Liberal media say Trump is complicit in Khashoggi's death; 'Gosnell' star Dean Cain talks Rosie, Trump

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 19, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." We want to start tonight's program with a Fox News Alert.

Saudi Arabia has confirmed this evening the death of Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi. State-run media in the kingdom is reporting that Khashoggi was indeed killed. They said it happened in a fistfight at the Saudi Consulate in Turkey.

We'll try to explain what it all means just a minute from now. But first, an update on the facts of the case. Benjamin Hall is in Istanbul with those. Ben?

BENJAMIN HALL, FOX NEWS: Yes. Hi, Tucker. 17 long days, we've waited for this explanation. Now we are getting it today, and only a few days after Secretary Pompeo flew to Riyadh and demanded answers.

What Saudi state television and the Saudi prosecutors are telling us and what they're releasing publicly is that they have now arrested 18 individuals connected to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Now, the majority of those people, they say, were the same ones caught on CCTV in Istanbul entering the Consulate and then leaving shortly afterwards.

And what they say happened inside was a fight, effectively. I'll read you some of the statement. It says a discussion between Khashoggi and the people who met him, while at the Consulate, led to a fight and a clash with hands resulting in his death.

And that line, with hands, is very important. Remember, all the leaks we've heard from Turkey point towards torture, dismemberment, pulling off of fingers, so Saudi Arabia clearly trying to distance itself from the gruesome nature of this story that we've been hearing.

Now, among the 18 who have been arrested, five high-ranking figures, and this is crucial, among them, a man called General Asiri, he is the Deputy Head of Saudi intelligence. He had trained in the U.S. and the U.K. He was, in fact, the former spokesman for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, a major figure in Saudi intelligence. And alongside him, a senior aide to Mohammad Bin Salman, the Crown Prince. But that is as far as the connection to the Royal Family goes.

In fact, they are denying any involvement. In fact, they're saying that they have to push back on this, completely restructure the intelligence services in light of this. So they are coming with the line of total deniability.

Now, Saudi sources also saying that the King himself reached out to President Erdogan a couple of hours before this news broke. He wants to smooth over relationships with that country. The last two weeks have been torturous over here, geopolitical storm, and that he's trying to put to rest.

But the bigger question now, can he settle issues with the U.S.? We're waiting for a statement from the White House now. We are waiting for that. But what we have been hearing from on Twitter are a number of senators.

We've heard from Lindsey Graham. He isn't believing it. You remember a couple days ago, he came out firmly against Mohammad Bin Salman. Well he has been saying "To say I am skeptical -- skeptical of the Saudi narrative about Mr. Khashoggi is an understatement.

So, this may smooth over some of the cracks as far as regional politics go. Whether or not it has a lasting issue in the U.S., we just don't know yet. We are getting breaking news constantly. I'm speaking to Saudi sources.

This is the story we were expecting, the sense of this as an interrogation gone wrong, it was sanctioned by someone quite high-leveled, but not in the Royal Family, that's what we are getting now. We have to see how it plays out.

Is there lasting damage done between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, we have to see. One big question, where is the body? Who sanctioned it? Why did 15 of them go to the Consulate to interrogate one man? Those remain unanswered today. And we will try and bring you all of them as we get them from here.


CARLSON: Where's the body? Great question. Ben, thank you very much.

So there you have it. Khashoggi is, in fact, dead, as we have already been told, and the Saudis did it. They admit it now. What should we make of this?

Well the usual head-nodders on TV seem stunned by the news. They can hardly believe that a bloodthirsty medieval theocracy would do something like this.

"Really? The Saudis? The same people who cut off the hands of thieves and behead adulterers in public parks? The same regime that is currently prosecuting one of the world's cruelest wars in one of the world's poorest countries, Yemen? You're telling me these people murdered a political opponent? Doesn't sound like the Saudis we know."

Come on. Of course, they did it. We knew they did it. Their only concern was getting caught. Now they have been caught and they probably regret the whole thing. All of that makes sense. None of it is surprising.

What is confusing is the wave of false posturing on display from our own mindless ruling class. Khashoggi's death, they're telling us, is now somehow the most important story in the world, far more important than the many political murders China commits each year far more than Saudi Arabia, or the countless children the Saudis have bombed and starved to death in Yemen.

More than that, they're telling us it's a moral litmus test, the latest in a long series of moral litmus tests that are delivered to us by Fiat on cable news. Support this, don't support that, otherwise you're a bad person. That's the message of almost every show. Share my beliefs or you are damned.

Now, in this case, it's a little confusing because keep in mind these are the same people, the ones commanding you to hate the Saudis, who just months ago were uncritically repeating Saudi talking points right from the embassy.

Remember when we bombed Syria last spring, and bombed it before, the year before, well the Saudis pushed that. Everyone knew that. It might have been nice to hear that on television. We could have used some media skepticism at the time, but no.

Only this show pretty much brought that up. The rest of the press loved it. They love all wars, the more distant and the more pointless, the better. OK. But spare us the theatrics now. This is a stunt. It's an international incident hyped and manufactured for domestic political goals. Here are the goals. Watch this.


