>> booktv continues now on c-span2. television for serious readers. i get to say a few things about rachel maddow. for those who don't know, the last time she joined us was in 2012 to talk about her bestseller, drift. rachel is the host of an award-winning rachel maddow show on msnbc. [applause] >> there are fancier. for those who don't know, three emmy awards including outstanding analysis and lives outstanding interview. she herself has received six emmy nominations.

she's been nominated twice for the television critics for outstanding achievement and news. 2019, the rachel maddow show one and award in the third ã media category. [applause] >> rachel first gained national prominence as a host on america radio where she worked from its inception in 2004. prior to joining, she was on two networks in western massachusetts. so it's a special honor to welcome her back to western massachusetts. [applause] >> i know that we are all excited to hear from her in this new york times best-selling book, "blowout". but before we get to that, i want to read for you one quick

snippet of the review which i think resonate with this community and particular. rachel maddow may be a popular, progressive news and commentary anchor on msnbc but it's not to be forgotten that she holds a doctorate in politics from oxford and seems to devour whole libraries of data before breakfast each day. [laughter] so please join me in welcoming rachel maddow. [applause] [cheering and applause] >> wow. so i do this tv show where i know people can see me.

but there's only one person in the room with me when i do the tv show. this nice lady named jackie and other than that, it's all cameras which are machines. so it is unsettling. [laughter] >> thank you so much for being here. it is awesome to be home. awesome to be here. it's really flattering and warms my heart that there are so many people here so thanks. all right, what i'm going to do is read a little from the book and then talk a little bit and then i will talk with - - which i'm excited about. but i realized that this unexpected thing happened right at the time the book came out. [laughter] which is that it all of a sudden became newsy, which i

did not expect when i wrote the above. i know i have a tv show and i have the opportunity to speak about whatever i want. but i have this argument that is longer than a tv show and i think it will be better made in print.it's bugging me so i think i have to bid it out. at least i don't have to worry if it's good because the topic i'm interested in is something nobody cares about. it'll just be my family. reading it and i won't have to worry about. and then the week comes out, the president starts getting impeached. which is what the book is about. [cheering and applause] >> to that end, i'm going to take off my glasses so i can't see you anymore which makes me more comfortable. i'm going to do a quick poll here of you. because of the book did end up

being sore about what the impeachment is about which is really weird but i am happy to read from that portion of the book. but maybe you're bored with impeachment already. and so, i've given other options. i will tell you what all three options are and i will tell you which you want me to repeat option one, walruses. [laughter] option two, alaska. option three, ukraine. [applause] so, would you prefer showing hands or shouting? number one, walruses. [cheering and applause] number two, alaska. [cheering and applause] >> number three, ukraine. [cheering and applause]. i think some people voted for walruses and ukraine. i will read a little on ukraine

and i commend to you a bit on walruses in particular. the thing that weirded me out about the publication of the book when it came out last month, earlier this month. is that right around the time i got to my publication date, a couple different things happened in the news. one is that we learned that the presidents 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 he'd been talking strategy with paul manafort. while paul manafort is imprisoned 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 and his reelection chances in 2020. so that's weird, right? weird that the presidents lawyer is consulting with a federal prisoner about the president strategy toward reelection involving a foreign entity. that's a start. [laughter] among the other materials that rudy giuliani or the other sources 40 giuliani cited and started mentioning on television and other places but he started waving around, physically waving around a sworn statement he said he obtained in ukraine. and it was a sworn statement he got from the lawyers for a man named dimitri - - long seen as the kremlin's guy in ukraine. he is under a respite house arrest. he's in austria fighting extradition to this country

where he is wanted multiple felony and bribery charges. semi prosecutors say he's an upper echelon associate of russian organized crime. 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. don't worry, it's not just the russian organized crime kremlin connected fighting exhibition billionaire, corruption the bed it's also the presidents imprisoned campaign chairman is working with to put this together. it's all a pretty picture to start out. but let me talk about how this all fits together. the biggest threat to 10 had to keep at bay was the prospect of shawl, western democracies.

