obama was sworn in for the first time, one youngish proudly eccentric silicon valley billionaire declared sort of a public manifesto. didn't make that much of a splash outside silicon valley because he's kind of a known eccentric so therefore whatever he's on about now sort of tends to be seen as an interesting thing if you care about him, but if you don't it doesn't necessarily mean it will have any wider impact on the world. still, though, what this silicon valley billionaire had to say right after barack obama was sworn in in 2009, it was controversial enough that people do expect weird stuff from him, looking back on it now, even now it stands out. what he proclaimed in 2009 in this manifesto was that democracy was over. freedom was dead. and the only hope for humankind would be for us all en masse to abandon the country.

and in fact, everybody should abandon every country because democracy and freedom is dead in every country in the whole world. and what we should all do instead is we should all leave every country on earth and move into the oceans. he says, quote, because there are new truly free places left in our world, i suspect that the mode of escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country. and then he proposed a couple of options. one of these hitherto untried processes would be that we should all move into space. he seems to think that this would actually be the best option for what we all plan to do. but sadly, too impractical. quote, the final frontier still has a barrier to entry. rocket technologies have seen

only modest advances since the 1960s. so outer space still remains almost impossibly far away. that's very sad. but that wasn't the only option. he also offered one other next best option for humankind. he called it, quote, much more realistic than space travel. eclared that what we humans must do at this point in human history is that we must move into the sea. we should become sea dwellers. quote, between cyber space and outer space lies the possibility of settling the oceans. we may have reached the stage at which it is economically feasible or where it will soon be economically feasible. it is a realistic risk. i eagerly support this. the idea was that we should basically build new teeny, tiny personal cities, city-states, unlike shipping containers that are floating in the ocean. float them out in the ocean

somewhere, declare ourselves king. obviously, you need a plan to never need rescues from your tiny island nation. and you would work hard to live happily on a floating shipping container island somewhere and barring in rapid advance in rocket ship technology that can get us to outer space instead which would be better, we would colonize the sea and that would be our best option for escaping the hell on earth that the united states had become by april 2009 when he wrote this manifesto. interestingly, it wasn't just a reaction to barack obama being elected president of the united states, although i do have a guess that the inauguration in 2009 might have been a

approximate cause for this little freakout. but according to our eccentric billionaire, it didn't just instantly become hell on earth in the spring of 2009. it didn't get bad in the 2000s, it began at a very surprising time, a time you can identify very precisely in history. quote, the last decade in american history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics was the 1920s. the 1920s? when i first heard about this manifesto i thought the longing for the 1920s might be something like maybe about prohibition. maybe he's like a really tough teetotaler, when we couldn't drink legally. i don't know about that. seems to him like the 1920s are the target era for when things were last okay on earth. the 1920s were the last time it was good to be alive in america, according to him, because that was the last moment in politics, that was really the last moment in human history when men could truly be free before women

ruined it. because women got the right to vote, and then they started voting. and that, the impact of women voting, starting with women suffrage in 1920, the impact of women voting, that's what killed america. it killed the world! it ended any reason to ever have democracy anywhere ever again on earth. quote, since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women have rendered the notion of a capitalist democracy into an oxymoron. i no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. that's a remarkable argument, right? once you give women the vote, then you can't have freedom anymore. better to have nobody voting, better to have no more democracy than have women voting because that killed the country and erybody is enslaved. as long as women have the vote, capital ais democracy is

impossible and the only way that human -- sorry, humans can ever be free again is to move into space, presumably with no rls allowed. if we can't move into space, we have to move into the oceans. weird dude, right? that is why i thought it was weird when the republican party gave that dude a prime time speaking slot on the last night of the republican national convention this summer. i remember covering the convention at the time. and everybody else involved in covering the convention is like, oh, yeah, this is where the internet billionaire guy is going to be talking, this early trump supporter from silicon valley. okay, yes, those things are true, good to know those things about him. but also he really does want us all to form new countries on shipping containers floating in the ocean because democracy and freedom can't exist as long as women vote. he's the guy with the anti-democracy manifesto.

