>> your world with neil cuva to will be next. the dow is up 90 points today. and failed to reach 20000. and still 50 points short. >> neil: thank you, shepherd. i am neil cuva to. and rex tillerson getting a lot of heated questions. he seems to handle himself well for a guy who is never been a politician. he has been a guest on politicians when they have grilled the big oil ceo's. i want to update you on the dow situation and how the donald trump sent the markets in a whirl wind on the first press. he tlo threw cold water on the

drug industry. earlier in the day, at l-- 11:2 pharmaceutical will companies were getting away with murder in what they charge the government for medicine and pricing of drugs in general. some believe he will police or control or reregulate the drug industry. be that as it was. it was a big slide for drug related issues. several had prominent role in the dew. merck and ph yser and johnson and johnson. itty rebounded when it was much ado about nothing. it is a reminder that the president-elect cast no aspersions over the industry. he's targeted defense contractors and

automanufacturers and his message is the same. i will police you aggressive. the market giveth and taketh away and give it back. the dow is within points of the 20000. and the various hearings that will pick up a pace tomorrow and in the end of the week. so far, so good. the question for tillerson that has come up again and again, whether he agrees with his boss or prospective boss on the issue of russia. and vladimar putin and whether russia can be trusted and again on sanctions versus tougher measures. he is of the opinion, former exxon mobile ceo that sanctions don't always work and exxon mobile was a frequent visitor to the obama white house. it is a lot easier said than

done. it is not a overturning sanctions but how exxon mobile would adhere. exxon mobile was off of the coast of the russia and that would impacted and cutting it out immediately would have meant a loss of jobs and a safety issue. i don't know if it was resolved but mr. tillerson was keen to remind critics including marco rubio it is easy tore go after one guy or country when you have to look at the impact on u.s. business. so far, so good. a lot of people believe he is holding up well. and the questions from marco rubio led many to believe be that republican support was not unanimous. but this exchange that got the talk going that he might not get

republican support. >> is vladimar putin a war criminal. >>id would not use that term. >> it is so much information and not hard to say that vladimar putin. >> i am upon not willing to make conclusions on what is publicly. >> none of this is classified. >> your question is people who directly responsible for that. i am n disputing these people are dead. >> keep in mind that marco rubio is on the foreign relations committee and two other republican critics of the softening stance with vladimar putin and the fears of that are john mccain and lindsay graham. they would be among the republican senators whom might not vote for mr. tillerson to be the next secretary of state. and say he were to lose those votes in a 52- 48.

and then all of the sudden, you will have to rely on mike pence to break that tie. and that is assuming all democrats vote against mr. tillerson. it is not likely. he is the first nominee or cabinet selection by donald trump who is facing that potential. i want to go to general jack kcan eane and there is a follow-up before we return. general, what do you make of that and an issue whether it comes back to haunt mr. tillerson. >> well, we knew from the outset given his dealings with russia. that it would be a issue in the hearing, and no surprise there.

i believe rex tillerson has requitted himself well. and the matter of russia himself. and i think he's done pretty good here. he wants to it hold russia accountable. he said that sanctions doesn't work. that is living proof here. and so those sanctions have failed indeed. and without him saying that, that is what he implied. and the question between him and rubio. i believe that putin used military committed war crimes. i don't have a problem with tillerson not until he gets all of the facts does he make a claim like that as incoming secretary secretaries. i am encouraged by his discussion on russia and the fact that we are going to hold them accountable and modify

their behavior. but we are willing to have a improved relation. one of the reasons that russia and china. are taking knowledge they believe the american leadership is scombeek they can take challenge television us. we'll have a new relationship here. he will be stronger in reflecting abroad than what president obama has been. >> one of the things that got lost in the ongoing preeshl attacks and created their separate fireworks. what rex tillerson said he would do if russia were to invade ukraine. he talked about more than

sanctions. back to your point, general. sanctions are not always the answer and they end up hurting american business and maybe the country in which they are targeted. he talked about nato amassing troops on the board and send a signal to the russians it would not be tolerated and he would up theant. and he would prompt or itch for for war. what did you make of that? >> i agree with him. the reality president obama is paralyzed of fear of adverse consequence. and putin said if you react to this, you will escalate this in an unacceptable war or conflict and he tells that to the president's face and the president buys that nonsense. and putin would respect and tillerson is right that the

