President Trump and Speaker Pelosi trade 'meltdown' insults

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," October 17, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JESSE WATTERS, HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Jesse Watters along with Emily Compagno, Juan Williams, Martha MacCallum, and Greg. It's 5 o'clock in New York City, and this is “The Five.”

President Trump declaring a big win for America as Turkey agrees to a 120 hour ceasefire in Syria, ending the violence between that country and the Kurds. Here's the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: This is an amazing outcome. Now, this was something that they've been trying to get for ten years. You would have lost millions and millions of lives. They couldn't get it without a little rough love, as I called it. The process started and we started to negotiate. It's a great day for the United States. It's a great day for Turkey. The Kurds were great. A great day for the Kurds. It's really a great day for civilization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: This comes as chaos erupts on Capitol Hill when top Democrats stormed out of the White House meeting on Syria, leading to a war of words between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi. They're accusing each other of having a meltdown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: Why are our troops going to Saudi Arabia if we promised to bring them home? He said the Saudi Arabians are paying for it, really? We're putting our troops in harm's way for Saudi Arabia because they're paying -- it just didn't add up. And what it did do was cause a meltdown on the part of the president because he was unhappy with that -- those questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: President Trump tweeted this photo calling out, quote, nervous Nancy's unhinged meltdown. And she made it her twitter cover photo. Meanwhile, the media are predictably slamming Trump and praising Nancy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should Americans be worrying about the behavior of President Trump?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, look at that photo of one woman standing up and, you know, giving it to the President of the United States at a table with all men.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president who surrendered again to Putin, who surrendered again to Syria, who has surrendered again to Iran. And I just want you to look at the people on the president's side of the table, the generals, the congressman, the leaders, bowing their heads in shame.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Let's now take it to our chief meltdown correspondent, Greg Gutfeld. What say you, Greg?

GREG GUTFELD, HOST: I love how -- was that Joe Scarborough?

WATTERS: Yes.

GUTFELD: Remember, this is the guy whose sole employment skill is reading people's minds. He knows what they're thinking. Now, he can read body language. One thing that I'm tired of is the word meltdown. This phrase came from media blogs. Whenever they see somebody who gets mad or has a strong point of view, they go, ah, that person melted down. It is so overused. Nobody -- I doubt anybody melted down in that meeting. Trump didn't. Nancy didn't. Nobody melted down. It's an overused word. Let's ban it.

But here's my -- here's the big point here. So you say you care about the Kurds. You don't want the Kurds to die, but you walk out of a meeting because Donald Trump was rude to you. So, A, you really didn't care about the Kurds if, like, an insult made you leave. Or, B, you've been exaggerating the consequences of this entire story ever since. Case in point, nobody really knows or is talking about what's going on anymore.

It was basically just another strategically political attempt to mess with Trump, because why would you leave a meeting if you really care? I would - - if you're insulting me, Martha, right now, I would take it if it was to save Jesse's life.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: Are you sure about that?

GUTFELD: No, I'm not sure. Juan, I would --

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Do you think that Greg might be right? Do you think she maybe went into the meeting ready to run out of there or do you think it was a spur of the moment thing?

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: I mean, the picture stuff reminds me of just like bad, you know, high school social media, you know, tit for tat. And I'm thinking that people are looking down at the desk because they're lots of spit flying across the room.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And so, they're probably just trying to stay out of it. But I agree with Greg, you know, this -- I think this is a very serious issue no matter which side of it you stand on. And I think there's a lot that's still to be resolved here regardless of what we heard this afternoon, whether or not the Kurds are going to accept this ceasefire. And I think that people look at what happened in that room yesterday and they say seriously?

WATTERS: Yeah.

MACCALLUM: You people cannot sit down and have a discussion on this? On the other hand, how are you supposed to do that given the environment? Everybody who is in that room on the other side of the table is telling him he's the most corrupt person to ever hold the White House office.

I mean, when people are saying we need -- you're illegitimate and you must go instantly. Now -- but please, come on over. Let's chat. I mean, this is an impossible environment for them to work --

(CROSSTALK)

JUAN WILLIAMS, HOST: Who invited them to the chat? It was the president who --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.

MACCALLUM: He says the opposite.

