announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: ian bremmer is here, the president of the consulting firm, eurasia group. every year, they publish a list of top global risks. they published a list, 2017, the geopolitical recession. welcome back. i don't know if it's going to be a happy new year or not. what do you think? you talk of a global recession as we begin talking about risk. ian: we are here.

i have the firm 20 years ago. we have never seen a geopolitical environment this unstable. recessionn economic every seven or eight years. geopolitical recessions do not happen as often. but now, the end of this old order and the united states saying we don't want, not just to be the cop for the world, which has been coming for a long time, but we are not going to be the architect on trade. we are not going to promote our values globally. no one else is prepared to do that. and the election of trump, the united states is the driver of geopolitical uncertainty on the world stage. that is a new thing. charlie: let's talk about the breakdown of geopolitical recession. it means what? you've outlined some suggestions -- the u.s. is not playing the role it has played before or at least if you believe the

president-elect, he does not plan to play that role because voters don't seem to want to play that role. ian: i think that's right. it's a combination of both. voters have been less happy and sed withfused -- enthu the idea of america taking on lots of burdens that multilateral institutions want. charlie: anywhere but here. ian: that's right. i think trump play that very well and hillary clinton frankly did not. globalist was a dirty word. at the republican national convention, when he got the nomination, he used that extremely effectively. it speaks well to the average american, but it's not just the united states. when you talk about geopolitical recession, we recognize our allies in europe are weak and fragmented, facing enormous internal challenges. the middle east is in disarray, asia has stronger leaders. china is much more willing to provide leadership economically

that challenges u.s. architecture, norms and values, but in no other way. the russians are willing to do that in security, but no other way. put all of those things together and then you elect president trump come january 20, i think we can say pax americana is over. we enter this geopolitical recession and what is interesting about it is it is not going to be an enormous challenge for the united states at home. the global economic recession of 2008 affected everyone and there was an enormous coupling of the global economies. geopolitically, while europe bleeds and while there is an arms race going on in asia and we have territorial disputes, in the united states, we don't have a problem. charlie: president obama has said to me and to others, when i'm around the world, they want america to lead. is that no longer true or is it that america doesn't want to lead? ian: it is true and it's good

obama has come to recognize that after eight years of the president because a lot of the same leaders would look to obama and say you have not been leading, sir. charlie: is that only having to do with war in the middle east or does that have to do with global economic leadership? ian: it has to do clearly with global economic leadership. there was a time after the 2008 recession where the chinese said the american model does not work anymore, we should move away from that. but more than that, it's about american values. if you go and talk to leaders in asia who desperately say they want the united states -- part of that is they believe the united states created these multilateral institutions like the u.n., like the imf, like bretton woods on currency, they want americans upholding those standards.

trump saying i would much rather work with putin, who is a strong man and you can get done, and the values inside that country doesn't necessarily matter, that is unnerving to american allies and it's hard to put your finger on that. charlie: i would ask is he different from a lot of other american leaders? they did not ask those questions when they were making nuclear agreements. they did not ask what are you doing about this minority group in your country or this other minority group. they said how can we make a nuclear agreement that is in both of our national interests. they were not stressing american values, they were stressing security. ian: and kissinger is an extreme side of that and jimmy carter is perhaps the other. america still has been promoting, for example, free media.

free markets globally. the rule of law. we can make it pretty clear that trump's inclinations are that the american presidency has been diminished because american corporations are not acting in a patriotic matter and american media is not acting in a patriotic manner and he thinks the american presidency would do better and we would have a stronger negotiating position if they were to back up the americans and not act like a bunch of globalists. charlie: do you think the obama presidency in world affairs was a successful presidency? ian: no, and it saddens me to say that because this is clearly a guy who want the best. you look at the way he has comported himself in the presidency, you look at the

values he has lived up to himself, the way he is tried to lead by example with his family, his friends come with his white house, you want this guy to be able to succeed, and yet, when you look at the obama administration's balance sheet internationally, where they have succeeded and where they have failed, they have this limited iran deal in their failed -- -- limited iran deal in their favor. you have some good symbolism with hiroshima and pearl harbor, but aside from that, the transatlantic relationship is worse than it has been since the end of world war ii, the russia relationship is an abject failure which makes it harder to criticize trump and it is hard to criticize trump on the hacks, which i'm sure we will get into, precisely because obama has been so ineffectual at dealing with the russians on a bunch of issues. charlie: why is that? ian: why has he been ineffectual?

