The people who knew what was going on and covered up for him and it is still going on to this day, Raymond.

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You know, I think that the expression that you have and that so many have where does it have a place? You know, is there a movement? Is there something that people can sign up for? I mean, you know, who is leading the charge that you are --

(CROSSTALK)

ARROYO: Well, no one is.

MACCALLUM: -- so expressive about and why is that?

ARROYO: Well, partly because the Catholic Church so many of the people in the flock they look to the clerics. You look to the priest, you look to your bishop for leadership. You don't have, you know, a kind of a green grassroots efforts in the Catholic Church. Perhaps it's needed.

I know there is a movement to suppress giving funds to the archdiocese.

MACCALLUM: Right.

ARROYO: People are giving it to religious institutes and Mother Theresa's order and other groups that are doing good work --

MACCALLUM: That's right.

ARROYO: -- but not to the church itself. Final comment here, Martha, if this were a fireman or a man in the military who had been found guilty of these grave offences, do you think he would be allowed to return to the barracks the next day? I think not.

And Cardinal McCarrick finds himself in that same position. He should not be on Catholic grounds. It's a bad sign and it sends a horrible message, I think, to the Catholic faithful and wider community.

MACCALLUM: Raymond Arroyo, thank you. As always, good to see you tonight.

ARROYO: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, the new details that deconstruct the narrative behind a recent hit piece on Fox News. We'll take you through it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So earlier this week, the Democratic National Committee said that they would not offer Fox News an opportunity to moderate one of their primary debates, in part, because of a derogatory story that ran in the New Yorker.

The New Yorker piece claimed that in 2016 right before the election the editor of Foxnews.com killed a story about Stormy Daniels and then candidate Trump in order to protect the new president. Then the candidate.

But today, the former Fox executive wrote his own piece in response and it was titled "I stopped Stormy Daniels story at Fox News. Here's why." He writes. "Two weeks before the 2016 presidential election as editorial head of Fox News online, I reviewed a draft news story that said porn actress Stormy Daniels had confirmed having an affair with Donald Trump a decade earlier. The only problem was Stormy hadn't said that.

Daniels and her associates were playing a bizarre cat and mouse game with Fox News and other outlets trying to get their story out without fingerprints, and ultimately without enough proof to publish. We, and others practiced solid journalism," he writes. "Now that's being spun in an effort to prove the opposite."

Howard Kurtz is host of Media Buzz and our resident evaluator of these kinds of questions. You know, this piece is very interesting that was written by Ken LaCorte, Howie. How do you -- how do you balance it out? You know, which side is telling the truth story here.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: It's more clear than ever now, Martha, in light of this piece. That the New Yorker suggestion based on unnamed sources who believe that the Stormy Daniels story was killed by the Fox web site to protect Donald Trump or because of Rupert Murdoch is just way off base.

What Ken LaCorte who was running the web site at the time says he had a nine-paragraph story written by the entertainment reporter, it was based on two anonymous quotes, no corroboration. And no mention of hush money and no mention of a contract. And it wasn't even close to being able to publish them.

By the way, as he says in his piece, Slate and other organizations were chasing the same allegation also couldn't corroborate them, also didn't publish them. When you don't have the goods, you don't publish.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I think that's one of the, you know, very interesting points here is that other publications, including Good Morning America were also being sort of fed this story as it's written here by Stormy Daniels and her folks. And it's very interesting because they all say we were trying to pursue the story but then the trail went cold.

And the supposition is that there was, you know, that perhaps she was looking to be paid some of this money and that something else was transacted on the outside with regard to her and her situation and she suddenly didn't want to go any further in the corroboration of the story, right?

KURTZ: Yes, because she ended up getting $130,000 to keep quiet. But the thing here, the kicker here is the Wall Street Journal did run a story about Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump just days before the election. That's a newspaper that happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch.

MACCALLUM: That's right.

KURTZ: And by the way, Ken LaCorte says in this piece that the New Yorker author Jane Mayer he gotten contact with her after being called by a fact checker. She said he called him back, she never did. So, he never had the chance to make the case that he was practicing as he says.

MACCALLUM: Yes. He had talked to her about another story and collaborated with her and was cooperating with her on another story and then he was surprised that when it came to this piece, he tried to reach out to her but he never got the call returned and then when he saw the piece he was somewhat surprised.

Just remind us of the history here with this reporter who has been around a long time, Jane Mayer, also had some similar issues with Kavanaugh's stories, correct?

