:00:00. > :00:07.It's not the way they meant to release it, but a draft
:00:08. > :00:09.of the Labour manifesto has found its way into the press.
:00:10. > :00:16.A radical manifesto - but is it 1983 again?
:00:17. > :00:18.The Mirror journalist, Jack Blanchard, with
:00:19. > :00:45.Is he trying to run the US like it's a game show?
:00:46. > :00:47.We'll ask if the President is irreversibly undermining
:00:48. > :00:51.and politicising justice and security in the US.
:00:52. > :00:56.And Noam Chomsky hasn't mellowed much, aged 88.
:00:57. > :01:01.the most dangerous organisation on Earth?
:01:02. > :01:22.Probably not the news that Labour wanted -
:01:23. > :01:25.but a draft of their manifesto has been leaked.
:01:26. > :01:27.The Telegraph and Daily Mirror have it and wrote it up
:01:28. > :01:32.Labour's NEC is gathering tomorrow in what is called a Clause five
:01:33. > :01:35.meeting, to agree the final version, so it could in theory
:01:36. > :01:41."We do not comment on leaks. We will announce our policies
:01:42. > :01:45.in our manifesto, which is our plan to transform Britain for the many
:01:46. > :01:54.Well, many not the few is the kind of theme of the draft -
:01:55. > :01:57.with, for example, a plan for there to be at least one
:01:58. > :02:00.publicly owned energy company in every part of the UK.
:02:01. > :02:02.National Grid, railways and bus companies are to be nationalised.
:02:03. > :02:05.Well, I'm joined by Jack Blanchard, the Mirror's political editor -
:02:06. > :02:12.And with our own political editor, Nick Watt.
:02:13. > :02:20.Just to be clear, Jack, what you have there is a print out. It's not
:02:21. > :02:26.a typeset, formalised version? I'm afraid not. No cover, no glossy
:02:27. > :02:32.feel. It is a dodgy, leaked document. But it does have their
:02:33. > :02:36.draft measures. Give us some of the eye-catching ones. There's a lot in
:02:37. > :02:42.there. As you mention, there is the plan to bring a big part of the
:02:43. > :02:46.energy industry back into public ownership. There is a huge
:02:47. > :02:50.investment plans for the NHS, ?6 billion extra a year, which will be
:02:51. > :02:58.funded with new taxes on people earning more than ?80,000 a year.
:02:59. > :03:04.There's council houses to be built every year, tuition fees abolished
:03:05. > :03:10.entirely... We kind of knew that anyway. And then the creation of new
:03:11. > :03:16.Whitehall departments, a Ministry of Labour, a Department for housing,
:03:17. > :03:20.because Labour seat workers' rights and housing as central. Lots and
:03:21. > :03:24.lots on workers' rights. The Telegraph have written it up
:03:25. > :03:28.tonight. You take a slightly different spin than the Daily
:03:29. > :03:34.Mirror. They are saying it is 1983 all over again. The moderates in the
:03:35. > :03:38.Labour Party are relatively relaxed about this draft manifesto which
:03:39. > :03:44.they had obviously seen. They are saying this is the closest the
:03:45. > :03:48.Labour Party has got to the 1980s, the famous 1983 manifesto, the
:03:49. > :03:57.longest suicide note in history, as the late Sir Gerald Kaufman calls
:03:58. > :04:00.it. They are saying that they are upholding Labour's commitment to
:04:01. > :04:04.renewing Trident in this manifesto, that there was a curious paragraph
:04:05. > :04:08.after that, saying any Prime Minister would want to use the
:04:09. > :04:19.nuclear deterrent with caution. Which I think they have done up
:04:20. > :04:25.until now! 82%... Commitment to the 2% spending on defence. They are
:04:26. > :04:30.saying that Robin Cook could've written that in 1997. Who has
:04:31. > :04:36.written this? Is it Corbin 's team? Absolutely. Two or three key members
:04:37. > :04:44.in his team. They obviously have not had very much time to do it. They
:04:45. > :04:48.started looking at all the things they wanted to do, and they have
:04:49. > :04:54.reached out from there. Labour are not doing well in the polls, but
:04:55. > :04:57.when you look at the policies, like nationalising railways, people will
:04:58. > :05:06.like it. Would you describe this as quite populist in flavour, taxing
:05:07. > :05:13.the rich more to pay more into the NHS? A nationalised energy company
:05:14. > :05:16.in all regions? I spoke to a senior member of Corbyn's team tonight
:05:17. > :05:22.asking if they wanted to say anything. They didn't want to
:05:23. > :05:28.comment on record, but when I said some of this looks quite left-wing,
:05:29. > :05:33.they said, no, it is popular. If you look at these individual policies,
:05:34. > :05:37.like energy and privatised railways, and higher taxes on some people,
:05:38. > :05:44.people agree with them on that. I was talking to one moderate this
:05:45. > :05:51.afternoon. The moderates said that the abolition of university fees
:05:52. > :05:57.would connect people. And they said, oh, dear me, is this going to raise
:05:58. > :06:02.questions about their strategy? The moderate strategy is to let Jeremy
:06:03. > :06:06.Corbyn own it. The one red line was a Trident renewal commitment. For
:06:07. > :06:14.everything else, they are taking the tragedy -- the strategy owned by
:06:15. > :06:18.John Golding. They say that he must own this so he can own the general
:06:19. > :06:23.election result. Let's think about the process. This goes to this
:06:24. > :06:30.Clause 5 meeting tomorrow. Is that just a formality? Will they not it
:06:31. > :06:35.through, or will the NEC be over each other's shoulders, trying to...