JASON JOHNSON, MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: The President is completely in the pocket of any other dictators in the world because he admires their ability to basically kill or tacitly allow the death of anybody who criticizes them.

FAREED RAFIQ ZAKARIA, CNN: When Donald Trump calls the press the enemy of the people--

And it's not implausible that the Saudis heard that and thought no one is going to care. After all these -- these -- these people are the enemies of the people.

STEPHEN EDWARD SCHMIDT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS STRATEGIST: And you see it with his complicity and it is complicity in the murder of a Washington Post columnist by a Middle-Eastern thug.


CARLSON: Spare me.

Meanwhile today, Congressman Joaquin Castro floated the bizarre theory that Khashoggi's murder was ordered by Jared Kushner. Even CNN seemed confused by this. Watch.


REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO, D-TEXAS: Let me get to the point that I think is most disturbing right now. The reporting that Jared Kushner may have, with U.S. intelligence, delivered a hit list, an enemies list, to the Crown Prince, to MBS, in Saudi Arabia, and that the Prince then may have acted on that, and one of the people that he took action against was Mr. Khashoggi.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN: Just to be clear Congressman, we don't have--

CASTRO: And if that's the case--

HARLOW: --I just want to be clear for our viewers we do not have that reporting.


CARLSON: Yes. That's a sitting Member of Congress who just said that. These are not serious people. They know nothing. They will say anything. They are buffoons. Spare us the lectures, please. We'll have more on news from Saudi Arabia in just a few minutes.

But first, another Fox News Alert for you. Mexican authorities are trying to stop a caravan of migrants headed north to the United States. That may literally be beyond their power. Trace Gallagher has the latest on that story. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: And Tucker, it's impossible to get an accurate count because the caravan is spreading out. But we still believe there are between 3,000 and 4,000 Honduran and Salvadoran immigrants heading north. And right now, at Guatemala's border with Mexico, there are thousands of migrants waiting in line trying to cross one of two bridges that lead into Mexico.

Now earlier, they broke a gate and tried to push their way into the country. And in spite of Mexican police and military using smoke canisters to push them back, many of them, as you can see, kind of got through.

Mexico has now told the United States it would put up shelters meaning tents along their border with Guatemala. And Mexican authorities say they're allowing 100 migrants per day to come into Mexico. Those people are being told they want to seek asylum.

If they do so, Mexican government's saying they need to stay in a government shelter or charity shelter, and their applications will be processed within 45 days. Now, if they leave, and roam the country, they forfeit their asylum request and could be deported.

Today, after meeting with President Pena Nieto, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this. Watch.


SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO: This is -- this is an organized effort to come through and violate the sovereignty of Mexico. And so, we're prepared to do all that we can to support the decisions that Mexico makes about how they're going to address this very serious and important issue.


GALLAGHER: But reports on the ground show that most of these Central American migrants are trying to come to the United States. President Trump, of course, has vowed to use the military to shut down the border, if needed.


CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thanks a lot for that update.

Meanwhile, the mid-term elections are around the corner, 18 days from right now, and the central question remaining isn't just who will win Congress, whether the Democratic Party will remain a legitimate political organization or become something else entirely?

Elements of the Democratic coalition are becoming radical. Some are threatening violence, some are advocating violence. Others are taking the next step and engaging in violence. Even the party's leaders, those with the deepest ties to the establishment and the most to lose are suddenly saying things that would have been unimaginable just a year ago.

Here, for example, is Nancy Pelosi. Watch her explain that people will be hurt in order to achieve the Democratic Party's goals, and that's OK. Watch.


HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: We have to have total clarity about what we do, when it comes to everything, a woman's right to choose--

--whether it's about immigration, whether it's about gun safety, whether it's about climate, we even talk about climate--

--and if there's some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it.


CARLSON: Collateral damage, she's talking about you. You're collateral damage in Pelosi's remarkably direct calculation. Thanks for telling us.

You're one of those people in the way. You're an inconvenience who'll be crushed beneath the wheels of progress when it comes right down to it where you're one of those infamous eggs that must be broken to make the world's greatest omelet.

Just today, by the way, a New York man called Ronald DeRisi was charged for threatening senators Chuck Grassley and Susan Collins with death. Why? Because they dared to support the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, they were in the way.

So did the woman in this video. She was in the way too. She made the mistake of wearing an NYPD hat in the presence of a Leftist. Watch what happened when she did.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are you trying to block me? I'm (BEEP) trying to walk here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't like traveling sneakers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're a (BEEP) snarky little (BEEP) idiot. Shut the (BEEP) up.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not. I'm not going to punch you. I'm not like your husband. I'm not going to punch you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not like your boyfriend or your cop boyfriend who's going to (BEEP) knock you out, so don't worry--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My husband died 9/11.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good for him. Good. Good.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's your point --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those NY -- NYPD were a bunch of (BEEP) sodomizing (BEEP) sodomizing immigrants with their bully sticks. So yes, you're (BEEP). Your husband should probably--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are you saying?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --(BEEP) just rot in the grave.


CARLSON: I'm glad your husband died in 9/11, says the representative of the Youth Wing of the Democratic Party.

Ann Coulter has been watching moments like these for the past three years and writing about them. Her new book is called Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, and she joins us tonight in studio.