how can the republican party be showcasing somebody who thinks we vul have to abandon this country and move into the sea in how can they be doing this? sometimes in space no one can hear you scream. it's probably true in shipping containers on the open seas as well. but there he was at the rnc, which was freaking nuts, but there he was. and today we learn that, at his request, the trump folks have put two people from his hedge fund in charge of transition efforts at the department of treasury and the department of commerce. and beyond that the big one he's apparently going for in the new administration is the fda of all things, the food and drug administration, which is in charge of keeping our food safe and making sure that vaccines and drugs and stuff are not just safe but also effective.

peter thiel, this eccentric silicon valley billionaire who is convinced that women voting killed the country and we need to abolish democracy and move into the sea. he's suggested that one of the executives from his financial firms is the guy who the trump administration should appoint to run the fda. this guy is not a doctor. no medical background unlike every other fda director for the last half a century. but he does share two grand plans, at least two that we know of. he shares two grand plans with this billionaire eccentric who apparently has donald trump's ear. and who the rnc had speak at their convention. they apparently share at least two big ideas, two big plans. the first thing that we know they're on the same page about is moving into the sea. honestly, this guy is on the board of the let us live in shipping containers on the ocean group. he's on the board of the sea studding organization that wants to give everybody their own

country in the form of a floating island on the ocean. we can all be our own island, literally, not just like a simon and garfunkel song. now, that passion, that cause, that work of his that we should colonize the seas and all become our own countries, that may or may not be of consequence if he indeed gets to run the fda. dot know if that will come up around vitamin labeling or whatever. but the other grand plan that he shares with his patron, with the eccentric billionaire peter thiel. the other big project is the belief, in all seriousness, that we do not really have to die if we don't want to. well, some people have to die. but some people don't have to die. look at this. this is from the very start of peter thiel's nifesto.

he published right after obama was inaugurated in 2009. quote, i stand against the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. did you know that was an ideology? that's quite an ism. some people inevitably have to die, but according to peter thiel not everybody has to die. i stand against the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. that is part of -- that's the prologue of peter thiel's manifesto why we shouldn't have democracy anymore, how women voting killed the country and how we have to move either into space or into the sea. it's something he's been working

on as a secret plan for years. we don't know exactly how peter thiel is doing it but there have been multiple reports that he's involved in some sort of regimen he believes will prevent his death forever. which makes me want to go mwah-ha-ha, make you say hide the bats. his colleague, this person he's now having the trump transition consider as the leading candidate to run the food and drug administration. here's that guy just two years ago giving a speech on immortality and how venture capitalists and investors need to change the way they're spending money and investing and stuff in order to get us there if we can only invent good new business models that will make us live forever. i'll play you a little clip. i'll warn you he's a very, very boring speaker, but immortality really is what this whole speech

is about. what he calls rejuvenation and reversing aging. so at least the right people just don't have to die anymore. >> rejuvenation and reversing aging does not fit the narrow definition of singularity. there's no business model. it's scientifically achievable. i think most of us believe that. >> scientifically achievable. most of us believe that. when he says rejuvenation and reversing aging, to be clear, he's not talking about better skin care that makes your wrinkles disappear as if you have reverse aged. he's literally reverse aging. so like you're 71. you're never going to be 72 and that's not because you're going to die because next year you'll be 68 or maybe 38, depends on how much you take. you can stay the same age forever or you can get even

