tv Rachel Maddow Blowout CSPAN December 14, 2019 9:00am-10:16am EST
>> yep. >> want to sign some books? >> yep, happy to sign some books. so thank you all. [applause] >> copies of jefferson's education award-winning rachel maddow show on msnbc. [cheers and applause] yes, got some fans here. the show has actually won, for those of you who don't know, three emmy awards, including for outstanding news discussion and analysis and outstanding live interview. she herself, rachel, has received six emmy nominations and two gracie allen awards. the
and -- inception in 2004. and prior to joining, she worked in two networks that were here in western massachusetts both in holyoke and in north hampton. so it is a special honor to be able to welcome her back to western massachusetts. [cheers and applause] so i know that we are all excited to hear from her and
>> option three, ukraine. so those are your three options. [applause] so you want -- would you prefer showing hands or shouting? shouting, okay. number one, walruses. [cheers and applause] number two, alaska. [applause] number three, ukraine. [cheers and applause] [laughter] >> i think some people voted for both walruses and ukraine. i'm going to demand a recanvas. all right.
i'll read the bit on walruses in particular. just the thing that weirded me out about the publication of the book when the book came out last month, earlier this month, is that right at around the time i got to my pub date, a couple of different things happened in the news. one is that we learned that the president's imprisoned campaign chairman, paul manafort, was doing work from behind bars that he was consulting with rudy giuliani who is president trump's lawyer -- [laughter] giuliani said that he'd been talking strategy with paul manafort while manafort is in prison on multiple felony charges. and it was specifically about what he and the president were trying to get ukraine to do to
help the president in his re-election chances in 2020. so that's weird, right? like, it's weird that the president's lawyer is consulting with a federal prisoner about the president's strategy toward re-election involving a foreign entity. that's, that's a start. [laughter] but then the other thing that happened is that among the other materials that rudyty giuliani or the other sources mr. giuliani cited and started sourcing, started mentioning on television appearances and other places is that he started waving around, literally physically waving around, a sworn statement that he said he obtained in ukraine. and it was a sworn statement that he got from the lawyers for a man named di my try, the rem kin's -- kremlin's guy in ukraine. he's under house arrest. he's in austria fighting extradition to this country
where he's wanted on multiple felony corruption and bribery charges. u.s. prosecutors say he's an upper echelon associate of russian organized crime. so mr. giuliani obtains from his legal team a sworn statement that he said is key to what he and the president have been trying to obtain in ukraine. but, don't worry, it's not just the russian organized crime, kremlin-connected fighting extradition billionaire corruption guy, it's also the president's imprisoned campaign chairman who he's working with to put this together. and then we met lev and igor. [laughter] it's all a pretty picture to start out. but let me, let me talk a little bit about how this all fits, this all fits together. the biggest threat putin had to keep at bay was the prospect of strong, rich, stable western-oriented democracies in russia's near abroad. that sort of thing could not
only challenge or constrain regional power, it could conceivably -- the horror -- inspire the russian people themselves, leading them to demand a democratic say in their own governance. the solution was simple, use russian natural gas and oil not only to make money for the russian state, but also to keep neighboring countries corrupt and dependent. it solved so many problems. it reduced expectations for democratic governance and the rule of law in those countries. it created a corruptly-empowered political class invested in preserving the russia-dependent system that enriched its practitioners and their families. it also created comfortable space for organized crime to flourish. russian government, under putin's control, had steadily become more integrated with all kinds of transnational organized crime in the former soviet sphere, and not just because putin has tended to attract the kind of broken-nosed toughs who would otherwise be calls henchmen if putin hadn't made
them so rich. the beauty of putin's ever-deepening kinship with the mob that it gave him a whole different set of levers to make problematic people go away. putin's team in the kremlin was delighted to utilize a man with dmitri's special skills and talents to shape ukraine to its liking, to turn it from its increasingly worrying flirtation with the west. so they cut furtash a sweetheart deal in ukraine. his new company would be given the exclusive right to buy gas from russia to sell to ukraine at a very, very large profit, about $800 million in pure profit in the year 2007 alone. ukraine could just as easily have bought the gas with no middleman and no markup, but putin wanted both the middleman and the markup.
