05/01/2017 Newsnight

results next week and has

been trying to cut costs

and revive sales.

Now on BBC News, it's

time for Newsnight.

A man and to govern America

betrayed. How much of it is true? To

those who work with Donald Trump

recognise the chaos it describes? We

speak to the White House insider

Sebastian Mand Janice Middleton. Why

was the sentence for John Worboys so

lenient? Do we forget about the

victims of sex crimes too quickly?

We examine how they are treated by

the justice system. And isn't cruel

to breed puppies like this? Half of

all flat faced dogs needed treatment

to help issues last year. Why we

insist on making them that's when

they are so hard to breathe?

Good evening.

"The events I've described in these

pages", writes Michael Wolff,

"are based on conversations that

took place over 18 months

with the President and most members

of his senior staff".

The rest of the book is explosive.

He describes a president who behaves

sometimes like a child,

other times like an emperor,

neurotic, scared, phobic and scorned

by his own aides.

The President himself

denounced the book as lies,

denied the author even had access.

He tried to stop its very

publication - that only sped things

up and put it in

the best-seller list.

So tonight, on the day

the book is published -

four days early - and at the end

of a long week when it's dominated

news the world over,

we speak to those inside the White

House.

And to one present on the same

occasions described

within the book's pages.

We will ask how much of these

allegations are revelations and how

much will they change the mind

of the base that brought

Donald Trump to power.

Despite threats from President

Trump, the publishers neither this

nor desisted and instead the

publication of the explosive book

forward. Fire and fury is the work

of Michael Wolff, journalist who

says he has access to the White

House to much of the last year and

spoke to the President while writing

it. Trump 's dismissed it as lies,

says he never allowed the access.

Others have also questioned the

accuracy of the detail in the book.

But the President is clearly spooked

by the allegations within it.

I

absolutely spoke to the President,

whether he realised it was an

interview or not, I don't know, but

it certainly was not off the record.

It paints a White House in chaos, a

paranoid president who was horrified

to actually win, and a host of AIDS

and advisers who scorned his

abilities. The big question its

races are existential. Was a

treasonous Trump 's fund to meet

with Russian officials during the

campaign? Is the president of sound

mind to run America? But it's the

details that will stop readers in

their tracks. The council Donald

Trump's phobias, his fast food

addiction, he is viewing habits, as

well as its relations with his wife,

his daughter, early bedtime. The

book is a ready claimed its first

skull, an almighty row has broken

out between the President and his

former White House to just Stephen

Bannon whose comments first appeared

in the book. With to sue the other,

then and found himself put out of

big donor funding since it appeared.

Any questions, who will get his pen,

I don't know?

It raises the spectre

of an open secret shared by many. To

those who worked with and around

Donald Trump, they recognise the

same world Wolf describes, a White

House with no plan, a leader with no

strategy, an impulsive peak

president who acts upon his

instincts time and time again with

no interest in third-party views. Or

has the right to Haka fictionalised

the world? Trump 's critics were

simply going to see. The bigger

question, the fundamental one

perhaps if this- will any that is

written in these pages change Trump

's Palok all the way those voted for

him see him now? The answer is no,

then Fire and Fury may just be sound

and fury, ultimately signifying

nothing. To me now is Sebastian

Gorka, to ' -- deputies destined to

Donald Trump and knows the White

House well. I know in your previous

news encounters we have analysed

whether Newsnight at self is fake

news, et cetera, so to the sake of

our few with as the sake of moving

the story on, what do we agree to

recognise that that is how you view

things and this time shed a little

bit more light on how you see

operations in the White House. It is

good of you to join us. Was there

anything in the coverage of Michael

Wolff's book that struck a chord

with you, that he recognised?

Nothing at all, especially if you

look at the basic facts, he gets

completely wrong, it is except that

of ready been published, he can't

even get right with the President

new John Boehner, he says on the day

that he became president he had

never heard of him, the Speaker of

the house John Boehner when any

child can go on Google and put in

the name Donald Trump and John

Boehner and find photographs of

those to Mendelssohn with each other

two years ago.

