TMZ: Weinstein's contract allowed for sexual harassment

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," October 12, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, "THE STORY" HOST: Breaking tonight, frustrated over the failure to get ObamaCare, President Trump takes a scalpel to the plan and carved a brand-new option today, and he did so with Rand Paul at his side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This will cost the United States government virtually nothing, and people will have great, great health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, that was earlier today. And then, General John Kelly got everybody in the briefing room standing at attention when he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JOHN KELLY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: In less things change, I'm not getting fired. Maybe develop some better sources.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: A bit of a stinger. We're going to talk about both of those stories in a moment. But we begin tonight with the Weinstein saga, because there is a now growing problem for the higher-ups at NBC whose news president once spent time as a screenwriter in Los Angeles and is now facing increasing scrutiny over the lengths gone to keep Harvey Weinstein's story under wraps while scores of women continued to be victimized.

According to this report from The Huffington Post, Reporter Ronan Farrow had his story quite well sourced and documented before NBC decided not to run it. Here is the rundown, the timeline: on January 17th, he had an on- camera witness, Rose McGowan. In March, he had the NYPD wired conversation. Also in March, the NBC higher-ups told him to stop reporting the story, so he kept going.

In July, he went out there with his own cameras, he got eight more women to come forward. In July, NBC looked at it, vetted it, put it through some of their folks and said it was reportable. But in August, they said, hold on, first it has to be reviewed by NBC News Chief, Andy Lack, and even Comcast CEO, Steve Burke, which highly unusual for a journalist and a reporter story.

In August, they said to pull the plug; time to stop reporting on the story. So, what was going on here? So, finally, he took the story to The New Yorker who reviewed it for two months, put it through their very tough scrutiny, and they decided to publish it. It should be pointed out that Ronan Farrow took on Weinstein and company and NBC, two of the biggest names in the industry that he works in. It's not easy.

And then you've got this, Time Magazine out with this cover: "Harvey Weinstein, producer, predator, a pariah." Hillary Clinton, also weighing in on this whole thing last night, attempting to make up, perhaps, for an early silence on the matter. Here she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was appalled. It was something that was just intolerable in every way. And, you know, like so many people who've come forward and spoken out, this was a different side of a person who I and many others had known in the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, there's that. So now joining me Tammy Bruce, Columnist for The Washington Times and Fox News Contributor; and Adrian Elrod, former Communications Director for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Good to both of you for us tonight. You wrote a very strong piece, Tammy, arguing that Hillary Clinton has been inconsistent when it comes to her views on women.

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND COLUMNIST FOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Well, yes, to put it mildly. But you're looking at a woman who should be the major feminist icon for the country, could have been the first woman president. Obviously, is not going to be, but is a role model for generations of women at this point. And yet here she is saying that the Harvey Weinstein behavior should not be tolerated, but she is also a standard bearer for tolerating it most of her married life and in public.

We know from George Stephanopoulos' book, a man that worked obviously in the White House with the Clintons, where he revealed that her approach was, when these things came up, the harassment issues, sexual harassment, accusations of assault, et cetera, that she would swallow her pride, deal with it, and then her plan was to go after the victims and to destroy them in her words. So, we're looking at a woman who has sent a message to my generation, even her own, that if there is something to get, you should tolerate it.

Now, I worked in the Clinton campaign in '92. This isn't an approach where you deal with a generation of women like Donna Karen, who also the designer, who came out and said maybe women or these victims are asking for it because of the way they dress. We know that assault, rape, it's not about sex or desire, it's about controlling humiliation. We see that throughout Harvey Weinstein's and his goal.

So, this is difficult, I think, that we're seeing women in Hollywood, older women -- this is kind of the main point, Martha, of my column: older women, successful, who are established, who have financial stability, their health, and their ability for their career to continue to be able to stand up for what is right. And Angelina Jolie, Hillary Clinton, Helen Mirren, would have really nothing to lose, and yet no one said anything effectively, allowing this to continue.

MACCALLUM: I got your point. Adrian, do you want to respond to that?

