06/01/2017 Newsnight


With Emily Maitlis. Donald Trump appears to be at odds with his intelligence services. Plus the latest on the mass shooting in Florida and the failings of economists.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The US eLection was influenced by Vladimiri Putin -


the claim by US intelligence chiefs as they release their full report.


There's no sign that Donald Trump will accept that.


This world expert in cyber crime tells us this CIA


report is the most import one in the agency's history.


We'll hear the reaction to that from the former


A gunman opens fire inside Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida.


We'll bring you the latest on the casualties.


They call it the Michael Fish moment: the Bank of England heaps


scorn on the economists who missed failed to see coming


How does a weatherman get blamed for what some


In the last hour US intelligence chiefs have


released their report on what they believe to be


Russian interference in the American Presidential Election.


It is as conclusive as it is damning - pointing the finger


directly at Vladimir Putin - and saying he ordered


an "influence campaign" aimed at undermining public faith


It states their understanding that the Russian Government


developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump


over Hillary Clinton - and backed what private cyberspace


companies have long concluded, that a Russian group known as Fancy


Bear was behind the leaked emails of top Democrats.


The report emerged shortly after a meeting between Trump


Donald Trump called the meeting "constructive" and appeared to admit


foreign spies could be behind the hacking.


But he refused once more to believe the outcome of the election had


This is where it all started so publicly, the Democratic National


Convention in July, a chance for a presidential candidate to shine in


front of adoring party conference, but Hillary Clinton's Coronation was


mired by scandal, the chair of the DNC had to resign on the eve of the


party convention after a league of internal e-mails showed officials


favouring Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Forward six months, the