:06:36. > :06:40.I think it is tweets more than anything more serious. -- it is
:06:41. > :06:45.tweaks. I don't think they will change much. In the past, you had
:06:46. > :06:51.battles, although that would take place beforehand. It's not just the
:06:52. > :06:55.NEC, it is the Shadow Cabinet, and it is the trade union liaison and
:06:56. > :07:01.contact group. The trade unions have a big say. I was told one thing that
:07:02. > :07:06.might cause a problem at the meeting tomorrow is what it says about
:07:07. > :07:14.immigration. The trades union do not think it goes fast -- far enough.
:07:15. > :07:21.Will the party be really annoyed? Is it a shambles or a clever media
:07:22. > :07:27.strategy? Lets leak it out, let's get people talking... It's not that.
:07:28. > :07:31.It looks slightly shambolic. My understanding is this has happened
:07:32. > :07:36.before. Because Labour has this process, this big meeting full of
:07:37. > :07:40.senior people who all discuss it, leaks can happen because of this
:07:41. > :07:44.process. But it is in their constitution and it's how they work.
:07:45. > :07:50.It's not what they planned, but it was all due to come next week
:07:51. > :07:59.anyway. Whose interest is it to leak this, and for what motive? You could
:08:00. > :08:05.say that the Corbyn Knights have a good reason for leaking it, to get
:08:06. > :08:13.away with any problem. And to stop anybody watering it down? And you
:08:14. > :08:15.could play that game, so I don't exactly know. Thank you for coming
:08:16. > :08:19.in with it. Thanks very much. So - a President fires the head
:08:20. > :08:22.of the internal security service, on perplexing grounds that
:08:23. > :08:23.are months' old. Just as the security
:08:24. > :08:25.service is investigating It doesn't sound like
:08:26. > :08:28.the US, but it is. Today, the New York Times
:08:29. > :08:31.reported that the terminated director of the FBI
:08:32. > :08:33.James Comey had just been asking for more resources
:08:34. > :08:37.for the investigation into Russian Was he sacked to thwart
:08:38. > :08:41.an inconvenient investigation? Or, do we believe the Trump line -
:08:42. > :08:45.that Mr Comey had lost the trust of Democrats and Republicans alike
:08:46. > :08:48.and the FBI needed a fresh start? Well, for many, the President has
:08:49. > :08:51.crossed a dangerous threshold - the constitution has checks
:08:52. > :08:54.and balances on his power, but it has to allow him some
:08:55. > :08:58.discretion, and to them, he's broken the spirit of US
:08:59. > :09:01.convention, by exploiting his powers Our diplomatic editor
:09:02. > :09:17.Mark Urban is with me. In FBI terms, the history of the
:09:18. > :09:22.FBI, how big a deal is it for the FBI director to be sacked? I think
:09:23. > :09:28.you know the answer to this question. One has been sacked
:09:29. > :09:34.before, by Bill Clinton back in 1993. William Sessions. People say
:09:35. > :09:38.this was a move like Nixon. Nixon fired the special prosecutor who had
:09:39. > :09:44.been appointed to investigate the Watergate burglary, so that's where
:09:45. > :09:49.there are parallels. Consternation in Washington today, and all sorts
:09:50. > :09:54.of versions coming out of a beleaguered president becoming
:09:55. > :09:58.obsessed with this Russia issue, finally boiling over and doing this.
:09:59. > :10:02.That is from anti-Trump media, but it is true that he hadn't been doing
:10:03. > :10:07.public engagements in recent days, and it's also true that even his
:10:08. > :10:10.press people seemed unaware until moments before this happened that it
:10:11. > :10:15.was going to happen. They have been putting some other lines out today,
:10:16. > :10:20.like saying, we thought the Democrats would really like this and
:10:21. > :10:25.be supportive. Everybody has jumped to their own conclusion about why it
:10:26. > :10:29.happened, and that is largely to do with the Russian thing. But that
:10:30. > :10:34.Russian investigation will go on. It all comes back to the investigation
:10:35. > :10:37.of the connection between the trump campaign and the Russians.