WILLIAMS: Well, I mean, obviously, it was at the White House --

GUTFELD: Don't meltdown, Juan.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: You know, with climate change, anything is possible. But the second point I would make is that -- it was so many Republicans. This is not Democrats versus Republicans where he says, oh, it's just the Democrats. You know they don't like Trump. No, no, no. It was 129 Republicans who voted to condemn Trump's decision to pull the troops in Syria.

So here's a situation. What really angered him was when Nancy Pelosi said, Mr. President, I have to inform you that the majority of the House of Representatives condemning your decision on Syria, including 129 Republicans. And then that's when he started calling her a third-rate politician. So here's --

GUTFELD: A third grade.

WILLIAMS: Here's the thing, I don't usually give any advice to Donald Trump because he doesn't want to hear my words anyway.

GUTFELD: You wrote an entire book on him.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, but that was about racism. But I will give him this political advice, Gregory.

GUTFELD: Yes.

WILLIAMS: I think it's a mistake, and it's a proven mistake to think that Nancy Pelosi is any third-rate politician. Nancy Pelosi, go back, asked John Boehner. Ask Paul Ryan about accomplishments being Speaker. And you know -- at this table we thought, oh, she's not going to get reelected as speaker. She's a has-been. She's a historic figure at this point.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: If she wants to save the Kurds, to walk out at a meeting over name-calling when Kurds are dying.

WILLIAMS: She's trying to get something done. All he's doing is calling - - look, this is a guy --

GUTFELD: She could have stayed.

WILLIAMS: Who is erratic here, Greg? Who's melting down to use your phrase? Is it -- did you see the letter he wrote to the Turkish president?

GUTFELD: A beautiful letter.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. You're a damn fool, Mr. President.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: So what do you think about the fact that Nancy was the one that left, but all of her other Democratic colleagues, they've stayed.

WILLIAMS: That's not true?

WATTERS: Yes, it is.

WILLIAMS: Schumer walked out, too.

WATTERS: It was Schumer and Nancy left, and everybody else stayed.

EMILY COMPAGNO, HOST: Yes, it speaks to volumes --

GUTFELD: Schumer was carrying her jacket.

(LAUGHTER)

COMPAGNO: He says they insulted Nancy, so we left. It speaks volumes about their priorities. And this is a perfect illustration that contrary to what the Democrats are saying, the Democratic candidates, specifically, that, no, you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. No, you cannot target Trump and legislate at the same time because in a meeting like this where it's the highest stakes ever, right? Lives being lost, you still can't get it together enough to legislate, which is what we are paying for. We are paying Pelosi and Schumer to legislate.

And to -- in that moment, to help come to a consensus and agree to save lives. Second point, they're squawking about the insult to the coequal branch of government, and I see Pelosi and Schumer as really equating themselves individually with the office of the presidency, rather than the executive and legislative branches being equal. They're not proving to me that their individual hubris is outranked by the duty to the American people.

WATTERS: So, to your second point that you made, Greg, remember when the president was thinking about impeachment on the way? He said if you're going to do impeachment, we're not gonna do anything. We're not going to get anything done. And it looks like that's happened.

GUTFELD: Well, you know, what's interesting -- and to address Juan's illegitimate point about these Republicans, it is. There's a disconnect between the old guard and the old warriors and new thinking. You know, the problem with winning a war is you've got to stay there. The great thing about economic warfare, you can do it from home. And I think that's the way Trump sees it. He sees economic warfare, the threat that he did to North Korea, the threats he does to Turkey, as a way to pull the levers of globalism.

You know, globalism only works if you can manipulate the levers, right? So he's doing that instead of throwing American bodies into -- as he would call it, a pile of sand. So, I think instead of bombs to drop, levers to pull makes more sense. And I think the old guard -- even if people who are critical of this here, I don't think they're ready for this new kind of thinking.

WILLIAMS: So you think Republicans are the old guard. The Republicans who voted against Trump.

GUTFELD: I think, like, Lindsey.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Here's what the reality is. If you do something on an erratic basis without thinking out the repercussions --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: No, but wait. You look at the damage that he has done --

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Fox News alert. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has notified President Trump today that he plans to resign, according to two administration sources familiar with the matter. Kevin Corke has more. What's up, Kev?