dmitri would turn out to be handy. it also cast the national gas market a pretty penny. but still, it was worth it. because furtash, as well as some other ukraine ogg backers, would have -- oligarchs, would have plenty of cash to spread around to shape their country in ways that putin would appreciate. more of it would go to prop up the party of regions which meant a whole bunch of it would pass through or end up in the offshore bank accounts of a mercenary american political operative named paul manafort. manafort helped the moscow-friendly party of regents win a solid plurality in the parliamentary elections in ukraine in 2006, then he spent the next few years dinging ukraine's strongest opposition party leaders from the orange party including the prime minister. he was a particular threat to moscow's influence in ukraine. she had made herself the front-runner in the 2010 presidential election by seizing on that sweetheart gas deal that
dmitri furtash had. he promised to end it s. and she made a good case. why on earth should his company be be allowed to siphon off $800 million in a single year by playing a middleman role that nobody needed and certainly nobody in ukraine wanted? manafort and his team went right at the prime minister with full force and helped to drive her approval ratings down to 20% six months before the 2010 election. even her renegotiation of the russia-ukraine natural gas deal in 2009, she succeeded in renegotiating that deal to take the middleman out, to take dmitri furtash out of the center of it. even her successful negotiation of that deal wasn't enough to sway a majority of voters to her. manafort's guy, the pro-putin leader yanukovych, squeezed into the presidency in february 2010. paul manafort received much
credit for the yanukovych victory and got a rich new contract as the new president's off-site political adviser. as such, one of yanukovych's first acts as president was to sick a rabid state prosecutor on or his opponent. charging her with the crime of abusing her official powers by illegally arranging the new furtash gas-free deal. she had intervened to top that corrupt deal, and so they -- to stop that corrupt deal, and so they accused her of corruption. manafort got right to work on that, on a multi-part expensive public relations campaign to destroy her in ukraine and in the united states. with her stashed in prison, trashed by these american p.r. firms and law firms and anything else manafort could cook up,
dmitri furtash got back into the gas deal which was better than ever. his company's operating profit for the years 2012 and 2013 added up to nearly $4 billion in pure profit. with that kind of money available for corrupting any actual governance in the interest of the people of ukraine, putin's natural gas monopoly hoveredded over the heads of the ukrainian people like a sword with. putin could tell things were going well when yanukovych reneged on his campaign promise. putin knew that wouldn't, that couldn't ever happen. problem was the ukrainian people liked the idea. even when putin promised $15 billion worth of new aid to ukraine, the will of the ukrainian people was still clear. they wanted to be part of the e.u. no matter what putin was offering. the orange side revolted again. and what started in november, what started on november 21,
2013, as a small demonstration in independent square in kiev grew in just a few days to a 100,000-person protest. the demonstrators took over, and they refused to leave. a violent crackdown by police in the last days of november didn't quell the enthusiasm. in the face of yanukovych's armed and ready to fire security forces, determined protesters strapped on pots and pans as makeshift armor and took to the streets. and the crowds kept on coming. putin thought the cold kiev january would break the crowd. he was wrong. in february, as the sochi olympics kicked off, protesters were till there by the tens of thousands wearing their makeshift 21st century defensive witchen ware, huddled -- kitchen ware. huddled for warmth, the
demonstration had morphed into democracy itself. finish the demonstrators in kiev were gaining courage in numbers. on february 18, 2014, they armed themselves with slingshots and braved a gauntlet of yanukovych's armed security forces, and they marched on the ukrainian parliament. when yanukovych's security forces started killing protesters that afternoon, the crowds retreated to their barricades, and they remained there through a terrifying night protected by a ring of fire. yanukovych's security forces broke out the machine guns and scrambled more rooftop snipers the next day, and the is civilian casualty list just kept growing and growing and growing. one defiant protester yelled, we are not afraid to die for freedom. freedom is for us, freedom is ours. and ukraine will be part of europe and part of the free world, and we will never be slaves. we will be free. putin watched it all with a growing sense of dread and a
growing sense of anger. here at his doorstep was the western conspiracy, america was the cause of all this mess. he was sure. almost done now. on the eve of the final day of the sochi olympics, yanukovych lost his nerve, called off his security forces, he turned tail and ranch he gave over kiev and the federal government to the orange revolutionaries. the ukrainian parliament met in an emergency session. legislators voted yanukovych out of office in absentia. they ordered the immediate release of them schoen coe, and she was freed. and they voted to refer yanukovych to the international criminal court to answer for crimes against humanity. yanukovych resurfaced a few days later in a party of regions stronghold in the russian-friendly part of the country. but he ran into protests even there. chanting ukraine is not russia, ukraine is not russia, ukraine
is not russia. and yanukovych fled to moscow. putin was done trying to make nice. he'd had wit the united states meddling on his turf. vice president joseph r. biden had been in and out of kiev for years insisting the obama administration would protect ukraine from russian aggression. finish biden said we do not recognize -- and i want to reiterate it -- we do not recognize any sphere of influence. and he followed that up with what sounded like an insult. he said the russians have a shinning population base. -- shrinking population race. they have a withering economy. they have a banking sector and structure that's not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years. they're in a situation where the world is changing before them, and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable. putin sort of took it personally. [applause]
since i wrote that part of the book, we've seen dmitri furtash hire two of president trump's lawyers to represent him in his extradition fight. we've also learned he was financing lev and igor, my boyfriends -- [laughter] who are now fighting multiple charges in the southern district of new york, and his relationship with rudy giuliani is still not explained. mr. giuliani has described them as, well, his friends, his clients. at one point the lawyers for mr. furtash said that lev -- he's the cute one -- [laughter] was part of president trump's legal team. [laughter] that lev was working for mr. giuliani in the context of mr. giuliani's work as president trump's personal legal adviser. if that's true, if lev was working for the president's legal team, a, that's amazing.