peace through strength is the short foreign policy statement that will define how america. deals abroad. you have to show putin that you are serious here and that you would intend and possibly use force andy we have the capability. but you don't have deterrent just by capability. your adverary and opponent believes that you would use it. and china, and russia and iran don't believe we will use it. i believe president-elect trump and secretary of state tillerson are going to change that equation. >> neil: you know, general, on iran. i didn't expect it from tillerson. while donald trump is critical of the iran nuclear deal and maybe it was a case of mr. tillerson being caringful. he wouldn't come in to office or

post assuming he gets confirmed trying to dismantle the agreement. he would talk it over with with his boss. what do you think of the administration not quick to shelve the agreement. >> i also agree with that. if're it is unfortunate we have the agreement. we have to hold the iranians accountable to the agreement. they are likely already cheating and we have to get in to this with the intelligence service and friend's intelligence and certainly hold them accountable. and if they are indeed dhaeting, we hammer them with tough sanctionses that brought them to the table in the first place. i believe that the iranians want to dominant the middle east.

and when we push back to that, i believe the iranians will pull out of that nuclear deal themselves. i don't believe the administration will permit iians to run roughshod over the middle east. i don't believe tillerson and trump will permit that to happen. and when they push back, the iranians will fold that nuclear deal. >> neil: thank you. donald trump as you heard is severing ties with his business and passing them to his oldest sons. this was largely expected and he will not have an arm's length relationship and it is done and finished and can let the kid cans have it. but promised no foreign deals even under his kid's stewardship

for the next four years or eight years if if he was relengthed. and then there was this dust up at a separate hearing. take a look. >> america needs an attorney general who is resolute and determined to bend the arc. senator session's record does not speak to that desire, intention and will. with all that is at stake in our nation now with urgent need for love and healing i urge opposing the nomination. >> neil: that was senator booker who testified against his colleague jeff sessions and that never happened before. it happened today and the senator from new jersey said he did it out of principle and ggnawing at him.

we reached out. but jeff sessions had others speak in favor and said he would make a good attorney general. >> thank you for having me on on, neil. >> neil: i know the fellow speakers went back and forth those for senator sessions and others against. and the louisiana congressman was saying it is amazing they are doing this. we are back in the back of the bus. what did you make of that? >> what you have here is a situation, it is unfortunate to have a sitting senator coming out to oppose. it is a political. and people who know jeff sessions and people who are honorable be about the process and have been supportive of jeff sessions and people who want to

do something for political gain will not support senator sessions. >> neil: the things he said when he was up for a judgeship 30 years ago. was there something more recent on this thing? the senator was the lead prosecutor in going after a ku klux klan member be that killed an african-american and prosecuted that to the full extent and openly recommending execution. i am missing something, can can you help me here? >> you are not missing anything other than they don't believe be in the truth. they are going back to pre1986 and witnesses who with testified in front say that senator sessions did certain things and when they got back home they recognized they had lied and said we lied about the testimony. it was not senator sessions, it

was a democrat u.s. attorney before him. that testimony was discredited and one witness who trails himself out here. gerold hebert. he was sanctioned before the 11th circuit for are making false allegations in concern to race and one guy incapable of defending himself, but his bogus testimony was proved to be without merit. >> neil: what was behind coordinating all of the witness and yourself included, sir, today? >> i don't know what was behind coordinating all of the witnesses other than the few members who think they have a right to come over and assail and character assassinate a man they don't know. if you think you have a right to assassinate a man really without the facts, it is unfortunate

situation. >> neil: william smith, thank you very much. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> neil: and the man up for the secretary of state position and a kri monous the racial stuff not withstanding. >>y we put additional programs in place? >> i would like to move on to another global health issue. the opoid epidemic. it is now transformed in to a fentnyl. issue. three- quarters of the people who died in 2016. die from fentnyl. and if it was occurring at the same rate in the country as it did in 2016, that would be 75000 dying from overdose.