KEVIN CORKE, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Jess. We've actually learned -- you probably remembered this, a couple of weeks ago, Politico reported that Rick Perry would be stepping down probably in November, but by making the request today to leave the post of the president, it's very interesting because it makes us wonder was this related to the whole Ukraine story. In fact, sources tell Fox News that it was Perry along with E.U. ambassador, Sondland, Kurt Volker, all working with Rudy Giuliani on this idea of getting the Ukrainians to participate or at least not obstruct any possible investigations into malfeasance dating back to 2016.

That's what some sources are telling us. Again, keep this also in mind, Rick Perry has been on the job, guys, since March of 2017. So he's one of the originals. The idea that a secretary -- a cabinet secretary would step away after that much time is not that uncommon, but the timing and, in particular, this particular cabinet secretary, perhaps, stepping away very soon is curious.

WATTERS: All right, thank you very much, Kevin. Liberals are going to meltdown. Meltdown?

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: Over this next one, this very accurate election model shows, you know what, Trump winning reelection.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: Great news for Democrats. One of the most accurate predictors of presidential elections indicates that President Trump will easily win reelection. According to Moody's analytics, Trump should get at least 289 electoral votes and up to 351. Its projections are based on how voters feel about their finances, prospects for employment, which are awesome, and stock market gains which are great. But we knew this. People vote with their pocketbooks and Trump is fatting them up. Leftists would call this shallow, short sighted, self-interest, as if having more money to spend on food and clothes for your kids is insidiously selfish.

But is this great economy that explains the orchestrated drama driven by an angry media and its protective class, the Democrats. The better the country does, the crazier they become. Talk about cause and effect. So I said this was great news for the Democrats. Why? Well, now they can let it go and start planning for 2024. You can stop hammering Trump's personality, and instead find coherence, hopeful, positive systems that tackle real problems. And now that Trump has the big things running fine, he can focus on other stuff that could have lasting benefits too.

A climate plan that puts nuclear front and center, a strategy that helps the mentally ill off the streets, and a plan to end rampant homelessness. Of course, for these things to happen he's going to need help. What are the chances the Dems might stop chasing fake problems and help solve real ones? Well, we can dream.

So, Martha, I think the theory for this is that no one takes risks on an economy that's flowing smoothly. You don't, like, decide you're going to put Bernie in, you know, like, if this thing is going great.

MACCALLUM: I mean, when you look, historically, there've only been two presidents in recent history who have been able to unseat a sitting president, and who are they? You know, two of the biggest superstars in political history, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. So you look at that stage and you ask yourself, is there somebody who has that kind of star power, that kind of vision? And both of them, you know, what they won on was just like a super uplifting new vision for America. And I think that's one of the things that's really missing from these Democratic debates is that sort of, you know, uplifting image.

GUTFELD: Marianne Williamson and they totally --

MACCALLUM: She's on my show tonight --

GUTFELD: Oh, can you tell her hello.

MACCALLUM: I sure will.

GUTFELD: Yeah, I think we have a special connection.

MACCALLUM: She said there's no way I'm dropping out after I saw what I saw --

GUTFELD: Yeah, yeah, yeah, she's like -- she's above all of that. And she's like looking down at them and going, those fools. Jesse, I'm losing my train of thought here --

WATTERS: Yeah, you're going to be hanging out in the green room --

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: You notice the stronger our economy gets, the more intense the Dems hatred is for Trump?

WATTERS: I have such a great statistic that I cannot wait to share with America. You guys ready for this? Average household income for middle- class families, eight years under President Bush went up $400. Eight years under Barack Obama went up $1,000. In just two and a half years under President Trump, average middle-class family income has gone up $5,000 in two and a half years. And when you add the tax cuts to that, it's $6,000. That is a $6,000 raise for average families in two and half years. They have never seen that kind of income boost in -- I don't know? Maybe the last 20.

So when you add that to the fact that you have an economy producing a lot of jobs, low unemployment, stock market up 34 percent, crime is down. Household prices are up. It's a beautiful economy and it's a middle-class boom that's going on. And the only thing that can really screw it up is a major thing with China, or maybe a self-inflicted wound by the president.

MACCALLUM: You're really depressing Juan.

WATTERS: I know --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: I just realized, you know, if you ask most Americans, right now, they talk about income inequality, struggling to make it --

GUTFELD: Where are these people?

WILLIAMS: You know what? Here's the thing, I happen to agree with you that if just you look at the economic numbers, they look fine. You say -- but here's the curious thing because Moody's analysis is based on those economic numbers. By the way, they also said Hillary was going to win.

GUTFELD: Right.