leaks get worse and Donald Trump wins the election, and Barack Obama


announces expulsions of Russian diplomats after what America


believed is a cyber attack from Russia. It is not exactly in the


interest of Donald Trump to acknowledge that he may be benefited


from state-sponsored hacking, made all the more awkward after those


comments back in July. Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are


able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. The last 24 hours has


shown the capricious nature of the debate, first Syriza tweets saying


he was a big of intelligence agencies, -- a series of tweets. And


then a follow-up, asking why they had not investigated Democratic


computers. He has now conceded the leaks might have come from foreign


enemies but insists there was no effect on the outcome of the


election. Perhaps he's right, we might never know for sure, but this


is no longer about the part Russia may be played in America's domestic


affairs, it's about the Laois and ship the President of the United


States will have with the agencies tasked with keeping America safe --


the relationship. If Trump doesn't trust his own spies, the Kremlin's


work is done. I'm joined now by Thomas Rid,


Professor of Security Studies at Kings College -


he's been looking through It is unflinching. In the way it


points the finger directly at Russia and Russian hackers, and that the


Russian government and at Vladimir Putin. It is important to keep this


in a his topical context, a lot of the threat intelligence and digital


forensic amenity have studied Russian hacking campaigns for many


years, two decades, and the one thing that is crucial, they make


mistakes. Again and again, and when they make mistakes we can look at


these mistakes and learn from them and link attacks to each other. And


to the perpetrator. You have read the report you don't think it is


oversold, this understanding of Russian influence? The US


intelligence committee have been tracking Russian operations, not


just in computers, network operations, but Russian influence


operation for many decades they have coverage through human sources as


well as technical sources and we can tell from their very strong


intelligence language in the report that their sources including their


human sources seem to be very strong. This is a significant


observation. Standing back you could say that President Obama ordered the


report a month ago and it comes as Donald Trump is about to be


inaugurated and it seems to favour Hillary Clinton by appointing the


figure at Vladimir Putin's support for the knot on, so why would you


not be sceptical? -- support for Donald Trump. Let's keep this in


perspective, President Obama was very reluctant in the campaign to


use the intelligence community and to point fingers at what was going


on, because he, like many others, thought that Clinton would win,


anyway, so it wouldn't matter in the end, but clearly that did not


happen. You have traced the way... You were looking at e-mails to John


Podesta and how the spam filter failed. And how the e-mails


essentially leaked, but what makes you link John Podesta at one end to


Vladimir Putin at the other? In that particular case, the Russian


operators made the mistake and left part of the infrastructure that they


used in order to breach thousands of targets, hundreds of thousands of


targets and only one of them was John Podesta. Because they made that


mistake with a link shortening a cat, and this is only one mistake of


many, we can piece together highly detailed full resolution picture of


their targeting over many months and it looks exactly like the targets


set of a military intelligence agency would look like. A military


intelligence agency means Vladimir Putin himself? The operation was


most likely started as a bottom-up initiative and then Vladimir Putin


signed off on it at some point in the middle of last year which is


also part of the intelligence estimate. How do you think Donald


Trump himself has handled the leaks? We know from history, and this is a


very long history, Cold War history, the Russian intelligence community


have honed their skills in driving wedges into the political systems of


their adversary 's to multiply divisions, and first they wanted to


divide Clinton and Bernie Sanders which they set seeded in doing, and


now it seems they are daring Trump to deepen the division between his


Administration and his own foreign policy and intelligence


establishment. So by tweeting at these are unhinged statements, he is


indeed doing exactly what the Russians and probably Vladimir Putin


want him to do. Thomas, thanks for joining us.


Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey joins me now.