:10:38. > :10:40.No-one has produced evidence of it yet, but there's a lurking suspicion
:10:41. > :10:42.that team Trump might have encouraged, co-ordinated,
:10:43. > :10:44.or been in some way complicit with Russian hacking
:10:45. > :10:49.If that was true, well, let's just say it's not a good thing to do.
:10:50. > :10:51.Paul Wood is in Washington, and looks at what's left
:10:52. > :10:53.of the investigations into the Russian connection
:10:54. > :11:02.The political melodrama "House of Trump" is a ratings smash.
:11:03. > :11:09.But at times it's a little dark, and the plot does stretch credulity.
:11:10. > :11:13.In part one, the FBI investigates whether the Trump campaign conspired
:11:14. > :11:16.with a foreign power, Russia, to steal the US
:11:17. > :11:23.In part two, Trump fires the FBI director, James Comey.
:11:24. > :11:32.It was not to derail the FBI investigation,
:11:33. > :11:37.Yes, that is Henry Kissinger next to him.
:11:38. > :11:41.The question is, naturally, were about Comey's sacking.
:11:42. > :11:43.He wasn't doing a good job, very simply.
:11:44. > :11:53.The president wrote a terse letter to Comey,
:11:54. > :11:55.saying it was "Vital to restore public trust and
:11:56. > :11:58.Significantly, he recalled Comey "Informing me on three
:11:59. > :12:00.separate occasions that I am not under investigation".
:12:01. > :12:04.At the White House briefing, an avalanche of scepticism...
:12:05. > :12:15.Look, I think it was something that...
:12:16. > :12:19.Above my pay grade was decided to be included, and I'm not going to get
:12:20. > :12:25.Trump's critics paint a different picture.
:12:26. > :12:27.They don't believe that Comey was sacked,
:12:28. > :12:29.as the White House says, because he was too tough
:12:30. > :12:32.The White House should perhaps recall what another president, LBJ,
:12:33. > :12:40.said about another FBI director, J Edgar Hoover.
:12:41. > :12:43.Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.
:12:44. > :12:47.It is a delicious irony that Russia's Foreign Minister should be
:12:48. > :12:50.visiting Washington today to see Mr Trump.
:12:51. > :13:00.Never forget that the US intelligence agencies all say that
:13:01. > :13:02.Russia interfered in the election, and they did it to put
:13:03. > :13:12.That assessment was made by James Clapper, when he was director
:13:13. > :13:16.He told Congress this week that Russia had hacked leading Democrats
:13:17. > :13:19.and then leaked out damaging information a sophisticated
:13:20. > :13:23.They must be congratulating themselves for having
:13:24. > :13:26.exceeded their wildest expectations with a minimal
:13:27. > :13:33.And I believe they are now emboldened to continue such
:13:34. > :13:35.activities in the future both here and around the world,
:13:36. > :13:52.No evidence has been made public proving
:13:53. > :13:57.There's no evidence either for the claim that the Kremlin
:13:58. > :13:59.is blackmailing the president, using a tape of him
:14:00. > :14:03.Nor has it yet been shown that Trump's business dealings put him
:14:04. > :14:07.But the FBI investigation will continue after Comey's departure.
:14:08. > :14:08.There are also four separate congressional enquiries.
:14:09. > :14:10.All these investigations now have many more questions
:14:11. > :14:12.following the events of the last 24 hours.
:14:13. > :14:16.What does he know that's yet to be made public?
:14:17. > :14:19.And, was Trump reassured that he himself was not the subject
:14:20. > :14:26.Washington echoes to talk that a special
:14:27. > :14:33.Inevitably, the President's critics compare this to Watergate.
:14:34. > :14:36.There is a clear and present danger of a cover-up,
:14:37. > :14:39.history doesn't repeat but it rhymes.
:14:40. > :14:42.And this firing very much has the look and feel of an effort
:14:43. > :14:47.to stop an investigation and politically interfere with it.
:14:48. > :14:52.Not since Watergate has a president dismissed the person leading
:14:53. > :15:00.But, President Trump may be right, that only his aides and associates
:15:01. > :15:07.Then the question will be that which came to define Watergate -
:15:08. > :15:13.what did the president know, and when did he know it?
:15:14. > :15:27.How much of a danger do you think this Russian investigation is to
:15:28. > :15:31.President Trump? Well, we know that the idea mesmerises the intelligence
:15:32. > :15:35.community. Ex-director Comey and others, as well as the President's
:15:36. > :15:39.political opponents. It is that there is some kind of connectivity
:15:40. > :15:43.that is provable between the Trump campaign, and the hacking and
:15:44. > :15:46.leaking of e-mails during last year's presidential election. That
:15:47. > :15:51.is clearly the main thing they are going for. There are peripheral
:15:52. > :15:54.issues with money, meetings coordinating policy, other things.