[laughter] but, b, it's a little bit weird because if lev was working for giuliani in the context of giuliani's work for the president, what's weird there is that giuliani wasn't paying lev, lev appears to have paid giuliani a half a million dollars. i've had a lot of good jobs, but never one where i paid my boss a half a million dollars. so the good news is i did plan the book, publication of the book tour for a time when nothing was going on in the news. [laughter] quiet, no sense of urgency. everything's fine. and, you know, we're going to talk a little bit about the oil and gas industry and its influence. and i do think there's interesting links to the impeachment crisis. it sounds hike there might be some interest in hearing about that here. but i do just want to say i didn't, i didn't sort of set out to write a book about oil and gas. i ended up writing on this topic for two reasons, and one because, one was because i, i've
been trying to figure out what i can add that is useful to the conversation that i think we are increasingly having as americans of all political stripes. which is about the fact that we are now in this era living through a time worldwide, and it feels like here at home as well, in which what we think of as the pillars of democracy feel punky, feel soft and vulnerable and where authoritarianism is on the rise. and in trying to figure out what i can add meaningfully to that conversation, i hear a lot of people lament that and sing the praises of democracy and criticize the rise of authoritarianism, but that isn't enough. we need to talk about how to make a difference. so trying to think about what are the forces that are weakening democracy, fueling the rise of authoritarianism, i do think it's worth looking -- well, for lack of a better phrase, following the money and hooking at some of the influence of the most powerful industries
on earth and making those fights either more winnable or less winnable. so that's part of it. but i also, if you've seen the show that i to on msnbc, you might have noticed that i'm really interested in what russia did to us in 2016. and i make no apologies for that. but setting aside the real world impact of that attack and the question of whether it had help from the american side and all the divisive questions around that, i am interested in why russia did it. i'm interested in the sort of balance of risks and rewards for russia in throwing such a wild pitch at us. because it was kind of a wild pitch. and as far as we can tell, all the evidence that we have from 2016 is that not only did every pundit and pollster in america think that donald trump was going to lose and hillary clinton was going to win, we think that the russians believed that too. even though they were trying to make the opposite come to fore. i think the interesting strategic question about that is that if they were expecting hillary clinton to be the next president of the united states or when she was already coming
in as kind of a russia hawk, taking those kinds of shots at her during her election campaign, helping almost overtly and ultimately overtly helping her opponent, i think russia expected might have made things harder for them in terms of dealing with the next likely u.s. president. and so it was a big risk they were taking in putting their -- sticking their necks out like this. why was it worth it to try? what was so important to them about the result of that election that they were willing to incur that kind of risk for their own country vis-a-vis the largest and most important country in the world in diplomatic terms? and what i arrived at pretty quickly is that i think it's hard to understand, hard to get a clear picture of russia's motivation in the world, their own incentives and their own constraints, without understanding that their economy really sucks. and i don't mean it in an ad hominem way, i mean it in a quantitative way. they're, basically, the largest country on earth, they've got
almost 150 million people which means, you know, they're bigger than every european country. germany's 85 million people, the u.k. is 70 million people, italy's about 60 million people, so in terms of modern economies, south korea is 50 million people. russia is a huge country, 150 million people. its economy is smaller than south korea's. smaller than italy's. nearly triple the population with a smaller economy. and so why is that? why does a country floating on a sea of oil and gas have such a bad economy? well, that's both part of the story of russia, and it's part of the story of oil and gas. generally speaking, it turns out that's a terrible thing to build your economy on. but the other thing that starts to be important, i think, is the realization that the oil and gas industry kind of makes its own political weather. for all of the things, they're surprisingly not that good at like cleaning up after themselves, what they're actually really good at is
getting governments of all shapes and sizes to serve their interests in a way that tends to hobble the ability of such a government to do a good job serving any other responsible purpose. i mean, setting aside whatever might be bad for your country in terms of having oil and gas production there -- and a lot of the book is about that -- nevertheless, what we see over and over again is that where oil revenues flow, government tends to suffer. even when we're talking about a lot of oil revenue. the founding energy minister of saudi arabia says, all in all, quote, i wish we'd discovered water. the founder of opec says as far as he can tell oil is, in his words, the excrement of the devil. and it's one thing for some jerk like me to say that, but the founder of opec? okay? [laughter] tells you that oil is not just poop, but oil is the devil's poop p? it's like, ah, i think there's a book there somewhere. [laughter] and that, you know, the oil industry is full of regular people doing regular jobs, nothing against anyone personally.
both my partner susan and myself, we both have family members who have worked at various levels in that industry. nothing against anyone personally. but the industry is nuking the planet. 76% of carbon emissions in the quites are from burning oil or natch -- in the united states are from burning oil or natural gas. 76%. and, you know, we're the biggest economy on earth. so if you looking for something that's the whole enchilada, that's it. it does weaken accountable governments everywhere. and on russia specifically, i think it's worth understanding how much of a lifeline the big majors of the oil industry have been for what has morphed into a malignant, excellent accuratic dictatorship that has tried to reorder the world and has smeared itself all over our politics and western democracies everywhere. and that's a part of where i think we get to this conflict that we are living through now, this conflict of our time between the rule of law, liberal
democracy and rising authoritarianism. that said, reasons to be hopeful are many. for one, i think this is all understandable. understanding is the first step towards strategizing against it. this isn't that complicated. this isn't a work of investigative journalism, i'm just connecting dots, and the dots are big and brightly colored. i'm also encouraged if you want to read the book in a backwards way, that gives you a weird perspective on it, one way to approach it is just to read all of the oklahoma chapters one after another. i interspersed a lot of oklahoma in this book because it turns out that oklahoma ends up being my reason to be cheerful. oklahoma is a state that has had its government in many ways captured or overpowered by its oil and gas interests. this is no shame in that concern, it happens literally
everywhere on earth where oil and gas are produced in quantity. but oklahoma found itself facing crises because of that. man made earthquakes, yes, but more than that. residents of oklahoma turned on their democracy. they flipped the switch. and the oil and gas industry is still this. there's been no revolution. i know, i was just there in tulsa recently. but in that reddest of red states, oklahoma showed that when push comes to shove, democracy matters, and science exists, and when it needs to happen, even that crucial and rich industry that had completely overtaken that state government in terms of what was right for the people of that state, that industry could be constrained. and it was oklahoma teachers and their supporters, most of them republican voters, who stood up and changed the policy just in the last few years, changed state government policies toward or that industry which dominates that state like no other. and if a red state can do that for an industry that dominates