Ann, it's great to see you.


CARLSON: So, what does the Democratic Party look like 19 days from now? How do they put this all back together? They've gone -- they showed us who they are. What are they when the smoke clears?

COULTER: I wouldn't judge how they do this fall by -- assume that these comments are beloved by the people. I mean I think people have to remember, a Blue Wave is the historic norm right now.


COULTER: It's very possible they'll take control of the House, luckily, and I think a lot because of what -- some of the things you just showed and, of course, the reaction to Justice Kavanaugh.

I -- doesn't look like they're going to take the U.S. Senate. But they -- they ought to be having a huge Blue Wave, and they probably won't have it because of -- because they're insane. They've gone mad. They're not--

CARLSON: But the people who run the party who are vested in it --


CARLSON: --I mean the people who hold office or who, you know, whose livelihoods depends on the Democratic Party, I mean they must be getting nervous because they can't control their base.

COULTER: No, they do this all the time. I mean they did it after Ferguson in order to help the Democrats win an election. They are willing to gin up race hatred as they did after what happened in Ferguson. They're willing, at this point, after Kavanaugh and continuing until the election to gin up mentally ill women, and they can't control them.

I mean once they've done it they just walk away, and you have -- I mean you've -- you've seen the statistics on the Ferguson effect written about by -- by Heather Mac Donald among others that the Black -- the rate of Blacks being murdered went up astronomically after Ferguson and, particularly, in cities where there was an alleged police racist shooting.

Incidentally, I've noticed that police suddenly stopped engaging in racist attacks on -- on Black people once they started wearing body cameras. You notice how they find -- they just sort of went away?

CARLSON: I did notice that.

COULTER: The ACLU was actually suing some cities to make them stop wearing body cameras because they keep getting caught making false allegations of a racist cop, as -- as a Princeton woman did. A Princeton professor made a false allegation of a cop, racist cop I mean ha-ha, there was a body camera, utter complete lie.

CARLSON: Does the Democratic Party ever become the Democratic Party of 2012 or 1998 or kind of a party concerned with, you know, economics and something other than identity politics?

COULTER: It doesn't look like it. There was an interesting article, you won't hear these words come out of my mouth very often, in the New York Times this week by Thomas Edsall breaking down all of these polls on how the Democratic Party has changed.

And it is, I've just noticed looking at or remembered it looking at Nancy Pelosi, White Liberal women have just gone off the charts on -- on Left-wing craziness, and it has nothing to do with economics.

The Democratic Party, as some of us kind of noticed, during the Clinton era, that was when it was -- began during the Clinton era, just abandoned the working-class, abandoned the flyover people, it is pedal to the metal on identity politics, and -- and, you know, the yuppie lifestyle.

CARLSON: Right. Lemons and Moran --

COULTER: It's basically the party of--

CARLSON: --in Georgetown.

COULTER: --yuppies and welfare recipients--

CARLSON: You know, that's exactly -- that's exactly--

COULTER: --that's the motto of Democratic Party.

CARLSON: --that's never been put more crisply or truly. Ann Coulter--

COULTER: Thank you.

CARLSON: --Resistance is Futile is her excellent book. Thank you.

Well the wife of DoJ official Bruce Ohr appeared on Capitol Hill today. She testified about her work with Fusion GPS. We have details from that after the break.


CARLSON: Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts assumed she'd be a progressive hero on Monday when she released DNA test results showing that it's possible she might have a tiny amount of American Indian blood or maybe it was from South America. Not clear.

Instead, she was ridiculed. Even the Cherokee Nation said she was quote, hurting tribal interests by doing this. But then the Cherokee Nation made a mistake. As someone called Zerlina Maxwell at NBC -- MSNBC explained, there's only one possible explanation for any group criticizing a Democrat.

Do you know what it is? We're going to give you one guess. What's the explanation? Oh, racist, of course. Watch.


ZERLINA MAXWELL, AMERICAN POLITICAL ANALYST: The Cherokee Nation response was problematic because it actually ignores the fact that DNA testing historically has been used to exclude Black natives from tribal affiliation. And so, that history has been completely lost in this entire conversation, and that's potentially very unfortunate.


CARLSON: So, the Cherokee Nation is racist for criticizing Elizabeth Warren, who's way whiter than you are because it's not racist to make up a bogus racial identity to game the system, and advance your career. But if you call someone out for that, who's a sitting Democrat, that's real racism. So, just be sure to update your definitions tonight.

Meanwhile, the wife of Senior DoJ official Bruce Ohr appeared on Capitol Hill today. Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election cycle when her husband met with Christopher Steele about the infamous Trump dossier.

But during her testimony to a House panel today, Nellie Ohr invoked spousal privilege in order to limit what she told lawmakers. Was she right to do that? What didn't she say?

Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School. He's been watching all of this closely and joins us tonight. Professor, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON: I assume it's legitimate to invoke spousal privilege. It sounds legitimate to me anyway as a non-lawyer. What do you think she was hoping not to say?

