In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis.
Browse content similar to 07/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
The leaked email scandals that rocked Clinton's
Now the US government blames Russia for cyber hacking.
Was Moscow trying to influence the outcome
Sterling slumps to its lowest in 30 years.
Is our national currency any more than a symbol of pride?
Or is this telling us something about Brexit we need to know?
All becomes clear in the Ukip saga as Mike Hookem explains the two men
were just "wrestling like a pair of tarts".
If you get offered out in Hull and you don't go,
you're a bit of a wimp, so I'm going out with him.
I'm 63, I should have made a different decision.
I shouldn't have made decision that decision.
It was silly, but he offered me out so I was going.
Meet the liberal American writer who says the Democrats have
Is this why Hillary Clinton is finding the race so hard?
Late this evening the Obama administration came forward
to formally blame Russia for a series of cyber attacks
that it believes were intended to influence
The US Homeland Security Department has said it is confident the Russian
government directed the recent compromise of emails from US
institutions and persons - including the
Democratic National Committee - which was hacked
just before Hillary Clinton's Convention back in July.
And how do they know for sure it is Russia?
Our technology correspondent David Grossman is with me now
David, what do you make of this coming now?
Until now, Americans had blamed the Russians but they had done so off
the record but tonight they have gone on the record with that
accusation. Let me just read you a little. The US intelligence
community is confident that Russia directed these e-mails. It goes on
these are intended to interfere with the election process. It goes on, we
believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, only
Russia's senior most officials could have authorised these activities.
What do they mean by influence the election? In what way? This
disclosure, 20,000 e-mails and 8000 attachments from the Democratic
National Convention's computers were intended to destabilise the DNC
convention where they'd nominated Hillary Clinton. It shows that DNC
organisation was biased against Bernie Sanders and had colluded with
Hillary Clinton. It was timed exquisitely to embarrass Hillary
Clinton and her team and it nearly threw it all off the rails. Thank
you. Joining me now is Thomas Rid,
Professor in War Studies and one of the first to find
the Russian Fingerprints And Kurt Volker, former US permanent
Representatvie to Nato. Many thanks, gentlemen, for joining
us. Kurt, why do you think this has come out now? I think that is
exactly the right question. No one had any real doubt that this was the
Russian government behind it, and I think as we get closer to the
election itself, I think the administration wants to come out to
show that Russia is playing a direct role. In some ways that is going to
call into question Donald Trump's embrace of Russia during the course
of the election campaign, and I also think whereas in the past the
Administration may have held back from public charges against Russia,
after Russia's assault on Aleppo, I think any motivation to hold back on
criticising Russia has gone away. Cilic trump supporters suspected
this was timed to help Hillary Clinton right now, they would not be
wrong? It is one theory and I think the first thing you have to say is
what difference does it make, because it is true, and the
administration is putting out what is a true story and they have
evidence behind it. But it gets to the issue of timing and I think
there may be something with the politics of timing. You were one of
the first, Thomas to compare the fingerprints and put the blame on
Russia. Talk us through that? Russian intelligence agency have not
just breached the DNC but several organisations and individuals. They
claim that through a leaked account and what they have done is they
hacked democratic organisations which happens all the time,
basically, but they have done something fresh this time, something
new. They also gave this information to the public in order to influence
the election. This was a first. They have done this very aggressively
again and again, almost on a weekly basis. We have seen 30 separate
leaks since. And when we hear it is from the top echelons of the Russian
government, our people deliberately not saying Putin that implying Putin
or is there a different strand there? When the leak started on the
15th of June, initially it looked like a bottom-up operation, some
rogue person perhaps in Russia's military agency taking the
initiative. But very quickly looting was confronted and Lavrov was
confronted by American counterparts and it became clear that it must
have been authorised so it has been authorised by Putin. And Kurt, if I
take you back to that convention in July, there was that odd
intervention from Donald Trump where he appeared to be calling on Russia
to hack Clinton's e-mails, he said afterwards it was a joke and it had
been taken out of context, but how does that now playing to this
narrative? None of this came from Trump? No, of course not. I think
truly Donald Trump was making light of it and making the assumption that
Russia had already stolen these e-mails and they could release them
but he was making light of it. I think it plays in a more serious way
in that Trump has shown a more positive disposition toward Putin
and Russia, has dismissed -- diminished Russia invading Ukraine,
so pointing out Russia is doing these things directly to try and
influence the US election is in a way demonstrating that perspective
that Trump has embraced on Russia. It is really not in sync with the
Russia we are dealing with. Thomas, I know you want to come in on this.