younger if you want to. the lucky ones who presumably can afford it or whatever can live forever with or without the vampiric feeding on others. so ahem, what do we make of this? you can see why peter thiel is putting this guy forward for a high ranking influential position in the new administration, right? this guy is right out of his crazy billionaire wheelhouse moving into private floating islands in the sea for freedom. also eternal hif. life. but now here's bloomberg news reporting him as the first named candidate for the position of fda administrator in the new trump administration. incidentally, he said in that same speech, the same boring speech that i just showed you that clip from, he said that maybe when it comes to pharmaceuticals in this country we shouldn't have clinical trials for drugs anymore. we should just put drugs out on the open market, just sell them, let people use them. see what happens and the free market will sort it out. if anything got attention about this guy today, that proposal got attention. and i get that, i get that that

would be a verintense change at the fda. that would be sort of undoing the whole process of the fda. even as a person who kind of cares about the fda, i am a person who cares about the drug approval process, i find it hard to care about that statement from him. i find it hard to focus on that statement about the futility of clinical trials. when he made that statement in the context of a broader overall speech of how we really all can live forever, mwah-ha-ha. this is not part of you get right with god and you can live forever. this is you get to live in san leandro for the rest of your life. you get to be 1,000 years old and look 30. they're working on it. that's apparently who trump is considering to run the food and drug administration. that happened today. the incoming administration also announced today that linda mcmahon who is a wrestling executive, also a very wealthy republican donor, she donated

$6.5 million to the trump for president effort. she was announced today as the trump administration's nominee to lead the small business administration. transition also announced that the long serving republican governor of iowa, terry branstad will be the incoming administration's new choice to be the ambassador to china. the transition announced a name to head up the epa. that's an interesting one. we'll have more on him in just a moment. but the really big position that was announced today, not just floated like this epa guy but actually announced today was the designated nominee for the department of homeland security. the largest agency in government. in fact, i think, the largest organization of any kind in the world is the u.s. department of defense. the second largest agency after that in our government is veterans affairs and the third largest agency after that is department of homeland security. after 9/11, 22 different agencies, everything from

airport security to the coast guard to the secret service to the plum island animal disease center, all these different organizations and agencies from all these different parts of the government were all cobbled together into a giant, giant new mega agency. it was the biggest reorganization of government since right after world war ii when we created the defense department. we created homeland security, it created this sort of mega domestic security remit under one cabinet official. we never had something like this before as a country. something much more like having a home secretary in britain or in lots of other countries they call somebody in this position the minister of the interior. we've never had something this overarching in terms of domestic security. but because this kind of job is specifically a domestic job focused on things that happen at home, focused on things that happen at homeland as we've all learned to be comfortable saying.

one thing that you see around the world in democratic countries that have this kind of position is when you have a home secretary type position or you have a minister of the interior type position in democracies all around the world, one hallmark of that type of government position is that it is not held by somebody from the military. because democracies don't use their militaries on their own soil, right? democracies don't use their militaries to control their own people. they don't use military force for domestic security. in democracies you don't want the military becoming a political weapon used at home by the nation's leader. you don't want the military becoming a separate political actor on their own terms with their own designs on domestic power, like egypt or the military took over after democracy had picked a bad leader. for all those big picture civics reasons, military leaders all

over the world are kept pretty deliberately separate and apart from this specific piece of domestic governing. when you have mennisters of the interior, secretaries of the interior, they're not military officials, they're not military officer. around the world. despite that norm and the reasons for it, the incoming administration announced for the fist time in the history of having a department of homeland security, the person they want to head it will be a general who has been out of the service for less than a year. a general who has a 45-year career in the armed services. and that does not speak at all to general john kelly's good reputation and the high esteem people have for him inside and outside the service, it doesn't say anything about whether he personally will be good for this job, but it's just unprecedented to have three generals and counting in cabinet level leadership jobs in our civilian government.

i mean, we've got a general as national security adviser, a general heading up the department of defense, a general heading up department of homeland security and counting. will there be more? it is unprecedented and even a little bit of an international shock wave for a democracy like ours to put a military leader into this specific job. because putting a military leader in charge of domestic security, that's something that nondemocracies do a lot of, but other democracies don't tend to do that. this is something that we've certainly never done before. but when the going gets weird, the going tends to get really weird. and things are getting weird and none of this is weird enough that i think we should start planning on living forever on floating shipping containers until all the democracies die and we can be free again. but the people who are counting on that and see that as the kind of solution that we ought to be

thinking about for our nation and our world right now, i'm not kidding, those folks are helping make decisions right at the top right now in our country. this is not a time to stop paying attention. we'll be right back.