ADRIAN ELROD, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN: Yes. I mean, look, first of all, Hillary Clinton did make a very forceful statement on this several days after the story came out. She also, as you just played, gave a very straightforward interview with Fareed Zakaria from CNN, and that will be airing on Sunday. And I'm sure, going forward, shall have plenty more to say on this. But I think -- look, Martha, I think we've got to take a step back here and we start putting politics into this, and start making this -- he put a statement out when, who said what, and what time?

It would detract from the fact that we've got to do something as a society to prohibit powerful men like this, who have used their positions and their roles to take advantage of young women. When we start getting into, you know, when did President Obama put out a statement, when did Hillary Clinton put out a statement? We start to detract from the real issue at hand here. So, you know, I think moving forward, people have plenty of opinions on this topic by moving forward as a society should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. We've got to get at the bottom of at figuring out why --

MACCALLUM: It should've -- I think everyone agrees that. It should not be a political issue, and I think that sometimes it is felt that way to some extent.

ELROD: Correct.

MACCALLUM: But when you look at this, Tammy, you know, obviously, it is easy once the ball starts unraveling for people to come out and say, you know, this is horrible behavior. You know, that -- what is tricky, what's hard, is to be the person who's, you know, sort of at the tip of the sphere. The one who has a lot to lose, the one who comes forward first. And that's the kind of courage, I think, that you look for from some of these individuals while it was happening, not afterward. And that's what we all have to really wake up to here, I think.

BRUCE: Well, there is though, and yet, at the same time, Rose McGowan, if we have a hero here, a young woman and actress whose career stalled. Mira Sorvino, Roseanne Arquette, where if there is pushback privately, things can stop. The women that can come through -- and Angelina Jolie said that they knew it was happening; she was harassed herself. Others said that they heard humor but these are not dumb women.

We know Hillary is a smart woman, we know the women were discussing our smart, and it's the women who really can have that power. As feminists, we've moved women into positions of power. It's not insulting to ask them to use it. It's a necessity, especially for the young women who don't have the same resources. And the men -- you know, we can't expect men to lead the way to some degree, some might. But it's women finally who are in power that should be, and Hillary Clinton in particular, is not the role model that we need, that's clear.

MACCALLUM: Ladies, thank you. Adrian and Tammy, good to see you both tonight.

ELROD: Thank you. I disagree with what she just said.

(LAUGHTER)

MACCALLUM: All right. You're on the record. Thank you very much, Adrian. Adrian Elrod and Tammy Bruce. So, here is some new video of Harvey Weinstein outside his daughter's house in California yesterday. Very animated amid reports that he is now under investigation for sexual assault here in New York City and also in London. Here's what he had to say to the paparazzi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, AMERICAN PRODUCER: I'm not doing OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not?

WEINSTEIN: I've got to get help. You know what, we all make mistakes. The second chance will help, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No problem.

WEINSTEIN: Thanks, guys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, that was back from TMZ. Weinstein apparently had a clause in his contract that allowed for sexual harassment if you shelled out the money to make it go away. More on that, Harvey Levin is Executive Producer of TMZ.com, the outlet that stays behind breaking that news and he joins us tonight. Hi, Harvey. Boy, wow, a pretty busy week in Hollywood, huh?

HARVEY LEVIN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TMZ.COM: Yes, and this is a crazy story. We've been working on this all day, and we just posted it. So, let me explain it to you. The short story is this: the Weinstein Company allows for sexual harassment under the contract it signed with Harvey Weinstein. Here's what we know: in October of 2015, Harvey Weinstein signed a new contract with them, and under the contract, it says that if Harvey Weinstein gets sued for sexual harassment or any other kind of misdeed, and the company has to pay the judgment or a settlement.

Harvey Weinstein can make everything good by doing two things. Number one, he has to pay the company back for what it paid the victim. Number two, Harvey has to pay a fine, and the way the fine is structured, for the first time he has to pay a settlement, the first time the company has to pay, Harvey has to pay $250,000 fine. For the second judgment or settlement, he has to pay $500,000 fine. For the third, $750,000. For the fourth or any number thereafter, he has to pay a million dollars each time the company has to pay a settlement or judgment for any kind of sexual harassment.

MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you a question: how long did you say that that has been in place? That agreement?