It is really important to understand that they are sending a message to
the American public as much as two Russia, to journalists in the United
States and Europe as well. They are saying to them, you cannot just use
these leaks and treat them as facts, because we have seen these
intelligence agencies, Russian, falsifying and modifying information
in these leaks. Previously, until today, the door was wide open for
the Russian operatives to influence the election and today it has become
a lot more difficult because journalists cannot just report these
as if they were factual. But as Kurt was saying, this also hints at a
real breaking down of relations over Syria. The sense that any entente
between the US and Russia are working together to try and solve
Syria has now gone, is that right? Absolutely. You had John Kerry
musing about Russia being investigated for war crimes now. It
is the kind of language we have not heard before from the Obama
administration. I think they have become completely despairing and
frustrated and upset over the deliberate role that Russia is
playing in levelling Aleppo and killing thousands upon thousands of
people. I don't see that this will recover in the course of this
Administration. It will be up to the next president to try and build
something sustainable with Russia. We have not had a direct comment
from Russia on this but what is your sense of how they will read this or
respond to that? They have been denying this operation in the past.
It is a consistent pattern that they say one thing and do another thing.
The same applies to operations in Aleppo and Crimea in Ukraine. They
will not say they have been caught. You looked at two burglarised
buildings which had the same fingerprints. If that irrefutable
now? The evidence is strong so let's make this very concrete. We know the
same entity that breached the DNC has also breached the German
parliament, in order to find dirt on German politicians, interesting
information to leak and that happened last year. We have the
malware samples, the fingerprint, the tool they left behind and we can
link those. They are very strong indicators to each other. This is
literally as good as a fingerprint in a burglary. Thank you.
6% in two minutes, the crash of the pound last night
Those who long favoured Brexit will tell you a weak pound
Those who feared Brexit will tell you this has been long time coming -
One thing is clear - the flash crash suggests politics
and political words play a crucial part in the fluctuations
Or, as HSBCs head of Foreign Exchange quipped today,
"the pound is now the de facto opposition".
So tonight we ask how we feel about what may be
Is strong currency anything more than a symbol
Adam Parsons takes us through the day's vertiginous drop.
Brokers and jobbers crowded together to try and sort out what the drop
1967 and there's panic on the streets of London.
The pound had been devalued, a change so cataclysmic
that the stock market had to be closed, to let the dust
Half a century later and the value of sterling is,
It's been falling steadily ever since the Brexit referendum,
Because while monetary policy, with superlow interest rates...
Global markets took this as the Prime Minister criticising
And that dragged the value of the pound down to levels it
Sterling broke through some important levels we hadn't seen
since 1985 and it still underlines the fact that international
investors seemingly over the course of the last four or five days have
Primarily moving in one direction which has been to sell sterling.
In the early hours of this morning came something new,
a sudden dramatic collapse in the value of the pound,
a so-called flash crash, apparently caused by a computer
algorithm that read an article on the internet of the computer
reading it, not a person, and instantly decided to sell a vast
On the trading floor, this is what a flash crash looks
This graph shows us the value of the pound against the dollar.
You can see, at midnight, last night, it was worth $1.26 and a bit.
And then, suddenly, this vertical line shows us the dramatic fall
Four minutes later, worth just $1.18.
It's lost 6.5% of its value in just a few moments.
Well, there is a rebound, but not a full recovery.
What this shows us is a picture of sterling under attack.
Here's what's happened since the referendum.
The value of the pound has dropped sharply but at the same time,
Well, because most of the money earned by the FTSE's big companies
So, profits are worth a lot more as the value
So, could we be heading towards a time where the pound
Well, I den think we've seen the trough in sterling, yet,
so we still have some more pain to come, which of course means UK
I wouldn't suspect that we would get those parity thresholds
being reached but further depreciation against the US dollar,
I wouldn't be surprised if we trade down to 118 or even as low as 115.