on the one hand, he does want to talk strong principles and values, but there needs to be a recognition that if you don't actually care that much or if your allies are not really going to be with you, you cannot necessarily accomplish the things you want. he thinks he's on the 20 yard line, he's ready to kick a field goal. you recognize you have been pushed back to the 50, at some point, he have to bring the kicking team on and play the long game. charlie: where are the cases where europeans were not with obama and obama was not with them? ian: look at syria. charlie: except for syria. in terms of dealing with russia? ian: on ukraine, there's no question. the ability of the united states to get strong and firm measures against the russians was like

pulling teeth. the support from the europeans to actually build ukraine as an economy to make them sustainable was virtually zero. germany absolutely was not there. the desire of the europeans to work with russia on energy, half of them were working to ensure that. charlie: is that a failure of obama's leadership? ian: i think it's a failure of obama to realize that if the constellations of interests don't get the russians of you hang -- at of ukraine, you're going to change or policy. i think it was true on syria and it has been true handling the hacks as well. i think obama made a big mistake handling the hacks. charlie: in what way? ian: if he truly believe this was a threat to national security, and he said it does and was the legitimizing the american election, and he said that was true, you hit the russians hard and definitively when it is going on.

you don't tell them to cut it out. he said he did not want to do it because he did not want to be perceived in the united states as being partisan and supporting hillary. i say mr. president, with all due respect, and i have a lot of respect for this man, you are the president. perception as being perceived as partisan is a lot less important than ensuring the national security of the country you run. that is not leadership. charlie: he also feared a reaction ahead of the election as well. ian: he did fear that. and as a consequence was unable to respond to a clear and direct threat to an american institution we all hold as incredibly important. charlie: when president-elect trump talks about putin, what is at heart in that relationship? ian: there are a lot of things we can focus on. if you are trying to put points

on the board, in the same way that bobby comes over and gives you a golf club, it is easy for trump to say look, barack says assad must go, we know that foolish, he still there. obama is going i can work with these russians, easy for trump to put some points on the board. easy to say crimea was russian before, it's russian now, let them recognize it. easy for trump to do that. the europeans moving away from sanctions, easy to normalize that. there is also the issue that trump does not support american exceptionalism, and this is a bane for putin as well. the idea that there is a transactional foreign policy that occurs between two adults that are strongmen that can do business together is attractive to trump and attractive to putin. but, when i add up all of that,

that does not quite get me to the effusive level of consistent support that america first trump seems to be promoting. charlie: he does not believe in american exceptionalism? ian: trump has clearly said we should not be exporting american democracy abroad. charlie: that is not a unique position. a lot of people have said it is not wise to go to a country and said they should accept america's version of democracy. they have a different culture, different system. we cannot go into iraq and say we are going to impose an american political system on you. ian: but putin looks at, that hillary and said these are

people who fundamentally believe and they are willing to try to delegitimize me as a consequence. he believes that and sees trump as someone who will not do that. charlie: what should obama have done instead of just retaliate in kind? ian: i think there would have had to be strong responses that were at the time not just about sanctions. they would have had to include direct cyber attacks. charlie: what would we have attacked? ian: there were a series of recommendations made to the president by the cia about these are the options in front of you and he chose not to take them because he thought they were dangerous. i'm not privy to what those targets would have been and i would not be able to talk about them.

charlie: the idea that they were in the economic interest of vladimir putin? ian: they could have frozen a lot of assets. charlie: there are also things that they did that we do not know. they are not telling us everything that they did. ian: i'm sure that is true, but if you look at what they are telling us and what they did, one assumes there is some level -- commencewitness .ate trump comes in and putin can look magnanimous and sam not going to pay attention because you are relevant, i'm going to work with my boy donald. charlie: 2016 was a successful year for vladimir putin. he came out of the middle east and syria as a power player. a person who empowered bashar al-assad who is now on the winning side, who is now eradicating rebel forces wherever he can find them and surrounding damascus?