in russia's near abroad.that could not only challenge russia's regional power, it could conceivably, the harbor, inspire the russian people themselves. leaving 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 to keep neighboring countries corrupt and dependent. it reduced expectations for democratic governance and the rule of law in those countries. it created a corruptly empowered political class invested in preserving a russia dependent system that reached its practitioners and their families. it also created comfortable space for organized crime to flourish. the russian government under vladimir putin's control steadily became more integrated with all kinds of transnational organized crime and the former soviet sphere. not just because putin attracts the - - otherwise known as

henchmen if vladimir putin hadn't made them so rich. the connection with the mom it gave him a set of levers to solve problems and to make problematic people to go away. vladimir putin's team and the kremlin was delighted to utilize a man with any tree - - special skills and talent to shape ukraine to its like him. to turn ukraine from its flirtation with the west and the european union, but maybe even nato. so they cut him 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 large profit. about $800 million in pure profit in 2007 alone. ukraine could just have easily bought the gas with no middlemen and no markup.

vladimir putin wanted both the middlemen and the markup. dimitri would turn out to be handy. it also caused - - a pretty penny, which ultimately comes straight out of russian government proffers. but still, it was worth it. because - - as well as ukrainian oligarchs would have plenty of cash to spread around to shape their countries and ways that middleton would appreciate. some of that cash to go back to moscow as to review but more will go to prop up the party of regions.which meant a whole bunch of it would cost to end up in the offshore bank accounts of the mercenary american political operatives named paul manafort. manafort helped the moscow friendly party of regions. he spent the next few years - - ukraine's strongest opposition leaders from the orange party including prime minister the

dash. it was a particular threat to moscow's influence in ukraine. she's made herself the front runner in the 2010 presidential election by seizing on that sweetheart castile that dimitri had. she promised to end it. she made a good case. why on earth should - - company be allowed to siphon off $800 million in a single year by applying a middlemen that no one needed? and if - - certainly nobody in ukraine wanted. even her renegotiation of the russia ukraine natural gas deal, she succeeded in negotiating that deal to take the middleman out. even her successful negotiation of that deal wasn't enough to sway a majority of voters to her. manafort's gone, the pro-newton leader - - squeezed by and he

squeezed into the presidency in 2010. paul manafort received much credit for the victory and he got original contract as the new ukrainian presidents off-site medical advisor. as such, one of - - first act as president was to sick a rabid state prosecutor on - -. lock her up. - - prosecutor charged - - with a crime of abusing her official powers by illegally arranging the new gas deal with russia. she had intervened to stop that corrupt deal and so they accused her of corruption. - - had a lot of sympathy in the u.s. in europe so manafort got to work on that. on a multi-part expensive public relations campaign to destroy her in ukraine and in the united states. but - -'s dashed in person, trashed by american pr firms and law forms and anything else manafort could cook up.

dimitri got back into the gas deal which was better than ever. his company's operating profit for 2012-2013, added up to nearly $4 billion in pure profit. - - vladimir putin could tell things were going well but - - reneged on his campaign promise to move ukraine to greater cooperation in the european union. vladimir putin knew that couldn't ever happen. the problem wasn't the ukrainian people liked the idea. even when putin promised new aid to ukraine, the will of the people was still clear. it wanted to be part of the eu, no matter what putin was

offering. the - - sign revolted again. what started on november 21, 2013 as a small demonstration grew in just a few days to a 100,000 person protest. the demonstrators took over and he refused to leave.a violent crackdown by police in the last days of november didn't curb the enthusiasm. in the face of - - determined protesters strapped on pots and pans as makeshift armor. and they took to the streets and the crowd kept on coming and growing. vladimir putin thought the cold of january would break the crowd. he was wrong. in february, as the sochi olympics kicked off, the protesters were still there by the tens of thousands. wearing their makeshift 21st-century defensive kitchenware. hold for warmth around trashcan fires. had transformed into a very

protest about democracy itself. the demonstrators were gaining courage in numbers. in february 18, 2014, they armed themselves with slingshots. in brief the gauntlet add - - security forces but they marched on the parliament. when - - security forces starting killing protesters that afternoon, the crowds retreated to the barricades and remained there through a terrifying night protected by a ring of fire. the security forces broke out machine guns. and scrambled toward rooftop snipers the next day. and civilian casualty was kept growing and growing and growing. a protester yelled, we are not afraid to die for freedom. freedom is for us. freedom is ours. we will win and ukraine will be

part of europe and the free world we will never be slaves. we will be free. vladimir putin wants to do 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 of this mess. he was sure. on the eve of the final day of the sochi olympics, - - lost his nerve. he called off his security forces and turned tail and ran. he gave kia to the orange revolutionaries. the parliament meant in an emergency session. voters voted out of office. they ordered the immediate release of - - and she was freed. and they voted to refer - - of the international criminal court to answer for crimes against humanity. - - resurfaced a few days later in a party of regions strongholds in the russia from