them like no other, then the constraints that we need to see, that i believe we need to see on this industry in order to protect our democracy, they can happen anywhere. if it can happen in oklahoma, it can happen anywhere. [applause] so i'll just close with one last point, and it's a shout-out to some of the people you might have seen on your way in, the red brigade and the sunshine -- sunrise movement. sunshine movement actually could be an interesting offshoot. [laughter] i'll get back to that. [laughter] the other reason, i think, to sort of take the time to understand these dynamics and to learn about this topic and to think hard about how this works is that those activists that you saw outside this venue and the activists who are leading us now in terms of climate change and fossil fuels, they're going to win because they're right. [cheers and applause]
and that's really, really important. and if you're not already in sympathy with those miamis or you don't -- movements or you don't know much about them, you should pay attention because they're ahead of us. the cub's going to -- the country's going to get there, and they will be a part of how quickly and how ambitiously we get there as a cup. but the other thing that will determine is how much of a grip on our governance the oil and gas industry still has. because they're not going to convert themselves into, like, pro-lg, pro-solar, like, climate change heroes no matter what their ads say. it's not going to happen. these are not going to be the people that lead us. the people who lead us are going to be the people who were right on this from the beginning. and when that happens, i do think there's one thing that we should be prepared for that i'm not sure we are yet, and it's one of the main reasons i thought it was worst publishing
this as a book. which is that when the climate crisis forces us to make these changes and when the climate activists lead us to the kinds of changes that we need to make, what oil and -- when oil and gas loses its market share and loses its power, that's not only going to be an economic story about that industry and about jobs and about top political, the political sort of fight that we're going to have about that. .. spee9 and join they lose their judicial and their ability to get their way in the world, boundaries of countries will change. borders of countries will change. governments will follow. there will be a realigning of the world. i think it is worth, but to be
scared about that but being prepared for that. that brings us back to the score question of what will happen in the wake of that. join governments, the world over are shaken by the climate crisis and by what has to happen about the fuel industry about that crisis. what's going to take place in those countries, what is going to happen join things are propped up in this way. join will they be a good enough example to spread its effects through those parts of the world that will be in crisis. or will those parts of the world slide into the authoritarian to them that we are seeing countries where the democracies have been weakened. it is worth thinking about. the strength of our democracy, hard sell for the good decisions that we need to make now. also so that we can continue be a weekend. and that we can continue be a help for the coming changes all over the world for the united states remains the last best example of how to do it on a big
scale. that's our inheritance that we need to protect. that i think we just need to get very sober about it very quickly. so thanks. thanks for being here. [applause] [applause]. host: hi. rachel thank you so much. it is such a pleasure and an honor to welcome you back. this is the last stop on your book tour. rachel: this is the grand finale.
[applause]. host: congratulations on writing an incredible book. you have a terrific review and new york times. the book print preview section. it is number three on the bestseller list. [applause]. do you know who the other two are on the bestseller list. rachel: i went to number one briefly and i know i was knocked off by elton john and prince fred [laughter] if you are going to be beaten by somebody elton john and friends, okay. host: will next week we hope you are back. seriously, this is an amazing story.
it is a riveting read in many respects. i gotta see, sort of difficult for me to put the book down once i picked it up. you really, i think we've a brilliant story of business. big her name, corporations, corrupt politicians, all of this cost of characters. i gotta see, it was really sort of laughing about it in a way. but i was so impressed with it. lies in the patriots of your book. [laughter] alive. and it is a page turner. i kept going back from page to page and chapter to chapter. some brilliant phrase you had a little bit of irony. another of the chapter titles themselves. especially the last one. containment. rachel: i just going to see all that it was containment. containment yes. [laughter] i was worried about
the chapter title that has the russian four dead it. but putting going to the bathroom. when he was in trouble. i did just hear that it will not be published in russia. [laughter] i was advised that an agent was told that there we're political nuances which would not allow this. [laughter] i was like, never been prouder. it will apparently be in ukraine. host: congratulations. [applause]. so bringing it back to the story. this between big business oil and gas in politics. in many respects, this is an old story. this has a long and complicated history. you yourself in the book.out. certainly there are different examples. opec and saudi arabia among others. my question here is, what is
different about your story. this is something different not only about the book but the moments we are in right now. that makes us distinctive. rachel: nothing is ever new. there is something that i think that is coming. it is something that the oil and gas industry has never faced before. it is a reckoning with the consequences of the climate crisis. and i do believe that climate activists will win. and i do believe that fossil fuels will be turned off. as an international major default source of fuel. i will happen because it has to happen. and i think it's worth understanding the contours of kind of power and influence the industry has so that we can continue imagine what is going to shift join those are withdrawn. i think that's part of it. but also just from an african
politics perspective. we did go through something quite unique in 2016, with the foreign interference in our elections. i do believe that that was driven at its core, and russia developed in the post, as a diversified economy, exported oil and gas but also had other pillars and its economy. i don't think they would have the kind of desperation they have around sanctions. that are preventing them from continuing to drill oil and gas. i believe drove them to throw the kind of hail mary that they through 2016. i do think it is caused desperation and very consequential and dangerous country than a way that is affected desperate and i do think that it has caused and it should cause us, to plan in advance who for what is going to happen with climate reckoning. host: the book is about russia big
player, and you mayday very compelling argument for why you think russia interfered. in u.s. elections and the evidence of that has been disputable. i think that is very clear. but do you think that the inordinate amounts of attention that we are putting on russia, on their interference and propaganda, is skewing our analysis of american politics. and do you see any of course and putting so much emphasis on russia in terms of subverting our democracy. rachel: understanding the import of what they did pretty be three in the way of which i am sort of thinking about it over here is given the intention we are all putting on russia, prussia, russia, propaganda, interference in election. is there something that we are missing in terms of our own responsibility and in terms of what we do as i think american