KURTZ: Yes, Jane Mayer was the co-author of one of the stories of one of the sets of allegations in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. It's not Christine Blasey Ford. It was one of the people whose tale is largely discredited in the aftermath.

Now I'm not casting aspersions on her as a reporter. But she is a reporter who has specialized in going after president and vice president, Trump, conservative billionaires and that sort of thing. New Yorker a very liberal magazine that regularly mocks Donald Trump.

And by the way, Martha, I believe that DNC chairman Tom Perez is using this New Yorker piece as a kind of a cover story to justify what he wanted to do anyway which is not provide --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: He said that specifically. So, you know, it would be interesting.

KURTZ: -- (Inaudible) Democratic debates in 2016.

MACCALLUM: yes. He used that story specifically so it will be interesting to hear, you know, if there is any response from him in terms of if you know, if the story is not as it appears and not as it seems whether or not there is reevaluation there. We certainly hope there it will be and we hope the door open because we would very much like to do this debate. Any final thought, Howard, on that debate decision?

KURTZ: Well, you know, the bulk of the story is about the opinion hosts at Fox and how they are supportive of Donald Trump and friendly with Donald Trump. And that's fine. But as everyone knows the debate moderators would be you, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace, all of whom did a terrific job in 2016.

Lots of other journalists don't take my word for it saying the DNC made a bad decision because its depriving its Democratic candidates of access to the huge Fox audience. So, I think this was a blown call. I hope the DNC reconsiders. But to base it on a New Yorker piece --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, do we.

KURTZ: -- that was very negative towards Fox, I don't think so.

MACCALLUM: All right. Howard, interesting. Thank you very much. Great to have you here tonight.

KURTZ: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up, something completely different. As we get into ladies' night here on a Friday night. Pop star Taylor Swift said she found her political voice and she is ready to use it in 2020. The ladies are up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Pop star Taylor Swift ready to speak now about politics. She says she's more educated now. Quote, "As someone approaching 30, did I feel informed enough to speak about it to my 114 million followers? I'm going to do more to help. We have a big race coming up next year."

OK. Here we go. Ladies night. Carley Shimkus, Lisa Boothe, and Jessica Tarlov join me now. So, Jess, what do you think? Is it time for Taylor Swift to get more political?

JESSICA TARLOV, CONTRIBUTOR: I think 30 is a fine age to become more political. No, I think it's a good thing. People who have a substantial following and are actually pointing out that they are going do the research to make informed commentary should be welcomed into the fray.

This is something conservatives can criticize liberals for all the time. But people were plenty happy with Kim Kardashian helped push along the Trump administration to get to criminal justice reform. That's someone who is a liberal helping a conservative there with the whole Kanye-Donald Trump thing that happened for a little while.

But I think it's a good thing. And when she tweeted about the Senate race what she did do, was for a lot of people to register to vote, which is the most important thing that you can you.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I don't know. Do you have any idea?

That was the last day you can register to vote, when you generally see a bit of a pop.

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: It was a little late.

MACCALLUM: And it didn't work because she was tweeting in favor of Phil Bredesen and he lost.

TARLOV: No. Late registering to vote is always a good thing.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I'm just saying it's controversial about whether or not she had any actual impact on that. But --

(CROSSTALK)

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: Right. There is a dispute about --

MACCALLUM: I don't know if people care about what these people think when it comes to politics. Did they, Lisa?

BOOTHE: No. That's the whole -- I mean, watch out, Donald Trump, Taylor Swift is entering the fray for 2020. Watch out.

MACCALLUM: I don't know. And she is 30.

BOOTHE: And she's 30 and she's informed. No, I mean, look, I couldn't care less what musicians or people in Hollywood think about politics. I don't go to them for information. I don't go to them seeking out what they think before I make my own decisions. I make those decisions on my own.

I think oftentimes they end up being hypocrites. So, the people that are decrying things like climate change, and then they are out flying on private jet.

But there's also a big potential risk from a business standpoint as well. Because you look at these a lot of these award shows have taken massive nose dives in ratings under the Trump administration. You look at things like the NFL has taken a huge hit in the approval ratings since the whole kneeling controversy. So, you know, there's a huge risk for her from a business standpoint.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's a big change for her. Because she had typically said that she did not want to get involved in politics in any way.

BOOTHE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: That she wanted to perform and she wanted to be, you know, she wanted to have and be an equal opportunity performer when it came to politics.

CARLEY SHIMKUS, REPORTER: I think this is happening now because she got pressured into it. I remember right around the 2016 presidential election. I read several articles on sites like BuzzFeed that were filled with speculation that Taylor Swift was a closet conservative -

BOOTHE: Yes.