:15:55. > :15:59.But that is the central thing they want to prove. Clearly, if they get
:16:00. > :16:05.there, if it is possible to prove that connection of people meeting,
:16:06. > :16:09.and money going... You know, actual connectivity, let's leaked this
:16:10. > :16:14.one... In the coming days, then it is an absolute major bombshell. But
:16:15. > :16:18.they are a long way off. The President's defences are holding up
:16:19. > :16:23.in certain respects. For example, today more than 75 Democrats and
:16:24. > :16:28.independents joined the call for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
:16:29. > :16:33.No Republicans, just three in Congress and the Senate, led by John
:16:34. > :16:37.McCain, backing the idea of a special committee of enquiry. On the
:16:38. > :16:40.whole come his defences are holding up. Self-evidently they've not got
:16:41. > :16:46.the point where they could launch a charge against individuals on these
:16:47. > :16:51.very serious potential allegations, and of course even if they do, they
:16:52. > :16:54.may well be arms lengths associates people who were dismissed from the
:16:55. > :17:00.campaign at some point during the campaign. It may be, if there is in
:17:01. > :17:05.the end a parallel to Watergate, the attempts to cover up or disrupts
:17:06. > :17:07.investigations that could finally do for him. Mark, thank you.
:17:08. > :17:09.One concern is whether the President is somehow undermining
:17:10. > :17:11.the institutions of the US, politicising justice
:17:12. > :17:13.and damaging morale at the FBI and Department of Justice.
:17:14. > :17:16.The kind of thing that you might expect of lesser countries.
:17:17. > :17:23.Let's talk to Sidney Blumenthal, a senior aide to Bill Clinton
:17:24. > :17:27.who worked at the Clinton Foundation.
:17:28. > :17:29.First - Charlotte Laws, an author and political commentator
:17:30. > :17:32.who was one of President Trump's earliest supporters.
:17:33. > :17:39.Charlotte, why do you think the President acted now on this? This
:17:40. > :17:44.question of why now seems to be one that has least satisfactory answers?
:17:45. > :17:48.Well, I think it was a cumulative effect. I think it had been building
:17:49. > :17:53.like a storm for President Trump. This goes all the way back to
:17:54. > :17:57.January. Comey was increasingly viewed as a political figure which
:17:58. > :18:01.is inappropriate for someone who is the director of the FBI. There were
:18:02. > :18:05.calls from the Republicans to sack him. Here in Los Angeles, I'm
:18:06. > :18:10.independent but I know a lot of Republicans and they were all saying
:18:11. > :18:15.to me back in January, why doesn't Trump fire Comey? There was a big
:18:16. > :18:19.push for this. I think that Trump had it in his ear like I had it in
:18:20. > :18:23.my ear. The Democrats were calling for Comey to be fired during the
:18:24. > :18:26.campaign and there were reports that within the FBI there is
:18:27. > :18:31.disgruntlement and they were unhappy with the leadership. That was
:18:32. > :18:35.happening at the same time. You have controversy from a few days ago
:18:36. > :18:40.where Comey went out and misstated information regarding e-mails which
:18:41. > :18:45.created huge controversy and he had to come out and change what he had
:18:46. > :18:49.said, clarifying it. Then you have the deputy who made a recommendation
:18:50. > :18:52.that he was fired. All of these things had come together and I think
:18:53. > :18:57.that Trump had an erosion of confidence. You've given me a big
:18:58. > :19:00.list there. And people will judge whether they think those things on
:19:01. > :19:05.that list are convincing or not. Do you not think that the president
:19:06. > :19:09.should have thought about how it looks? He is being investigated, or
:19:10. > :19:13.his campaigners, by the FBI. He sacks the director. Maybe he should
:19:14. > :19:17.have said, I do not like this guy that I will wait until the
:19:18. > :19:22.investigation is over before I sack him? Well, I think you don't do
:19:23. > :19:27.something like this unless you have a pure heart. It is like if you or
:19:28. > :19:31.did tractors say that you stole a red Corvette, you don't go out and
:19:32. > :19:35.borrow one and put it in your driveway if you don't have a pure
:19:36. > :19:39.heart. I think his detractors would have criticised him no matter when
:19:40. > :19:43.he fired Comey. The investigation may not be over the years, and
:19:44. > :19:46.secondly, if he did it back in January when he first came into
:19:47. > :19:51.office, he still would have been criticised for the same basic
:19:52. > :19:54.reasons. I think so many people are anti-Trump in the media and the