ian: assad must go? it turns out obama must go. how many people would have expected that five years ago. charlie: when obama leaves power, a thought is still in power, primarily because of vladimir putin. ian: they are the ones putting an end to the war and coordinating the cease-fire. there are very few rebels to speak of at this point. clearly, isis has had territory taken away and it's a positive thing. but if you want to see who was the man of the year, it is this guy running an economy that is not doing particularly well, an education system that is falling apart, not a global power anymore. yet putin has been able to run circles around other countries. charlie: and the largest nuclear force in the world. ian: the u.s. is number two.

charlie: before i go to china, tell me where war is most likely to break out. ian: this is the geopolitical concept, sitting across the table, if you would have asked me if there was any real possibility of a serious war between major countries, i would have said nothing, but i look at 2017 and i can no longer say it is impossible. i don't think it's going to happen, but i think it is possible. charlie: where is it possible? ian: because of the profound lack of trust between the major countries the world, accidents can escalate to a greater degree. the possibility of an armed confrontation over north korea is now, i think possible. charlie: layout the scenario for an armed confrontation over north korea.

ian: trump tweet today -- charlie: they do not have missiles they can deliver to continental america. ian: trump decides he's going to set his own redline. we know redline's have gotten us in trouble for a particularly in north korea and a bunch of administrations have been wasted on that. but what if he means they are going to be stopped. charlie: president obama they would not tolerate iran having nuclear weapons. ian: or they said chemical weapons would not be tolerated in syria. charlie: they got rid of the chemical weapons. ian: they did. the point being the billy to -- the ability to prevent north korea from continuing to develop this program is something the united states has extremely

limited capability to ensure. we can get the chinese to engage with us on some multilateral sanctions and they have been incredibly ineffective at getting the north koreans to the table. either trump is going to have a much better relationship with china than he has shown in -- then he has shown an inclination to have or he's going to have to come up with some sort of creative diplomacy, what can we give them to work with us? thus far, that seems unlikely, or he's going to have to take a hard line and what, he's going to militarily attacked north korea or sanction the chinese because they are not cutting off the north koreans? that has the ability to get the north koreans really agitated and you could imagine the north koreans witting gauge militarily -- wooded gauge -- would engage militarily in their backyard and create accidents. charlie: what if the u.s. would

take out any nuclear facilities they had? what would happen? ian: maybe nothing. charlie: wouldn't the rest of the world applaud? ian: let's see were the south koreans are at that point. we have a south korean president that's going to be forced out and quite likely replaced in quick elections with the opposition in south korea. that opposition would be aligned with the chinese, not the united states. they would probably toss out the idea of this missile defense system the americans worked out. south korea will suddenly be working more closely and japan is going to feel isolated. china is going to feel like trump is pushing an externally volatile way. the number of countries applauding the united states when we do a good thing is reducing because the countries are not as convinced the united states is there for them over the long-term. but obama is right, when you look around the world, there are

an awful lot of countries that would like to see more u.s.. you ask if they think are going to get it under a trump administration, the answer for most of them is no. charlie: in the middle east, that includes the sunni countries? ian: i was just there and met with a lot of leaders in a region and i think the gulf arabs have such a hard time with obama and they like the fact trump is going after iran and israel is not as relevant as it used to be. they are kind of hopeful, especially with tillerson as the secretary of state nominee that trump is a businessman, he wants to fight terrorism, he can work with strongman authoritarians and is not going to criticize them on human rights, maybe trump is ok for them. they don't know any of the trump people, but they are cautiously hopeful. the europeans are not, asians

are not, the chinese certainly are not, so if you ask me to take the temperature of the room around the world of do people get unnerved or excited about trump coming on as president, largely tilts to the former. charlie: because he is unpredictable? there was a piece today called the method in trump's messaging habits, that everything is an initial offer and everybody knows that and they are simply playing to what his instinct is as a real estate developer. you come in with a much larger demand and you expect to get. it's all negotiation. ian: sure. and i think there will be deals that get done. if you are mexico today looking at photos -- looking at ford closing a plant in mexico because trump is telling corporations to become