the eastern part of the country. but he ran into protests even there. thousands of his countrymen faced him down on his home streets chanting, ukraine is not russia. ukraine is not russia. and the last flight to moscow. putin was done trying to make nice. he had itwith united states meddling on his turf . vice president joseph biden had been in and out of - - for years insisting the obama administration would protect ukraine from russian aggressio . biden said we do not recognize any sphere of influence and he followed that up with what sounded like an insult of the russians have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy. the have a banking sector and structure not likely to withstand the next 15 years. they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they are clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.putin took it personally. [applause]

>>. [indiscernible] we learned he was financing - - who are now fighting multiple charges in the southern district of new york and his relationship with rudy giuliani is still not explained. giuliani has described to them as, well, his friends. clients. at one point the lawyers for - - said - -, he's the cute one. was part of president trump legal team. that he was working for mr. giuliani in the context of mr.

giuliani's work as mr. trump's legal advisor. if that's true, if he's working for the president legal team, that's amazing. but be, it's a little bit weird because if he's working for giuliani in the context of giuliana's work for the president, what's weird is that giuliani wasn't paying lev. keep a giuliani $500,000. the good news is i did plan publication of the book when nothing is going on in the news. quiet, no sense of urgency. everything is fine. we will talk about the oil and gas industry and its influence. i think there are interesting links to the impeachment. i know we are in the middle of that. but i do just want to say, i

didn't set out to write a book about oil and gas. i ended up writing on this topic for two reasons. one because i've been trying to figure out what i could add to the conversation that is useful. - - we are living through time worldwide and it feels like you're at home as well in which what we think of are the pillars of democracy feel, soft and vulnerable. in trying to figure out what i can add meaningfully to that conversation. there are people that lamented that. that isn't enough. we need to talk about how to make a difference. so trying to think about what other forces weakening democracy. what are the forces fueling the rise of authoritarianism. i think it's worth looking at,

following the money.looking at the influence of the most powerful industries on earth and making those more or less winnable. so that's part of it. if you've seen the show i do on msnbc, you might notice i'm really interested in what russia did to us in 2016. and i make no apologies for that. setting aside the real-world impact of that attack and whether it had help from the american side and all the divisive questions around that. i'm interested in why russia did it. the balance of risks and rewards for russia in throwing such a wild pitch at us. as far as we can tell, all the evidence we have is not only did every pundit and poster in america think donald trump would lose, we think the russians believe that too. even though they were trying to make the opposite come to - -.

if they were expecting hillary clinton to be the next president, she was already coming in as a russia hawk. taking those shots at her during her election campaign. helping almost overtly her opponent. i think russia expected - - [indiscernible]. so it was a big risk they were taking and sticking their next out like this but why was it worth it to try? what was so important about the result of the election that they were willing to incur that kind of risk for their own country? what i arrived at quickly is that it's hard to understand or get a clear picture of russia's motivation in the world. without understanding that their economy really sucks.

i mean that in a quantitative way. they are physically the largest country on earth with almost 150 million people. germany is like 85 million people. italy is about 60 million people. in terms of modern economies, south korea is 50 million people. its economy is smaller than south korea's. smaller than italy's. nearly triple the population with a small economy. why is the country floating on a sea of oil and gas have such a bad economy. it's part of the story of russia and part of the story of oil and gas. turns out that's a terrible thing to build your economy on. the other thing that starts to be important is the realization of the oil and gas industry makes its own political

weather. for all the things they are supposedly not that good at, like cleaning up after themselves. getting governments at 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 responsible purpose. setting aside whatever might be bad for your country in terms of having oil and gas production there. a lot of the book is about that. what we see over and over is where oil revenue flows, government tends to suffer. the founding energy minister of saudi arabia says all in all, i wish we had discovered water. the founder of opec says as far as he can sell, oil is in his words, the excrement of the devil. and it's one thing for a jerk like me to say that but the founder of opec?oil is not just poop, but it's the devil's poop. i think there's a book there somewhere.