citizens, as american people and what sort of responsibility do we have two defend our democracy as you yourself we're talking about a couple of minutes ago. i worry so much that join so much attention is focused on russia and russia's brawl, and we are not having enough conversation about the other part of this. rachel: i think it's a very fair. i think that russia didn't elect donald trump if that's what you are asking. the american people elected mr. trump. it was skewed by russian influence. americans have made and made bad decision in presidential elections over and over again. so don't feel like we are ignoring that part of it. i don't think for example, the democratic presidential primary, but not on russia, they are focused on who can be donald trump in this whole bases of that fight. but i do think that it is worth paying attention to. this unusual and unprecedented think that happened in 2016. for me, the reasons are included
in the book, i think is because understanding the incentive for the impotence for it, gives us a clear understanding of how to watch out for it in the future. and understand what is ongoing intentions might be. so i don't think it is 80 game. i don't think because you talk about one think you don't talk about the others. i am not embarrassed by or apologetic about my interest in that topic. i still think is still a freak at science-fiction movie. host: right. a sense of care, we can think about how we can think about this in the future. again, i don't think it's just about the united states, we are seeing this happen all of the place. do you think we are doing enough to make sure the something like this doesn't happen again. forty think that we are just ignoring the problems. rachel:
i think we are right in the middle of it. i think we are still leaving it. the same story. even just talking about upper echelon politics right now. the ukraine, scandal which is going to lead to the president being impeached, is the. [applause]. and is the continuation in some ways of the story that was the weird foreign influence think. it happened in 2016. it is a bizarre think. that robert moeller, gives testimony, one day in july and the next day, the president is like, who else can i get to interfere. you gotta do me a solid. [laughter] do you realize you can do this on your own that went out other countries. that is actually one of the weird things about this. i'm not directly answering your question but don't you think that it's weird that if the president wanted to solely joe
biden in the 2020 democratic presidential nomination, and that blake, and wanted to use this ukraine think. we do need to snouts, ukraine and is investigating joe biden for bob loblaw. why did they have to be trooper and he says a lot of things that are true all of the time. [laughter] this considered conspiracy theory, but he wanted to announce that they were doing so. in a way that was unnecessarily humiliating to the ukrainian president. and in a way that shared ukraine to be subservient to the united states. in a way that hurt the ukrainian president and only actually, and russia in terms of they have been negotiating against that. host: do you worry about what this means for united states his reputation and foreign policy and global politics.
rachel: yes. don't you pray [laughter]. host: i am very worried. rachel: i don't know where you go to your reputation back. particularly we do are asking allies and strategic partners in difficult circumstances to trust you to be there join things are bad. with what the united states did with a person northeast. period where you go and how me generations will it take to get there and how much work we do to prove to us on the basis of our good work. you don't get that back. host: if i can just sort of follow up on that. i am glad you mentioned the cards over here. and worse in the middle east. i think one of the things, some of my students have been asking about this. so much of the america media broadly defined and focused so
much of their attention on american politics. we don't really sort of have a any, here about what is going on in other parts of the world. the second example, the wars in syria and yemen and which is now become the united states of the longest running war in history. so to explain sort of the crime in terms of our attention and media attention on foreign affairs, international relations, global politics and other politics of the world. and what can we do about it. i think it is a real issue. in terms of how well we are informed about what is going on but also the impact of american policy. and that is what i get what things i guess this list in the spectra. rachel: i think the dynamic you are talking about israel. it is also not new. i think this is been an internal
dialogue and in this business as long as there has been news vertically as well as there's been television news. it is a struggle to get american audiences interested in particularly nuance international news coverage and it always has been. i would see for my own perspective in terms of dealing with that dynamic, it shows you i have editorial freedom. the think that i have sort of run up against which i don't know how to fix, is that join american politics are sort of normal or join things are even a fight for the american politics for the process of american policies, whatever's going on in america. it is sort of the way you might expect it to be. that opens up space to not only cover international news and impacted american policies worldwide but also also covering interesting things happening in individual spaces that might be a national front because
particularly outrageous. there is more room for that. join national politics is proceeding as national politics and join they are proceeding like something between a science-fiction movie and horror movie, join things are so strange that the federal loophole you end up not as transfixed by that, but also needing to devote enough time to it to explain what might explain the weirdness. and it ends up eating up sort of all the time. and i will see that michael bennett is one of the democratic candidates for president this year. i thought that he had the mind this part of the democratic presidential primary which is he said if i am i will paraphrase him. but i was president of how she would have to think about me for weeks at a time. [laughter] i promise to be boring. [applause]. and i was like, my heart swelled. one sign of a bad turn in politics is we do need to think about the dear leader 50 times a
day. in a well-run country you shouldn't have to think about your government that much. but in a very poorly run country, you have to think about your government almost to the exclusion everyday. host: let me ask you a little bit about the book itself. here are a couple of audience questions. so while we are researching books, you discover anything that surprised or shocked to you. rachel: yes. [laughter] you mentioned rocks earlier. i am still shocked that he was elected to be secretary of state. he arrived at the white house rented transition meeting, for he was offered ultimately offered a job. iran think he was going to give them some advice on setting up the new administration and he left as secretary of state. , never met him before. he had just done it after all julian dollar dealt with gladden putin and given a medal by
putin. and that half trillion dollar deal is the largest oil deal in history of exxon or the oil industry or indeed of deals. the deal was on hold because of u.s. sanctions because of the woods or in policies against russia. so he was brought in as somebody who don't, never met and was put in charge of news foreign policy at large. that is still freaking bizarre to me. and then long, is enough to sort of stopped me in my tracks. in the oil industry itself, i was surprised at some of the stuff that they are not good at. join i offered that i was going to read about the walruses, knows about the deep water horizon, and the industry for promoting itself for being prepared with any oil spill because they had a mitigation plan for making sure that any oil [applause] of walruses, and the gulf of mexico, is something that they had biologists on hand to handle.