WILLIAMS: But here's the thing, most Americans can see the economy doing what -- if you believe --

WATTERS: The census bureau?

WILLIAMS: No, Jesse --

WATTERS: The census bureau?

WILLIAMS: Jesse, you push -- believe me, if the middle-class felt the way you did, why is it, and this is the point, why is it that, in fact, President Trump has never reached 50 percent approval.

GUTFELD: Because you don't have to like your boss.

WILLIAMS: I see. In other words, most Americans say they're not going to vote to reelect Trump. Oh, so in other words, Moody is based on a model in which they have a normal president. This guy is not a normal president.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: He's abnormal. Everybody knows that.

WATTERS: It's political model and the analysis as well. It's not just economics. No, look at the statistics, Juan.

WILLIAMS: And here's the thing, do know what his average is right now, Real Clear Politics? Forty two percent -- oh, wait a minute. You were just citing a poll.

(LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: Emily, I want to hear you explain why this is so important to America. No pressure.

COMPAGNO: In my opinion, it's because this illustrates what is fundamental to voters which is economic security. It's being able to provide for your family, right? So everything that the Democratic candidates have been talking about, it's relevant. All those issues are relevant, sure. But they're missing the mark. And we saw that, especially, coming from CNN who lead with a question of impeachment and never asked an independent question on jobs or the economy.

But at the end of the day, what people are doing when they're sitting around their dinner table is caring about their job security and where their paychecks are going to come from and whether they can count on it. And I think that -- there was a caveat in that model also about voter turnout, and that's why it's so crucial that Trump has been leading these really successful campaign style rallies.

Obviously, tonight he's in Dallas. It's his third this week, his sixth time in Texas this year alone, 12 since he took office. And that's more than Obama went to Texas in his entire administration. That's huge for Republicans and will continue to be throughout this --

WILLIAMS: By the way, healthcare -- healthcare, paying for college, these are economic issues and Trump has done nothing.

GUTFELD: More important, Juan, caveat.

COMPAGNO: Caveat?

GUTFELD: Caveat.

COMPAGNO: Caveat.

GUTFELD: Caveat.

WATTERS: Caviar.

GUTFELD: Caviar. I just like -- pain in the ass. Next, Beto's gun grab plan gets worse. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Beto O'Rourke drawing major criticism over his plan for a mandatory assault weapons buyback program. The 2020 Democrat has made it a big issue in the campaign. He's now elaborating more on what the consequences would be for people who refused to give up their guns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's say I have an AR-15. I bought it legally five years ago. I'm a law-abiding citizen. You want to buy it back as President of the United States, I say no. I live on a ranch. I need it for protection. What would you do then?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There has to be consequences. You know, in that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back, so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Emily, at the last debate, Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, said that he thought Beto was playing into Republicans' efforts to scare gun owners to back Trump with this kind of talk. What do you think?

COMPAGNO: Well, I think Beto's entire proposal and his continued digging of holes is complete fantasy. It is not achievable, it's not actionable, and he is living in a world that -- it's doublespeak. So for all of his shouting about the needless lives that are being sacrificed in Syria, what would that do? Whose lives would he be sacrificing? To me, it would be uniformed men and women who are going to these places, and as he said, oh, but your fellow Americans, they would volunteer their arms back. No, they wouldn't.

And we also are now dealing with the Atiana Jackson situations. So, to me, it's turning both law-abiding gun-owning citizens and also our uniformed men and women into cannon fodder, if something as ridiculous as this plan, actually, came into effect.

WILLIAMS: All right, Jesse, I was interested in seeing exactly what kind of support this has. Right now a majority of Americans, majority of Democrats, and remember he's running for the Democratic nomination, support background checks, bans on assault weapons, 70 percent of Democrats support mandatory buyback, just under half of all Americans.

WATTERS: Well, more polls, huh, Juan. I don't believe that. And I just don't think that's accurate. We're joking on Wednesday on Watters' last night that Beto likes to livestream things like his dentist appointment. Maybe he should livestream knocking on peoples doors and telling them to turn their guns over. That will go viral because that will not go well.

Here's the deal, Juan, and you can write this down because these are some great statistics, Emily. According to the FBI, did you know that knives kill more people than rifles? And not only that, hammers and blunt objects kill more people than rifles. Rifles like an AR is demonized because a lot of these mass shooters like to use them, but if you've ever notice whenever there's a mass shooting with a pistol or a shotgun, the media doesn't really report it that much.

