25/07/2017 Newsnight

Good evening and welcome to Washington,

where tonight the raging storm is a political one.

This capital city is buzzing tonight

with vicious intrigue and raw politics.

The President is at daggers drawn with the man he appointed

Donald Trump cannot forgive Mr Sessions for recusing himself

from an FBI inquiry into any Russian meddling in last year's election -

an inquiry which, if you're looking from the White House,

Cue a volley of angry tweets from the President

against a member of his own Cabinet this week,

calling the Attorney General "weak" and "beleaguered".

All this on the very day he struggled

to get a major piece of legislation on reforming health care

And into this maelstrom walks the British International Trade

He wants a big international trade agreement with the United States.

He needs it desperately if Brexit is to be a success.

President Trump rolled out senior Republicans to meet Dr Fox,

including the House Speaker, Paul Ryan.

But when Trump tweets that a UK trade deal is big and exciting,

Before we came on air, I spoke to Liam Fox

about Trump, trade and - yes - chicken.

First, the big picture of what's at stake.

At 4:16am this morning, the President of the United States's

Twitter account enthused over Liam Fox's visit.

"Our special relationship with the UK is going to be even

better, the US trade representative and UK's Liam Fox met today to begin

A few hours later, so too did @realDonaldTrump -

"Working on major trade deal with the United Kingdom,

could be very big and exciting, JOBS!"

"The EU is very protectionist with the US, stop!"

Today there was good economic news for the Government at home.

BMW announced they will build the fully electric version

of the Mini at its Cowley plant near Oxford.

The mood music may be positive, but Washington has long-standing

gripes with EU restrictions that they'd like rid off.

First, there's what's been called chlorination chicken.

The US wants to sell us birds washed in chlorine -

they insist they do not pose a health risk to consumers.

Then there's hormone-boosted beef that the US insists

The US wants to be able to sell us whisky aged less than three years -

they call the current three-year requirement unwarranted.

They complain that their corn exports are being hit

And Washington has UK Government subsidies of Rolls-Royce

Plenty for the Trade Secretary to consider, and time is pressing.

I spoke Liam Fox just hours after that President Trump tweet

about a "big, exciting" trade deal between the UK and the USA.

I began by asking him which sectors or industries in the UK

should be excited about a potential trade deal.

We've been initiating a process of trade and investment working groups

here, and there are four of them, one on continuity arrangements, that

party to us by virtue of our membership of the EU, and we have to

ensure they are replicated to ensure continuity of market access. We have

been looking at areas where we can make short-term breakthroughs in

liberalisation while we're still in the EU. In terms of business is all

sectors, who are you thinking of? The third area is preparation for

free trade agreements, and we have got working groups looking across

the normal sectors to see where the opportunities might exist, and then

our fourth group is looking at where we can work bilaterally to improve

market access for both the US and the UK and across the global

markets. So it is not a single focus at this point, it is great to have

the enthusiasm of the American side in the process, and it has been very

evident in the warmth with which we have been received here, but we are

still a long way from being able to set out details of where we think

the major breakthroughs would come, that is why we have officials. We

know the Treasury has asked you to show how all this free trade will

bring more value than any trade that is lost from the EU.

Well, I don't accept the premise of the question,

because it makes the assumption that we will lose value from our

Well, we have to lose either the EU deal or the American deal.

No, we don't, we don't have to lose anything at all.

We haven't begun our negotiations with the EU yet on

a future free trade agreement, and we begin from a very good

position of zero tariffs and absolute regulatory equivalence.

So that, technically, removes a lot of the barriers to difficulty.

We are aiming that we will have a very open

and comprehensive trading deal with the European Union,

and our aim is to give all our businesses the same rights

Now, how possible that will be, we won't know until we begin

At the same time, we will want to see how we can get increased

access to other markets, including the United States,

but perhaps even more crucially how we can work with countries

like the United States to open up the global economy

in things like services, which will matter

But your belief is that no value will be lost?

Well, I hope that no value will be lost.

And of course it makes no sense to have an assumption

that you will be at one end of the spectrum

rather than the other, so what we're aiming for is an open,

liberal, comprehensive agreement with the European Union,

which is in both our interests to have -

both for European producers as well as British producers.

And at the same time to have a good agreement with the United States

and the reason for that is the global economy is sluggish.

Global trade is growing at only 1.3% at the present time,

we must get that up, because we've got to see a more

open trading environment or our exporters will suffer.

Trade is abstract, it is complicated, and I know

that you accuse us, the media, of obsessing over chicken,

but the reason we talk about chicken is it is tangible,

people actually understand that as an issue.

So is it true that we would change our regulations, our food standards,

We've no intentions of reducing standards, as we said

on a number of occasions, we think the British standards

So you would then rule out chlorine-washed chicken?