and the way that is coming in to america is the chemicals come in from china and in to mexico and to the regions of the country. senator rubio has the problem in florida. we need to execute this to a higher level of importance in our country. the terrorist that is going to kill americans on the streets of our country, are it is terrorist who are selling fenta nyl. it is the mexican and chinese operatives who are funneling it in the heart of the country. can you talk about how strong you intend on insuring that the state department takes in terms of actions to tell the chinese

and mexicans how serious we are about this threat, this threat to families all across our country? >> senator if confirmed, this will require an inner- agency approach both in terms was applying many tools in terror financing elsewhere to track the flow of money, attempt to disrupt on both ends of that. i think it is one thing to send the chinese a message and another to put in place mechanisms whether it is working with treasury or disrupt the flow of the material and drugs as well. we have a message to project to china, but i am clear- eyed about china saying never mind. >> a wall in our out southern border will not keep fentnylout.

it will take more action if we serve two vietnams a year deaths. >> thank you. i have a question to follow-up. a little earlier, you talked about the ficiency and government at time do things well. american public knows that government is full of waste and fraud and you will see it in the private sector and government. and the depth as we have to make sure you are committed to when you see it eliminating dupplications and do what you can to address the incredible depth we have. >> senator, it is my nature to look for inefficacy and stream line.

we'll assess the structure of the state department. as part of preparing, i looked at organization charts to a few years ago and today. and there are more box. some of those may be for good and valid reasons, but it appears to me, that new issues which have been added may rightfully be placed back in the mission itself. there appears to be duplication. it is not only spending the tax dollars wisely. but it is on the issue. we are not dealing with with the issue effectively. how does it integrate in the mission obligations? that is a simple example because it was obvious to me when i

looked at the chart. i know there will be opportunities to stream line things with the objective of make it effective. and carry out the state -- and that is out of that will come naturally going to capture ficiencies and top savings. we talked to lead is who are concerned about security and economic growth in their nations. perhaps not to the degree of that. as secretary of state how dew balance engaging these countries. and focusing on human rights.

>> i take the view it is never an either or, choice we make. our interest or our values. our values are not right sitting on our shoulder in full display, on the table? the real question is how do we advance those values. just speaking in an honest assessment. from time to time our national may take priority. it doesn't mean they are not important and right here on the shoulder with us. you are asking how do we project those values to another country in a negotiation in a way they move closer to our values.

that is never an either or choice. choice. >> neil: continuing to watch the rex tillerson confirmation hearings. it might be presuchltous to say not laying a glove on him. rubio and rand paul wanting clar ifshgz when it comes to regime change and supporting it and rejecting. take a look. >> what do you think of donald trump statements with regard to regime change? >> what is in the best interest of our national security. i think this is where these proprietaries come in conflict of our american value and desire and comsxagz violation of human right and oppressive regimes.

>> neil: senator rand paul, good to have you. you put it in a greater context. all of the money we giechlt particularingly the billions given to egypt and a made the mubarak family happy. did you get answers? >> one of the things you are trying to judge it temperament. he's been through five hours of sdpm you want to know he is a diplomat and war is the lasty resort and not the first. that came through clearly. and important that your head diplomat, secretary of state not believe be we live in a simple world that people are all good or evil. and that is the thing lost on on some in my party. when you sdrusz russia. they are neither all good or all evil. and they have acted aggressively

and moving in countries crossing international borders and yet it doesn't mean thatty we shouldn't have a conversation concerning nuclear arm and making sure we don't have accidents happen in a large scale in our country and world. i think he understands that more than maybe the knee jerk neoconservatives that think that war is the first resort and not the last. >> were you including rubio be in that group? and his fouf questioning. >> i don't want to characterize anybody. a diplomat will not be saying. the head of so and so country is a war criminal. that is not a good way to start off a conversation. the secretary of state will have to talk to russia and making sure accidents don't have and there is important things even

though we are adversaries with russia, we can't closeup shop and not engage. and that is one of the things that is misunderstood about my positions versus the neoconversation -- neoconservationist. and they want to closeup shop. it doesn't mean we approve, but you have to have a dialogue that goes on. >> neil: right now, your colleague booker is questioning rex tillerson. he broke precedent earlier today and testifying against jeff sessions. and the issue that essentially jeff sessions, corey booker was getting it was unsympathetic to causes and darn near a race