TURLEY: Well it's pretty rare to have a spousal claim raised particularly with all the advancement that women have -- have been able to achieve to have someone in an important position refuse to answer questions from an Oversight Committee by returning to a spousal status is problematic because this -- there's serious questions that have been raised here, conflicts in the testimony that people have cited with -- with regard to her husband.

What we really already have to find out is what is the real record here? When were contacts made? Who was the -- who were the people that presented this information that ultimately went to the FISA Court? None of those questions are being answered right now.

CARLSON: So you do make a, I think, a great point, which is, if she's saying she can't answer questions to an oversight body, Congressional oversight body because she's -- it's her husband and they're too close and they -- they shouldn't be required to violate the privacy that exists between them, then was it appropriate for them to be working even indirectly in a government setting which they were?

TURLEY: Well that's the problem is that you seem to have sort of alternative reasoning. You can claim the Fifth. And if I don't use the Fifth, he's my spouse. And if he's not my -- his spouse, I'm his minister, something along those lines.

You know, she hasn't claimed the full array. But the point is still that there's information that an Oversight Committee requires. I honestly don't know I -- how serious these allegations are. I -- I think--


TURLEY: --we should know. I -- we -- we do need some of these -- these answers. Now, Mr. Ohr has made statements about when he first interacted with this company on this -- this issue that seem to be in contradiction with -- with the statements of other witnesses. That's always a serious problem for Congress.

Now, the -- the fact is his wife was an officer of that company, was an employee of that company directly involved in these allegations. And if we now are going to have spousal immunity claims, it really creates a serious problem in terms of having, you know, couples each for their own merit achieving positions of authority, if we have to face these types of spousal claims.

CARLSON: Well yes, especially when you have a law enforcement agency going to Hillary Clinton's oppo people for information. Right, that winds up at the basis of criminal investigation. It's a problem. Professor, thank you very much for that--

TURLEY: Thank--

CARLSON: --very clear explanation. I appreciate it.

TURLEY: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well female athletes increasingly finding themselves outclassed by biological men in their sports. What is the future of women's sports in the age of transgenderism? It's a real question. And we're going to ask it next.

"Ship of Fools" is Number One in the New York Times bestseller list. It explains how Washington elites have abandoned the interests of everyone else. Grab a copy, any bookstore.


CARLSON: Well the age of female athletics may be coming to an end. A new age is upon us, the age of the transgender athlete. Rachel McKinnon, a biological male has just become the first transgender person to win a World Title in cycling.

On Sunday, McKinnon won the women's 35-44 sprint at the World Championships in Los Angeles. The third-place finisher on that race has publicly complained that the result was unfair. McKinnon replied by denouncing this person for transphobia, which is almost always the way it goes. Don't respond on the merits, attack the motives.

Amy Peikoff is a feminist, a talk show host, and blogs at, and she joins us tonight. Amy, thanks a lot for coming on.

AMY PEIKOFF, WRITER, BLOGGER: Hi, thanks for having me on. It's good to be here.

CARLSON: Oh I just want to get your take on this. So look, women's athletics exists in a separate category for a biological reason--


CARLSON: --because women on average, not all, but on average, are differently built.


CARLSON: And so, this seems like a huge challenge to the idea of women's athletics. And yet, none of the people whose job it is to defend women, they tell us, are saying anything about it. Why is that?

PEIKOFF: I don't know why it is because I myself I believe that it's a wonderful thing that most of our societies today allow for women to compete in athletics because it gives you, you know, the thrill of competition, a great sense of accomplishment plus all the benefits--


PEIKOFF: --of exercise--


PEIKOFF: --and everything else. And this enterprise depends on segregating women for what it is. Why, because women are on average less strong than men are--


PEIKOFF: --we have less muscle mass. And so, there really is an issue here. And I'll get into the science a little if you give me a chance. But one thing I want to say overall is Professor McKinnon, I disagree with her about what a right to compete is.

I don't understand it the way that she does. A right to compete does not entail the right to have an organization host a competition that is willing to accept you as a competitor. If those exist out there, it's great. And I'm, as I said, I'm very happy that we do have--


PEIKOFF: --women's competition and I think we should--

CARLSON: --but what would happen should the WNBA--

PEIKOFF: --preserve it.

CARLSON: --if men describe themselves -- biological men, and I don't want to get into the -- I mean, you know, call yourself whatever you want but there is -- biology is real. And if biological men compete then I mean that disenfranchises the women who make real salaries.

PEIKOFF: Yes. I mean I'm going to call them transgender females because in general I'm supportive of transgenders. And I've got quite a bit of education about it from a great blogger. He goes by HD. He has a blog called Hormones Demystified.

And he, you know, first of all told me that this is a real condition. But he also pointed me to some research. And, you know, Tucker, there's very little research that is quantitative in terms of the amount of muscle mass that transgender females retain even after going through, you know, treatment--

CARLSON: Well but wouldn't you want to do--

PEIKOFF: --hormone therapy.

CARLSON: --I mean I think the essence of what you just said there's very little research. We don't know--

PEIKOFF: Right. And -- and there is one study. And the one study that does exist shows that transgender females retain more muscle mass than biological females who haven't gone through any hormone--

CARLSON: Well of course they do.

PEIKOFF: --treatment.