:19:55. > :19:58.Democrats and political figures that it is hard for him to do anything
:19:59. > :20:03.that is seen as right or proper. I want to ask you one question. This
:20:04. > :20:08.perplexes me. In the letter that Trump sent to Comey, he used the
:20:09. > :20:12.line "While I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate
:20:13. > :20:18.occasions that I am not under investigation, blah blah blah... ",
:20:19. > :20:23.what a strange thing to write. It is like it is on Trump's mind, as he
:20:24. > :20:27.terminates this guy, is the investigation into his team. Why
:20:28. > :20:31.would you write that in there? It is very strange to me. Because being
:20:32. > :20:37.president is very much public relations. He wants to make it clear
:20:38. > :20:42.to America that he is not personally under investigation. As I understand
:20:43. > :20:48.he isn't. Personally. He wants to make it clear. I also think that the
:20:49. > :20:51.reason why he did not call Comey himself was because Trump has a
:20:52. > :20:56.reputation of not liking to confront people and make them feel bad. It's
:20:57. > :21:00.very hard for him to fire people. I've heard many people say it with
:21:01. > :21:03.regards to the Trump Organization, he would leave people in the company
:21:04. > :21:07.even though he wanted them gone because he couldn't bring himself to
:21:08. > :21:11.fire them face-to-face or he would get someone else to do it. That's
:21:12. > :21:16.probably the reason why he did not call him and that is the reason for
:21:17. > :21:20.that comment in the letter. His catchphrase was "You're fired". But
:21:21. > :21:25.you are ironically saying he was incapable of firing people. Let me
:21:26. > :21:30.go to Sidney Blumenthal now. I may come back to you afterwards. Do you
:21:31. > :21:36.think that this is a constitutional crisis? Or at least a constitutional
:21:37. > :21:42.moment? It is a crisis in democracy and it has been ever since the
:21:43. > :21:46.moment that Donald Trump was inaugurated. He declared war on the
:21:47. > :21:50.free press and called them enemies of the people. There hasn't been
:21:51. > :21:57.that kind of language since Middle Europe in the 1930s. Against the
:21:58. > :22:02.free press. And, he has attacked judges. He has called them so-called
:22:03. > :22:08.judges, and attacked the judicial system on cases that he is involved
:22:09. > :22:11.in, attempting to ban people based on their religion from the
:22:12. > :22:16.country... We know all of that, but I'm just wondering whether that
:22:17. > :22:20.really undermines the institutions of democracy in the USA... It puts
:22:21. > :22:24.enormous stress on those institutions. There has not been a
:22:25. > :22:33.president like Donald Trump in the entire history of the US. Not even
:22:34. > :22:39.Nixon. While Nixon was guilty of crimes which were the articles of a
:22:40. > :22:44.peach mint, there hasn't been such a systematic assault on the
:22:45. > :22:49.institutions of democracy in the US. Then under Donald Trump --
:22:50. > :22:55.impeachment. We heard this from Charlotte earlier, he basically
:22:56. > :23:00.blamed Comey for losing Hillary Clinton the election. It's
:23:01. > :23:04.interesting the Democrats are the great defenders of Comey, because
:23:05. > :23:10.Comey is now Trump's enemy and they had to rally round. What is going on
:23:11. > :23:16.there? I would say that the approximate cause given for the
:23:17. > :23:23.firing of Comey by the assistant Attorney General was ridiculous on
:23:24. > :23:27.its face. It is entirely true that Comey is guilty of everything listed
:23:28. > :23:34.there and how he behaves, that happened back in July 20 16. After
:23:35. > :23:36.that event, Donald Trump conducted a very public campaign claiming that
:23:37. > :23:39.even though Hillary Clinton had been exonerated, that she should have
:23:40. > :23:44.been locked up and that she was a criminal. He even used the
:23:45. > :23:52.Republican convention to express that theme. Mike Glennon let chance
:23:53. > :23:57.of "Lock her up" from the platform of the Republican convention. It's
:23:58. > :24:00.ridiculous. Everybody knows it is a ridiculous reason. The reason is
:24:01. > :24:06.that he is attempting to obstruct the investigation into Russia's
:24:07. > :24:12.intervention in the US election. That is your charge, the
:24:13. > :24:17.congressional investigations will continue. But tell me, what are you
:24:18. > :24:21.meant to do if you are the President of the United States, and you do not
:24:22. > :24:25.like your FBI director? And you don't think he is doing a good job?
:24:26. > :24:30.And there is chatter all over the place saying that the guy is not up
:24:31. > :24:35.to it? You are going to sack him, right? It's an interesting question.