And I think in the shorter term, if we are going to see some
of the selling pressure dissipate then we probably need to see some
of the politicians rolling back on some of this hard Brexit talk
which is really destabilising markets.
Over in the States, the Chancellor was in his familiar sanguine mood.
But markets will go up and down, markets respond to noises off
and as I said earlier this week, we are going to go through a period
of volatility now, there will be lots of commentary
going on and we can expect to see markets being more turbulent.
But hold on, is a weak pound really so bad?
Well, one leading economist has told Newsnight
The effect of a fall in the pound will make
imports more expensive, so, people in the UK are more likely
People overseas are likely to find our goods cheaper
and more attractive, so they are more likely
Tonight's jackpot is an estimated ?139 million.
And one final benefit of a weak pound, the Euro millions lottery
is paid out in euros, win the jackpot and it will be worth
?7 million more than this time last week.
Bonne chance, as they say in the Eurozone.
That's more than enough of a silver lining.
Joining us now Alistair Heath, from the Telegraph, Vicky Pryce,
Economist, and Rupert Harrison former Treasurer advisor
and chief of staff to the Chancellor, from Washington.
Is it all so bad when you see the pound coming down this quickly or do
you look at the upside? For an open economy like the UK, the currency
acts like a shock absorber, so when you get hit by a shock, the currency
goes down and there is a silver lining. The export products might
benefit by selling more. There is still the original shock. People
around the world are waking up to the risks that Brexit poses to the
economy. Fewer people will invest in the UK, it is expected. That is not
a good thing. The fall in the pound can have a silver lining but the
shock that caused it is something we should be concerned about. In a
slightly old-fashioned way, do we get too hung up on the pound as if
it is somehow reflecting our national pride or a sense of
virility in a funny way? I agree, we shouldn't look at it that way at
all. People do but they shouldn't. There is a certain pride about
having a strong currency and in many ways it can be good because it means
you are richer, you can buy many more things from abroad than
otherwise would be the case. Having a weaker currency makes you pour
almost immediately. The concern I have is that the pound was going
down because there are issues about whether we know where we are going
from here on in -- makes you poorer almost immediately. After a long
period of thinking maybe we would never leave the EU, it is going to
take some time before we trigger article 50. In order to start the
process of leaving. We now have a timetable. The words we had in the
Conservative Party conference were quite... Direct. Direct in terms of
hard Brexit minded, if you like. It is funny, during the summer a lot of
people said, you see, it's fine, Brexit will be fine, we taking it in
our stride, we are bigger than that and almost this delayed reaction
that nothing happened for three months until she triggered the
starting gun. Now we are seeing what is going to be a year of
uncertainty. Clearly, there will be a lot of uncertainty but the
interesting thing is this, before Brexit, before anyone thought the UK
would leave the EU, the IMF was saying the pound was 12% - 18%
overvalued. They thought the pound needed to fall because the UK, for
many years, has suffered from quite a major weakness, which is that we
consume too much compared to how much we produce. In other words, we
have been living beyond our means for years. Our deficit last year was
the highest of any G-7 country. You are delighted? I am not delighted
but it is a sensible readjustment. I do not like the fact that the
markets are so febrile. I am worried about things like the flash crash
and cost. But we are already poorer than we thought we were, for many
years. This is effectively the reality sinking in. I don't think it
is to do with Brexit, it is the catalyst but not the cause. Is that
right, Rupert, all that is worrying the people is the speed of the
dissent? That if it was a slow descent but roughly to the same
place we would not be worrying at all, we would see it as an upside? I
do not think it is that simple for two reasons. There is a very real
consequence for a fall in the pan for people watching. The things that
you buy that manufactures overseas will cost more. The new iPhone has
exactly the same dollar price as the old iPhone but it will cost ?50 more
in the UK because of a weaker pound. That will be reflected across all
sorts of items including food and fuel for their car. Secondly, the
thing that we should perhaps be more worried about than the fall in the
pound itself is what it means for international perceptions of the UK.