He quit the Trump transition team this week - as - he explained -


he didn't want to fly under false colours as a senior


Thank you very much for joining us. Have you read the report before it


was released? Do you agree with what it says? I had not read it before it


was released, and it seems to me that it sounds like a Saudi done


report. -- soundly done report. It makes several ports, several points,


the Russian effort is wide reaching, the Russians call it disinformation,


otherwise known as lying, and they target institutions in the West, any


institutions in countries they are concerned about or interested in,


they have been doing this since the 1940s, maybe the 1930s. And they


have done it of course until very recently without using cyber but


using other devices, forged documents, doctored photographs,


except you. Hundreds and hundreds of people, thousands of people,


according to defectors who had gone into this in some detail. That is


apparently confirmed by the report. And I think it is good and sound for


Americans and the rest of us to understand that the Russians operate


this way and they have operated this way for many years and they are not


going to change under Vladimir Putin. It also seems, the report


seems to say, that whatever the Russians did, it does not seem to


have influenced the outcome of the election, that is not just something


Trump is saying, that is something the report says. And something Jim


Clark has said, as well. They would have needed to do that, they would


have needed to have got them into the voting machine and the counting


process, which we have got to upgrade in the United States. Can I


just come in, you have said this is good and sound, and we know Donald


Trump has refused to believe that it had any effect on the election


outcome, what do you read into that? No one else I know has charged that


it has had an effect on the outcome. I don't believe the intelligence


organisations or the FBI or anything I've read, suggests there was any


effect. It is something which one needs to fix because if it is not


fixed and the voting machines are not perfect, there could be an


effect Sunday, but I don't know of any authoritative statement which


says it affected the counting and the models, the counting of the


ballots. What is your message to Democrats tonight who hear this


report which points the finger at Vladimir Putin leading a campaign of


influence over the election and must be feeling outraged? Well, I would


think that all Americans, Democrats and Republicans, ought, if not to be


outrage, to be somewhere between outraged and highly concerned, that


the Russians, by continuing to do what they have done for many


decades, and doing it with advanced technology, could have an effect the


next time, a real effect, not just a theoretical one, be out, of


elections. Britain's elections, our elections, other elections. We need


to get in control of our own systems and counter what the Russians are


doing. Can I journey suggest that some might here that is rather


naive, we understand there are reports of senior Russian official


celebrating a Trump victory and we know that Trump himself seems to be


very friendly with Russia and he has refused to point the finger at the


state himself or stop what more evidence do we need that this is


Russian influence working on American politics? If the Russians


had real elections and there was one between Vladimir Putin and


Gorbachev, there would be celebrations in the United States


and Britain, that Gorbachev had won, even if we had not gotten involved


in doing the kind of things that the Russians do, with respect to


interfering with voting and so forth. One of the things we are


seeing here, Americans comes slowly as a nation, taking effect, posing


and fighting something which are challenging and we are still at the


beginning stages of this was Churchill said the Americans always


do the right thing, but unfortunately only after they have


exhausted all the other possibilities. You have to realise


we are exhausting possibilities now, give us time, and I think we will


organise things in such a way that we protect our ballot and help


others protect theirs. Take us inside the mindset which you know so


well of senior intelligence chiefs, the CIA, who have heard their


commander-in-chief reject the explanation that they have offered,


what kind of relationship lies in store for Donald Trump and the CIA


now? They are big boys and girls and they take a lot of criticism, it is


very popular in the United States politically, if anything comes up


that remotely deals with intelligence, to find some reason to


criticise the CIA... Publicly? Often, often. I have seen that


coming at me when I was director of Central intelligence, demanding that


I do impossible things, such as fire people who were already retired.


LAUGHTER We are not always at our best in the


initial stages of something, it took three years to get into World War I


and two and a half years to get into World War II while Britain held


Germany at bay, and sometimes we don't respond as quickly as we


should. Thanks for joining us. A gunman opened fire


in the baggage claim area at the Fort Lauderdale airport


in Florida, killing five people and wounding at least eight before


being taken into custody. The attack sent panicked passengers


running out of the terminal One man, believed to be


the shooter, is now in custody. Our correspondent


Barbara Plett Ussher There was a lot of confusion around


what was taken onto the plane, whether the shooter was a passenger,


whether he had carried a gun, what more can you tell us? Police have


not clarify the question, whether he came into the baggage claim area


from outside or whether he arrived as a passenger but the county


commissioner has said that he had been told that he came on a plane,


that he had checked his gun in the luggage and that he picked it up on


the baggage carousel and took it to the bathroom, where he loaded it and


came out shooting. It is legal to check a gun, to put it into checked


luggage, in the United States, under certain precautions and those


precautions were taken. The County Commissioner initially said that he


had come on my flight from Canada, that is something Air Canada and the


Canadian embassy have looked into and they have said, there was no


evidence that he had any connection to Canada and since then, reports


that he flew in from Anchorage, which is also the place where he was


last known to have lived, Anchorage, Alaska. Has there been much reaction


from political figures in America this evening so far? You have that


statements of condolence from the president, and something similar


from the President-elect, who takes the opportunity to comment on public


events through his Twitter account. He did that as well. One thing that


people will be asking, how could this happen so easily in an airport,


where you are supposed to have tight security. He seems to have brought


his gun in with him but the fact is that it took place in an arrivals


area, in domestic flights, in the United States, these areas are not


terribly secure, people can walk in, picked up family members, drivers


can pick people up at the baggage claim. It is possible there may be


some discussion about whether these areas need to be further secured


just like the areas where you go into departures for aeroplanes.


Thank you very much. There is a certain irony that


even when economists are attempting to take the blame,


they end up using poor old weather forecaster Michael Fish


as their whipping boy, and headline synonym


for a forecast gone wrong. The Bank of England admitted that


economists were facing after their dire predictions


of a post-Brexit downturn proved unfounded in


the first six months. The Bank of England's


chief economist Andy Haldane said his team were now


facing having to predict how despite unknowable outcomes


of the Brexit negotiations. So can economists tell us anything


more than Paul the Octopus, Earlier on today a woman rang the


BBC and said that she heard there was a hurricane on the way, if you


are watching, don't worry, there isn't. VOICEOVER: As economics had


its own Michael Fish moment, that is what the chief economist at the Bank


of England said this week. Very similar to the sort of reports


central banks, naming no names, issued precrisis," there's no


hurricane coming, it might be very windy in the sub-prime sector...".


It was a huge shock to economists, in 2009, 49 countries had


year-on-year falls, in economic activity, but as late as September


2008, no major forecasters foresaw that. We failed to appreciate the


damage that a relatively sub-prime bass malt sub-prime mortgage market


in the United States, loans to fairly poor people who cannot afford


the houses they are trying to buy, would do to our financial sector


because we did not realise just how interdependent the whole sector had


become. There were views that the financial sector was able to manage


risk much more effectively, than all this all sort of -- with all this


computerisation and self reporting and it turned out not to be true.