nothing against anyone personally but my partner susan and myself have family members who worked at various levels in the industry. nothing against anyone personally. but the industry is nuking the planet. 76 of carbon emissions in the united states are from burning oil or natural gas .76 percent. and we are the biggest economy on earth. if you're looking for something that the whole enchilada, that's it. and the industry does tend to prop up terrible governments and weaken democratic accountable governance 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. - - that's part of where we get to this conflict we are living through now is this conflict of

our time. which is the rule of law, liberal democracy and rising authoritarianism. that said, the reasons to be hopeful are many. for one, i think this is all understandable. understanding is the first step toward strategizing against the bed this isn't the work of investigative journalism. i'm just connecting dots that are brightly colored. i'm also encouraged if you want to read the book in a backwards way that gives you a weird perspective on. one way to approach is to read all of the oklahoma chapters. one after another. i interspersed a lot of oklahoma in this book because it turns out oklahoma and for being my reason to be cheerful. oklahoma is a state that had its government in many ways overpowered by its oil and gas industry.

there's no shame in that it happens literally everywhere on earth where oil and gas are produced in quantity. but where, founded so fighting an unusual crises. man-made earthquakes but more than that. residents of oklahoma turned on their democracy. they flipped the switch.the oil and gas industry is still there.there's been no revolution that i was just there in tulsa recently. but in that reddest of red states, oklahoma showed when push comes to shove, democracy matters and science exists. 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 people of the state. that industry can be constrained. 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 that industry. if a red state can do that for an industry that dominates them like no other, then constraints we need to see, that i believe agency to protect our democracy, they can happen anywhere. [applause] >> i will close with one last point. it's a shutout to some of the people you may have seen on your way in. red brigade and sunrise movement. sunshine can be an interesting offshoot. i will get back to that. the other reason i think to take the time to understand these dynamics and to think hard about how this works. those activists that you saw outside this venue and activists who are leading us now in terms of climate change and fossil fuel.

they are going to win. because they are right. [applause] >> and that's really, really important. and if you're not already in sympathy with those movements or don't know much about them, pay attention to what they're doing. because there ahead of us but the country will get there. they will be part of what determines how quickly and ambitiously we get there as a country. the other thing that will determine how quickly and viciously at we get there as a country is how close of a grip on our governance to the oil and gas industry has. they are not going to convert themselves into pro-solar, climate change heroes. they will not be the people that lead us. the people that leaders are the people who were right on this from the beginning. when that happens, i do think there's one thing 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 worth publishing this as a book. which is that, when the climate crisis forces us to make these changes. and when the actors lead us to the changes we need to make. when oil and gas loses its market share and power, that's not only going to be an economic story about that industry and about jobs and how political fight we will have about that. when the oil and gas industry loses its power, there will be a massive geopolitical impact around the world.because the oil and gas industry really does prop up bad governments and systems of governance everywhere. when they lose, their ability to get their way in the world, boundaries of countries will change. voters will change.

i think it's worth not being scared about that but prepared for that. that brings us back to this court question of what will happen in the wake of that. when governments the world over are shaken by the climate crisis and what has to happen in order to cope with that crisis. what's going to happen when bad governance isn't being propped up this way. will liberal democracy be strong enough to spread its effects through those parts of the world that will be in crisis or will those parts of the world slide in to authoritarianism in countries where their democracies have been weakened. it's worth thinking about the strength of our democracy. the good decisions we need to make now. but also so that we can be a beacon and that we can be a help for the coming changes.

and i think we need to get very sober about very quickly. so thanks. [applause] >>. [cheering and applause] >> hi. >> this is so exciting that i get to talk to you. it's such a pleasure and honor to welcome you back.

[applause] >> congratulations on writing an incredible book. you've got a terrific review in today's new york times. and it's number three on the bestseller list. [cheering and applause] >> do you know who the other two are ahead of you on the bestseller list? >> i went to number one briefly and i was knocked off quickly by elton john and prince. [laughter] if you're going to be beaten by somebody, elton john and prince, okay. >> next week we hope you are back at number one. >> thank you. come at me elton. [laughter] >> this is an amazing story and a riveting read in many

respects. i've got to say, it's difficult for me to put the book down once i picked it up. and you really we've a brilliant story. big money. corporations. corrupt politicians. the cast of characters but i've got to say, i was really laughing about it in a way but was so impressed with, you made rex tillerson, live in the pages of your book. [laughter] >> i live is ambitious. >> and it is a page turner because i kept flipping from chapter to chapter and page to pagebecause of the brilliant phrase you had and irony. i love the chapter titled , containment. which could be interpreted in a different way. >> i was worried about the