I'm in Washington for the IMF meetings and I am finding myself
this week doing a lot of explaining. Lots of people are saying what on
earth is going on in the UK? They are hearing messages about
immigration. There was quite a lot of perhaps naivete around the world
that the UK was heading for a soft Brexit, that we would stay in the
single market. People are increasingly understand that is
probably not going to be the case. This wonderful line from the HSBC
analyst who said the pound is now the de facto opposition, it will be
the pound that tells this government when it is going too far. Not
really, because the pound should have been lowered in the first
place. If it gets to parity? If it gets to parity, the pound would be
undervalued, yes. You would be horrified at that point? I would be
very surprised. The pound is more or less fairly valued now but if it
falls further it would be undervalued. There is a perception
problem and the government needs to be more explicit as to what it once,
nobody understands what the Theresa May government's position is on
Brexit, stay in the single market, the customs union? Bizarre rhetoric
on immigration, quite worrying also. I am pro-Brexit. It will work out in
the end. In the old days, they used to be flights of capital and we used
to go to the pound when times were uncertain, why isn't that the case?
What is clear is that we haven't got a clue where we will be going. That
is a problem. You are right, is something that we all agree on. Life
after Brexit is simply too uncertain right now but it also suggests,
there are quite a lot of disagreement as to what it means
within the government, that there is no confidence in our leaders, if you
like, that they know where they are taking us in terms of economic
policy. In those times of uncertainty, you sell the pound, you
will not invest in this place. That is exactly what is going on.
Unfortunately, what it also does, it increases cost to businesses.
Perhaps he is right, that the pound was overvalued, but we tend to
import an awful lot of things into our manufacturing process. Import
costs are rising substantially. Current account right now, it is
widening. The data from August suggests it is getting worse instead
of getting better. Actually, we are not solving anything through this
devaluation. Interesting, Rupert, the cost of the iPhone, you
mentioned, and we heard in the film, consumers will be buying more
domestically, do you think that is going to happen, could that happen?
That we stop buying from overseas? It will happen. We saw this a bit
after 2008, 2009 when we had a big devaluation of the pound in response
to lower growth expectations. Concern about the UK banking sector.
Over the years that followed that, we saw benefit, but is disappointed.
Expectations were disappointed because the manufacturing response
wasn't as big as people hope. That speaks to the fact that global
economy is quite different from what it used to be. In the UK, we don't
sell things that, you know, when it only depends on price. We sell
products where it depends on quality, long-term relationships
with your customers. Just devaluing your currency by itself is not
enough, necessarily. Let me... We might just after the financial
crisis. The bigger question, what to put this briefly to you all, when
the world is looking at us with a weak pound, it is impossible not to
see yourself for all the benefits and you can talk about it whatever
you want, it feels as if we are in a position of weakness, isolation or
weakness. We are not in a position of isolation, that is wrong.
Weakness? We're not in a position of weakness. Our economy has problems
and it needs to be resolved but Brexit does not create that
weakness. The Europeans have made very clear that they will go for
hard Brexit themselves in a sense not really giving anything to us.
Which means we have actually in a strange way isolated ourselves and
made more difficult to have dealings with Europe. The world's trade
environment is slowing down. Nobody knows where this will actually end.
There is a negotiation going on. We have nowhere else to sell to the
goods trade has declined in the first half of the year. We are in a
weak position right now in terms of a negotiating stance. Thank you for
coming. In case you were confused
by what happened in the European parliament yesterday,
today it all got much weirder. Ukip's Mike Hookem emerged to deny
punching Steven Woolfe, the Ukip frontrunner
who ended up in hospital, and clarified that instead they had
wrestled like "a pair of tarts". After an office conflab on what that
actually looks like, So we sent Secunder Kermani
to find Mr Hookem and see Ukip has had its fair share
of embarrassment over the years. Mike Hookem MEP, is at the centre
of one of its largest. Previous favourite for party leader,
Steven Woolfe, is still in hospital in Strasbourg,
following an altercation with Mike Hookem yesterday
in the European Parliament. Hookem's back in Britain, now,
despite rumours on social media. ..Because there was all kinds
of stuff going around yesterday, You were jumping in the back
of lorries, according to Twitter. Yeah, I was on a rubber dinghy
in the middle of the I was being pursued
across France by the gendarmes. He says it all began
during a discussion between Woolfe and other MEPs over Woolfe's