lots of focus right now in the news on what's going on with the incoming administration. tonight i'm here to tell you there's also really interesting news on the states that are digging in their heels and planning on not going along with the new direction of the country. very interesting news on that front ahead. plus -- music. terrible, terrible music played by me straight ahead.

get involved in your schools because if our kids go down the tubes, we go with them. >> the more you know. and now to our off-brand cable news version of that called you know more now. [ laughter ] thank you, nick. so sometimes there's something in the news that ends in a bit of a cliff-hanger. we don't know how it's going to turn out. but then later we find out how it turned out. we find out more about how the whole situation resolved and the cliff-hanger is essentially solved. we learn how it all worked out.

when that happens, we call it you know more now. so on monday, one of the more unexpected stories in politics was that former vice president al gore showed up at trump tower, and he was not lost. he was there to meet with the president-elect. it was a weird thing, right? the guy whose climate change documentary won an oscar, the guy who made it his life's work to convince people about climate change and get them to fight pit. there he is meeting with the guy who says climate change is a hoax invented by and for the chinese. so an interesting thing. kind of a conundrum, if donald trump is willing to meet with somebody like al gore, what does this mean that we should expect from him on environmental policy? well, you know more now. because today we learned who donald trump plans to nominate to lead the environmental protection agency. and it turns out it's the negative photo image of al gore. it's al gore backwards. it's erog la. backwards al gore, erog la. it's scott pruitt.

here's a taste of scott pruitt on climate change. global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. that debate is far from settled. scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. he wrote this in 2016. in 2011 an oil and gas company called devon, says epa letter draft. that's a three-page draft letter. and it's addressed to then epa administrator lisa jackson. and it complains that the epa vastly overstated how much air pollution is coming out of drilling for natural gas in the state of oklahoma. devon energy and this draft letter, they suggested letting the epa know how wrong they are about this issue.

so devon energy drafted this letter. but they did not send the letter to the epa. they sent that letter to the oklahoma attorney gp general's office. when scott pruitt got this, he selected select a, c copy, new document, control v, paste and then send. he forwarded the entire draft letter from devon energy directly to the epa. he only changed a couple words in the entire letter. he did take care to put it on his official attorney general masthead as if he had written it. but it was, in fact, a letter written by the oil industry, directly written by devon industry. mr. pruitt has also sued the environmental protection agency

several times. one of those cases is still going through the courts. so if he is confirmed as the new administrator of the epa on day one of his new job scott pruitt will inherit a lawsuit against the epa that he brought against the epa. and if you were not really sure about what he thinks about the epa, which is trump administration is going to put him in charge of, this is a line out of his official state bio. he brags, quote, scott pruitt is a leading advocate, scott pruitt is a leading advocate against the epa's activist agenda. a leading advocate. he'll now be in charge of the epa's activist agenda. you kind of have to admire the gumption on this one. but the cliff-hanger is over. your next epa administrator, not al gore. we'll be right back. y pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension,

as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

this is george ord. he was a naturalist back in the 1900s. he studied animals. one thing that he did was he got to name this guy. you may call it the grizzly bear, but george ord named it ursus horribilis. the latin word for bear and the other you can work out for your own. they can weigh up to 1700 pounds. national park service saysf you're ever attacked by a grizzly bear, your best bet is to play dead otherwise you might provoke it. and if you provoke it and it weighs 1700 pounds, soon you will not have to play dead

because -- yeah. grizzlies live in the u.s. now in parts of alaska, wyoming, montana, idaho and washington state. and there's one state that no longer has grizzly bears but they so identify with what a grizzly bear is like that they've kept their variety of ursus horribilus as their state animal. they've been provoked and right now just starting to growl and that very interesting provocative story is next.