chapter title that had the russian swearword in it about vladimir putin going to the bathroom. i did just hear that it's not going to be published in russia. there were political nuances which would not allow this. [laughter] never been prouder. it is a family going to be published in ukraine. [applause] >> bringing you back to the story. in many respects, this is an old story. like a long and complicated history. opec and saudi arabia among others. my question is, what is

different about - - is there something to not only about the book but the moment we are in right now that makes this distinctive? >> i think there are, nothing is ever new. but there is something coming which i was alluded to moments ago that is something that the oil and gas industry is faced before. which is a reckoning with consequences of the climate crisis. i do believe that activists will when and that fossil fuels will be turned off as an international, as the international nature before ford's fuel because it has to happen but it's worth understanding the contours the industry has so we can imagine what will shift when those are

withdrawn. that's part of it. but also, from an american politics perspective, go through something quite unique in 2016 with a foreign interference in our election. and i do believe that was driven at its core. had russia developed in that post to yeltsin your as a diversified economy. also had other pillars of its economy. i don't think they would help the desperation they have around sanctions. sanctions which are preventing them from continuing to general oil and gas which i believe drive them to throw the hell mary they threw in 2016. i do think it's caused, it should cause us to plan in advance for what will happen with the climate reckoning. >> the book is about - - you've

made a compelling argument for why you think russia interfered in the stay with us election. and the evidence of that is indisputable. it's very clear. but do you think the inordinate amount of attention we are putting on russia and russian interference and propaganda is - - our analysis of american politics? do you see any pitfalls? >>. [indiscernible] collects the way in which i'm thinking about it over here is that given the attention we are all putting on russia. the parents. what was their role in the election. is there something we are missing in terms of our own responsibility and what we do as american citizens and people.

what sort of responsibility do we have to defend our democracy as you yourself were talking a couple minutes ago. i worry that we are paying so much attention that focused on russia and we are not having enough of conversation about the other part of this. >> i think it's a very fair point. i think russia didn't elect donald trump if that's what you're asking for the american people elected trump in an election that was skewed by western influence. americans have made good and bad decisions and presidential elections over and over again. i don't feel like we are ignoring that part of it. for example in the democratic presidential primary, they're not focused on russia, there focused on competing with one another to be donald trump and that's the whole basis of that fight. but i do think it's worth paying attention to, this unusual and unprecedented thing

that happened in 2016. for me, reasons i included in the book is understanding the incentive for it. the impetus for it gives us a clear understanding of how to watch out in the future and understand what it's intentions might be. i don't think it's a - - game. because you talk about one thing, you don't talk about the others. i'm not embarrassed by or apologetic in my interest in that topic. i still think it's a freaking science-fiction movie. >> you can't make this up. we can think about how we - - in the future. i don't think this is just about the united states releasing this all over the place. do you think we are doing enough to make sure something like this doesn't happen again or do you think we are ignoring the problem ? >> i think we are right in the

middle of it. i think we are still living it and still living the same story. even talking about upper echelon american politics. the ukraine and which will lead to the president being impeached - - [applause]. >> is a continuation in some ways of the story that was the weird rules and implement thing that happened in 2016. it's a bizarre thing that robert mueller gives his testimony one day in july and the next day, the president was like the who else can i get to interfere? you have to do me a solid. you realize you can do this without involving other countries with that one of the weird things about this. this is not directly answering your question but don't think

it strange if the president wanted to solely - - biden in the presidential nomination and wanted to use this ukraine thing. why didn't he just announced, ukraine is announcing joe bide ? why does it have to be true? he says things that aren't true all the time. he not only wanted ukraine to start investigating fight on the basis of this conspiracy theory but wanted it announced that they were doing so.in a way that was unnecessarily humiliating to the ukrainian president. and in a way that showed her ukraine to be subservient to the united states in a way that hurt the new ukrainian president and only helped russia in terms of the way they've been negotiating for the end of that war.>> do you worry about what this means for the united states reputation and foreign policy and global politics? >> yes!