:24:36. > :24:41.Had he wanted to change his FBI director, who has a term of nine
:24:42. > :24:45.years, he could have done that during his transition or when he
:24:46. > :24:49.first came into office. Instead, he praised him and he had a public
:24:50. > :24:53.meeting with him that was filmed in which he embraced him. So something
:24:54. > :24:57.else has happened. What we've learned in the last 24 hours is that
:24:58. > :25:05.there is a grand jury that has been convened by James Comey and it is
:25:06. > :25:10.hearing testimony from associates of Michael Flynn, who says he has a
:25:11. > :25:16.story to tell. We learned James Comey asked for a vast increase in
:25:17. > :25:21.funding for his investigation. There are other elements involved here.
:25:22. > :25:25.Sidney Blumenthal, fax Charlotte, you are not go to blame anyone for
:25:26. > :25:31.putting two and two together, saying he has obviously done this as he is
:25:32. > :25:35.leading an investigation which is effective into his campaign? I do
:25:36. > :25:38.not think you can read into President Trump's mind. I think he
:25:39. > :25:42.wants this investigation concluded. I do not think he has tried to
:25:43. > :25:47.thwart it but get it behind him. It's a handicap to his presidency. I
:25:48. > :25:51.do not think it is logical to think that that was the goal behind his
:25:52. > :25:55.actions. Charlotte, don't you agree it should be pretty difficult for a
:25:56. > :26:00.president? The president has the power to sack the director of the
:26:01. > :26:05.FBI, wouldn't it be better if presidents used it with restraint
:26:06. > :26:10.and it was fairly difficult to do? Thinking about it for awhile, have
:26:11. > :26:14.consultations and enquiry? I cannot quite hear you, the sound has got
:26:15. > :26:20.rough? It should be difficult to sack the director of the FBI and not
:26:21. > :26:23.too easy for a president to do that? Well, presidents can have anybody
:26:24. > :26:29.that they want is the director of the FBI. It is his decision and I do
:26:30. > :26:35.not think he was praising Komi initially, but I think he wanted him
:26:36. > :26:38.to have a chance. -- Comey. Face-to-face, he has a reputation
:26:39. > :26:44.for getting along with everybody, and being friends with people. And
:26:45. > :26:49.getting them to do what he wants them to do, building relationships.
:26:50. > :26:52.I do not think it is unusual at all. It is obviously President Trump's
:26:53. > :26:58.choice, and I think he likely has a pure heart in this. I cannot read
:26:59. > :27:00.into his mind like Sidney Blumenthal cannot, that is what I think. Thank
:27:01. > :27:02.you both very much. One potential threat hanging over
:27:03. > :27:05.the Conservative campaign was that of possible prosecutions
:27:06. > :27:06.for breeches of election This is all to do with the party
:27:07. > :27:14.spending national money on local campaigns, and counting it
:27:15. > :27:16.in the wrong box, in order to override rules about
:27:17. > :27:18.how much can be spent. Well, today that threat
:27:19. > :27:21.almost went away. 15 police forces looking at multiple
:27:22. > :27:24.constituencies reported to the Crown Prosecution Service,
:27:25. > :27:27.and in 14 of those, However, it's not a get out of gaol
:27:28. > :27:33.free card for the Tory campaign. In one prominent case -
:27:34. > :27:35.a decision is still to come. The Conservative Party has already
:27:36. > :27:41.been in trouble over its election Tory HQ has paid a ?70,000 fine
:27:42. > :27:50.for misreported spending the result of an exhaustive
:27:51. > :27:55.Channel 4 News investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service said
:27:56. > :28:01.today that it was now only considering criminal charges
:28:02. > :28:03.relating to overspending There was an error made
:28:04. > :28:13.in our national returns And the Electoral Commission
:28:14. > :28:16.fined us for that, The cases dropped today relate
:28:17. > :28:21.to a battle bus campaign which took Tory activists and shipped them
:28:22. > :28:25.into target seats. Now, what these cases actually
:28:26. > :28:27.demonstrate is a real oddity Specifically, there would have been
:28:28. > :28:35.no investigation at all, and no problems at all,
:28:36. > :28:38.had those Tory activists simply handed out leaflets that only
:28:39. > :28:40.mentioned David Cameron The problem was that, and I quote
:28:41. > :28:47.the Electoral Commission, "they found social media posts
:28:48. > :28:50.where activists from the coaches "were holding campaign material