back in june on the one-year anniversary of announcing his campaign, donald j. trump held a rally in dallas, texas. it was kind of a bad one, actually. seven protesters were removed from inside the rally. outside fights erupted between trump supporters and protesters. some people got hurt that day.

but that disaster of a rally in texas, in dallas, it did give us these guys. make texas mexico again. because texas is amazing. texas is amazing and pushy and creative and adorable. the official state tourism campaign in texas tells you straight up it's like a whole other country. and that's not just a slogan. a significant number of texans think of their membership in the union as a little provisional. this past summer when asked if they would like to secede if hillary clinton won the white house, 40% said, yes, if clinton wins they'd like to secede. to that point you can find entertaining pockets of that sentiment all over the country whether seceding because of clinton or to go back to mexico. in northern california tea party and libertarian types that have been pushing to secede from the rest of california. they want to break off and be in their own state called

jefferson. they want to be jeffersonians. since donald trump was elected president, not hillary clinton, but donald trump, certain pockets of liberals in california have started to talk texas style by seceding. but they don't want to secede from california. they want california to secede from the united states. they're calling it calexit, like brexit but west coast lefty style. i don't think they actually would like to take the right wing jeffersonians when they seceded, but presumably that would be up for negotiation once the articles of confederacy are filed. the jeffersonians and everybody else in that huge state they are all lumped together in what is a definitely blue state, hillary clinton won california nearly 2-1. california in that same election

also just elected the nation's second ever african-american female u.s. senator in camilla harris. they won't supermajorities in the california legislature. californians voted to legalize recreational pot after having medical marijuana for years. they voted to ban plastic bags in stores and voted for new gun safety laws on top of ones that the governor already signed this year. california has been a real laboratory of progressive social policy for a while, no matter who is in charge 2500 miles away in washington, d.c. well now that the president is going to be donald trump, california has a lot to lose. if the federal government decides to come after california for its progressive governance, california will prove to be a rich target field for an activist federal government that wants to change california to be more like the trump administration wants it to be. on the flip side, because of its

size and its economic might and the sheer dominance of its democrats, california is also particularly well situated for a fight. if california democrats want one or if the trump administration wants one. turns out from the california side, they seem that they maybe do want to fight. this is from democratic leaders in the california statehouse the morning after the trump election, quote, we will maximize the time during the presidential transition to defend our accomplishments using every tool at our disposal. we will not be dragged back into the past. we'll lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our constitution. california was not part or this nation when its history began butty clearly now the keeper of its future. if that's the case, what california democrats want, what

would that look like? how would they do that? how does california plan to hold a president at bay? could they take a cue, say, from texas? that's the view from "the l.a. times," the leading opponent of the administration was texas. texas sued the obama administration 40 times, epa, gender rights, affirmative action. you name it. frequently texas has lost those suits but sometimes they've won. they stopped the administration from putting policies into effect. when they couldn't top the president they at least made his job that much harder and slower and make things cost more political capital than they would have. that's what texas did during the

obama era. if there's a state from the trump era, it's unarguable that california would be that state. if california is going to fight the trump white house in court, that might will be brought by the california attorney general. and the attorney general he just had just won a u.s. senate seat. nobody would say that camilla harris would shrink from any fight, but she's off to a whole new arena. if not her, then who will defend california and their progressive policies? who will fight this fight for california but also make this stand. if it will be may in court, who will make the stand for the nation's future that california democrats say they intend to make. we have a best guess about that. joining us now is democratic congressman. he's just been nominated for the california state attorney general. he has accepted.