CARLSON: --why wouldn't the people in charge of protecting women from unfair competition be standing up and saying, "I'm sorry, my job is to protect women." Where are the--

PEIKOFF: I -- I think -- I think--

CARLSON: --protectors?

PEIKOFF: --because so many of them are liberal-minded and they have in mind this overall right to compete again, the idea that everybody who wants to compete has a right to be allowed to participate in a competition--


PEIKOFF: --of their choice perhaps.

CARLSON: But there were -- the rights of everyone else also, I would say, play a role but not in this case. Amy--


CARLSON: --thank you for that smart explanation of it.

PEIKOFF: Thank you.

CARLSON: Appreciate it.

We have more on Saudi Arabia's admission that they did in fact kill Jamal Khashoggi. It's the biggest story in the world. Why is that exactly?

Plus, it's been two years. Rosie O'Donnell still has not recovered from the election. Say a prayer for her. We'll show you her meltdown just ahead.


ROSEANN O'DONNELL, ACRTRESS: We are going to right the ship. There's no way that he's going to prevail. Because he's evil, he's dark. It's the opposite of what America stands for.



CARLSON: This is a Fox News Alert. Saudi Arabia has admitted tonight that missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi is, in fact, dead. They concede that he was killed by Saudis during what they said was a fistfight in their Consulate in Turkey.

Well the Saudis blame what you just heard. A lot of the Left has decided that President Trump is to blame somehow though there's no evidence he was in the Consulate when the killing took place.

Chris Hahn is an attorney, radio show host, and former staffer to Senator Chuck Schumer, he joins us tonight. Chris, great to see you. We're all very anti-Saudi now. I was --


CARLSON: --someone who's been anti -- anti-Saudi for a long time, it's nice to have some company. Where were all these chest-beaters last spring when the United States bombed Syria in part at the direction of Saudi Arabia?

And everybody on the Left, including your former boss Chuck Schumer, said "Oh, no it's a very good idea to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia." But now, anyone who says anything about Saudi Arabia is immoral like how did that change exactly?

HAHN: Look, I have always been concerned with Saudi Arabia. I'm a New Yorker who worked in the United States Senate after 9/11, and I don't trust them.

They gave aid and comfort to -- to the people who bombed us, and I don't understand how we're looking at what MBS did to Khashoggi be any differently than we're looking at out -- what al-Qaeda did to Daniel Pearl. This is an act of terror and it needs to be dealt with that way.

Now, as for Trump's role on this, he has been--

CARLSON: Wait, wait, hold on, wait, it needs to be --

HAHN: --very weak--

CARLSON: --hold on, wait, stop, stop, stop, stop, wait, before you get all the -- all the Trump whatever, he's sucking up to dictators, right, says the party that sucks up to China, anyway, no, but sincere question, has to be dealt with how? So, you're pushing for, I guess, another war, this one against the Saudis?

HAHN: No, I'm not--

CARLSON: Tell us all the new words that we need.

HAHN: --I think that -- I--

CARLSON: OK. Oh, it sounds like--

HAHN: --I think that we need to insist--

CARLSON: --you are--

HAHN: --look, we have a lot -- we have a lot of leverage over Saudi Arabia, especially in their security in the Middle East. And we need to as -- insist that this man is not installed permanently on the throne. He's right now the Crown Prince. Obviously, the -- the King is -- is--

CARLSON: Oh, so we're going to de-stabilize -- this is like foreign--

HAHN: --is acknowledge to be the position --

CARLSON: --policy by cable news, my favorite kind. So how -- what happens when the Saudi kingdom--

HAHN: --well rocking --

CARLSON: --the Royal Family no longer controls -- I know we are -- controls their own--

HAHN: Yes--

CARLSON: --country like what would happen if the Saudi--

HAHN: --well -- last -- last--

CARLSON: --Royal Family collapsed? What did like -- what do you think would the aftermath would look like?

HAHN: --last I checked -- last I checked, there's about 40 other princes in Saudi Arabia that they can choose from. In fact, MBS wasn't even originally in line for the throne. And I don't think it's up to us to support dictators and terrorists. And I'm sorry. What he did to Khashoggi--


HAHN: --was not just about Khashoggi, it was about every journalist who threatened him anywhere in the world, and this is something--

CARLSON: How are journalists in China, hold on--

HAHN: --that needs to be dealt with an act of terror --

CARLSON: --how are -- how are journalists holding --

HAHN: --and the President of the United States--

CARLSON: --well --

HAHN: --the President of the United States--

CARLSON: --all right --

HAHN: --exactly very weak here --

CARLSON: --yes, so well please save me the moral posturing--

HAHN: --in his -- in his treatment --

CARLSON: --it's disgusting actually.

HAHN: --of these guys--

CARLSON: Let me just ask -- no, no, I -- I just wonder what the standards are here. So obviously, journalists in China are killed far more often than they're killed in Saudi Arabia, obviously. China being--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --a huge funder and supporter of the Democratic Party, and -- and a favorite of the Democratic Party. Are we going to apply these new standards--

HAHN: I -- I -- I don't know where you get that from--

CARLSON: --to China?

HAHN: --but OK.

CARLSON: Oh, really?