LEVIN: For two years. They signed --

MACCALLUM: Essentially, for the last two years, Weinstein and company have been acknowledging that they absolutely know that this is going on.

LEVIN: Well, Martha, when the contract was signed, a member of the board of directors has now said they knew about settlements. He says, we assumed, assumed, that they were consensual sexual relationships that they wanted to keep secret. Now, they can fire Harvey Weinstein for fraud, but there's no fraud when they make an assumption without even asking him. So, then the issue was how are they able to fire him? Because they just summarily did it.

They didn't send him any kind of notice as to why. And the contract says he has a right to go into mediation and arbitration. So, it looks to me, based on what I've seen, that he has a real case against the company for being wrongfully terminated, and that the bigger issue is, the company -- the bigger issue is, the company structured a contract that essentially allows for sexual harassment if you're willing to pay a monetary price.

MACCALLUM: That's fascinating. We'll see where that goes. You know, he said today to the paparazzi -- let's play this quickly if we can.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEINSTEIN: I've always been loyal to you guys. Not like those (BLEEP) that treat you like (BLEEP). I've been the good guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Trying to patch things up with the press, Harvey.

LEVIN: Well, Martha, the irony to all of this is he had just said that he wanted a second chance, but to get a second chance, he's going to need a lot of the stars who have now come out against him, hoping that they'll come back to him. But he pissed them all off because he said those were the you-know-what's, who are mean the to the paparazzi. So, he took a shot at these celebrities who he wants a second chance from as he went into the car.

MACCALLUM: Harvey, great stuff. Thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

LEVIN: OK, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, the Las Vegas massacre becoming a true mystery.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was 911 called? And the whole chain of command seemed to have broken down here. Because for six minutes, nothing happened. And then, this criminal started shooting at these innocent people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, the timeline is in dispute of what happened that night, and it has authorities, kind of, scrambling to figure out the answers to those missing six minutes. Former LAPD Detective, Mark Fuhrman; and former FBI Deputy Assistant Director, Terry Turchie, are here to take us inside the investigation. And an American woman and her family freed tonight years after being kidnapped by the Taliban. So, why did they refuse to get on the plane that brought them home? We're going to tell you the story that has American officials scratching their heads tonight. Also, this big moment this afternoon. General John Kelly, came out swinging at his first White House press briefing. Karl Rove joins us with his take.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: I was not sent into or brought in to control him, and you should not measure my effectiveness as the chief of staff by what you think I should be doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Tonight, the mystery of the missing six minutes on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay. New developments tonight in the Vegas massacre investigation that shed light on a hunting question: could the shooter have been stopped? Trace Gallagher live in our West Coast newsroom with these new developments. Hi, Trace.

GALLAGHER: Hi, Martha. I want to emphasize that Las Vegas police have not said exactly when the first 911 call came in from Mandalay Bay security or anybody else inside the hotel. The associated press is now citing a U.S. official who says the hotel waited until after Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers before notifying police. That is huge because we know at 9:59, when security guard Jesus Campos was shot in the leg, he radioed and or called security about the shooting, and seconds later, maintenance worker, Steven Schuck, radio this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVEN SCHUCK, MAINTENANCE, MANDALAY BAY: Call the police, someone is firing a gun up here, someone is firing a rifle on the 32nd floor down the hallway.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Right, call the police. The concert shooting began at 10:05 p.m., meaning six minutes went by before police were notified that a gunman was holed up on the 32nd floor, but MGM, which owns Mandalay is again disputing police saying, "The 9:59 p.m. time was derived from a Mandalay Bay report, manually created after the fact without the benefit of information we now have. We are now confident that this time stated in the report is not accurate."