patriotic, that is zero-sum. if you are china and you are seeing trump talking about your opening negotiation may be off the reservation -- charlie: what is wrong with asking your business is to be patriotic? ian: there may be nothing wrong with it. we have been focusing on the rest of the world. if we were focusing on american workers, clearly even before becoming president, trump has shown he's willing to use the bully pulpit he's going to have to force american corporations to pay more attention to american jobs. that is clearly a useful thing. if he adds to that some infrastructure spending, that would be a great thing for the u.s. but you can't ask me if other countries think it's good. charlie: isn't every leader committed to try the best thing he can for his own economy and his own people? isn't that what being elected leader is about? ian: free market capitalism as americans have experienced it has historically been about

creating a global market that is as efficient as possible. we of the biggest companies in the world and want access to all of this markets. we want to let those corporations invest for they see fit to maximize profitability. if trump is saying that's fine, but these companies are not american. they are global companies and we see inversions where a company will headquartered celfin u.k. or ireland for tax reasons, then i'm going to hit them hard. when he says that american corporations should be patriotic, chinese corporations are very patriotic. the question is, will he be successful? we have to recognize the number of jobs created by ford's announcement and a number of jobs closed in mexico is 1800. most jobs that leave the united states now are not going to other countries, they're going to machines. trump can build walls but they do not keep ai from advancing. one of the things i do worry

about is whether trump is going to start going after silicon valley in a much harder way. is he going to start saying uber, you are evil because you are taking away all these jobs? i'm not going to allow you to create a system where american -- charlie: and the idea of retraining rings hollow to so many people now. ian: you can force a company or five or 50 two five more jobs and get some tax credits and invest in the night and the u.s. is not a bad bet. if labor does not matter as much to productivity, you should not be producing as much in china because china is much more uncertain than you have to pay to have things shipped. charlie: talk about xi jinping. clearly he wants to be

positioned as a strong and great chinese leader. this perception of the chinese people, he wants them to believe that and he believes in peace and prosperity and yet he is a strong nationalist as well. ian: this is the big year for him. charlie: having all those factors at play, how does he behave? ian: i think one of the most dangerous things globally about the trump presidency with his volatility, with his opening gambit, but then let's see where we get but i'm going to bluster and say whatever i want and rip up the script, is that this is a bad year to do that with the chinese because of their party congress and leadership change coming up. this is the year xi jinping cannot be seen to look weak and his willingness to overreact to a trump administration that is

seen as playing games on taiwan, on the south china sea, on north korea is intentionally quite -- is potentially quite dangerous. charlie: talk about 2017, angela merkel. might not win? ian: will when. -- will win. i know i should not say things like that anymore. sometimes they are not true. i certainly did not think trump was going to win. most of us did not. but in the case of germany, unlike in france where marine le pen could win french elections, in germany, you just don't have the problems with the middle class and working class because the eu works for the germans. you have the identity problems, the refugee issues, the security issues, but not the economic issues. you can't have an issue with merkel saying him hitting a vast economic deal. it's going to be with a weaker,

more fragmented coalition and the one thing you and i have been able to count on out of europe since the financial crisis, no matter what kind of pickle these guys get themselves into, merkel is a strong leader. she can respond to brexit, she can respond to the greek crisis. now, we are looking at 2017 and there are just as many crises coming into europe. you have not resolved the refugee issues, the terrorist problems, the french elections. merkel is not going to be able to respond the way she had before and the u.s. german relationship is much more challenged now than it was when you are dealing with obama. i think europe looks particularly vulnerable because they haven't fixed any of these structural issues that confront them and yet, they no longer have the leadership to kick the can down the road. charlie: let's talk about the

white house versus silicon valley. we saw trump invite all of silicon valley and most of them came. what do you see in terms of 2017? >> it would have been shocking if a president-elect had invited bunch of ceos and they had chosen not to come. i take it at face value, they show up, have a photo op, that's great. but, unlike carrier, boeing and ford, which are corporations, i think there are deals that are easy for them to do that make them look good. silicon valley is going to be much harder and for a few reasons. one is that none of those guys supported trump with the exception of peter thiel. libertarian silicon valley, he got completely trounced in california. he does remember that.