don't you? [laughter] >> i'm very worried actually correct i don't know where you go. >> to get your reputation back. asking allies and strategic partners in difficult circumstances to trust you when things are bad. with what the united states just did with the kurds in syria. where do we go to get back that credibility and how many generations will it take to get there and how much work will have to do as a nation to prove what we should be able to assert on the basis of our good word? you don't get that back>> i think if i can follow up on that. glad you mentioned the kurds and the middle east. i think one of the things , this is from one of my students. the american media broadly

defined, focused much of their attention on american politics. we don't really hear about what is going on in other parts of the world. let's take as an example the wars in syria and yemen which have now become the united states longest running war in its history. what explains the decline in terms of our attention and media attention on foreign affairs and international relations, global politics in other parts of the world? and what can we do about it? because i think it's a real issue in terms of how well we are informed on what's going on but also the impact of american policy. that's the part that's missed in this picture. >> i think the dynamic you're talking about israel. it's also not new. i think this has been an

internal dialogue in the news business as long as there has been news. particularly television news. it's a struggle to get american audiences interested in in-depth international political nuances. [indiscernible] the thing that i have run up against which i don't know how to fix is that when american politics are normal, or when the ãeither the fights or the rest the way you might expect it to be. that opens up space to not only cover international news and impact of american policies but to cover stuff like interesting things happening in individual states which might be of national concern. the cause they will things ã

there's more room for that. when national politics is proceeding like something between a science-fiction movie and a horror movie, when things are so strange at the federal level. you end up notjust 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 all the time. i will say, michael bennett is one of the democratic candidate for president this year and i think he had the mind thus far of the democratic president to primarily he said, i'm going to paraphrase, if i'm president, i promise you will have to think about me for weeks at a time. i promise to be boring. my heart swelled. one sign of a bad turn in politics when you 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. in a very poorly run country, you think about your government almost to the exclusion of everything else. >> let me ask you about the book itself and here are some audience questions. did you discover anything that surprised or shocked you? >> yes. [laughter] you mentioned rex tillerson. i am still shocked that he was selected to be secretary of state. he arrived he says, at the transition meeting or he was offered the job. he arrived thinking he was going to give them advice on setting up that new it menstruation and let the secretary of state. president trump had never met him before. he had just done a - - trillion

dollar deal with vladimir putin and been given a medal. that deal which is the largest oil deal in the history of axon or indeed of deals. it was on hold because of u.s. sanctions toward russia. so he was brought in as someone who president trump had never met and was put in charge of u.s. foreign-policy. that is still freaking bizarre to me. that alone is enough to stop me in my tracks. but the oil industry itself, i was surprised at some of the stuff they are not good at. when i said, when i offered to read about the walruses. that was about deepwater horizon for promoting itself as being prepared to deal with any oil spill because they had a mitigation plan for making sure any oil contact with offices in the gulf of mexico is something

they had biologists on standby. this is a regional response plan. if yougo back to the worst oil spills in the nation's history in the 1960s and 70s, what they had to deal with those oil spills . it was terrible. these things that looked like the lane dividers. fill them up with absorbent stuff to contain oil. then they just stopped the rest of it up with paper towels. that's how they would cleanup in the 1960s and 70s. that's also how they cleaned it up today. paper towels. the richest corporations in the history of corporations. exxon mobil took the all-time corporate earnings records and profit records year after year after year, to speeding their own record every successive quarter. and what they have to clean up when things go wrong is diaper filling.

and paper towels but they don't do any r&d on that. that to me, how can they do that? how can they have gotten this big and powerful and this without having been held to any further account. that blows my mind. >> what you're talking about is corporate irresponsibility. so what do we do about that? >> regulate them. it's governments. was - - [applause]. you talk about the review in the new york times. the way that the dust finishes that review is that this is not making - - rachel's book is not making radical proposals on how to deal with this. right. dealing with this is not rocket science. dealing with this is about making sure that the interests

of the industry don't outstrip and overpower competing interests that are just as important or more important. they need to be regulated. and it's possible. this is the part where i feel like american citizens and news consumers are really privileged in this regard. because the western oil majors do significant business here. as such, the u.s. government has the ability to change the behavior of all the western oil majors at once by requiring them to do business in a way that is more responsible. even when it comes down to something as basic as bribing foreign government. one of the last sections of the book is about something really sexy called, section 1504. which literally required oil companies to declare publicly when they were bribing other countries.[laughter] >> they have to be open about what their payments are so

people in those countries and those of us here and anyone that wanted to activism can tell whether they are bribing people to get their way. that became law. and it - - and yes, rex tillerson went crazy and the industry didn't want to but having that transparency measure would have a huge impact in the world in terms of what oil companies are being able to get away with. it's a really small thing. the 1504th section of that bill. have that gone through, it wouldn't have changed the world in 1000 but it would have made a difference. and keeping the industry away from its most toxic behavior. that's the first thing the republicans and trump administration overturned when trump was voted into office. they didn't argue about.they just did it. so that people who are