On page ten, the author,

Michael Wolff, who has been caught

lying repeatedly in the past

in his previous books,

states that he cannot verify

the accuracy of anything

that is in the book.

What he says is many of the accounts

are in conflict with one another,

it sound as if he heard a lot

of conflicting accounts,

wrote them up and let readers decide

what to think and the accounts came

from multiple sources

he wrote up as a factual,

that is what journalists do.

No if you wrote a story that

conflicted and said I will let

the viewers decide,

you would be warned or fired.

A journalist must have

two verified sources.

Michael Wolff is a

Charlton and a liar.

His introduction tells you as much.

He paints a pictures others have

recognised a picture of a president

who sounds like he has slightly

lost his mind and behaves

in a child-like way,

do you recognise that

in the president?

He repeats the calumy

of all the left-wing Trump

derangement-suffering people.

You don't recognise.

I actually worked

in the White House.

I'm not a political hack who came

in to write a book to make money

and please the elite that

failed both nations,

whether the UK or the United States.

Donald Trump won on the basis

of facts that Brexit won in the UK

and wasn't predicted by the elite.

It is a joke.

Paint a picture of what you

know to be true then.

For example, I I think we are told

some of the observations say most

days Trump preferred

to be in bed at 6.

30 watching television

and eating cheeseburgers.

It is such garbage.

What time does he go to bed.

He sleeps less than two

and a half hours a day.

When he is tweeting at 4am no,

one is tweeting for him.

That is the president

of the United States.

Forget the palace intrigue.

What has he done.

He has revitalised NATO.

We have had a record-breaking

stock market rally.

Isis destroyed.

1.5 million jobs created.

The lowest unemployment in 17 years.

Judge the president on the facts,

not on delusional people

who want to sell books.

Help us with the details,

it is fascinating and Trump rules -

no one touched his tooth brush,

he liked McDonald's.

Are you serious?

Somebody's tooth-brushing habits.

Tell us you know it is not true.

I won't waste people's

time with this rubbish.

Let's talk about your

tooth brushing.

How do you brush your teeth?

The interesting thing...

Do you floss?

It is the details that allow people

to know whether the rest

of it is true.

Let me quote something.

Sean Spicer repeating the mantra

"You can't make this shit up"

or Kelly Ann Conway who mimed

putting a finger gun

to her head when she reported

the president's word.

In one book 13 people demanded

he retracts the quotes,

because they were made up.

His book is like Harry Potter.

He has never been told

to issue a correction.

I have no idea what

he has been told.

I couldn't careless.

I couldn't careless whether people

have demanded retractions.

He is a hack.

Let's move from the book itself.

Just even the quotes that Trump has

put directly to the public

through Twitter, in the last week,

taking credit for airline safety

for seven years or asking

for good old global warming,

boasting of the size

of his nuclear button.

That language makes it easy

for people to believe what they're

read something.

No that is the language

that makes it easy

for an outsiding to decimate 16

members of GOP and wipe the floor

with a woman who thought

the position was owed

to her because of her gender.

The president connects

with the average man and woman

what has been ill-served

by the elite on the left and right

for more than 20 years.

God bless the president

and his Twitter feed.

A lot of people say it is painting

a very accurate picture,

one that other reporters

have written about.

That is a very scientific

term, lots and lots.

Lots and lots of

people a at the BBC?

What about Janice Min,

she was at the table

and at the Roger Ailes/Bannon dinner

and verified everything she read

in the book.

Let her talk for herself.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Michael Wolff said today

that he stands by "everything

reported in the book".

We asked him for an interview,

but he wasn't available.

Janice Min is part-owner

of The Hollywood Reporter

and was invited to the dinner party

attended by Steve Bannon

and Roger Ailes that is

recounted in the book.