enough you know anything about walruses but has brought like a beginning weather kind of animal. [laughter] this is the regional think and also the fact that if you go back to some of the worst oil spills in the nation news history back the 1960s and 70s, but they had to deal with those oil spills, are terrible. and these little things look like the land dividers from swim meets. fill them up with absorbent stuff and try to contain the oil. and they just stop the rest of it up with paper towels. that's how they would clean up the oil spills in 1960 news and sonny's and this also how they lean oil spills today. with paper towels. these are the richest corporations in the history of corporations. exxon mobil, broken the all-time corporate records and corporate profit records year after year after year just beating their own record every successive corner. what they have to clean up join things go wrong is diaper filling.
if they were tells and they don't do any r&d on that. that to me is like how can they do that. how can they have gotten this big and is powerful in the stretch that went out ever having been held any further, in that. host: picking up on the point in a way, what talking about over there is corporate responsibility what are they do about that. rachel: they regulate them. [applause]. host: you talk about the review. rachel: one of the ways that they can assist reviews by staying this has brought making rachel news book has brought making big radical proposals for how to deal with this. actually, take a look at this has brought rocket science. doing that with this is about making sure that the interest of this industry don't outstrip and overpower competing interests
that are just as important or more important. the need to be regulated. and it is possible. this is part of it where i feel like american citizens, and american news consumers, really privileged in this regard because the western oil makers are either headquartered here or do significant business here. as such, u.s. government, the federal government, has the ability to change the behavior of all of the oil majors all at once. by requiring them to do business is more responsive leaving join it comes down to something as basic as bribing foreign governments. one of the last sections of the works about something really sexy call section 16 oh four. [laughter] section 16 for the dodd frank reform act which ultimately requires oil company to declare publicly join they will bribing other countries. [laughter] they just have to be open about whether payments are to forum government. so the people in those countries
and those of us here and anybody else wants you activism on this issue can tell whether they are bribing people in order to get the right. it became law. and yes, rex quite crazy about it in the oil industry didn't want it. having that sort of transparency measure would have a huge impact in the world in terms of what oil companies are able to get away with. in the routing governance and other countries is literally the 1504th section of the bill. they got through, wouldn't change the world. in one news fatal stroke would've mayday big difference in taking that industry away from some of the most toxic behavior. that is the first think that the republicans and the trumpet ministration overturned join trump was written into office. and they did argue about it. they didn't want public debate about it. they did it so that people who are mentally ill, could buy firearms. and that the oil country didn't
have to declare their bribes. if we knew more about that in a fleet need to watch him more for things like that, understood and appreciated the important of those things, we would fight harder from stopping that to happen. host: is also in some ways, or more depressing and despite your sort of upbeat, sir. but the d regulations haven't taken place. so how do you get back from that. are you sort of hopeful. will we be able to do this again in the near future. rachel: think we need to appreciate what is important about beneficial government regulations. and we need to be able to understand not only what goes wrong join we recklessly deregulate but understand the positive benefit of some of the relations. that would make a difference so that we can continue argue for them. so we can ask our elected officials to do those things and so that can make sure they fight join they come pressure. and to appreciate the kinds of influences that erode those
powers. i think it is worth understanding how power works. because join it comes to changing things, you need to know who controls the levers of power because those are the influences that i either need to be taken out of the mix or set out. the more we understand these things, the better we will be able to fight for the changes. host: enable caps to understand precisely that. let me bring you back to the book tour. you've been on the road for a couple of months out. one of our audience members was wondering what is your experience been like. what is your take human. especially in live of the last couple of weeks but the impeachment hearings, be one it is weird and i have the ukrainian natural gas company be on the front page everyday. it was weird, i was writing a
book about this very same think out of all of his and his everywhere. one of the things that have been nice, i did a new york event the first night i published in the first place that i traveled to was tulsa. because so much of the book was about oklahoma and i wanted to sort of give people a chance to out me a little bit. like i wrote a lot about your state, the politics and dynamics of your state. in your personalities, tell me what i got wrong. and to go to oklahoma and spend time to talking to individual people, i was three people in tulsa who wanted to hear about my book on the evils of oil and gas. tulsa literally has a golden driller statue downtown like this three-story height . hi who is drilling oil. they have an active oil drilling rigs. on state capitol grounds including one that was in a flower garden is called petunia
number one. as an oil gas state and federal state. in together to talk to hundreds of people who for whom the argument resonates. and people who are adjacent themselves to the will and gas industry. they themselves who work in the business or friend to do. to me that was heartening because if you like this is an argument that isn't about good guys and bad guys in the united states who need to join the parts in fight or not. this is about following the contours of power and recognizing national interest in setting up for it. and all sorts of different people can get there. so that has been heartening for me. it's also been nice to get out of the studio and get out in the world. i've been sort of been chained at the wheel a little bit. at work and it's nice to be out. host: i hate to bring it back to the studio. [laughter] we have some questions about television and
news. i'm going to read you one of those. do you think the dramatized nation of television news, shows news as entertainment. driven by rankings and corporate profits as contributing to the dismal state of our politics today. [laughter]. rachel: if news we're more boring we have better politics. [laughter] there are lots of different ways and you news. i read the print press all day long. i think an american print journalism is one of the great wonders of the world. [applause]. the way that i do is that i consider it internal mantra ratio is that we are trying to increase the amount of useful