more importantly, they are the ones who run social media. they run the algorithms and searches, amazon, google and facebook. jeff bezos owns the washington post. there is going to be a real fight over information and media space that trump feels he needs to control and his chief strategist, steve bannon, feels they need to control. silicon valley is on the opposite side of that of that's going to be a problem. then you have the issue that on security, trump is going to take a much more intrusive perspective as you have seen with his new cia director appointment and many others. much more a we need to have access to this data, we need to be intrusive, that's going to be a problem for the corporate and -- corporate's in silicon valley. add to that the discussion we just had about jobs and silicon valley is the one part of the u.s. economy that is knocking the cover off the ball. but that's all about trying to find ways to do efficient work without people.

you can see how the single most important driver of u.s. and global economic growth is suddenly really on the wrong side of president trump, and i do wonder how many of those companies are going to say, you in theat, being based u.s., we are not sure how much we want to do under this guy and we are not sure how to come up with a modus vivendi with this guy. it's going to be a big fight. charlie: you think like these major companies with some of the highest market gap in america, businesses are say we're going , to move outside the country? ian: i think they are going to see it will be very hard to align their fundamental interest with what trump is going to be demanding. some of them will end up sucking it up and dealing. some of them will spin off some parts of their company that are particularly problematic and seldom and do more money in the united states. but they need education. they need the h-1b's and that is a place were trump is not

showing a lot of inclination to be really supportive. charlie: what is it about trump that worries most people? is it simply he seems to be playing by different rules and different assumptions than anybody else in the past? ian: i come at this with the perspective that trump is my president, i want him to succeed, and we need him to succeed. but i also wonder to the extent that he fails, is he likely to fail more because he is incompetent, more because he is corrupt, or more because he is authoritarian? the first two of those things don't bother me very much. the third one does. incompetent -- if it turns out he fails because he's incompetent, the system can deal with that, and you will have smart people and smart institutions around. [speaking simultaneously] ian: it is not corruption. if there's something that worries me, it is that he feels because he's an authoritarian -- fails because he's an authoritarian personality.

in other words, if what trump is really driven by is the acquisition of power at the expense of others, and if he fails in that way, particularly if the u.s. has a crisis, and he starts becoming more unpopular , he isn't seen as doing well. he goes into the 20's and is getting hit on all sides and he refuses to take it, if you have a crisis, the ability of the u.s. executive to respond to a crisis and do things that could actually truly undermine , the long-term sustainability of democratic institutions is real. charlie: so the scenario is what? ian: the scenario is, you think about the 2008 crisis and how u.s. presidents, two u.s. presidents were able to cut , checks for trillions of dollars without congressional oversight. or look at 911, the patriot act and all the rest. so the finale is if it turns out trump's downside is not in confidence or corruption but he is authoritarian tendencies, if that is true, the thing that would worry me is in response to a crisis, that

authoritarian inclination really damages our democracy long-term. that would be my concern. charlie: so he loses any sense of paying attention to democracy values thatcratic this country has been founded on? ian: he said that putin is a stronger leader than obama. he said that. charlie: he said that in terms of, i remember it. he said he's a stronger leader for russia than obama is. ian: there is no question. charlie: he was not recommending putin for the united states. ian: he was not. charlie: but for russia, he's a stronger leader. ian: i don't think we know enough yet to know which of those three -- [speaking simultaneously] ian: we don't actually know. we know a lot of showmanship, but we don't know what his weakness is. it turns out i think obama's weakness is resolved in -- resolved and leadership when risks needed to be taken. obama is a guy that has no problems accepting fact.