SHIMKUS: -- because she didn't endorse either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. And then she got hammered during the women's march because she didn't attend. She only tweeted her support. So, I think she sort of caved to outrage Twitter on this one and decided to go the way up for peers and speak out on politics.

BOOTHE: But it's not like a very brave stance to take to be a Democrat in Hollywood.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: No, but it's like --

BOOTHE: Or like anti-Trump everyone. It's like the most unoriginal thing.

SHIMKUS: But it feels good when you have all these --

MACCALLUM: Go ahead, Jess. Last one.

TARLOV: I just wanted to add, I think it's really funny when conservatives say, I don't listen to this, but they were thrilled when Kanye West was Donald Trump's best friend for a moment. And if there were more actors and more singers and comedians that were fans of the conservative party, they would love to have them at their party.

SHIMKUS: I think Dolly Parton has the best approach. LEMON:

BOOTHE: Yes.

SHIMKUS: Nobody knows if she's a Democrat or a conservative.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SHIMKUS: She can fit in both categories.

MACCALLUM: She said I sing for everybody.

SHIMKUS: Everybody loves her. Yes.

BOOTEH: Team Dolly across the board.

MACCALLUM: All right. parting Neverland getting a ton of attention this week and bringing the whole question of Michael Jackson back into the fray. It's also pulled up a lot of old video that was very -- seen all the time when this controversy was happening, when it was all playing out.

This is his sister, La Toya Jackson, back in -- I hope we have the year on here, but it's quite a while ago when she was interviewed. And she said this about her brother.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LA TOYA JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON'S SISTER: I loved him a great deal, but I cannot and I will not be a silent collaborator of his crimes against small innocent children. And if I remain silent, then that means that I feel the guilt and humiliation that these children are feeling. And I think it's very wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: She said that back in 1993. Family members are now suing HBO for a $100 million for this "Finding Neverland" series. They all have a lot to lose financially if this makes Michael Jackson music and shows less appealing, Carley.

SHIMKUS: I started watching this documentary yesterday and I only could get through the first hour of it because you kind of have to watch it in parts because it is so disturbing. And the evidence here really is so clear and it's been clear for decades.

But people are enamored with his talent and I think they put up blinders to the fact that he is a depraved pedophile.

Three days after he was arrested in 2003, which was the second time he was accused of, you know, sexually assaulting children. This one was on child pornography charges, I believe, Sony released his album and it went triple platinum in the United States.

MACCALLUM: Well, people have --

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: And I feel like the outrage here has been muted.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely has.

SHIMKUS: Especially after the Me Too movement when we are starting to, you know, really, really believe all victims.

BOOTEH: Well, I also think it's kind of pathetic now. Everyone is in uproar over this when as you pointed out we've known about this for quite some time. The police got involved in 1993. He reached a settlement of something like $20 something million with a family.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But he went to court and he was not convicted. The two guys who are in this HBO special set up there and said they had known him for years and he didn't -- he didn't do this. So that's what's problematic here. He's dead. He cannot defend himself anymore.

BOOTHE: But even beyond that he has previously admitted to sharing a bed with children.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. My gosh. It's bizarre.

SHIMKUS: I think for most people regardless -- but regardless what the police and the legal system determine, that in itself --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: People make their own --

BOOTHE: -- tells a story.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. Absolutely. Jess, (Inaudible).

BOOTHE: I mean, come on.

TARLOV: We talked about this a few months ago on a documentary about Motown decided that they were going to cut him out of that. It raises this question of what we do with artist that have had a major impact on music and artistry in this country are found out to not be who we thought they were. or frankly, if we just like them that much.

It's interesting for this to happen the same week as R. Kelly sat down with Gayle King with that embarrassment. because R. Kelly is a lot easier for people to just wipe their hands with. He didn't have a monumental effect on the entire world --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I hear you.

TARLOV: -- in the way Michael Jackson.

MACCALLUM: But you know, we've been doing this whole lots of coverage of the Catholic Church and pedophilia.

TARLOV: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I don't know why it's any different if you're a big star or if you're a priest.

TARLOV: No. But do you take all the music down.

MACCALLUM: It's all bad.

TARLOV: How do you wipe Michael Jackson out of the consciousness?

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: I think we need the sound of Jerry Sandusky and just he's no longer an American --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: All right. We got to go. Thank you very much.

SHIMKUS: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: Great to have you all here tonight.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: That is “The Story” for this Friday night. Have a great weekend, everybody. “The Story” continues on Monday night at seven. "Tucker" is up next.

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.