:28:51. > :28:57.promoting individual candidates." The reason they drew that
:28:58. > :29:00.distinction is that our law distinguishes between national
:29:01. > :29:02.spending - promoting parties - and local election spending -
:29:03. > :29:06.promoting candidates. Take two activists for a party
:29:07. > :29:09.who both want their man, Joe Bloggs, Let's say both get on a bus paid
:29:10. > :29:15.for by the party on the same And both are going leafleting
:29:16. > :29:23.to help Mr Bloggs. Let's say, by the luck of the draw,
:29:24. > :29:27.one of them gets a bundle of leaflets that praise local man
:29:28. > :29:31.Joe Bloggs, and the other gets leaflets that only
:29:32. > :29:32.mention the party leader The activists delivering
:29:33. > :29:37.the local Joe Bloggs leaflet will count as local spending,
:29:38. > :29:39.but the activists delivering the national leaflets will count
:29:40. > :29:44.as national all-party spending. Never mind the fact that a vote
:29:45. > :29:48.for the national party in this seat In Victorian times, an MP was simply
:29:49. > :29:53.returned for his constituencies without any regard for his party
:29:54. > :29:57.label whatsoever, and the parties were not creatures really
:29:58. > :30:02.recognised by the law. They were certainly not
:30:03. > :30:05.controlled by the law. More recently, that is to say
:30:06. > :30:09.within the last 20 years, we've had a system which has
:30:10. > :30:13.recognised political parties and sought to control party
:30:14. > :30:17.expenditure, hence we've got one system left over from Victorian
:30:18. > :30:21.times for individual MPs, and one system recently introduced
:30:22. > :30:23.for national expenses, for national campaigns, for now
:30:24. > :30:30.recognised political parties. The case whose fate is yet
:30:31. > :30:33.to be decided, though, South Thanet in Kent,
:30:34. > :30:35.is the most serious, and it's not about activists handing
:30:36. > :30:44.out the wrong leaflets. It's about one party
:30:45. > :30:46.using its spending superiority It's precisely the sort
:30:47. > :30:49.of activity that these rules This case is so high profile
:30:50. > :30:56.because Nick Timothy, now the Prime Minister's co-chief
:30:57. > :30:58.of staff, ran that campaign. The CPS might not prosecute, though,
:30:59. > :31:01.for the same reason they declined They have to prove the local MP
:31:02. > :31:08.or agent broke their spending limits deliberately,
:31:09. > :31:12.not by accident, because Tory Central Office gave candidates duff
:31:13. > :31:14.advice about receipts. The law draws quite odd lines,
:31:15. > :31:25.and prosecution is difficult. Our political editor
:31:26. > :31:30.Nick Watt is here... Viewsnight now, and in the run up
:31:31. > :31:33.to the election we've been devoting this spot to provocative ideas
:31:34. > :31:35.for the party manifestos. Should they be minded
:31:36. > :31:37.to look for some. Tonight Faiza Shaheen,
:31:38. > :31:39.director of the Thinktank Class Noam Chomsky is not
:31:40. > :33:28.just one of the world's most famous academics -
:33:29. > :33:30.his work on linguistics has shaped the field in the modern era -
:33:31. > :33:34.he is also one of the world's most famous supporters of
:33:35. > :33:39.the political left. Well, Professor Chomsky has been
:33:40. > :33:42.at the University of Reading this evening; giving a lecture
:33:43. > :33:54.on the state of western democracy. He is 88. He has campaigned for
:33:55. > :33:59.socialism for decades, and just as rage on social injustice erupts and
:34:00. > :34:04.there's an overthrow of established thinking, he finds that President
:34:05. > :34:07.Trump is in office for him. I went over to Reading this afternoon to
:34:08. > :34:12.talk to him about everything that's going on. I asked what it was about
:34:13. > :34:17.Donald Trump that appealed to American voters. What is the
:34:18. > :34:22.alternative? The Democrats gave up on the working class 40 years ago.
:34:23. > :34:28.The working class is not their constituency. No one in the
:34:29. > :34:34.political system is. The Republicans claim to be, but they are basically
:34:35. > :34:41.their class enemy, however they can appeal to people on the basis of
:34:42. > :34:46.claims about religion, white supremacy... So you think there was
:34:47. > :34:57.quite a racist motivation? No doubt about that. Are we talking 3%, 30%
:34:58. > :35:05.of the voters? Roughly? There's a substantial streak of fundamentalist
:35:06. > :35:10.religion. Trump took an enormous quantity of the Christian
:35:11. > :35:17.fundamentalists, who are a big segment of the US population.