trump does not like accepting facts. charlie: when he listens and says i don't believe the , intelligence is right when they say that russia's hacking the united states. ian: when it turns out that trump is not accepting facts, is that happening because of lack of competence, because he is a different set of interests that support him and his family and his corporation, or is it because he actually wants to accumulate more power? i think we don't know the answer to that. we all want him to to succeed , but we do have to recognize there is downsides. charlie: there is some reason he doesn't want the facts to be real, for example. ian: that is what worries me. we have a couple of weeks before we get into a very different environment with our president. charlie: thank you for coming. ian bremmer, the risk for 2017. back in a moment. ♪ stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: megyn kelly, the anchor at fox news, announced today she was leaving the network after more than a dozen years. she will take a prominent role at nbc news. she has been the host of the second most-watched program on the channel. her profile grew rapidly after the presidential campaign after a feud with donald trump that began at the first primary debate in august of 2015.

trump criticized kelly for asking him about his attitude toward women. megyn: you have called women you don't like fat pigs slobs, and , disgusting animals. your twitter account -- mr. trump: only rosie o'donnell. [applause] megyn: no, it wasn't. your twitter account -- [applause] donald trump: thank you. megyn: for the record, it was well beyond rosie o'donnell. mr. trump: i'm sure it was. charlie: joining me now is brian stelter, the host of "reliable sources." before that he was at the new york times. i'm pleased to have him back at the table. welcome. brian: thank you. charlie: tell me how big a story this is for you and the media because you cover the media. brian: for tv insiders, it's one of the biggest deals of the decade. for over a year, for over a decade, why? because as you know, she's one of the rising stars on

television, one of the rising stars on media, and we saw that so vividly during the u.s. presidential election, during that very first debate and all throughout the campaign as trump waged a campaign against her. kelly's star was rising and rising and rising. she is controversial, but she is clearly a breakout within this television news orbit. to see her leave, and not just leave, but go to nbc was a really -- was really a bombshell today. i think it is saying a lot about where tv is right now. charlie: what does it say about where tv is right now? brian: we are all going through what we know is a media revolution, and it's not happening as quickly as you might think. these changes are gradual and there is still room apparently for a $15 million deal or $20 million deal like we saw today. there's still millions of people who want to turn on their tv and watch megyn kelly, to watch charlie rose, if i may say to , watch these programs every day. you might have thought 10 years ago that these were going to change everything.

and they are. mobile phones are changing everything, but not so quickly. so megyn kelly is clearly looking at the landscape, deciding she wants to leave fox but wanting to go to a big network with a lot of opportunities to reach many millions of people. and that is nbc. charlie: what does it mean for fox? brian: that's the big question that i don't have an answer to yet. if you look at fox, they have not named a replacement for her today. they say she's only going to stay until the end of the week. charlie: and of the week, she is out of their? brian: yes. turns out she will be on for a few more days, and that is it. you can understand why, if someone is moving out, you want them to move out as soon as possible, but for fox, they do stand at a crossroads of sort. megyn kelly was the closest thing to a trump critic or trump antagonist on fox. now all of a sudden, she will be gone. will fox mean even more heavily

toward a pro trump network? will their identity become more clear now, or will they surprise us with someone we are not expecting? charlie: it is said that rupert murdoch's sons very much wanted her to stay because they wanted her to represent the future fox. brian: that is right. this is a clear disappointment for all of the murdochs. locklin murdoch received a call from her, talking about her decision. but then very quickly, nbc made its announcement. nbc thinks they are doing a big investment in the future. she's going to have a daytime show. she is going to have a primetime show on sunday night, and then be a part of special event coverage. where that leaves fox, we shall see. charlie: we will see, the huge footprint roger ailes has had. he had to resign. he built this juggernaut in cable news. brian: and of course and megyn

, kelly was one of the ones who came forward alleging harassment against roger ailes. there was pressure for him to resign. fox has not skipped a beat in the six months since. if you thought that roger ailes leaving was going to be the downfall of fox news absolutely , not. the ratings are strong as it is a pro trump network in some cases and i suspect it will , continue to be that. charlie: i should say that in terms of their reporters, and i have met a lot of political reporters who play it straight -- brian: they have journalists. charlie: guys who are in the business of opinions rather than reporting the news are second. -- separate. brian: fox is a journalism operation and a political operation. it is both things. its core identity is conservative, but you are right, there are important and really impressive reporters there. megyn kelly felt it was not the right place for her anymore. she did not always feel supported at fox.