It's called America's favorite weapon for a reason. It's lightweight. It's versatile. It's accurate. You can use it for self-defense, for sport, for anything -- hunting. And so, they're sold very well because people love them and there's millions of them. And the feds can't track who has them or where they are, so you don't know when you're showing up as an armed federal agent, you're knocking on the door if anybody even has a gun. So, how does that make sense at all? It's like -- it's like a second Lexington and Concorde. I don't even know if he realizes that.

WILLIAMS: You know, Martha, let's give Beto the benefit of the doubt. He says people are trying to, sort of, nitpick and says what about this, what about that, who gets the weapons? He says look at the big picture, look at the mass killings. We've got to do something about it. Americans want to do something and this is his idea. He doesn't want to get into the details because as Jesse says, some of them don't seem practical.

MACCALLUM: But that's the problem. You know, it's so much of what he proposes is almost like he's thinking through what his plan is in the middle of his answer. He says, yeah. Yes, so, of course -- well, yeah. But I think those people would just give up their AR-15 -- 47. He says they would concede that they don't need it for self-protection.

In what world in terms of Joe Scarborough's scenario where someone is living on a ranch and they say I need this for protection. And Beto is sort of like coming up with this plan as he speaks that he's going to knock on the door and they're going to give it up and say, you know what, , I actually don't need this thing for protection.

Now, no matter what you think about these horrific shootings that we have in this country. You need to come up with a plan that is a little bit more planned out, little bit more thought out. The last time they did a ban on assault weapons, it had a grandfather clause for people who already have them. And it tried to address the new acquisition of assault weapons in this country. Perhaps raising the age, like they did in Florida is a constructive way to think about diminishing some of the ownership of these weapons, if he thinks that's the way to go. But, you know, it's not well thought out.

WILLIAMS: And what do you think about registry, a registry for people who have assault weapons?

GUTFELD: I kind of want to - I think that - you set the big picture and I think Beto has never had to really do anything for himself. People that do things for him. And so, he is making this suggestion knowing he will never have to get his hands dirty. And when you think about like - it's the same idiotic bureaucracy who banned the selling of - the sale of single cigarettes, which led to the horrible death of Eric Garner.

So, if you didn't have that bureaucratic, stupid law, that person would still be alive. So, what he is doing, as you say, this confiscation fantasy puts people in harm's way and people will die. So, this goes to the bigger picture of how you can become a libertarian. You have to ask yourself; how many conflicts were the result of a decision made by someone who knows his hands will never be dirty? You think about whether it's Syria, whether it's guns, whether it's like the drug war. Do you feel strongly enough to do it yourself? Do you feel strongly enough to confiscate opioids or guns or go to Syria? That turns you into a libertarian extremely fast.

WILLIAMS: But obviously Australia, they did do a ban. They did a buyback and it worked.

GUTFELD: Australia, very few guns to buyback.

COMPAGNGO: In this country, it's treated by symptom, not the problem. He's not addressing the epidemic of young people that are taking their own lives and streaming and doing all of this for the attention, the horrific aspects, the components behind these shootings. He's just talking about the weapon.

WILLIAMS: All right, coming up, Dana Perino joins us for a preview of her exclusive interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. It's going to be great. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: All right. So, the battle over free speech on social media is already having a huge impact on the 2020 election and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is just one of the tech CEOs standing in the center of that storm. And he was just interviewed by Dana for an exclusive interview that will air tomorrow at 2 PM on The Daily Briefing. Here's a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: Kamala Harris said that she thinks that Twitter should shut down President Trump's account. Do you think that's a ridiculous idea?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO: My belief is that in a democracy, I don't think that we want private companies censoring politicians in the news. Well, I generally believe that as a principle, people should decide what is credible and what they want to believe and who they want to vote for. And I don't think that should be something that we want tech companies or any kind of other company doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Dana joins us live now from Washington. Dana, great to have you.

PERINO: Thanks. Thanks for filling in.

MACCALLUM: It's my pleasure. So, tell me what the big takeaway was for you in this interview.

PERINO: Well, I've sort of been racing around today, racing to get over to Georgetown where he gave a speech. Mark Zuckerberg came to Washington to give a speech about free expression. He thinks it's under attack and he wanted to basically lay down a marker.