adjudicated mentally ill could easily buy firearms and the oil industry doesn't have to declare its fraud. those are the two things they did when they got control but if we knew more about that and we knew to watch out more and appreciated the importance of those things, i think we would fight harder to stop that from happening. >> i couldn't agree more with you on that point but it's also in some ways, [indiscernible]. the deregulation that has taken place. how do you walk that back from your perspective? are you sort of hopeful this is something people be able to do again in the near future? >> i think we need to appreciate what's important about beneficial government regulations. i think we need to be able to understand not only what was wrong when we recklessly deregulate understand the

positive benefit of some of the regulations so we can argue for them. so we can ask elected officials to do those things so we can make sure they fight when they come under pressure and to appreciate the kind of influences the - - that you wrote those powers. - - the --erode. you need to know controls the levers of power. the more we understand these things, the better we will get at fighting for the changes that will make a difference. >> i think the book goes a long way to help us understand precisely that. let me bring you back to your bookstore, what you've been on the road for a couple months now. oneof our audience members was wondering, what's your experience been like? what are take away , especially in the light of the last couple weeks with the impeachment hearings? >> it is weird that dimitri - - is now famous for other reasons. and to have the ukrainian natural gas company like that sb on the front pages. i was writing a book about an

obscure thing and now it's everywhere. one of the things that's been nice, i did a new york event the first night it was published in the first place i traveled to was tulsa. because so much of the book is about oklahoma and because i wanted to sort of the ãgive people a chance to yell at me a little bit.like, i will about your states and the dynamics. your personalities here. tell me what i got wrong. to go to oklahoma and spend time talking to individual people, 3000 people in tulsa who wanted to hear about my book on the evils of oil and gas. tulsa has a driller statue downtown was painted gold who is drilling oil. oklahoma has active oil drilling rigs on the state capitol grounds including one that through a flower garden called petunia number one.

go there and to talk to tons of people for whom the arguments resonate. who themselves are working the business or have friends who do. i mean, to me, that was heartening because i feel like this is an argument that isn't about good guys and bad guys in the united states need to win a partisan fight or not. this is about following the card towards the power and recognizing national interests and standing up for. so that's been heartening for me. it's also just nice to get out of the studio and get out in the world. i've been changing a little bit at work and it's nice to get out. >> i hate to bring you back to

the studio, but we have questions about television and television news and i will read you one. do you think the dramatization of television news, i.e. news as entertainment. written by ratings incorporate profits is exhibiting to the dismal state of our politics today? >> so if news were more boring, we'd have better politics? there's lots of ways to get your news. i read the print press all day long. i think american print journalism is one of the great wonders of the world. [applause] the way that i do a news show. we have an internal mantra on my show that we are trying to increase the amount of useful

information in the world. that's a test for whether or not we should do something. does this help? does this help people understand what's going on? is this useful information? are we delivering the same information you can get everywhere or is there something we can add to make this a more constructive experience?... [applause] i don't consider that dramatizing. i consider that to be conveying information in a way i most useful but in terms of the people that i bring onto the show every approach is it a different way.

more power to them. i don't tend to bring on pundits very much. i'm allowed to tell you what my opinion is about something uncovering so i'm happy to do that and tell you it's my opinion the world feeling isn't going to fall anybody who tells you they are doing news that has their ãbis not being honest about that. we all come from subjective place. i try not to put people on tv to fight with each other. try not to bring people on who i don't trust or who i think might be lying to you or spinning to you if i bring somebody on to my show the area where i have editorial control and asking somebody to say something on my real estate because i want you to believe them. it's been weird and this administration because i don't have a lot of administration officials on. [laughter] i don't value it in its own terms because i don't want to have to clean up what you said after i say good night to you.

also, most of what i do is bring on reporters to talk about their reporting. most of the people i have on tv every night is people from washington post and the new york times and eyesight a lot of cnn reporting if i could bring cnn reporters on i would but they don't let us do that. fox news reporters have a division different than their prime time host. if they discovered or reported something out i will put that on tv. is it competitively beneficial, probably not. my imperative is and try to get what's important in the world what's important you should know about it and what might happen next. i feel like there's lots of different styles of doing it and that's how i do it and i feel tortured on a daily basis in terms of what i'm doing it well enough. but i don't think we are approaching it the wrong way. >>. [applause]