there was always -- not always there was occasional sniping , from her post bill o'reilly and sean hannity, so it makes sense for her to try to do a new approach. but this is also a very big risk for her. we do not see these deals happen very often. talent like megyn kelly leaving for another network, and when we do see it sometimes it does not , end up working well. charlie: last time this was happening, the last time it was so amazing was when dan rather was about ready to work for abc news and instead, walter cronkite resigned, so he could assume the chair at cbs. brian: i think about katie couric in 2006 also. she is an interesting case, because she was at nbc, goes to cbs, anchors for several years. the view is that it was not a success, does a daytime talk show, was not a complete success. now is a yahoo! that could be a cautionary tale for megyn kelly, but the media

world is changing every year. i don't know where we are going to be in 10 years. maybe in 10 years megyn kelly is anchoring the nightly news or the today show. but this is interesting. she told you a year ago last her april dream job would be a little bit of charlie rose, a little bit of oprah and a little bit of me, and that is what she says she will be doing now. that is what she has told people around her, her advisers, around the christmas holiday when she was trying to figure out what decision to make. she concluded the nbc offer was the best way to get to that dream job of this newscast where she could show some of herself, do hard-hitting interviews, and have panel discussions, and be free from the fox orbit. there will be this primetime sunday night program, and i would expect that in the fall. charlie: let's talk about that what is that? , first. brian: that is a program like what brian williams tried to do five years ago. charlie: [indiscernible] brian: it was a magazine show.

a lot like 60 minutes. this one, we would expect to be molded around megyn kelly, and she has the support of her boss , her new boss andy lack, the boss of nbc who created west , 57th street decades ago. there is a lot of logic to him in this deal. of course, she might be going up against 60 minutes or going up against a lot of compelling sunday night programming. you think about even all the dramas on cable these days, it is a very competitive landscape throughr her to break will be a tremendous challenge. we are a couple of weeks away from a new president. ian bremmer was with you talking about the prospect of authoritarian behaviors from this president. the landscape for the country is very uncertain, and the landscape for journalism is very uncertain right now. a lot of journalists are downright fearful about what is to come from this administration. megyn kelly of course is a visible manifestation of what trump can do to journalists

attacking her by name, reach retweetingt a -- people calling her ugly words, that kind of thing. charlie: did it hurt her? brian: it hurt her among some core fox viewers. they say they don't want to see her. they are glad she is leaving fox. how many? not much, but their voices are loud. it hurt her among the trump fan base that turns against whoever trump tells them to turn against, but it did not hurt her against the broader public. charlie: you have a program on cnn, "reliable sources." brian: i was talking to a colleague you said this is a cable news presidency and also a social media presidency. what it really is is a cable social media presidency. that is what donald trump is doing. we will see when he takes over in washington, and i think what we are seeing from television hosts, from journalists increasingly as well, that combination. you know i was talking to josh

, earnest about this, the outgoing white house press secretary. journalists, politicians are not so different right now. on both sides, there are the same challenges, trying to figure out new forms of distribution and reach an audience that feels real and authentic. you can love or hate donald trump's tweets, but he knows what he is doing with that device. charlie: what is it when you talk to reporters and journalists pondering this question what is the relationship going to be with the trump administration. what are the questions that they are raising, what fears do they have? brian: being honest, what i hear over and over again is how bad , can it really be? it can be really bad. blacklisting reporters from the white house briefing room. the way trump did during the campaign. what i mean by bad is audits of journalists through the irs. what i mean by bad is using the espionage act to subpoena journalists and charge them with crimes for using information from anonymous sources for intelligence stories.

david sanger of the "new york times" is a great example of someone who uses anonymous sources inside the intelligence agencies to tell us what is going on, what our government is doing for us. it is those kinds of investigative journalists who have deep-seated fears. now the obama administration's record is not stellar on this either. charlie: you spoke to us about that over the weekend. the point in terms of check -- of tracing down sources. brian: james rosen that fox and others. the trump administration could improve on those tactics in a way that would have a chilling effect on journalists. there are a number of other issues. there are nonprofit journalistic organizations that fear seeing their irs status changed. they are concerned about credentials. there is a laundry list of possible things. what i would say is journalists are thinking about the worst-case scenarios and hoping those won't happen. charlie: thank you, brian.