I think that he knows that Washington is planning to try to come at him and basically three different areas. They think that he is too big. Right. They want to - some people want to break up the company altogether. They think he's too nosy, that all of your data and your privacy and how they're dealing with that.

And they think that basically is irresponsible. And so, Washington is coming after them. He thinks though that free speech is just something that they have to talk about, whether it comes to talking about ads or this idea that it's dangerous to listen to speech. That was something - I also asked him about the ongoing issue that they'd had starting way back in about 2015, 2016, about bias against conservatives or the perception about that and how they've tried to deal with that. And if he thinks that there is a lot of bias just baked into Silicon Valley.

WILLIAMS: You know, Dana, I am just dying to see this because I'm very interested in this topic. I think you're right in thinking that it's one of the critical issues for the 2020 election. Already we see, you know, reports from Facebook about China and other countries following the Russian model. So, here's the thing.

I just saw a comment that came from the Biden camp and they said, basically that Zuckerberg is using the First Amendment free speech issues to shield himself from having to take some responsibility for enabling lies, deceitful political ads to appear and making money from it. So, the question then becomes, why not just don't take any political ads? It wouldn't make that much difference to him, to his bottom-line.

PERINO: Actually, he did say that, of course, that's on the table, that this is not a really big part of their business. They don't make a lot of money; it gets compared to the size and scope and scale of their business. But he also said though that for people that are wanting to build a grassroots campaign to try to get out there and get some name ID, and maybe they don't have a lot of money.

It's interesting, Senator Elizabeth Warren, she says she won't take any money from big tech executives. But the only way that she's actually able to get her grassroots fundraising and be able to - be the front runner is because she spends a ton of money, millions dollars in ads on Facebook and outreach on Facebook and trying to figure out a way to get engagement that way. So, shutting that out, shutting that off from people from that might not be rich. I think that he thinks that's a bad idea.

But he also thinks that the company and that being Silicon Valley, it should not be the ones that are deciding what's true and what's not. And that's really frustrated somebody like Senator Warren or a Joe Biden.

WATTERS: Yes. Dana, you just brought up Liz Warren and it's not just the Democrats. Republicans have talked about busting up all these Silicon Valley monopolies like Facebook or other ones. And he said in an internal memo that he's ready to go to war because this is about survival. Did you get a sense from him how aggressively he's gearing up for what would be just kind of an all-out battle in Washington, D.C., if that ever happened?

PERINO: I think what you'll see in this interview is what you've seen from Mark Zuckerberg before. He's passionate, but his tone is very measured and he's very calm. But they did say - they put a lot of resources into making sure that the protections are better for the 2020 election. In fact, he was talking about the amount of money that they've put towards all of that is bigger than the money that they actually earned or that they were worth on the day that they went public. So, they've put a lot of resources into that.

When it comes to breaking up Facebook, he just basically said not a monopoly. We're not trying to shut out competition. We're trying to do the best we can in terms of utilizing this new technology. And I think that they will definitely be pushing back on that in particular. But he did say, Jesse, that he is willing to consider some regulation when it comes to content. And there are some libertarians, conservatives who think that's a real slippery slope if you allow the government to start doing that.

WATTERS: Yes, sure is.

COMPAGNO: Dana, obviously, social media companies are not traditional media companies, and that's partly why we have so many questions and are exploring this together, along with him obviously riding that wave. Did he talk to you at all about the level of responsibility that he feels for - for example, the Salesforce CEO said, it's the new cigarette to kids, everyone is addicted to, even if they wanted to. They can't extricate themselves from the attractive nuisance, essentially that he has created and also that level of data privacy that he has control over.

PERINO: Yes. We touched on all of those issues. I didn't ask him specifically about his - I don't know if he even call him a peer, but the CEO, the founder of Salesforce.com, Marc Benioff, who was on Maria Bartiromo show the other day, I think that he has said, Marc Benioff has said that he's got a political future ahead of him possibly. So, I think he's jumping on a certain bandwagon and we'll see where that goes.

GUTFELD: Dana, I heard there was a meltdown, there was a big meltdown.

PERINO: But you know what, you couldn't foresee. It was like imperceptible.

GUTFELD: Yes, he blinked. When he blinked, that was - has he been affected politically? Do you sense that he's kind of no longer like a social justice phony from Silicon Valley, that he's kind of been you know, he's changed in a way, learned from this, that he can't trust the Left?