HAHN: Look, I think that we should--

CARLSON: Maybe I should show you the tape of Dianne Feinstein--

HAHN: --stand up for -- I think we should stand up for our values--

CARLSON: --pledging allegiance to China.

HAHN: --we -- we should stand up for--

CARLSON: --OK. So, across the board, it doesn't matter.

HAHN: --our values wherever they are threatened, anywhere. We should take - - look, Khashoggi was an American permanent resident. And our law treats permanent residents the same as it does citizens. And this President should respond--

CARLSON: So but--

HAHN: --the same way. He killed somebody--

CARLSON: OK. Right, so--

HAHN: --who was under our protection. And if the President doesn't respond- -

CARLSON: --but cool it, cool it--

HAHN: --it's because he's weak.

CARLSON: --with the moral outrage, OK? I'm -- I think we're all little sick of it--

HAHN: Well how can we not be outraged?

CARLSON: --all of this moral outrage stuff--

HAHN: --how can we not be outraged?

CARLSON: Well, I don't know there because--

HAHN: Are you not outraged by this?

CARLSON: --there's this -- there's, you know, there's a long list of things to be outraged by. How about the war in Yemen, which the Saudis have been prosecuting, which killed untold children? I don't remember you--

HAHN: Yes, I'm outraged by--

CARLSON: --holding a press conference to express outrage about that.

HAHN: --that too.

CARLSON: Oh, you are? OK.

HAHN: I am outraged by that too but we're talking about--


HAHN: --this tonight, Tucker. And I want to know if you think the Khashoggi killing is different than the Daniel Pearl's killing because I don't think it is.

CARLSON: Of course, I--

HAHN: Is it?

CARLSON: --it's kind of -- look, I'm not defending --

HAHN: Is it?

CARLSON: I think this -- I think the--

HAHN: Tell me.

CARLSON: --Saudi government is medieval and terrifying. I think it's different in like 50 ways. It's so stupid --

HAHN: Yes. They are. You're right.

CARLSON: --I -- I'm not sure how to respond to --

HAHN: We are agreeing--

CARLSON: --that question --

HAHN: --we are -- we are in--


HAHN: --we are in mutual agreement, Tucker. I agree with you.

CARLSON: All right, all right.

HAHN: I do not like what's going on there. I don't like well a lot of things going around--

CARLSON: All right.

HAHN: --look we have a lot of leverage over the Saudis, and we should use it.

CARLSON: OK. Yes, all right, new war. Thanks, Chris.

HAHN: Thanks.

CARLSON: Glenn Greenwald co-founded The Intercept. He just published a piece on what he says is the Washington Post hypocrisy about Saudi -- Saudi Arabia. He joins us tonight.

So Glenn, before I ask you about the piece that you wrote, unravel this for me, and I just want to be totally clear. I've never been on the side of Saudi Arabia. I hate how they're controlling our foreign policy, particularly in Syria. But why the outrage about this now? I'm -- I'm a little confused by it.

GLENN GREENWALD, THE INTERCEPT CO-FOUNDER: The Saudis have been murdering journalists, murdering dissidents for decades. They've been doing it at a heightened rate for the last two years.

As you just said, the Obama Administration was arming the Saudis in order to create the worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen by slaughtering civilians by the thousands, imposing famine conditions on millions. The Trump Administration has done the same.

The reason people in Washington suddenly decided that they're angry about Saudi Arabia is because this time their victim is somebody who they ran into in Washington restaurants and who is popular in Washington social circles.

That's the reality. They didn't care at all when victims of Saudi Arabia by the hundreds of thousands were people that they didn't like or didn't care. It's just this time they killed one of their friends.

CARLSON: How deep would you say? Give us a quick overview of how deep the ties between the Saudi Royal Family and official Washington go, including in the journalistic establishment in Washington?

GREENWALD: It's impossible to overstate. When the Crown Prince came here he was -- had the red carpet rolled out for him by Hollywood. He met with Oprah, by Silicon Valley, he met with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, by -- in - - in Washington, he met with the leaders of all the parties.

Saudi Arabia has been a critical financial partner and military partner for the U.S. for a long time. The interests go so deep in Wall Street, in the defense industry.

And then, as it turns out, even the Washington Post, as they were going around demanding that everybody sever all ties with Saudi Arabia because it's immoral now that they've killed one of their journalists, had on their staff two writers who both work at lobbying firms that had extremely lucrative contracts with the Saudi government.

So, the Washington Post was paying people unbeknownst to the readers to publish articles at the same time that they were getting paid by the Saudis to do messaging and other lobbying work for that same regime.

CARLSON: Can you, very quickly, tell us who they are so those of us who read the Post can know that as we assess their writing?

GREENWALD: Yes. I mean they -- the -- the two of them are Carter Eskew who was the top-level Gore advisor back in 2000, who formed the Glover Park Group, which is, mostly Democratic elites.

And the other one is Ed Rogers, a long-time Republican operative, who is a Founding Partner in Haley Barbour's form -- the firmer -- former Head of the RNC, who was in charge of communications for the Saudis in Washington.