She joins me now from LA.

Thank you for joining us.

Tell us what went on that night -

you were one of a very small select

group, just six guests

at the dinner with Roger Ailes,

Steve Bannon.

What do you remember of it?

I remember almost every detail.

This was a small party of six guests

at Michael Wolff's house

and listening to Dr Gorka,

I think that the position from Trump

loyalists is that Michael

Wolff is an outsider.

It is from my experience

with Michael, I don't see that.

He was such an intimate

and a so warmly received

by Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes

and Roger's wife and had such

a level of trust with them

that the conversation

we had was stunning.

It was...

The things from start

to finish, for five hours,

they poured their hearts out

about the Republican Party and how

they were going to, who they were

going to put into cabinet.

Roger Ailes offered to coach

candidates in their congressional

testimony.

They talked of Rudy Giuliani.

Steve Bannon said they owed him

something because he had come out

forcefully and spoke on the shows

in the United States,

when no-one else would

after the Access Hollywood tapes.

Roger Ailes said, you know,

just let him be photographed walking

out of Air Force One.

Just detail after detail that,

were they openly spoke

so comfortably in front of Michael.

To any way characterise him -

you can try to dispute the facts,

but you can't dispute

the relationship he had

with people in the White House.

At that dinner, did it

seem as if Steve Bannon

was in the driving point,

you had the Fox news Executive,

Roger Ailes, were they still

in shock that he had won?

No, you know, I think Roger Ailes

might have been in a bit of shock.

He had said that, he had said to me,

he was sitting to my right,

he said, you know, "These guys

are a little right of my tastes

and I'm a life-long Republican".

He was surprised, but Bannon,

he is full steam ahead.

He was invigorated, I think this

whole notion we have of him

that he is foaming at the mouth

and crazy and he had given

an interview to Michael Wolff that

made news before this dinner

where he said "I'm Darth

Vader, I'm Satan".

He came in with a great mood and sat

down and one of the first thing

he said, we are going to move

the embassy to Jerusalem in Israel

and they had

a discussion about that.

Then they started ticking off

cabinet appointments,

Supreme Court appointments.

They were, he was...

I would say it was his relationship

with the president was he was a take

charge guy and there were things

he said that made me think he didn't

think Donald Trump was

dwell on the details.

He was entrusting Bannon.

To today now.

A lot of what Wolff recounts

suggests a man in the White House

who is not really in control

of his faculties, who is impetuous,

who is perhaps losing his mind,

who has not had the trust

of many of his advisers

and start first.

Is that something that

you see and recognise,

or is this Wolff going too far

and just writing down conversations

without verification,

as Sebastian Gorka said?

I remember Michael Wolff,

for starters, I know

Sarah Huckabee Sanders got upset

and said they didn't know

he in there, he wasn't allowed.

Whatever the actual scenario was,

let's say Donald Trump really didn't

know, which I don't believe

that there was a reporter sitting

in the west wing for weeks and weeks

without his knowledge?

What does it say about

the organisation of the White House

or its press team?

I don't think there's a good answer

anyone can come up with about why

Michael Wolff was in there,

except that he was allowed,

which in hindsight it embarrassing.

One last thought, if this is read

by critics of Trump,

they will happily believe it

because it feeds their narrative.

Would it make any difference

to his base, and will this public

split with Steve Bannon hurt Trump's

electoral chances this year

or next time?

I think Bannon and Trump

are a lovesick couple that go

back and forth.

I don't think it's anything.

It's a mutually

beneficial relationship.

I don't think this

is the end of them.

I'd be surprised.

There is such a narrative that's

been constructed since Trump

was running, since he was

the candidate, that everything

is fake, and it's an easy way

to dismiss things you don't like,

so do think that Michael Wolff

in a book with troubling details

will be treated any differently

to any member of the press who has

sat and reported on Donald Trump

for a year would be naive.