MGM believes, Stephen Paddock began firing at concertgoers within 40 seconds after Jesus Campos reported that shots were fired and that Vegas Metro Police officers and Mandalay Bay security immediately responded to the 32nd floor. But now, the lawyer for Paige Gasper, who was shot and injured at the concert who has filed a lawsuit against MGM and others, says that if police were not notified until after the shooting, that's a problem. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was 911 called? And the whole chain of command seemed to have broken down here. Because for 6 minutes, nothing happened. And then, this criminal started shooting at innocent people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Vegas Metro Police say even though Jesus Campos was shot after before the attack in the concert mal after, he still prevented Stephen Paddock from fully implementing his plan, saying the fact that Paddock had a gas mask in his room and explosive in his car suggests he may have wanted to continue his rampage on a different target. Meantime, 11 days, still no closer to a motive, and the FBI admits being a bit baffled. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you so much. So, here now with more, two people with years of experience in these types of investigations: Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD Detective and a Fox News Contributor, and Terry Turchie, former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. Welcome, gentleman. Good to have both of you with us tonight. Terry, let me start with you. When you hear that dispute over the time clock here, what goes through your mind?

TERRY TURCHIE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE FBI'S COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION: Well, I'm sure, Mark, will agree with this. When you're working in a command post, when you're working in the moment after something tragic like this has happened, all kind of information is coming in. And like we saw in San Bernardino, one of the things going while you're trying to literally take care of people who've been shot and hurt and are dying is, you're also trying to get any lead that's out there that might help you get to the people who are responsible quicker. And we found in San Bernardino there was the question of a black van, and, you know, they trace the license plate, and within the hour, I think, they were out there by the address for this band.

My point is, there's a lot of information that comes in. You're the person in charge of trying to filter through all this. You got people around you, and the information you get and the timeline that starts coming together early on certainly is not going to be static and it's not going to be what you end up with a few days later. I don't know, exactly, why this discrepancy exists. I do know there's an attorney that's talking about this. So, we're going to hear a lot of things in the next few days that again are going to make it difficult for people like us to really know what all the exact facts are. And I' am still confident that as all this comes together and get sorted out, as we read through it, it will all make sense and all of these questions will be answered.

MACCALLUM: Mark, you know, we played it before. "Call the police," this is from Mr. Schuck, the security guard who was up there, "someone has fired the gun on the 32nd floor down the hallway." I mean, it's a very specific call that went out. According to the records that we have so far, at 9:59.

MARK FUHRMAN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: Well, Martha, you're correct and I agree with the director and everything he said. But when you look at this, you have a nonprofessional emergency-type person that is handling hotel reservations or quite possibly a security desk that's getting this call. "Shots fired." Nobody said automatic weapons fire, they said shots fired.

MACCALLUM: He said a rifle, "someone up here has a rifle."

FURHMAN: So, at 9:59, if everything is perfect and pure, the call goes out, 911 call goes out at exactly 10:00, by 10:17 you have a SWAT team outside of the door who's already made contact with a wounded man, I think that is an outstanding response time. And before that, we have the six officers that came up the stairway at least partially; they were on the 31st floor, they heard the automatic weapons fire which was firing on the crowd. It stopped, they advanced and waited for the SWAT team. They did everything right, and I think this missing 6 minutes might be because of the hotel security, hotel personnel, the management, however, they kind of hesitated before they actually called the police or tried to make it bigger than it could.

MACCALLUM: But that's the problem, right? I mean, you know, if Mandalay Bay waited until the large portion of the shooting began, that's not going to sit well with them. And you know, that's the question. Either they hesitated for some reason to let the police know that there had been a shooting at the hotel or they let them know right away and there was six minutes which -- you know, I know that they -- you said they went as quickly as they could but six minutes is a pretty decent chunk of time during which somebody might have been able, a police officer posted at the hotel, somebody who is right near that property could have made it up there. Let Terry Turchie weigh in on that.

TURCHIE: I want to disagree with on that, Martha. You have a man who has known automatic weapons in the room, already fired hundred, a couple of hundred rounds through the wall and the door at one man who is wounded. You're not going to have your regular patrol officer attempt in entry into a door in a very narrow space inside of a hotel room. It's just -- this is a SWAT situation that they need to blow the door off and they need to have flashbangs, and they need to have the possibility of actually not having an office go down and kill the suspect.

MACCALLUM: All right, Terry Turchie, thank you. Mark Fuhrman, thanks, as always. Good to see you both tonight. Thank you, gentlemen.

FUHRMAN: Thank you.