And they were both Washington Post writers for a long time now unbeknownst to readers. And they were only told that they had to get rid of their Saudi contracts once we published our article by the Washington Post. But so many major media outlets, including all the cable news show net -- networks, have regular commentators who work for--

CARLSON: I'm sure.

GREENWALD: --consulting and lobbying firms who are paid to disseminate messaging unbeknownst to the people who are hearing them. And it's a--

CARLSON: Exactly.

GREENWALD: --it should be a huge journalism scandal.

CARLSON: The totally fearless Glenn Greenwald, thank you, as always.

GREENWALD: Thanks Tucker.

CARLSON: With the mid-term elections closing in, one New York Times Editorial Board member has a simple request for Hillary Clinton. "Please be quiet. It's not helping." That's next.

Clinton's 2016 defeat to Donald Trump and Washington's reaction to it expose the way that people in charge really feel about you. They have total contempt. That's described in great detail in a new book "Ship of Fools."


CARLSON: Hillary Clinton failed the Democratic Party two years ago but she's been determined to remain in the public eye ever since. Now, the New York Times Editorial Board is fed up with it.

In an opinion piece, Board member, Michelle Cottle, complains about Clinton's "Master class in distraction." She says Clinton's recent stunts, her attacks on civility, for example, are diluting the party's message and could cause them to suffer more defeats at the ballot box. In short, Hillary, please go away for just a few minutes.

Dave Rubin hosts "The Rubin Report," and he joins us tonight. What do you make -- great to see you, by the way.

DAVID RUBIN, 'THE RUBIN REPORT': Good to see you, my friend.

CARLSON: One of the benefits of being in Los Angeles is you're on the set. What do you make of Hillary Clinton with -- I mean she is still the standard-bearer of the party, isn't she? She was the last nominee.

RUBIN: Yes. I mean look, this line about civility that we can no longer be civil with our political opinions -- opponents, think about what that really means. I mean just word it differently. We should start being uncivil, right?


RUBIN: That -- that's what she's really saying. So what are -- what does that really mean? Hunt them down in -- in restaurants, find them--


RUBIN: --in elevators, go to their jobs, should we stop them on the road? I mean where does this go? The thing that we have in America is that we can do this. Every night, you, Tucker Carlson, can argue with someone about something political --


RUBIN: --and it doesn't get violent, and you wrap it up at the end of the day, and you go home and you do it again the next day. Civility is all we have. And they're making it very clear. And this is something I -- I say this as someone that was on the Left my whole life, I've never--


RUBIN: --voted -- I think one time in my life I have voted for a Republican, which was Mike Bloomberg at his third term in New York City a long time ago, and that's really a hazy Republican--

CARLSON: Yes, it is.

RUBIN: --situation, right?

So I say this as someone that's been trying to call it out from what I considered my side for a long time. It's like "Guys, let's -- let's rein this back in a little bit because what is after civility," and -- and I think we both know what it is and -- and it's pretty dangerous.

CARLSON: I wonder if she does.

RUBIN: I think they've realized that they've lost control of the party. The -- the Clinton machine doesn't have control of the party anymore. The party's going through this democratic socialist or socialist democrat, whatever this thing they'll -- they'll drop the Democrat part soon enough--


RUBIN: --and she's trying to grab anything that'll make her feel relevant again. And she's not really that relevant and, in a weird way, she has to get out of way for this other thing to -- to take over. Not that I think the other thing is great because, believe me, I -- I actually think this other thing, the -- the more far Left-wing in the party is much worse. I think we're going to --

CARLSON: Oh, I'd take Hillary Clinton any day over some of these people.

RUBIN: --we're -- we're going to look back and go, "Man, the Clintons were the good old days." And I say this -- I voted for Bill Clinton twice, OK? So, Hillary, they're losing control and that's why Eric Holder when they're -- when they go low, we kick them, all of these things, these are not coincidences.


RUBIN: This is not, you know, Maxine Waters find them and -- and hunt them down or whatever she said, and Cory Booker did the same thing. And I've seen articles about you. You know, find Tucker Carlson in a restaurant. He's so upset that he won't be able to go to a restaurant.

And it's like if that's where we're at, we will look back and go, man, we - - we really screwed up the most beautiful experiment that has ever been done--

CARLSON: I -- I agree.

RUBIN: --in -- in -- in world history, about how do you get different people from all over the world to come together and live together. We've done it right here. And it doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone. It doesn't mean that there aren't some racists.

It doesn't mean that -- that we have class issues and -- and economic issues, and all sorts of things. But if we don't pull back this thing, it would be--

CARLSON: I agree.

RUBIN: --much worse. And it will be much worse faster than anyone can imagine.

CARLSON: It's totally right because it's more fragile than we acknowledge.


CARLSON: Dave Rubin, great to see you. Thank you--

RUBIN: Likewise my friend.

CARLSON: --very much.

Rosie O'Donnell has been in a long-running, mostly one-sided, battle with Donald Trump for many years. We'll end this week with the highlights of what she recently said because while disturbing, also kind of amusing.


O'DONNELL: This is not Russia.


O'DONNELL: To Donald Trump and his pathetic band of White, privileged, criminal businessmen--


O'DONNELL: --I would like to say to him, "Nyet, sir! Nyet! Nyet! Nyet!"