The financial crisis was not the only bad weather that the economists


missed, ever since then, the British economy has consistently


underperformed what the economic consensus has suggested. There is a


storm that they predicted that never came, the "Brexit" referendum did


not lead to an immediate contraction. Those two misses were


not the result of complex mass mistakes but relatively simple


judgment call that went wrong, on how the economy would respond to two


historically unprecedented events. Economists have struggled with


forecasting recently because the economy is very weak, after a very


unusual event, the financial crisis, we do not have many of those to go


by. Most economists are still glum about Brexit but lots got the timing


of any trouble wrong, all the evidence suggests that the


withdrawing of the suggestion that we withdraw from the European Union


will be bad for long-term growth in the UK. But what went wrong,


perhaps, was suggesting that those effects would be brought forward,


and lead to more savings and less demand in the economy in the very


short run. It's worth remembering that as bad as things have been in


spotting crises coming, economic policy has got better at responding


to crises, we may not have very good forecasts yet but we have much


better umbrellas. You can see that most clearly in what happened after


the financial crisis. The lessons that had been taken from the great


depression were put into action with all policy leaders in many countries


around the world being put to the purpose of preventing another great


depression from taking place. That is how economics contribute, we


learn from our mistakes in the past, we learn from economic history, and


we make the best use of the evidence available. Most of the strong winds


will be down over Spain and across into France. Since the financial


crisis, economics has been a victim of the unprecedented financial and


political climate. STUDIO: Joining me now is Guardian


columnist, Simon Jenkins, and Vicky Pryce from the Centre


for Economics and Business Research. I'm going to leave the umbrella


aside for one moment and look at just the rain, is it useless, trying


to predict what is going to happen, if they cannot see a financial crash


which turns into the worst one for 80 years and then they go on to make


further mistakes five years later, what is the point? The first thing


to say is that it is not true that nobody was forecasting at the time


that things were likely to turn really nasty, the fact that it was


not put strongly through the media and people were not necessarily


listening is something that we should not forget. People were not


particularly, they were not indicating it strongly. The


overwhelming view was that we could probably carry on because we had


settled macro. People said we had settled it out, we no longer have


boom and bust, Gordon Brown was saying that particularly, and we are


really safe and many think that would happen. What people forgot,


just as we have been hearing, interconnectivity across various


countries particularly one of the national sectors and globalisation


has been an important part, making it quite difficult for an individual


country to isolate itself and forecast exact to what is going to


happen. INAUDIBLE I thought the whole point of


economics was you can predict these things, otherwise don't make


predictions, you assume that when you can... Is that for you what the


study of economics is, predictions? No, it is about studying human


behaviour, it went all wrong, when it went the up the backside of


mathematics, using models that were fallacious, they got two huge things


wrong, crash and now "Brexit", and I say people employed by the


government to get these things right, they don't pretend, they say,


we think this is going to happen, they say might, possibly might, but


the fact is, they are making predictions. They were massively on


one side and wrong. What is suspicious about it, they are people


hired by the government and the suspicion is that this is not an


independent profession, as we would like to think it is, it is them


saying what governments wants them to hear. We should say, on "Brexit"


so far they have proven wrong, we are in early stages... You can


always say that, it is like saying there will be a war one day, you


want to know when, the point about expertise is that they should tell


you when. -- the point about experts is. There should be an enquiry, if


this was a professional mistake in engineering or medicine there would


be a public enquiry. Economists... This is a Michael Fish moment...