♪

♪ charlie: we close with a conversation i did with megyn kelly at barnes & noble on november 16, 2016. here is an excerpt from that conversation. when you went to fox, was that a dream come true for you? megyn: absolutely. i just wanted to be on tv. you know, i didn't choose -- charlie: did you want to be on

tv or did you want to report? megyn: i wanted to report the news on tv. charlie: there's a difference between wanting to be a star and wanting to be a reporter. megyn: i know this because not long after i got my job at fox my old friend and i won't , identify her, was on one season of the apprentice. she said can you connect me with your agent and get me an interview with your boss? i said what do you want to do ? she said said you know me, i , don't want to do a reading or research, i just want to be in the spotlight. [laughter] megyn: she said, i will call my boss and i will see if there are any such openings available for a person like that and we will get back to you. but no, i wanted to be a broadcast journalist which after much soul-searching i thought was the right thing to do. and so i got this resume tape going and started calling news directors. some poor named bill lord at the abc affiliate in washington, d.c. gave me a job one day a week while i maintained by law job.

and i loved it. i loved it. i felt just so invigorated by it. and after nine months, they offered me a full-time job, and then fox offered me a full-time job, and it was then i knew i would leave the law. i was in the d.c. bureau about three years at fox and then came here in january of 2007. charlie: so where are you? your contract is up in 2017. megyn: yes. charlie: you are deciding what? megyn: what i want my life to be. charlie: and so give us some sense of that. megyn: i love my job. charlie: and you love fox? megyn: i do. i have had a great years there. 12charlie: you have not had a television show, you have missed something. megyn: but all the nonsense that gets viewed online, the vitriol and just the nastiness, there has been so much of it in the country this year, not just me or cable news, just in the country, can really ring you

down if you let it seep in. but when i sit at that anchor desk at night, i look into the lens, and i feel like i can see you out there. like i can see you out there. i am i think in some ways the best version of myself. it feels like a real connection you knowit feels like a real connection,, and is invigorating. it is uplifting. so given that and my love for my colleagues, leaving fox news would be very tough, but there happened to be some people i love even more than my colleagues, and they must be factored in as well. charlie: you have spoken to me before about having a show that was more, and a sense, like what i do and has a wider net than simply politics, having to do with culture and authors and these visions -- musicians and a range of that. you had a little taste of that guest there.as a what is it that you can hope you can add to your repertoire? megyn: that is the thing about me.

as i mentioned, i'm not a political person, and yet i found myself in this job where pretty much all we discussed was politics. and i like politics, like covering it. it is exciting, but it's not who i am. so it would be great if i could somehow manage to weave in other things that i find interesting. he's interviewing brian dennehy for the iceman,. that is a great job. what the hell kind of job is that? that is great. charlie: can you imagine doing anything other than journalism? does anything -- megyn: sure. charlie: what would it be? megyn: you know, i don't know. it would be something that would allow me to see a lot more of my kids. charlie: really. megyn: i don't need all of this. charlie: you don't need the $20 million, do you? megyn: i don't need any million. listen i don't need any , millions. i don't. however i'm going to get paid what i'm worth. [applause] charlie: and where do you start the bidding? megyn: i what i need is those

, people. and something to keep me intellectually stimulated. i don't think i would be happy just like selling the jam. it has to be something that i found interesting. i don't cook. the jam is out, even though the dream is always there for new yorkers. vermont is so close -- maybe a farmhouse? maybe i could learn how to ride a horse right? ,anyway i don't know, charlie. , if i was going to do something different, it would be something it would be something more , holistic, i will put it that way. charlie: megyn kelly at barnes & noble. thank you for watching us. see you next time. ♪

♪ >> donald trump was on the fence lives last month, and officials discussed the pace of future hikes. rishaad: the latest reading of the circumspect in china. libya holds its drive as boost production. output well last month ahead of the opec curb. rishaad: and the vast majority of rupee notes have been handed in, seen as a blow to the anticorruption caai