ichlt. >> corey booker and i work on criminal justice reform and i don't think it is fair to attack jeff sessions for racism and those are terrible charges they should only be levelled against people who truly are. i never met anyone who wants to be call canned a racist. and the law needs to be colorblind. look at what he truly believes. one of the people who advanced in his office is the african-american and only chief of staff for a republican in the house side. and people who work with with him, you might want to talk to him instead of saying some african-american don't like jeff sessions. you might want to point out those are from a opposite party. i didn't look and characterizing

booker's presentation because i didn't hear it actually. i am a little defensive to people trying to characterize jeff sessions as a terrible thing to be called and i never seen any evidence of that from jeff sessions. >> neil: rex tillerson said sanctions generally don't work and had a reassessing relationship to your point of how not only giving out aid to one of your concerns and how we approach dealing with countries. but how he thought this administration and their response to russia. and he might would have amassed troops on the border and getting nato to do the same. nato was not willing to do that back then and hence we fell back

on sanctions, how do you feel about that? >> i was here. obama wanted to appear strong and had had drawn a redline. and then he said i need to ask congress first. really a president shouldn't draw redlines in the middle of a war for which he hasn't asked for approval. we are involved in the war with isis and not a valid debate of where and how it is conducted. and we have done things back wards and this is not a good foreign policy p. going to war is the most important debate we'll have nothing has more profound as sending young men and women in harm's way. i have seen the devastation that happens to the young men and women in war. it is our obligation to see. and mr. tillerson takes that tougher approach, sir.

it is my interpretation to send a strong signal to russia. we done that back then, with the troops, and building on the border or providing munitions and what the ukrainians need. >> i would probably have taken a different approach i am not sure anything would keep russia out other than a hundred thousand troops in ukraine. i didn't advise that. russia had a base in syria 50 some-odd year and a long-standing relationship with assad. they were never leaving easily and you would have to decide are you willing to confront a nuclear power over syria? is there a side in america's interest? there are 2 million christians in syria and they generally like assad and they don't like the

people we have supported. many of the people we supported are hard line extremism and given them weapons and when they are done with assad they will attack israel will and so i question the wisdom of giving weapon withes to many of the people we have begin to and some of our weapons wound up in the hands of isis. i don't know there is a good solution in syria other than than tillerson is right. address what is in our best interest and not thinking we will make a world save erdemocracy and a utopia. we need to say what is in united states best interest p.>> neil: donald trump arc knowledged that russia was probably behind the cyber. but struck back in intelligence that was not right.

and not vetted. but it almost sided like a kabala on the part of the intelligence officials. >> if there is private information that someone is blackmailing a public figure and someone take its to the intelligence agencies, you would think it would be private. it is so important that who ever leaked it should be prosecuted and someone should go to jail. if the intelligence committee they should any to jail. obama administration, they should go to jail. you don't want your figures to comment on blackmail. he it said is false. any public official is blackmail. go to the fbi and guf them the information. but if you can't trust the fbi and they tell will the press what they are blackmailing about, it will lead to situation that public figures will be

blackmailed. this is a very serious thing. >> neil: that is what your colleague senator john mccain did. someone gave it and went to the fbi with this information and let them pursue it. what do you think. approach he took? >> i don't know what all happened. when the information is given to the fbi and particularly information using on blackmail. it has to be kept private. no one will give information to the fbi if they release information on blackmail to the public. someone releasing information that was used to try to blackmail. the president-elect said it is not true. and what is more important than that, you can't let the intelligence agencies release blackmail information to the public. it had to be them or i am upon not sure if the obama administration was in the meeting, but it should not be

released to the public. they are allegations and i have no way of ascertaining whether they are true or false. but it is inappropriate for someone to get it out to the public. >> neil: i know you have to go back to the hearing. health care. you want a replacement in place. presumably you have that or close to it. donald trump is giving mixed signals of where he was first agreeing with you. and now repeal right away and short order get the replacement going. where does this stand? >> i am getting the same success signals from the president-elect. it is not certain which actual day we'll have the repeal vote in the next several week and it is pulled together. the replacement vote should be on the same day, and it is so important. republicans do have a replacement plan and some that

have been out there decades and the democrats never lead us have them. legalizing the sale of inexpensive insurance and saving acts and letingly individualed band together for cheap are price. they need to know be inacted and soften the blow of getting away from the terrible government boondoggle called obamacare. >> neil: the hearing for rex tillerson, it is up now for secretary of state and now getting grilled by corey booker. let's listen in. >> it is helpful and we have members that have not had their second rounds. >> and now, to senator portman.