PERINO: I think that he is being true to himself now. I don't know if that means that he wasn't before or if he - I think that he is alarmed by the tendency for people to want to shut down free speech. That's why I asked him the question about Kamala Harris, the senator from California wanting to shut down the President's Twitter account. Does he think that's ridiculous?

Basically, yes, he wants people to be able to speak freely. And also, he believes that free speech and expression is America's best value and it should be protected. And given the last, for example, to which we've just seen that what the NBA has been going through in this ongoing battle online about China. I think he's probably right.

MACCALLUM: Wow. I mean, still, such an uncharted territory dealing with this. And it's so interesting. I think Greg's question, so interesting about dealing with the Left and the Right. And now he finds himself basically in the middle unsatisfying pretty much everybody, except the millions and millions of people. Jesse also did have a good question.

GUTFELD: Emily's question.

PERINO: I mean Juan's question was like--

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dana.

MACCALLUM: Very sensitive. All right, guys. Thank you, Dana.

PERINO: See you tomorrow.

MACCALLUM: Great to see you. We'll see you back here tomorrow. Coming up next, what is the proper tip for poor service? We will settle that debate once and for all. I was a waitress for like eight years, so I do have some thoughts on that.

GUTFELD: Me too.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COMPAGNO: How much do you tip for bad service? A new article says you still have to give 20 percent no matter what. "Diners should always tip 20 percent. Always." If the service is terrific, you should add more to the tip, but never subtract from the 20 percent.

All right. I waited tables. I know you did, too. I always tip 20 percent. But also, I'm not afraid to communicate what I want or what I need. Right. I'm not passive aggressive like I feel like so many people are there like she was horrible. I'm giving her nothing like say, oh, I actually need water regularly or whatever it is. But if somebody gets my drip coffee, no, I'm not tipping. But they'll get a thank you and good morning, have a great day.

GUTFELD: What was the question?

COMPAGNO: I'm giving my opinion. Martha, how do you feel?

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of the thing that really tips me off is the iPad thing that they hold up in your face after they give you coffee and say like, do you want to tip me 10, 15 or 20 percent and just like--

WATTERS: Yes, right in front of them.

MACCALLUM: I hate that.

WATTERS: I'm not afraid to go zero.

MACCALLUM: Zero.

GUTFELD: Jesse.

WATTERS: Well, I mean all you're doing is handing me coffee. Do you get a tip for that?

MACCALLUM: You're supposed to say, how much you want to tip me and they're looking over your shoulder?

WATTERS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I think that's obnoxious.

WATTERS: It's too aggressive.

MACCALLUM: I think that's obnoxious. But I think most people tip the way they tip, like you could have, you could really serve a table and do a fantastic job. And if they're 15 percent tippers, they're going to tip you 15 percent. If they're 20 percent tippers, you could like do nothing and ignore them on like they're going to give you 20 percent, which doesn't make any sense.

WATTERS: Martha, you know the tip jar where there's like a jar at the coffee shop. And then do you ever, like, put a dollar in, but then they don't see you putting the dollar in. So, you just kind of leave your hand over and until they come back. You want credit.

MACCALLUM: You want a little credit. I get it.

GUTFELD: OK. A, do you want to know why we're living in a great age? Because this is The Washington Post doing this article. So, they're telling people that they have to tip - a liberal newspaper is telling people to tip 20 percent under the assumption that we're all - we all can afford to pay 20 percent of the bill. You would not see this piece in the Carter era or the Obama era. They're telling people how to tip.

And the worst thing is the media doesn't understand economics. Right. They're pushing minimum wage in restaurants. In New York right now, they're slashing all their staffs because they can't afford to keep these people on. So, now you have smaller staffs at restaurants, which means poorer service, which means fewer customers and fewer tips. So, as they're lecturing us on 20 percent tips, they're killing an industry where people will get fewer tips. They're idiots. Sorry.

WILLIAMS: I think you're missing the point here, because it's not about tip jars or the computer where it says, give me a tip if it just gave me a cup of coffee. This is about restaurants who are battling, I think, in some ways to transfer their labor costs to you, the diner or the consumer. These are people who are going out to dinner who can afford a good dinner.