If Michael Wolff had released a bomb

cyclone of news about Donald Trump,

that happens to make their heat

on this particular book hotter

than any story in the New York Times

or the Guardian for what ever else

has been covering

Trump for this time.

Thank you for coming in.

The former black cab driver

John Worboys was convicted of 19

offences, including one rape,

although police believe he attacked

many more women.

Yet he was released this week

after a decade behind bars,

to the shock and surprise

of his victims.

What was it that led

to such a short sentence?

And how likely is it that such

a prolific offender can be reformed

to the point where he

won't offend again?

Our policy editor, Chris Cook,

has a look at the sentencing,

parole and rehabilitation

of sex offenders.

John Worboys, the so-called black

cab rapist, is suspected of perhaps

hundreds of assaults.

After an investigation

riddled with mistakes,

he was finally jailed

indefinitely in 2009,

but he's been cleared for release

from prison after just nine years.

Part of the issue with the Worboys

case is that he was only tried

and convicted for a subset of

the crimes for which he is the prime

suspect, so he was convicted

for one count of rape,

five counts of sexual assault,

one attempted sexual assault

and a dozen cases of

drugging his victims.

For all of that, he got

an indefinite sentence,

so he had to serve a minimum

of eight years in prison,

after which he could be released,

but only if he could prove

that he no longer posed

a danger to the public.

The process is tough on victims,

especially as a number were not told

that Worboys was going to be

released at the end of this month,

and most of the 83 complainants

to the CPS never got

their cases heard.

There are some victims

who want their day in court,

but there are others who don't

want to appear in court and feel

that's right for them.

But this comes back

to communicating to victims.

If we are hoping to gain confidence

for victims to come forward,

in such horrific cases,

I may add, we have got

to have better communication.

Where cases weren't taken to court,

it was either because of a lack

of evidence or because they were not

expected to add to his sentence,

but not taking them to court also

means the parole court can't take

account of them.

If you think about the sentencing

process and the parole review as two

ends of the same process,

with the sentencing judge deciding

that the person should

have their liberty taken away

from them and the Parole Board

deciding at the end of that process

whether it should be given back

to them, you certainly wouldn't

consider at the sentencing stage

taking into account the views

of people who had made untested

complaints against somebody,

complaints that hadn't

been proven in court,

and it's exactly the same,

or it should be, as regards

the parole review.

One curiosity of our judicial system

is we are not permitted to know how

Worboys argued he is

no longer a risk.

The statutory instrument governing

the Parole Board says information

about proceedings must

not be made public.

I'm not allowed by law to explain

the reasons for our decision,

and I've said before,

I'd like to get that changed,

and so if this pushes the idea

that the Parole Board processes need

to be much more open

and transparent, and we get support

for that, then I think some good

will have come out of all of this,

and people in future will be able

to have much more confidence

in the system.

This isn't the first time that

Professor Hardwick has made this

sort of argument.

Late last year, he gave

a speech which said,

"At present, some of the decisions

that we make are subject

to ill-informed criticism,

but how could it be otherwise

when we do not provide information

about why we made a decision?"

He also has concerns about access

to the parole hearings themselves.

For example, he says that a victim

can attend to read a victim

statement, but must leave

after they have done so,

whereas he was impressed that,

in Canada, anyone can apply

to attend a parole hearing -

victims, academics, the media

and interested members

of the public.

Worboys was a serial

predator who drugged women

before assaulting them.

Without openness, we do not know how

he persuaded the Parole Board

that he is a reformed character.

It's extremely difficult for some

offenders to persuade

the Parole Board that they

are fit to be released.

The usual mechanism of doing

so is completing what are called

mainstream sex offender

treatment programmes,

and a report last year found

that the mainstream sex offender

treatment programme wasn't reducing

reoffending rates and,

in some cases, may have

been increasing them.

They've now introduced some

new courses, which are

again completely untested.