information in the world. in this kind of the test whether or not we should do something. does this help. this help people understand what's going on. is this useful information. are we just delivering the same information you can get everywhere or is it something that we can continue add or provide relative context for understanding and makes us a more constructive experience. and so the way that mass is on my show is that i don't have that many yes times because i write a lot. and try to explain what is happening. if it something important happens in quote that day, i am wheeling to redo the transcript of what happened then what that day. i know that's weird. i don't know weather. [applause]. i don't consider that dramatizing. it can send that to be conveying the information in a way that i think is most useful. in terms of the people that i do bring onto the show, everybody approaches that a different way.
more power to them. i don't and bring confidence. not very much. i feel like i am allowed to tell you what my opinion is about something that i am covering so i'm happy to do that and he is my opinion. the ceiling is going to fall. anybody who tells you that they are doing news that has zero opinion in it, has brought being honest about that. we all come from a subjective place. but i try not to be people on tv to fight with each other. i try not to run people on it i don't trust. or i think might be lying to you. if i am bring 70 on to my show, this area where i have editorial control, i am asking somebody to see something on my real estate, because i want you to be able to believe them. that is been weird and efficient because i don't have a lot of administrations on. [laughter] i don't value it in its own terms. as because i don't want to have to clean up we said after a segment to you. but also, most of what i do is
the bring on reporters to talk about the reporting. most of the people laugh on tv every night are people from washington post and new york times, and honestly, i cite a lot of cnn reporting if i could bring cnn reporters on i would prefer they don't let us do that. i cite fox news reporting. the data news division this been there in the primetime post, lifted this on something i will put on tv. is that competitively beneficial probably not but my imperative is to try to get what's important in the world and what it's important that you should know about and what might happen next. i feel like there is lots of different size of doing it. how i do it. and i feel like, obviously tortured on a daily basis in terms of what i'm doing it well or not. i don't think we're approaching it the wrong way. host: [applause].
host: no i want to follow up of that. the broadening ship and politics and media. there is a recent research, that suggests in a poll that the parties, not only disagree about policies and plans, but they disagree about the basic facts. so what you think is the brawl of a journalist and the responsibility of a journalist or a talkshow host, in order to not only sort of convey the news to get us to think about it in the way that you do, give us a different perspective. more importantly to persuade your audience, the facts are not simply a matter of interpretation. that they really matter in the world. have you do that. we think is the responsibility and the brawl of journalism. rachel:
journalism is the discovery of facts. they find factual information in the world. exciting journalism is often asked that people in power don't want known. there is no persuasion or care. i think if you president journalistic information in a news context whether it's on tv or in print or some of their way, that is what you are working on. i don't think that anybody consciously says i don't care about the facts, i instead only want to hear things that come forth with my understanding of the world. i think people gravitate towards the news of the trust. and if people trust me, i wanted to be trustworthy. [applause]. host: next week what you up to bring [laughter].
rachel: tuesday wednesday and thursday this week there are impeachment hearings. [laughter] and a couple of those days, there are two impeachment hearings. kill me now. [laughter] i'm going to fly to georgia tonight because i'm one of the moderators of the democratic debate on was a night. [applause]. which is awesome. and also are you freaking kidding me. it forges my job to do the think on wednesday night, i would be like, that would be fantastic. i would love nothing more than to spend all my time preparing for that. incredibly intense and super anything can go wrong spotlight moment where i'm terrified. ) the only way you can succeed as a moderator of the debate is
if nobody notices you ever prayed and then forget you we're there because you despair because only the candidates matter. that's what we're going for. anytime your notice, bad news. i get is hope so high-stakes that it is terrifying and so hard to prepare for. in addition to doing that, and i need you shows on top of that. so, i am very stressed. mac but this time next week i should be fine. and i don't know how long the impeachment will go on for actually. we will see. host: you don't know prayed. rachel: du. [laughter] i would love to have a schedule. i talked to congressman jim hines, who came on my show friday and i said how long will this one. he said i'll probably get be done by next week. and i thought we would be double not going to be done. i don't know how long it will be going on for. i think the republicans want the trial in the senate to expend as much of the democratic i'm as
possible because our estimate democratic senators who are running. you have to be here. [laughter] going to put something on your seat i will be seat to prayed [laughter] forgive me. [laughter] is the very small minded approach to a very big weighty congregational approach. this meant to see. [laughter] and so well said. [laughter] [applause]. host: it is very well said. i have a couple more questions for you and i know we have to let you go. so given all that you are describing next week, given that you have a day job, you have an evening job, how do you manage to write this amazing book. and was it fun for you. rachel: no it was not fun. i mean, i like the stories, like getting stuff, like it is dark,
but oh my we've god is the fascinating. i got lost in that. the story in oklahoma, i love digging that's about. the weird story of rex. that is a weird cat. bringing that story out is interesting. if sections, like pollutants pet crocodile who runs the rushing record that we've god is the freaking piece of work. [laughter] i like crazy characters. i like digging up stories, i like learning stuff. that is fun. but you learn all of that by reading and reporting and talking to people. but join it comes to actually writing it down, that makes me want to die. [laughter]. host: join the club. i feel the same way. it can imagine very many people who don't prayed. rachel: join you are writing, i find that if you are writing to speak, like your writing lecture notes and you are preparing a talk, to be a love that. i get super into it. i don't have to.