CARLSON: Rosie O'Donnell really, really hates Trump. But unlike most people in her world, who really hate Trump, she can credibly claim it's not a new thing. She's been hating Trump for many years, but she's no closer to winning that debate.

Yesterday in MSNBC, Rosie showed she still has not recovered from the 2016 election. Here's part of it.


O'DONNELL: We are going to right the ship. There's no way that he's going to prevail. Because he's evil, he's dark. It's the opposite of what America stands for.

I always thought why didn't they count to program his rallies? This is not CS rallies.

When he was elected, what I wrote on Twitter was we should impose Martial law till we make sure that the Russians weren't involved in the final tallies of the votes.



O'DONNELL: I would have sent the military to the White House to get him--

SCHMIDT: No ha-ha --

O'DONNELL: --until we got to the truth.


CARLSON: Martial law. Nicolle Wallace thinks that's a good idea.

Dean Cain is an actor, joins us tonight. You know, Dean, you've been here all your life. Obviously, you're a famous actor. If I were running the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, I would call Rosie O'Donnell and say, "You know, pull back a little. Martial law, really" You're embarrassing us."

DEAN CAIN, ACTOR: Yes, well, I mean that thing was a joke she said about sending the military over to get him out of the -- out of the White House.


CAIN: It was a joke, a thinly veiled joke. But when she did say, you know, she wanted -- she tweeted Martial law, you know, impose Martial law until we're sure the Russians had nothing to do that -- that was insane. I mean that's a coup. That's a coup.

CARLSON: Well it is insane.

CAIN: It's crazy.

CARLSON: So what I mean but don't other people in her world say, "Look Rosie, I get it. You don't like Trump. You're Liberal. OK, fine. But you're discrediting yourself and the rest of us by acting like a mental patient on TV. Don't do that."

CAIN: Well that sounds entirely reasonable, Tucker. Why would something like that happen? Good riddle --

CARLSON: No, I guess -- I guess that's right.

CAIN: --that's completely reasonable. No, I -- you know, I -- I know Rosie. I -- I knew her back in her show--


CAIN: --back in the day and we are very friendly and wonderful. I don't know that she would talk to me now. But I -- I disagree with her.


CAIN: And I would be happy to sit across her and say, "I disagree." And -- and even on that show, all they did was laugh and they're all in the same - - what -- why didn't anybody offer a dissenting opinion and say, well that doesn't make any sense--

CARLSON: You know, why didn't Nicolle Wallace say--

CAIN: --it didn't --

CARLSON: --really, Martial law?

CAIN: I mean because that's -- because that's --

CARLSON: Seems a little odd I know--

CAIN: --the state --

CARLSON: So, how often do you hear stuff like that here at dinner?

CAIN: Monday through Sunday.

CARLSON: Monday through Sunday.

CAIN: Sundays and I just won't go to dinner, so I'll -- I'll miss it that night.

CARLSON: So it's just -- it's ubiquitous--

CAIN: It -- it -- it's constant.

CARLSON: here.

CAIN: And I -- I hear in every film set. I hear it all the time. But here's the funny thing. I'll hear it from some of the actors but then we'll go through and we're shooting something, you know, the grip, give me a little bump --


CAIN: --they're "Hey, I'm with you. I know. I'm with--

CARLSON: So, how--

CAIN: --you there."

CARLSON: --that's such an interesting point. And I've noticed this exact thing. How different are the political views of the crews that sometimes unionized wage-earning crews from those of the celebrities working on the set?

CAIN: I would say they're diametrically opposed. That's been my experience and I've only been doing this for about 40 years or so--

CARLSON: Yes, so, don't--

CAIN: So it's easy --

CARLSON: --don't the actors at some point say, "I'm supposed to be on the side of the average person, the underdog. I'm surrounded by underdogs, people making a hundredth of what I make, but I hate them for their views." Is there any like dissonance?

CAIN: No, they don't hear that. No, because actors are, you know, we hear - - all we hear is what we want to hear most of the time. I'm not really -- I'm putting myself in that camp because I am an actor--


CAIN: --but I'm, you know, I'm a Princeton educated kid. I -- I travel the world. I -- I do things that I think have some -- some -- some substance in them. I talk to--


CAIN: --world leaders. I'm in bad places. But lot of these people they, you know, you're coddled as an actor. So and you're told, you know, oh you're so great all the time that that people start to believe it and they start to believe that their opinion means more than the guy who's, you know -- you know, clapping the--

CARLSON: Yes. I mean if you're making $10 million--

CAIN: --the -- the -- the clapperboard there.

CARLSON: --a year and denouncing your cameraman as immoral, maybe you would get some self-awareness I think --

CAIN: Or -- or at least, you know, out-of-focus sure.

CARLSON: Yes. Dean Cain, great to see you.

CAIN: Tucker, always a pleasure sir.

CARLSON: Thank you.

That is it for us for tonight and for the week. We'll be back on Monday, the show that is the sworn and cheerful enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. DVR it if you can crack that mystery. Good night from Los Angeles.

"Hannity" is next. More than anything, have a great and restful weekend. Put down the screen and enjoy your family. See you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.