TURCHIE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, still ahead tonight, this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: I have found that Mr. Trump, from the day I met him, does not lie. He's a decisive guy, he's a very thoughtful man, I should say. He takes information in from every avenue he can receive it. I restrict no one, by the way, from going in to see him, but when we go in to see him now, rather than Wednesdays and Tuesdays, we go in and help them collectively understand what he needs to understand to make these vital decisions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: General Kelly picks them off one by one. So, many of the questions that have been asked about him, speculated, rumored about him. He stood at that podium today, and he sort of picked them off on the list. Karl Rove joins us with his response to that next. And also, to California where the massive wildfires keep burning tonight, hundreds of people in that neighborhood are still missing, dozens are dead as the death toll rises. We are alive on the ground, we will take you to Napa County where there's a frantic search right now for survivors -- a live report next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Tonight, we can tell you that 29 people are dead in these horrific California wildfires that we've watched throughout the course of this week, hundreds more are continuing to be missing, unidentified, haven't registered, as we heard last night. So, everybody is very concerned about them. 20 fires are burning through homes and businesses right now. In all, more than 8,000 firefighters are working to put out the flames all across that stage. Fox News' Adam Housley joins us in Napa County with more tonight. Hi, Adam.

ADAM HOUSLEY, FOX NEWS REPORTER: Hi, Martha. Yes, now it's actually 21 fires. They're making some headway on a few of them because the winds died down the last 24 hours. There have been calls for some pretty strong winds, and thankfully that did not happen. 3,500 structures destroyed, more than 200,000 acres burned. Firefighters here in Southern Napa County in front of the Atlas fire which burned through Napa a few days ago, have done a pretty good job stopping it here in the low grasslands where there're not a lot of trees and there wasn't any wind. As they made headway here, there're still quite a few battles including a live look right now, we can show you in Sonoma County, California, just north of the town of Sonoma, and the mountains up there above the valley of the moon, there's a firefight going on there. The fires up into the mountains, there's a lot of larger homes up there and a few rural ones as well.

So far it has not come down into the area of Agua Caliente. And from there, just up the road in Kenwood, California, also in Sonoma County, a retention pond, you know, they've been bringing helicopters in, many of these ponds used for agriculture are now being used to fight fires. And there, Kenwood already had a fire roared through there late Sunday and into Monday. Back here in southern Napa County, Martha, it's been quite a battle for so many people here, there's still a number of evacuation centers completely full, and people have evacuated from the side of the valley earlier this week, and then got a chance to return home. Now, people from this side of the valley, joining them in their houses over there. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Incredible. Adam, thank you so much. Adam Housley in Napa Valley tonight. So President Trump bypassing congress and doing what they wouldn't do which was take action on ObamaCare. Today, he signed an executive order to try to reshape the nation's health care system.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is promoting health care choice and competition all across the United States. This is going to be something that millions and millions of people will be signing up for, and they're going to be very happy. This will be great health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So that action was taken this morning at the White House. We'll see how it actually develops and how it comes into fruition. But the GOP is lasering in now on tax reforms feeling like health care is off their plate maybe for a few moments. Speaker Paul Ryan says that time is ticking and that he does not want to turn into the Grinch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL RYAN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We'll be here until Christmas if we have to. I mean, I don't care. We've got to get this done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, and a Fox News contributor. Karl, good to see you tonight. Karl, I want to start with this headline from the New York Times, quote, foiled in congress, Trump moves on his own to undermine ObamaCare. Your thoughts on that, sir?

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think that's incredibly biased, and it was joined by a headline in the Washington Post and on CNN suggesting that the president was undermining ObamaCare by taking these actions. First of all, what's the goal, Martha? Is it to preserve a broken law that is in a broken condition, or is it to provide more insurance to people that's affordable? And what the president has done is said, we can't find an agreement upon how to fix the broken law, so I'm going to take actions that allow us to provide more insurance to more people. And today, he did three things, none of which are covered by the Affordable Care Act. He did three things. He told the department of labor, I want you to find a way to expand the ability for people to use association health plans. What that means is, if you're a fast food operator or a landscaper or a cattle operator, you can join with other people in your industry across state lines and provide insurance to all of your employees, to all the employees of those small businesses and get the same discounts.