but what i'm writing to commit something to print, it makes me much more stressed out. host: are you kidding, all of the time. rachel: we are writing for the word to be out there. and once it's there, committed. you better own it. in terms of finding time to do it, it's not a good idea to do a book on top of the day job like the one that i have. i've been in crisis performance, and the spine of an 85 -year-old, it is terrible. i am telling myself [laughter]. host: one last question, what do you do for fun. [laughter]. rachel: what is this plan of what you speak. [laughter] i'm just here, i just live. [applause]. this is permanent.
i will live here, this is home for me. [applause]. i do grow up. i grew up in the san francisco bay area. [applause]. fifteen if i would know. [inaudible conversation] rachel: i worked in new york during week and it come here on the weekends. i try not to work much on the weekend. and i really try to have a live here that is not about where i don't think about rex or shaun. i do my think. so i fish, unlike a semi pro drinker. [laughter]. host: had i known, would've brought newsom cocktails. [laughter]. rachel: i love leaving here.
getting out of new york is the most valuable think that i do. honestly, being able to be here and be out on the river, and to be leaving in outdoor based live here, is really important to me. that is what is keeping me sane. host: that is wonderful to hear. [applause]. host: i am one tiny question before we let you go. join asked blowup, the movie coming out. rachel: who would you cast is rex. host: will work on it. come on. host: is crying for a movie. come on. rachel: i think that's an excellent idea. and i will call you about
representation. [applause]. host: rachel, thank you so much. [applause]. >> this sunday, booktv features three new books. at 5:30 p.m. eastern, author and columnist amber compares the economic debate in the 1915, to those that are happening today in her book, great society and world history. generally speaking there was a terrible morning after effect of the fall of the great society bench, the economy began to sway as a never had before. we know that an appointment went towards 10 percent and we know that interest rates went past 1. the high cost of labor, and apologies met by the government, did drive american companies to leave town. crested growth in his field. >> at 8:00 p.m., simpson discusses his book, co-authored
with peter french, crime and progress. inside the still dossier in the fusion gps investigation of donald trump. >> to my mind the pitcher of what happened is this is actually pretty clear. but i get the fact that other people don't see that. because there has been this deliberate effort to obscure that. at the highest levels of our government by donald trump, and his attorney general, william r. and they have succeeded to some extent and confusing people about with the facts are. >> then at 9:00 p.m., and afterwards, joe rockets, founder of ameritrade, talks about his book the harder you work, the luckier you get. and entrepreneurs memoir. select always have same to myself, be ready to fail. be ready to lose all of your dreams. and start over. and the fact i have got a website entrepreneurial jobs .com.
in one of the entrepreneurs and that website that i interview, says entrepreneurs are different. we fail, and we do, we get back on the horse. >> watched tv and every weekend, on "c-span2". >> here's a look at some of the most notable books of 2019. according to publishers weekly, and solitary, with fox reflect on his time in solitary confinement. historian brenda at one apple, recalls the impeachment trial president andrew johnson in 1868, in the end features. an antisocial new yorkers and brands of reports on how the all right has exploited the internet to promote extremist views. james donovan provides a history of the space race. in 1969 apollo 11 moon landing and two for the moon. and and guesthouse for young widows, journalist, talks about
how women from around the world are recruited by isis. and there he experiences after joining. >> they went in or pursued an i.c.e. is online in the press had no idea what was happening. and the things that they were hearing, we're not come join a death colt enslaved women. certainly that's not what they were hearing. they got straight a's, they were bright, they were the girls that the teachers, admired. and they started being exposed to on instagram and twitter on platforms and motive messaging from isis privately can do about real guantanamo bay and from burma to palestine. they were hearing about crimes. they were visibly, they were headscarves, they were hearing a lot of being persuaded.
then there was a place for them you wrote. that they can beat european citizens and here at the same time. so they were lowered by the idea that they could go joy this utopian society where they would have a brawl and be empowered and respected. >> all of these authors have appeared on book to be printed on the programs in their entirety book to be done or good the authors name in the search bar at the top of the page. and now join me in welcoming john adams. [applause]. >> is there a gavel. not official mostly of the gavel. [laughter] so the weight is join work is going to die right in with questions. intro will be the same rules are the same and then will jump