he told reporters, if you want to take on a forward leaning state that's prepared to defend its rights and issue, then come at us. congressman becerra, thank you for being here. >> rachel, what a lead-in. >> does it strike you wrong? do you object at all to this idea that california might have a role vis-a-vis the trump administration something akin to what texas has done to the obama administration? >> we'll have a role because we're california. more often than not as goes californ, so goes the nation. i don't think california is looking to pick a fight. we're just ready to fight if someone tries to stop us from moving forward some progressive values that have helped so many californians. nearly 39 million people strong. we're a growing economy. sixth economic power in the world. and we're not going to stop. we're not interested in having folks try to stop us. we'll look at the constitution of the united states and our california constitution and recognize that as any other

state, we will do whatever the u.s. constitution allows us to do to protect our people and advance our interests. >> one of the flashpoints already is clearly going to be the issue of immigration. this week democratic leaders in your state announced a bill that would ban state and local law enforcement from helping the ferg round up undocumented immigrants. another bill would require president trump to get approval from california voters before building a wall along the mexican border with california. if things like this get passed, if they get signed by the governor, if they become california law, do you expect you'll be defending these things in court? >> i would hope that the federal government would recognize that states have the purview to take on the protection of their people, the advancement of their economy. so long as we're not doing something that's against the u.s. constitution, we should have the right to move forward. if we don't want to see walls built along our southern border, we'll do everything we can to

make sure that our people understand that we have a good working relationship with mexico. we have a lot of folks that go back and forth. i'm the son of mexican immigrants. we recognize about 40 years ago we went through this fight that so many people in this country are going through on immigration. we've gone well beyond that. i remember pete wilson and prop 187 in 1994. at that point we were seen as a purple state, in some eyes a red state. today we're a blue state because of prop 87. >> i remember talking to you about the veepstakes when hillary clinton was considering vice presidential running mates. i talked to you what it might be to be the top ranking latino in the house of representatives. can you tell me about your decision to leave the house. many thought you were on track for bigger things. possibility of you being speaker of the house in the pooch. why did you decide to leave washington and go back home to california?

>> rachel, i think you'll recall at that stage what i said was i would like to be able to serve my country and my state wherever i can make the biggest dins. i worked very hard for the last 25 years as a member of congress, very fortunate privilege. i hoped that hillary clinton could be our president but we move forward and when they opportunity game from governor brown and i'm thrilled that he'd give me the confidence to be the next ag in california, i believe i can make a difference nor not just my state but the country. as goes california, so goes the nation. >> i hope you'll keep lines of communication with us. lots of people all over the

country whether or not they have a stake in california are really thinking about california's leadership in the country and i hope you'll stay in touch with us about what's going on in the state and your state plans. >> stay tuned. >> javier becerra will be taking over as california ag. one of the things to keep an eye on in terms of the california fight, one of the other bills that the democrats in the california legislature have proposed would be banning state agencies from helping the federal government compile a reggistry of muslims in this country. that's one thing that donald trump has threatened. if you see california go with things like that, expect to see other blow states all around the country join in with california in fights that become more collective than just one state even if california does take point on this stuff. superinteresting politics right now.

if you're keeping track at home. if you're keeping track for history, i can tell you that hillary clinton has extended her lead over donald trump in the presidential election. she now leads the president-elect by nearly 2.7 million votes. that means she is beating him in the popular vote by two full percentage points.

which would be mostly just a historic curiosity at this point if the trump folks didn't keep insisting that they won in a landslide. hite. crest 3d white diamond strong toothpaste and rinse... ...gently whiten... ...and fortify weak spots. use together for 2 times stronger enamel. crest 3d whit

so we're at a point in american history, we're at a moment in the news where i think it is easy to lose your bearings. where it's hard to keep track of what's a mild surprise and what's a genuine shock.

at a time like this, though, particularly when things are literally in transition, even though it's hard, i think it's important to try to stay focused on what is important, on what is truly a big deal, and not just small and novel. the next story that we're going to do tonight, our final story tonight is what i think is the biggest deal that so far is being treated as a curiosity. the thing that i think needs a lot of very serious attention, even though it's so far being dismissed. and that's next.