MACCALLUM: It's a simple idea that has been around a long time, makes a lot of sense.

ROVE: Yeah. Now there're limits to how much you can do by regulation under a Risa, but it's a good step.

MACCALLUM: OK.

ROVE: And then short term limited duration insurance -- insurance policies of people can buy for a short period of time between jobs where they can't get insurance in the exchanges. And finally, health reimbursement arrangements allow these tax-free accounts that employers can set up to pay for co-pays and premiums for their employees. These are all things that will help more people get insurance. They won't solve the problem with the Affordable Care Act, because it's broken, but they will help more people get more affordable insurance.

MACCALLUM: I guess people options that may, you know, sort of pull the legs out of the underpinning of ObamaCare. But I think, as you say, and as the president believes is unraveling on its own at that pace anyway, but this gives people more options. You know, it's very interesting this afternoon, Karl, to witness, when General John Kelly came out to the press briefing. Because there's always a lot of discussion about the chaos in the White House, and how things are so awful there, that John Kelly is threatening to walk out the door any minute. So he walks out there and just sort of point by point went through a number of the things that have been written and said about him and about the White House, and it was quite compelling. I want to play one of the sound bites. We've played a couple already. But here's one more that I want to get your thoughts on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The congress has been frustrating to him. One of his frustrations is you, all of you. Not all of you, but many of you. It is astounding to me how much is misreported. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are operating off of contacts, leaks, whatever you call them, but I would just offer to you the advice, I'd say, you know, maybe develop some better sources.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Your thoughts, Karl?

ROVE: Look, I thought it was a tremendous performance. It showed humor, grace, killed a couple of rumors dead. I'm not leaving. The president is not going to fire me. I thought one of the most interesting things he had to say though was in one of your earlier clips where he said, I'm not keeping people out of the oval office. I'm just making sure that when we go in, we go in together. This is one of the most important things the president can be served by. It's really unhelpful to have people doing a one-off, where they're trying to go in to be the last person to speak to the president ears and making the arguments to him that they don't have the intellectual courage to make in front of people who disagree with them.

What General Kelly is doing is serving the president well by saying, OK, I'm happy to have you carry forward to the president whatever it is you want to say, but you've got to be comfortable being in a room -- first you got to be prepared, and you got to know your facts, and we've got to send them to the president, and then you've got to be willing to stand up and make your argument in front of somebody who disagrees with you. And the president is better served when that kind of thing happens. Look, this shows President Trump did a fantastic thing when he pulled Kelly out of the department of homeland security and brought him to the west wing. This is exactly the kind of thing.

MACCALLUM: And you hear so much from people that work in the west wing, how much faith they have in him. And I think it was reassuring to some extent, I would imagine, to the American people to watch him, and to understand what they mean by that. And I think -- put him out there a little more often perhaps. Karl, thank you so much. Go ahead, quick thought.

ROVE: The chief of staff should be the person who's out there in the face. He's clearly uncomfortable.

(CROSSTALK)

ROVE: . but today was the right day and the right moment to say it.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Thank you very much, Karl. Good to see you, as always.

ROVE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So coming up here tonight, what is this special forces officer who was killed in action in Afghanistan have to do with why this family, who was freed this morning from five years of captivity by the Taliban, why they don't want to leave? We're going to explain the connection between those two pictures. General Jack Keane here to talk about the hostage release and what it says about President Trump and his relationship to Pakistan right now. All of that with General Keane. Plus, new controversy surrounding President Trump's response to Puerto Rico after it was devastated by Hurricane Maria. Is the criticism being waged against him fair? That debate straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So today, President Trump announced the release of an American woman and her family from captivity in Pakistan, but despite their newfound freedom, they refused to get on the plane to come back to the United States. Trace Gallagher joins us with this very interesting back story here. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Hi, Martha. Caitlan Coleman was 7 months pregnant when she and her husband, Josh Boyle, were abducted in Afghanistan in 2012 by the Haqqani network, a terror group with ties to the Taliban. Now, the couple and their three children, all born in captivity are free, but Josh Boyle is refusing to board an American military plane fearing that when he will arrive back in the U.S. he'll be arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay. It turns out Boyle was previously married to the sister of Omar Khadr, a Canadian man who joined al-Qaeda and killed a U.S. service member in 2002. So instead of coming back to the U.S., the family wants to board a commercial flight back to Canada. Apparently, the details are still being worked out. But today, the department of justice released a statement to CNN saying there are no charges pending against Josh Boyle, and the state department said the family was free to go wherever. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: The family, obviously, was in a very dire situation. You all have seen the videos of the family, and they were in distress. So when I say coming home, it doesn't mean here, necessarily.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yeah. You may recall the Boyles appeared in a video last year begging the Obama administration to negotiate their release, fearing they'd be killed by the Haqqani network. In the same video, Caitlan Coleman criticized both the American and Afghan governments for failing to free them. The details on the operation that did free them remain a bit mysterious. Pakistani forces say they conducted the operation based on U.S. intelligence, but U.S. officials tells Fox News they've been working on the release for a while, and were pressuring the Pakistani government. The U.S. insists no money changed hands and there was no quid pro quo.
Martha?