:35:18. > :35:20.Remember, in the United States, about 40% of the population think
:35:21. > :35:29.the second coming is going to be in their lifetimes. The United States
:35:30. > :35:33.is off the spectrum in this respect. Do you think Trump will do much
:35:34. > :35:38.damage while he is there, and will it be permanent damage to the
:35:39. > :35:43.institutions of the US? I think the main damage he will do is to the
:35:44. > :35:47.world, and it is already happening. The most significant aspect of the
:35:48. > :35:54.Trump election, and not just Trump, the whole Republican Party, is their
:35:55. > :35:59.departing from the rest of the world on climate change. You have called
:36:00. > :36:05.the Republican party the most dangerous organisation on earth. In
:36:06. > :36:13.human history. It is an outrageous statement. When I said it, I said it
:36:14. > :36:18.was very outrageous. But is it true? You are rating them as worse than
:36:19. > :36:23.Kim Jong-un of North Korea, or as Isis? Is Isis dedicated to
:36:24. > :36:30.destroying the prospects for organised human existence? It's that
:36:31. > :36:34.bad? What does it mean to say we are not doing anything about climate
:36:35. > :36:39.change, and we are trying to accelerate the race to the
:36:40. > :36:45.precipice? And you don't entertain the possibility that they might be
:36:46. > :36:50.genuine in their belief... Doesn't matter. If the consequence of that
:36:51. > :36:57.is, let's use more fossil fuels, let's refuse to subsidise developing
:36:58. > :37:03.countries, if that is the consequence, that is extremely
:37:04. > :37:09.dangerous. Macron won the French election, Emmanuel Macron, and
:37:10. > :37:15.internationalist, liberal, loves the EU. All the things, in a way, that
:37:16. > :37:22.the Trump voters have tried to reject. Can he succeed? Is this the
:37:23. > :37:28.end of populism in Europe? By no means. Macron is a good example
:37:29. > :37:34.about how the core of the institutions have collapsed. He came
:37:35. > :37:39.from the outside. A vote for him was substantially a vote against Le Pen,
:37:40. > :37:45.who is recognised to be a serious danger. What about the British
:37:46. > :37:50.election? Jeremy Corbyn has been leading the Labour Party. They have
:37:51. > :37:54.an uphill task, according to the opinion polls. Have you any advice
:37:55. > :38:00.or thoughts about how Labour refines its pitch and makes it to government
:38:01. > :38:08.in the UK? If you asked me to vote, I would vote for them. They have a
:38:09. > :38:12.problem. I think he is a very decent and good person, and I've followed
:38:13. > :38:22.his career for some years. He is evidently not inspiring the
:38:23. > :38:26.population. Labour has not come out with its programme, so we don't
:38:27. > :38:31.really know what it will be. There is a sense of a lack of clarity
:38:32. > :38:36.about what he stands for, which is odd because he was someone who was
:38:37. > :38:43.most clear about it. What has happened to the Labour Party through
:38:44. > :38:49.the neoliberal years is, it became is, as many call it, Thatcherite,
:38:50. > :38:53.especially under Blair. It did not represent the working class. I want
:38:54. > :38:58.to talk to you about Julian Assange. You have been a big supporter of him
:38:59. > :39:03.and WikiLeaks. Many progressive people have looked at WikiLeaks and
:39:04. > :39:08.said, this organisation is on the wrong side of history. Do you still
:39:09. > :39:14.believe in Julian Assange, despite the fact that they published e-mails
:39:15. > :39:19.of Hillary Clinton's... I believe that the persecution of him is
:39:20. > :39:23.completely wrong. The threats against him are completely wrong.
:39:24. > :39:30.They should be withdrawn. He should be freed. He shouldn't be
:39:31. > :39:34.imprisoned. Judicial process. He needs to be questioned about the
:39:35. > :39:39.accusations. It is pretty much a front. There is no reason why
:39:40. > :39:44.Swedish prosecutors can't interrogate him on the charge that
:39:45. > :39:50.they think they have. In fact, they've already begun to do so.
:39:51. > :39:57.What's keeping him in prison... In an embassy, is his desire to go in
:39:58. > :40:03.there. Is the threat that the US will go after him. Is he right to
:40:04. > :40:07.worry about it? Of course. It is the threat that is wrong. As to what
:40:08. > :40:16.WikiLeaks has decided to release, you can have various opinions. What
:40:17. > :40:19.is your opinion of stolen e-mails, perfectly legitimate e-mails, stolen
:40:20. > :40:29.and put in the public domain? I would not have been in favour of
:40:30. > :40:37.doing that, but the general idea of informing the public, informing
:40:38. > :40:41.citizens, of what you are doing and keeping from them, that's a good
:40:42. > :40:45.idea. Gnome Chomsky, thank you very much indeed.
:40:46. > :40:47.Noam Chomsky there, in all fairness speaking before The Mirror
:40:48. > :40:52.And you can see a longer version of that on the Newsnight YouTube page.
:40:53. > :40:55.And if the election has been spoiling the vibe
:40:56. > :40:57.of your springtime, we leave you with a celebration
:40:58. > :40:59.of seasonal fertility courtesy of film-maker Jamie Scott.
:41:00. > :41:02.Mr Scott has a genius for filming flowers blooming in time lapse,
:41:03. > :41:04.and his latest work took three years to make.
:41:05. > :41:31.# A friend with breasts and all the rest
:41:32. > :41:35.# A friend who's dressed in leather