thank you mr. tillerson for you being being patient and answering questions with candor and appreciate your willingness to serve. one thing we didn't take about this morning was the middle east. this relationship we have with israel is a special one and a cornerstone of our strats strat. and one true democracy. i want to talk to you about your views on israel and one important issue for me is the issue of boycott of it is a global movement targeting israel. i have been concerned about this for a while and introduced legislation on it. and ben and i have passed

legislation in this regard to try to push back against the forces. recently, of course, with the consent of the obama administration, the u.n. security counsel passed a resolution and demanding israel cease all activity and cupping territory west of jerusalem. this will galvanize additional bds activity. would you make it a priority to counter and make sure israel is not held to a double standard. >> yes, i would. >> any thoughts of how to do that? >> just by raising in our interactions with countries that put in place provisions that boy cot and the element and

activities of israel if their country and highlight that we oppose that and expressing that view. that does shade our view of them as well then. and one of the things that would i think help change the dynamic obviously would be if there were a change in the dynamic regionally. and today because of iran and the the threat iran poses they all share the same enemy. this gives us an opportunity to find, to discuss things that previously could not have been discussed. >> you find more support among the sunni countries in the region. >> i don't want to speak for them, senator, but clearly there is more sharing going on between

the leaders of those countries as they confront the single threat. >> it is my sense and on bds. we have negotiations that have trade. and would you support that legislation as we conduct trade negotiations and support using those negotiations to help dismantle the bds effort in those country. >> if confirmed i would advocate and recognizing there are other agencies that have the pursue over that. >> what attitude do you take in the u.n. initiatives relating to the israely and palestinian conflict. is it your intentions to press the palestinians to resume negotiations with israel rather than the u.n.? >> i expressed in answers and i want to be brief. i realize we are trying to get

through. the issue between the israeli and palestinian and no one can be coerced to coming. i support the parties being allowed to do with this and speaking for themselves. >> with with regard to syria. in my view it is worse by the action of drawing of redline and not honoring them and establishing no safe zones or no-fly zone and russia's entry in the civil war turned the tide. and iran backing assad and now russia more are involved in the iran, and hesbollah, and has been strengthened and how complicated. the enemy of that would be isis. one of my questions for you. would you with iran where we might have a conflict of interest in

fighting isis. >> that requires exploration and i indicated that we have to find a way to engage in the overall ceasefire process that is agreed by russia, turkey and syria and iran as well. can can we get engaged in that and stabilize the situation regarding the rebel activity with the syrian government and turn our attention on isis, that remains to be seen and that involves the engagement of others and input from others as well. >> you think that russia has a interest or desire to push back against isis? or do you think they are in syria to help assad's regime. >> it has provided a convenient open door for russia to establish be a presence in the middle east, a region it was long absent from. but having said that, there are

common threats that russia faces because of terrorist organizations and radical islam themselves. i have seen statistics that are significant fighters and isis are all speaking russian as a language. that indicates russia has a problem and in terms of where these people came from and home to. there is scope for discussion, and what i alluded to earlier. we have to see what russia's posture is. are they looking for a partnership with us and re-establishing a positive working relationship or are they unanswered in that. >> that is complex situation in a difficult part of the world. russia has not followed through on pushing back in isis in syria and in fact, focused on protecting assad's regime. thank you for stepping forward.

and we are look being forward to the opportunity to working with you you going forward and i wish you the best of luck. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i have ten articles i would like to submit for the record related to exxon's involvement. >> thank you, i want to tourn to klummaate and environment and many, many question and we talked about p it some in my office. it is a reflection of how important it is as we look down the few generations from now. here is a major threat to the planet, what did you do? you noted earlier in this conversation with the chairman the impact of climate change is limited. you indicated that. but also indicated while we can't model with certainty, the

fact that we have a risk and challenge we shouldn't let it go. my view is that it is a serious risk. is that a fair recounting of how we feel. >> yes, sir. i think what i said the fact that we can't predict with with precision and all of the models that we discussed, none of them agree. it doesn't mean we should do nothing. >> and one of the things i have seen in my time in the senate, we talk about model and what is happening on the ground right now. and in my state, forest are burning to a faster rate due to the heat and dryness. and the oysteres are having trouble producing because the oceans are more acidic be and the moose are dying because of ticks are not killed off and they are transmitting disease and in senator coon's state.