And the question is, if you get bad service and you've gone to a nice tablecloth restaurant, are you obligated to tip 20 percent? And what the paper was saying, there is an interesting argument was, well, if you have a bad day at work, if Jesse and I are arguing and the boss's upstairs, they wanted Jesse, why are you arguing? Did they say, oh, we're not going to pay you what we normally pay you today? No, we get paid.

GUTFELD: They should.

WILLIAMS: And so--

WATTERS: Why more?

WILLIAMS: That's maybe right. But anyway, why should you be taking it out? And what if it's the kitchen that screwed up? Why would you take it out on the person who is waiting at your table? So, it's an interesting question. I tend to feel embarrassed by not giving 20 percent, but I let them know like you suggested, Emily, I didn't like the way I was treated.

WATTERS: And if you're drunk, you give 30.

MACCALLUM: OK. One More Thing is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: Time now for One More Thing. Juan.

WILLIAMS: A heartfelt goodbye to Congressman Elijah Cummings of Baltimore. The 68-year-old had been in declining health for some time, even as he served as Chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee on Capitol Hill. Everyone should know that Republicans and Democrats call this man a friend. He got to know Jason Chaffetz, for example, in the midst of the contentious Benghazi hearings.

But get this, he once traveled to Utah to visit the congressman's home district. And in exchange, Chaffetz traveled to Baltimore, Maryland, to get to see what Congressman Cummings district was like. He's a historic Baltimore figure. He's served as a speaker pro tem in the Maryland House of Delegates, head of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Finally, I think GOP congresswoman Liz Cheney said it best today, she said. Cummings used his positions of power to "bridge divides", not widen them. Rest in peace, Congressman Cummings?

WATTERS: Yes, congressman will be missed. And it is time for a feeding frenzy. OK, so in time for fall, we have a great comfort food combo. We have grilled cheese combined with tomato soup, great combination into a chip produced by Lay's potato chips. Why doesn't everybody pop some into their mouth? Greg's already had about several dozen.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: They hit the stores October 21st. And here's the deal. Go online. Got to have lays.com, upload a picture of you with the chips and you win a lot of free stuff. So, check that out. Very good, right. Like it. These are great.

COMPAGNO: I literally had 20.

WATTERS: Greg,

GUTFELD: Let's do this thing. Greg's Fox News, a lot of big news at Fox. You want to hear what happened? Check this out. This is a - the winner of the prestigious Wildlife Photographer of the Year award, that is Tibetan thought about to devour a Himalayan marmot as he was hunting to keep its three cubs alive. This was the one winner out of 48,000 entries. Do you know where this picture was taken, Martha?

MACCALLUM: Where?

GUTFELD: The Chateau Marmot.

MACCALLUM: Really?

GUTFELD: No.

MACCALLUM: He looks terrified by the way. He looks like he knows exactly what's about to happen.

GUTFELD: The face is like; I'm going to die.

WILLIAMS: No, the face was this is good wine.

WATTERS: All right, Martha.

MACCALLUM: All right. This is big news, actually. The Iwo Jima photographed by Joe Rosenthal. They discovered another person whose identity was not correctly identified. In the beginning, you all remember the movie Flags of Our Fathers and the book about that. So Randy Gannon, who was believed to have been one of the flag raisers, we now know was not, he was there at the top of Mount Suribachi. But when the flag was actually raised, it was Corporal Harold Keller, whose nickname was Pie. And he never told his family his whole life that he was one of the flag raisers.

He had a photo in the house, and he would say those are those are the guys that lifted the flag. Never wanted to reveal his role because it had been attributed to someone else. And his daughter is going to be on tonight. I've been working on a book for two years about Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, it's very personal story for me. And I hope you join me tonight to talk to his daughter because it's a really special story. WATTERS: Wow. And you have Marianne Williamson.

MACCALLUM: And we have Marianne Williamson.

WATTERS: Very good show. All right, Emily.

COMPAGNO: OK, everybody hates to wait in line, right? Except this little guy. Check him out. This pelican literally got an orderly line. This is a New South Wales in Australia at a popular fish and chips shop. And what I love about it, too, is that it's kind of doesn't faze anyone except for this kid. I hate parents that don't control their children. I really wish that Pelican had hooked him, by the way--

WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. What are you talking about?

COMPAGNO: I'm not sweet Emily anymore.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Wow. I don't have to talk to her. Set your DVRs. Never miss an episode of “The Five.” Special Report is up next. Hey, Bret.

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