i recognize not everybody is taking this all this series. but to me it seems like a serious thing. nobody is taking it all that seriously. part of the way you can tell that is nobody is even asking him about it. but even then he goes out of his way to bring this guy up himself. >> let me go back to secretary of state for a second.

i want to read off some of the names that it's been reported you're considering for that position. mitt romney, rudy giuliani, david petraeus, bob corker, and ambassador john bolton. have you now crossed any of those names off your list? >> well, i think i have in my own mind. i don't want to say which ones. but i think i have in my own mind. and there are other, great, great gentlemen, the boss over at exxon. and he has built a tremendous company over a period of years with great style. >> let me go back to mitt romney. is he still under consideration? >> yes. >> everybody wants to talk about mitt romney and these other political figures. but the president-elect himself goes out of the way ay actually you should ask me about this guy, who really is in consideration for secretary of state. this guy who runs exxon. here he is receiving the highest award that russia gives to nonrussian citizens. he'll be our new secretary of

state? he is in the running for that? i know there is a lot to keep up with the transition. but i keep sticking a pin in this for a reason. if this is real, it's astonishing. here is part of why. you know how there is this huge possible deal between at&t and time warner right now, one of the huge mega mergers that is running into static on capitol hill because in part, it would be such a huge deal. at&t-time warn worry be an $85 billion deal. that's an almost unphatbly large number. $85 billion. but if trump goes ahead with this exxon guy, it's not $85 billion. it's $500 billion. exxon for a long time was the biggest, richest company on earth. even when apple got bigger than them, they were still the biggest oil company on earth which lasted until putin started jailing the heads of the other oil companies in russia and taking over those companies. then and only then did exxon get beat as the largest oil company on earth when it was surpassed by the russian government's oil company, which is called rozneft. then what happened is those two giant companies, the mother of all oil companies and the mother of mother of all oil companies, those two giants got together to do a joint exploration deal. the biggest oil deal in the

history of deals. it was so big, it was expected to change the historical trajectory of russia. it was the deal that got the exxon ceo russia's highest award. that deal between exxon and rusnef was said to be a $500 billion deal. and that was before they discovered a new oil field. so $500 billion deal between two of the largest companies in modern history, the two largest oil companies ever, half trillion deal. and that was before they discovered a new billion barrels of oil they weren't expecting. and then the whole thing fell apart. right after they discovered the billion barrel field, the whole thing got stopped in its tracks because of sanctions. that messed with ukraine. the obama administration punched them in the face with sanctions. and the biggest deal anybody had ever heard of, one of the biggest commercial deals in the history of deals was stopped.

you know who would be in an excellent position to undo those sanctions? well, you would expect the american secretary of state to be in a good position to do that. rex tillerson, the ceo of exxon personally holds more than $150 million in exxon shares. you want to know what happened to those shares alone if the sanctions went aware and that $500 russia deal went back on? do you know what would happen to the value of exxon to the power of exxon if that got turned on right now? it would be great for exxon. it would be great for russia. it would not be so great for the united states. those sanctions are there for a reason. but hey, who is calling the shots around here anyway? exxon ceo rex tellerson has never worked anywhere else in his adult life. he joined exxon in 1975. he has never had another job. so obviously his next job should be secretary of state. for the united states. i wonder where he would take his first trip abroad. i wonder who would be the first world lead they're he would call after he was sworn in. i know nobody else is focusing

on it. but they are keeping this prospect alive. and it is astonishing. and that does it for us tonigh we will see you again tomorrow. donald trump's filling up key roles in his administration. the president-elect has picked a controversial figure to head the epa and a pro-wrestling magna to lead the small business administration. plus, tennessee officials say two juveniles have been charged in connection with deadly wildfires that killed more than a dozen people. and a massive search is taking place right now to find the man accused of killing one georgia police officer and critically injuring another. ♪ good morning, everyone. it is thursday, december 8th.