MACCALLUM: Quite a story. Trace, thank you so much. Here with more, General Jack Keane, chairman of the institute for the study of war, and a Fox News military analyst. General Keane, good to see you tonight.

JACK KEANE, FOX NEWS MILITARY ANALYST: Good to see you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: What do you make of that whole story?

KEANE: Well, something doesn't fit there. I can't quite put my finger on it. But listen, the good news is we got the families out of captivity. They've said they've gone through hell for 5 years. There are three births in captivity. We only can imagine with some of the medical conditions were surrounding all of that. So hopefully they'll get home to Canada, get home to the United States. Maybe that reassurance that the department of justice has given them will give them the impetus to come back to the United States, likely, probably, where they want to come. Why anybody would be in Afghanistan during a war zone.

MACCALLUM: Hiking at seven months pregnant.

KEANE: Seven months pregnant.

MACCALLUM: It's hard to imagine.

KEANE: . it's unbelievable.

MACCALLUM: All right. That being said, the president has suggested over the past 48 hours that there's a better relationship now, and he didn't name it as Pakistan at the time, but he said we have this improving relationship, they're doing something they would not have done in the past. And I want to play what he said back in August with regards to Pakistan. Here's President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan safe haven for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So these people were with the Haqqani network, -- was with them as well. The president wanted to change the dynamic. Has he succeeded?

KEANE: We don't know. And this is insufficient to be able to tell that, certainly. So our viewers truly understands what the Pakistan government and military has done for 13 years of this war is provide safe haven and sanctuary inside of Pakistan. And by that, I mean, is their military trains, assists, provides intelligence on operations we're conducting, resources to includes logistics and money, that has been going on throughout the entire length of the war. It's one of the reasons why the war is protracted.

Hundreds of soldiers have been killed and wounded as a result of this Pakistani activity. Two presidents have tried to get them to shut it down. They have not. They have not shut this down yet. And that's going to be the only test that we're succeeding. Certainly, we welcome home this family, and congratulations to those involved. But until those sanctuaries are shut down and the killing of Afghan soldiers, Afghan civilians, and U.S. soldiers stops as a result of it, then we'll know we've made a change.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Quick thought on Iran, the president is expected to decertify the deal tomorrow. Just give us a quick thought on that, general?

KEANE: Well, they're going to decertify it, pass it to the congress, give them 60 days to decide whether to impose sanctions or not. If they impose sanctions, the deal is dead. I think the White House is telling the congress don't impose sanctions. Give us some time for the congress, the White House and our allies to see if we can fix the deal. Fixing the deal is really hard, but they want to give it a try.

MACCALLUM: General Jack Keane, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir. Good to see you.