This is what is going on right now, the experts have been ridiculed by


some members of Parliament. As you know. And yet, if you had heard what


Simon was saying, this was all coming from people who work for the


government and therefore, they are not independent, it has been the


overwhelming majority of economists, independent economists, working for


banks and think tanks, and have nothing to do with politics, who


were all believing that leaving the EU would be bad news for the UK, not


all agreeing that the shorter in fact would be bad but that the


medium and long-term impact would be resulting in lower growth in the UK


economy. They said something quite specific, there would be an


immediate crash. They are not pretending they didn't, they are


trying to say that it was a weather forecast which went wrong. These


things really do matter. It is not a weather forecast that went wrong, is


something had been that there would be the triggering of Article 50


immediately, basically what people had been told to expect if there was


a vote. Therefore, the impact would be quite substantial, and there was


a huge impact on the markets. A full in the pound and a crash in shares.


-- fall in the pound. I remember, waking up in the morning. What about


this Tom this victim of unprecedented times, do you allow


some leeway? This -- this, this phrase victim of unprecedented


times. They come up with phrases and then they say, this might happen. In


terms of forecast you would have thought they might say, on one hand,


on the other hand, but there was a universe analogy of this, they were


saying, and I have to say, I cannot believe that it was... -- there was


a universe yellow tea of this. If we never asks economists, then is it


still a useful tool, does it still give us something? They look at what


has been happening in the past, history, what does it tell us, does


it give us an understanding of how people behave, that is the most


important thing, so... You could say the same thing with politics and


clearly it does not. You can run your models in a good


way when things are normal, and we have good predicting records but


what is much more difficult to do is if there is a shock, political


shock, the economy will go into all sorts of... Spasms. Of this sword,


yes. This is the dodgy dossier, they're ready should be an enquiry


into it. -- spasms, of a sort, yes. If you havent met Alexa


you probably will soon. Standing, quietly like a wallflower


in the corner of a room. Or perhaps, in the early days


of courtship, centre stage She's a sleek robot,


the brainchild of Amazon, and she responds only when you start


each of your questions She can turn your music up,


turn your heating down, and answer questions on just


about anything she understands. But are you quite ready


to welcome her into your home? David Grossman reports on the advent


of the automated house guest. VOICEOVER: It is only because we


have always done it this way that we consider typing the natural way of


communicating with computers but it is not, it is far more natural to


speak to them. Alexa, tell hive to put the heating on. All right, what


temperature would you like. Alexa 20 degrees. Sure, your heating is now


set to 20 degrees. Voice control technology is seen as the next


frontier in personal computer in, it might not be that we are sitting


around typing on keyboards as much in the future or using input devices


but we use our voices to control a lot of the stuff we need to get done


on computers. In a sense, the future has arrived, but as ever, concerns


about privacy and security abound. So, in my Christmas stocking I


received the Echo, and I was reluctant to turn it on. I have not


used the product yet, because I do not know what will happen to the


data, and it is Big Brother to think that Alexa or anyone is collecting


information about my household activities that can be used for


personalising my shopping experience, to be sure, but also


means that someone has knowledge of what is going on in my home. The


Internet of things, the big data movement, it is one which I think


consumers should give more thought to, do we really want to have


unknown third parties with access to personal information? For a start,


unless you disable the microphone, it is always on, always listening


and always recording what is being said in a room. However, Amazon say


that nothing leaves the premises, nothing is sent to the clout, for


processing, unless you use the wake word, " "Alexa"... Law is still


emerging in this area, police in Arkansas full-back recording from a


device may be able to shed light on a murder. Amazon have declined to


hand them over. -- cloud. United States, the courts could Sabine


almost any thing of a soul, people should not be comfortable with the


thought that Amazon can protect me from having the government access my


information. -- in the United States, the courts can


subpoena almost any thing of a sort. You need butter to make the


pancakes, milk, and egg. It is eight trade-off, we allow in the


microphones for the convenience. Are you my friend? Of course we can be


friends, you seem very nice. But, however amiable R friend sounds,


it is not clear who is side she is on. -- amiable our new friend


sounds. They want to control everything that we listen to and


what we buy, and that is extremely valuable information. Alexa, are you


the beginning of the end of Western Seville is Asian? No, you're... --


are you the beginning of the end of Western Seville is Asian. --




Download Subtitles