>> to follow up on that a little bit in terms of the partisanship and media and politics. his recent research center poll that partisans of both are you not only disagree about policies and plans but they disagree about the basic facts. we think is the responsibility of a journalist, talkshow host, never to not only convey the news to get us to think about it in the way that you do to give us a different perspective but more importantly, to persuade your audience. that facts are not simply a matter of interpretation. that they really matter in a world. how to do that. what you think is the responsibility and role of

journalism. >> journalism is the discovery of facts.journalists find factual information in the world and exciting journalism is often facts that people in power don't want known and i think there is no persuasion at work here. i think if you present journalistic information in news context whether on tv or print or some other way. that's what you are working on. i don't think anybody consciously says i don't care about the facts, i instead only want to hear things that comport with my understanding of the world. i think people gravitate toward sources of news they trust to the extent that people trust me, i aspire to be trustworthy. [applause]

so next week, what are you up to?[laughter] >> tuesday, wednesday, thursday this week their impeachment hearings. on a couple of those days there's two impeachment hearings. kill me now. [laughter] going to fly to georgia tonight because on one of the moderators of the democratic debate on wednesday night. [cheering] if it was just my job to do debate on wednesday night i would be in clover that would be fantastic, i would love nothing more than spend all my time in preparing for that incredibly intense super anything can go wrong spotlight moment where i am terrified.

the only way you can succeed as a moderator of debate is if nobody notices you ever. at the end of the debate they forget you are there because you disappear because only the candidates matter. that's what you're going for. anytime you are noticed, bad news. it's so high-stakes it's so terrifying it's so hard to prepare for. in addition to doing that on wednesday there is impeachment hearings we need to cover and i need to do shows. i'm very stressed. [laughter] but this time next week i should be fine. we will see, i don't know how long the impeachment will go on for. lexi don't know? >> no. do you? i would love to have a schedule. he said i thought we would be done by next week. meaning like i thought we'd be done but now are not to be done. i think the republicans want the trial in the senate to extend to much of the

democratic primary there somebody democratic senators running. we will make you have to be here but you have to be here. it's a very small minded approach to a very big weighty constitutional issue. [applause] watergiven that you have a day job. >> the equatorial guinea stuff

it's dark but it's fascinating. i love digging that stuff out. the weird story of rex tillerson that is a weird cat. digging that story out is interesting. i like learning stuff so that's fun. when it comes to writing it down that makes me want to die. >> i can't imagine very many people who don't. >> if you're preparing a talk to me i love that. i get super into it. when i'm writing to commit

something to print it makes me much more stressed out. do you have that same? >> are you kidding? all the time. writing for the written word you can't ad lib. once it there. i have a spine of an 85-year-old. it's terrible. i'm killing myself. one last question, what do you do for fun? [laughter] >> what is this fond of which you speak? [laughter] i live in western mass. [cheering]

[applause] which is permanent.i will never leave here, this is home for me. i didn't grow up here, i grew up in the san francisco bay area. [cheering] 415 or 51 0? i try not to work that much on the weekends and i really try to have a life here that is not about where i don't think about rex tillerson or sean hannity. i do my own thing. i fish i sleep and like a semi pro drinker. >> had we known? we would've brought cocktails. >> not on the school day.

[laughter] i love living here. getting out of new york is the most valuable thing i do. being able to be here and be on the river and to be living in outdoor based life here is really important to me. that is keeping me sane. >> when is ãthe movie coming out. [laughter] x who did you cast as rex tillerson? it's crying for screenplay and movie. >> i will call you about

representation. [applause] >> here is what's airing tonight in prime time on booktv. pulitzer prize-winning historian alan taylor argues that thomas jervis sends a letter to terry and words differs from his actions. cbs sunday morning correspondent mo rocco discusses book of obituaries. the featured politicians, scientists, and entertainers. university of virginia history professor ãbexplores the history of tobacco in america. the re-air of today's in-depth interview with author and wall street journal columnist jason riley. that all starts tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2 booktv. consult your program guide or visit our website booktv.org for more information. >> booktv asked representative buddy carter what are you reading? >> two things, i just finished a book that i enjoy very much

called ãbwritten by thomas carlisle. it's a biography of fictional philosopher. ãb very interesting book. it talks about three different characters. daniel webster, john calhoun and henry clay this is early 80s and talks about, it's actually relevant to what we are going through today because they were all competitors so to speak. and all members of the house of representatives and talked about tariffs and that's something we are doing right now as well. i found it very interesting and have enjoyed both of these