KEANE: Good talking to you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, President Trump's chief-of-staff John Kelly defending the administration's hurricane response to Puerto Rico.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Our country will stand with those American citizens in Puerto Rico until the job is done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: It comes after his boss set off a flurry of criticism for suggesting that fed's response is not unlimited. Was he wrong though? Charles Hurt and Juan Williams up next on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So President Trump catching more heat over his response to the devastation in Puerto Rico. Today, the house voted overwhelmingly to provide $36.5 billion in relief, which is part of what Puerto Rico wants. The president, for his part, adding we cannot keep FEMA, the military, and the first responders, who have been amazing under the most difficult circumstances, in Puerto Rico forever. To that, the Puerto Rico governor responded, the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico are requesting the support that any of our fellow citizens would receive across the nation. Joining us now, Fox News contributor and Washington Times columnist, Charles Hurt, and Juan Williams, cohost of The Five, and a Fox News political analyst. Gentlemen, thanks for being here. So Juan, is that wrong of the president to say they can't stay forever?

JUAN WILLIAMS, "THE FIVE" CO-HOST: Well, I think it's the wrong message, Martha. The tone from the president of the United States has to be that in a moment of crisis for Americans, he understands, despite any reservations he may have about infrastructure, and even the quality of the electric grid in Puerto Rico, that he understands this is a crisis and he is sensitive to people who are suffering and dying. And to suggest somehow this is just a matter of, oh, you're blowing up our budget, which is a comment he made earlier, seems insensitive.

MACCALLUM: Charlie, what do you think?

CHARLIE HURT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Juan is too decent to try to make political hay out of this, but the reporter at the White House today was eager to try to make politics out of it and suggest that somehow Donald Trump was seeking to abandon Puerto Rico or something like that. And it was a really funny exchange where General Kelly looked at her and said, what tweet are you talking about when she said that Trump wanted to abandon Puerto Rico. And she read the tweet to him, and he said you mean talking about the military and the first responders and FEMA who -- from the moment that they get there, they have to start working to try to extract themselves because their first responders. They're there -- they want to get out of the way so that the real rebuilding can happen.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. And the reality is that in any of these situations, they are never going to be there forever. One of the concerns for the FBI -- let's put this quote up, is that the complaints that they're hearing is that the mayors of local municipalities where people associated with their offices are giving their political supporters special treatment, goods that they're not giving to the people who need them. So these are concerns that there's corruption going on, graft going on in the distribution of all of these goods, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Well, you hear these kinds of stories coming out of every one of these crises, whether you're in Houston, or whether you're in Miami. I remember going back to '05 and Katrina, stories about looting and the like. But I don't think that's the heart and soul of this story, Martha. You know, to come back to what Charlie was talking about a moment ago, I think it's about people state -- the commitment from the federal government to stay until the needs of citizens who are in crisis are met. And I think that's what the governor has talked about. I think that's what the mayor.

MACCALLUM: I get that. And I understand the compassion side of it. But, you know, just to put this out there. In the past year, the big debate was that Puerto Rico was going bankrupt. There's a huge debate on the hill, should we bail them out, shouldn't we bail them out? There's all kinds of problems with their infrastructure, their economic management. They're doing a lousy job of running things on the island. And then all of a sudden, you know, this happens. And so, those two things do go together to some extent, don't they, Charlie?

HURT: There's no doubt about it. The real cruelty here is what has been allowed to happen in Puerto Rico over the decades. Now, we're looking at a place that has ten times the per capita debt of the average per capita debt of states. And then when you factor in, you know, what the ability, considering people's salary -- average salary there, their ability to pay off that debt, it becomes like 50 and 60 times as much. It's staggering. And so, the real cruelty is having allowed Puerto Rico to get into that sort of situation, and then to go around and have these reckless politicians talking about how we might bail them out, or the rest of America might bail out Puerto Rico, which is not going to happen. And all it does is leads to further, more bad behavior, and it puts them in a horrible, horrible situation that they're in now.

WILLIAMS: But Charlie, I mean, would you say that to an American city like Houston or New Orleans or Philly or Miami -- oh -- I don't like the way you been running this city, and therefore, when trouble hits, we're not going to be there to help your citizens? You know, I don't see it.

HURT: But that's what self-governance is. If you're the city of Chicago, you're going to have to figure these things out.

MACCALLUM: Gentlemen, thank you very much. Quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: That is our story for tonight. It continues tomorrow night right here at 7:00. We'd love to hear your stories. Tweet me @MarthaMaccallum, #TheStory. See you tomorrow night, everybody. Have a good one. Good luck to your baseball teams. Tucker is up next.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.