i think accurately the lowest average land level in the country and concerned about the advancing sea level and storm and hurricanes. and we are seeing facts on the ground. and as we see that, we know we are in the beginning of the impact and they are getting worse each year. and we are often viewing climate change as a national security issue. and since you believe, i wanted to ask, do you see it as a national security issue? >> i don't see it as the imminent national security threat that perhaps others do. >> one thing that is noted is how the changing climate in the middle east and concentrated syrian villages and sparked the civil war that has produced 4 million and countying refugee and having profound impacts on

european security. is that something you consider to be real or misleading. >> the fact it's ground are indisputable. with with drought and disease. and the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive. and there are many reports out there that we are unable to connect specific events to climate change alone. >> what we are seeing is a lot of scientific reports. we can can tell you odds increased and hurricane sandy may have occurred. and so, do you agree with that view point that essentially the odds of dramatic events

occurring, whether it is more are forest fires or more hurricanes with more power is a rational observation with scientific literature. >> some say that and others say it is inconclusive. >> i am sorry to it hear that view point. it is overwhelmingy on one side of the argument and i hope you will look at the scientific literature and take it seriously. one thing that was impressive that so many countries came together in paris as part of the global effort to take this on it is a global kfrgdz. and i want to capture correctly your impression of paris.

>> as i stated before in my statement of climate change. it would require a global response and countries that attempt to influence by acting alone will harm themselves. the global approach is an important step and in response to the question. it is important to maintain a seat at that table. >> neil: like a liberal who hears a former ceo question everything behind climate change and that is exactly what you witnessed rex tillerson doing. talking about other data that doesn't conjoin with all of that and that was not greeted favorably by the senator. does that mean it is going to interrupt tillerson to be the next secretary of state? hard to say. so far he is comporting himself well. and wiwith have a while to go.

we are getting wind from friends at fox, top intel members will brief house members on the classified information on the russian involvement a week before the formal inauguration ever donald trump to be the 45th president of the united states. donald trump said in the press conference accepted that. and what he did not accept that it changed the election outcome and latest intelligence came out to show that the russians were digging up secrets on him as well. be that as it may, it was a raucus press conference and donald trump severed ties to his business as president-elect and leaving it to his two eldwillest son and no foreign business transactions will be done with

foreign enterprises. and this is a separate trust issue and whether that holds is anyone's guess. he handled a fairly hostage press. christian with the washington examiner and brad blake glt man former deputy assistant to george bush. and kennedy. kennedy, i want you to it respond to this. >> on the time line of repeal and replace. >> finally obamacare. >> i wanted to ask you if you outlined. >> no, i got. it you have anymore? >> that's it. >> on the fence. it is not a fence. it si wall. you just misreported it. >> mr. president-elect. >> not you, not you. >> can can you give us a chance. you are attack our news.

>> quiet, quiet. >> mr. president-elect. >> no. can can you give us a question. instead of attacked. >> don't be rude. i am not going to give you a question. you are fake news. >> neil: he was going against cnn and they are having at it. and kennedy what do you make of it all. >> i think it is a brand new world and you are getting a taste of how the president-elect will hold court when he is the president. it is animated and raucus. and can entertaining and he's going to get a lot of push back from the press. is that a good or bad thing. at this point, we don't know. we know that we certainly will be watching the press conference can and you will see a different style of comportment from the

members of the press themselves as they play a different brand of offense with this administration. >> neil: he's not a fan of the press. he's said that. he was saying kind things about about the press they were not all following the buzz feed and cnn didn't take it to the level buzz feed did. but the signal seemed to be. it seemed like not press conferences as usual. it was rapid fire and what about that fire? >> i think it is refreshing and as kennedy said there is a new sheriff in town. and the worst thing to tell donald trump this is the way you always have done it. you will be thrown out of the room. donald trump has his own way of dealing with the press. and it is successful. and in the white house he didn't have to it be beholden to the