admission he recently considered He took umbrage and stood up
and said, "Well, if that's going to be the tone
of this meeting, maybe And his words were mano
el mano. So, he;s now heading out the room,
taking his jacket off. So, I went into the ante-room
with him. And what's going through your mind
when he said mano a mano? Well, I'm from Hull,
if you get offered out in Hull and you don't go,
you're bit of a wimp. I shouldn't have made
that decision. But he offered me
out, so I was going. He come at me and it was
just a bit of a tussle. The door opened, I stepped back
and he fell back into the room onto a colleague that was stood
in the room. He didn't hit his head, I'm sorry,
he never hit his head on anything. He is being quoted as saying
you threw a punch. If I had a tussle with him,
would that cause a seizure? So when he said mano a mano,
was that uncharacteristic for him? And probably won't be
saying it to me again. When Woolfe's released
from hospital, he and Hookem have The damage done to Ukip
and its reputation at a crucial time for the party could take
much longer to repair. For American commentators
on the left right now, one question seems to override all
others. Why isn't Hillary Clinton
hammering her Republican Why do his blunders and hypocrisies
seem to leave no mark on the man, Why do his blunders and hypocrisies
seem to leave no mark on the man. Tonight, another video of Trump's
past has emerged that would sink One writer argues it may have less
to do with HIM and more to do with HER -indeed,
to do with the failings of the Democrats and Obama as a whole
over the last eight years. Thomas Frank is a political analyst
and commentator who's new book argues that the Democrats have badly
let down the people. Nice for you to come in. I won't
talk about Americans. Most Europeans still can't
understand why Hiallry Clinton isn't Against somebody who seems to trip
himself up the whole time. Like a demagogue out of a movie from the
1930s. He has done so many things that was destroy an ordinary
politician. This Titanic won't sink. We are taking him seriously as you
are as a potential winner of the presidency. It's possible it could
happen. It seems unlikely. I think Hillary Clinton will win, for the
record. The Donald Trump phenomenon is striking, this is amazing this is
happening. What it represents, to a large degree, is the desperation of
a large chunk of middle America de-industrialised form
industrialised parts of the United States and it is the largest shift
of working-class voters in the United States away from their
traditional home in the Democratic party to the Republican party. This
has happened over a long time. Why have the Democrats lost them? That
is half of the question and a big part of it is the Democrats refuse
to ask that question of themselves, by the way. Democrats have lost
them, because they basically look at what is happening to these people
and say, you know, there's nothing that can be done to save your way of
life. In the middle class in America is crumbling. That is just
globalisation. That's just technology doing its thing. But at
the same time, Democrats have embraced this kind of liberalism
that is... Clearly, a liberalism of the rich. OK? They aren't concerned
with working-class voters any more but they are very concerned with the
attitudes and tastes of, say, the professional class in America. OK,
but if the answer was to move away from globalisation, that was the one
that Bernie Sanders was screaming for a year and it didn't work in
terms of winning the nomination. LAUGHTER
You about the entire Democratic party came together to stop him, you
know, you realise, that is what happened. This takes us back to the
first order, the e-mail scandal. As we now know, I should say. -- first
story. So, you basically think Bernie Sanders would have won that
nomination? I don't think so but the challenge was worth making. This is
the Democrats that need to look inside and ask themselves why this
is happening. They also have to re-evaluate their long history. One
of the issues that Trump talks about are the lousy trade deals as he
likes to put it that our country has signed. There is no figure in
American history more closely identified with those trade deals
than Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton's husband, a Democrat. When he signed
off on the first of those lousy trade deals, he did it over the
opposition of his own supporters and organised labour. He stuck the knife
in their back and people remember that. You think that Trump is a
product of Obama as well? To some degree. He is a reaction to Obama.
We have the financial crisis in America, it originated in my country
and came here, you're welcome! Thank you! President Obama was elected in
this great wave of hope and enthusiasm in 2008. I thought he was
going to be my generation's Franklin Roosevelt, to come in and put things
right. Instead, here we are, almost eight years later. For a large part
of the American public, the recession has never ended. The
American stock market is doing phenomenally well, wealthy people
have seen everything bounce right back. But for a lot of ordinary
Americans, there has been no recovery. Great to have you here,
thank you very much. That's all we have
time for, goodnight. Have a great weekend, we are back on
Monday. Good evening. The weather is looking
relatively settled and