Some of the Worboys complainants

had their investigations botched.

Most didn't have their

cases taken to court.

A number weren't told

about his release.

All of them want to know why

he is now considered

safe for release.

Now, Viewsnight.

Tonight, with another idea for 2018,

author and columnist Grace Dent.

That was Grace Dent.

That was Grace Dent.

In a moment, you're going

to meet Spike and Edward.

Whisper it quietly, but they have

squashed faces and short skulls.

They're French bulldogs.

And vets are urging pet owners

to think twice about buying them

and their ilk, as they suffer such

bad health problems.

According to data from

the Kennel Club, registrations

of these brachycephalic breeds -

pugs, French bulldogs -

have shot up.

In 2007, just 692 French

bulldogs were registered.

Last year, that went over 21,000.

More than 50% needed

to visit a vet last year

for respiratory linked problems.

So is it cruel to create

these pure breeds?

And should we lose the pug

completely to save these animals

pain?

Joining me now, Lindsey Scanlon,

she runs the French Bulldog Saviours

rescue charity in North Yorkshire,

and Dr Crina Dagu from

the London Vet Clinic,

a busy practice.

And Spike and Edward,

who are past their bedtime.

You used to be a breeder

and you had a change

of heart, didn't you?

Yes, after I saw how

they were mass produced.

I bred one litter and I went to see

somebody who was a big breeder,

a licensed one, and it was just

something and I thought,

if there are that many

people wanting these dogs,

something is going to happen.

So you recognise they are not well

dogs, healthy, are they?

In my opinion, if they are bred

right and they are tested right,

they can live fantastic happy lives.

Can they be bred in a way

that doesn't hurt them?

The way that a lot of these breeds

started out, they were not

as extreme, so if you dial

back hundreds of years,

then you're talking.

At the moment, we are struggling

to find a balance between

the aesthetics

and what's going on inside them

and the problems it causes

in their lives.

When you talk about the aesthetics,

is there a hypocrisy in the public

mood, that they want

the look of these dogs...

Are we a nation of animal lovers,

even if it causes the dogs pain?

Sure, a lot of celebrities have

them, they are friendly characters,

they are wonderful, very fun dogs.

It's very hard to not fall

for the round, googly eyes,

for the Babyface but,

once you have them, you realise

there are not just breathing issues,

thereafter gastrointestinal issues.

Your mum didn't even

get through childbirth.

She was brought in to rescue unknown

that she was pregnant

but she was purchased

off social media.

Somebody from the general public

purchaser, gave into a rescue,

not realising she was

heavily pregnant.

She got to the end of her pregnancy

and had big problems,

she had a Caesarean section,

and then we told her larynx

collapsed.

I don't think there was an issue

with reading them all.

If they are bred right,

if health tests are done,

and we are trying to educate

people on the breed,

and if that is done,

there isn't an issue.

What problems are we talking about?

These two are putty in your hands,

fast asleep, they seem fine.

But what is it that

happens to dogs like this?

What might happen, if we took them

outside in warmer weather

and we trotted them for a few

minutes, problems might start

becoming quite visible.

They have a hard time breathing,

oxygenating their blood,

because anatomically,

they are not...

They're not functioning well.

It's not just the breathing,

it's the digestion,

it's everything inside.

Putting all that together,

should you be stopping

their breed completely?

Should we see an end

to French bulldogs and pugs?

We don't have to ban breeding.

I don't think it's

constructive to ban breeding.

We have two breed them right,

to breed them back to where

they can function.

Which means mixing them?

For Lindsay, when you hear that

could be the end to the pure pug

and French bulldog, do you think

that's a good thing or bad thing?

I think it's a bad thing.

Health tests should be done

before any dog is bred.

Thank you both.

I appreciate you coming

down from Yorkshire

with these little guys.

That's about it for tonight.

We are back on Monday.

Have a great weekend.

Goodnight.