press. it needs to be a two- way street. it is not the way they want it or donald trump want its. he will deal with it press in his own way and the american people will have to decide come one is handling. as the american sitting and watching and i shouted to the tv go for it. >> he got in more as twice as many questions for the time period than obama deputy. maybe it is attention getting and the preference conversation. you maintain your attention. it was raucus and for a president who might need the media down the road is it fair to say i will not have relationship with you and why should i start now. >> this is the same donald trump we saw on the campaign trail

nothing should be surprising to anyone paying attention to the way donald trump dealt with the media. he did say there were some media organizations that took a more responsible and measurable approach when it came to the refalations. he said i have more respect for some of them. he tries to create conflict and resolve conflict and krael drama. it is it a magic of tv drama. and with president obama it would be a question and long answer and loved to dig deep and talk for a long time. there was not a lot of hostility openly with the press. it was behind the scenes with prosecuting whistle-blowers. but donald trump lives for the arena fighting back and forth. and what we will see in the next four years.

>> neil: on the cnn versus buzz feed. cnn didn't take the salacious details and plaster them everywhere. buzz feed did and can that was the distinction that cnn reporter was trying to make. he wanted to make a case and he's not a fan and post election of cnn, right? >> yeah, he's gone after cnn and the washington post and specific reporters there. but i think chris is right. he will create this conflict and try to soothe it over as he did certainly with with the new york times and we are going to have this ongoing discussion in an era, when people are taking about fang news. not only where is it generated but what constituted a real news organization on.

you have fox news that are claiming their territory and more than happy to make the differentiation between places like buzz feed that lost credibility and handed trump. >> neil: gave him a sword. it is intimidating that the reporters have to be reigned in. but do you think that it could produce a leery press and an afraid press and concerned about being called out and fake or phony and a national press conference and they will hold back? >> coon the contrary. it will produce a more responsible press. journalism requires professionalism and not to rush to the story but get the story right. >> neil: where do you draw the line with tough and tacky and critical and following up on

something? >> i don't think trump will be chr critical. >> neil: obama said the trut sometimes hurt. >> trump is pushing back against stories that are not cooperated >> he delivered that today. >> neil: he called out the pharmaceutic alley industry and i noticed the market's response. having said that, it was interesting how the market tanked the moment he was criticizing the industry because it was perceived he will go after these guy and reign in their profits. and whatever your views on that subject it pounded those stocks. what do you think he as

president conducts his policies that way, cites industry and goes after them and embarrasses them and tanks their stock. >> the market moves fast because of the uncertainty. if donald trump picks a target will that be changes? and does it mean that donald trump as president unlaterally does something about f- tluf and lock heed martin. >> oh, my gosh what do i do? and i think if we get down the road and turns out and donald trump threatens an industry it doesn't wind up to do anything to hurt the market. and and maybe be they the not react dramatically. and if all of the sudden, it was the first signal that he causes the

>> it is folks trying to figure out what the actual bottom line impacts on company's ability to make money when donald trump says maybe i don't like the way this industry is doing things. what can he do to affect their bottom line? that can affect how the market responds. >> this is a short-term world. you are seeing companies like ford and sprint and carrier realize the power of his words, his message, and twitter. they are using that as a marketing strategy in the short term. we do see there is a direct effect on the short-term stock prices. it's almost like he's a presidential version of alan greenspan. >> i wouldn't go there. thank you very, very much. i think we can agree it won't be business as usual. we will keep updating you on these developments. the house was going to get the same briefing that a lot of these candidates have had, russia's role in the last

election. donald trump has acknowledge it. he's not acknowledging that it affected the outcome. even some of the ridiculous charges that buzz feed makes, he wouldn't accept. >> i'm eric bolling with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino, this is "the five" ." a very big news day. a jampacked hour ahead. president-elect donald trump held his first news conference in nearly six months today. he answered 17 questions in total on a variety of topics, including russia, obamacare, the wall, the handover of his businesses, taxes, the supreme court and more. he kicked it all off with the bombshell unsubstantiated new reports that russia has compromising personal and financial information about mr. trump.