Well, there is no health issue with that, the European Union has

The issue lies around some of the secondary issues of animal welfare,

and it is perfectly reasonable for people to raise that, but it will

come much further down the road. We will be looking at those issues much

further down the road. But this is something people can understand,

will you say it is fine, we don't need the regulation that the EU

currently has, we will be prepared to accept whatever the chicken is

washed in because we believe it is the right way to go, it makes food

cheaper and it is the right deal with the US? We will want to make

sure that scientific advice ensures proper protection for British

consumers, because dropping our standards... Well, it doesn't, the

EU has a preventative strategy, so it doesn't believe that

chlorine-washed chicken is the right thing to have in the EU. Will I

change under Liam Fox's trade deal? I can rule out that we will be

dropping our standards on consumer protection or environmental

protection or on animal welfare, these are reasonable things for

people to look at, but in terms of where we will be on specifics by the

time we finish a free-trade agreement which could be two or

three years by the time it is concluded, depending on the rest of

our relationship with the EU, it is too early say, but as a general

principle we are not going to be the low regulation alternative that some

people have suggested. Chicken is just one of a list, and we could

also be looking at GM crops - will we be accepting GM crops, hormone

fed beef? You are asking me the same question in a different way. These

are elements that we will look at further down, these are elements in

the agricultural section of an agreement. But we could be in a

process that will now accept GM crops or hormone fed beef. We will

want to look at what science tells us, what is the best protection for

our consumers and the environment, and we will look at that across

government. We are not going to jump to conclusions right now, because

that would be an inappropriate way to carry out a negotiation. The US

wants us to stop subsidising Rolls-Royce engines made in Derby,

will we do that? It is a negotiation, and we want to see what

we can get from the Americans, they will want to get things from us. We

will not be giving away things that are detrimental to UK producers, our

economy or consumers, why would we do that? The whole idea of Brexit,

the line that we were fed was taking back control - now we are in a

position where you cannot rule out that we might have chlorine-washed

chicken, GM crops, hormone fed beef, why are we in a position where we

seem to be going along with whatever a superpower does, whatever

principles or standards or lower standards America is suggesting we

might have to accept? That is the question people want to know, if we

are taking back control. You are suggesting we have to stick with

whatever the European Union tells us in terms of legacy. We will make the

right decisions for the UK, we will decide for the UK what is best, not

what is best for the US, for the European Union, what is best for the

UK, and all of those areas... And the US model may be better than EU

regulations. The British model will be the best model for Britain.

Back now to the political storm here in Washington itself,

where the White House is continuing its relentless

Twitter pounding of the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.

Last week, the President said he wished he'd never have appointed

Mr Sessions if he'd known that he'd recuse himself from

And this morning at 6am, the social-media assault continued.

All this as Donald Trump struggled to try and get one of his most

important pieces of domestic legislation,

Mark Urban has been watching the events of the day.

The president of United States... Despite a packed legislative agenda

and multiple international challenges, the stand-off between

the president and those investigating him continues. Today,

he fuelled doubts about the future of his own principal law officer. I

am disappointed in the Attorney General. He should not have recused

himself - almost immediately after he took office. And if he was going

to recused themselves, he should have told me prior to taking office,

and I would have picked somebody else. So I think that is a bad

thing, not for the president, but for the presidency. I think it is

unfair to the presidency. And that is the way I feel. The President at

least one of his early-morning tweet storms, covering a variety of

subjects, and attacking his own Attorney General, saying he has

taken a very weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes, where are

the leakers? It followed a tweet yesterday where he asked

rhetorically, why aren't the committees and investigators and of

course our beleaguered Attorney General looking into crooked

Hillary's crimes and Russia relations? This is just outright

bullying of Jeff Sessions at this point, we have seen it for several

days running, and the president almost appearing to want to force

him to quit, to resign, rather than be forced into another awkward

position of demanding his resignation or sending him his

walking papers. That touched a nerve with many Republicans on The hill,

where Jeff Sessions served for 20 years as a senator along side men

like Lindsey Graham, a persistent Republican trump critic who

responded to the latest tweets with his own sewing...

So is the Republican caucus fraying? Well, the House Majority Leader was

today still backing his president. It is up to the president to decide

on his personnel decisions and any fallout from that, if he has

concerns about anyone in the administration, I am sure he will

talk with them directly. Speaker Ryan, like many on the hill, wants

to try and maintain momentum on the platform he was elected on, with the

repeal and replacement of President Obama's health-care plan ranking

high on that agenda. Today, a senator vote so narrow that John

McCain had to come in from his sick bed carried that forward, delivering

a fillip for the president. I hope we can continue to depend on each

other, to learn how to trust each other again, and by so doing better,

save the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic

loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet. To hell

with them! They don't want anything done for the public good. Our

incapacity is their livelihood. Let's trust each other. Let's return

to regular order. The motion to proceed on health care has just

passed... But the legislative game of pass the parcel continues between

two Republican-controlled chamber is hooked on the rhetoric of repealing

Obamacare but scared of the consequences of depriving millions

of their care. This is not the end of the road, it may be a near-term

win for Trump today, but there are significant differences, this is one

sixth of the US economy, tens of millions of people poised to lose

their health care under any form of this bill, and this is proving

deeply unpopular - this bill only had the support of around 20% of the

American people, whether or not the Republicans have the calculus right

today, a lot of people are questioning. That battle will call

soon for summer's congressional recess, but the rush of probe will

go one, and tonight the new communications director at the White

House said the president will soon come to a decision about the future

of his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.

Well, earlier I spoke to one of the few political experts

who predicted Donald Trump's victory in last year's election,

Professor Allan Lichtman of the American University

He got the last nine election is correct and previously stood for the

Democrats. Nine months later, he's predicting

the end of the Trump presidency and has written a book

arguing his position, I began by asking him how he reached

both his predictions. My prediction of a Donald Trump

victory was based upon a scientific method, studying all American

elections going back to 1860. My prediction of a Donald Trump

impeachment, of course, could not be based on a mathematical

model, because there haven't been enough examples

of impeachment in US history. But my prediction of a Donald Trump

impeachment, in my book, The Case For Impeachment,

was based on a deep study of the history of impeachments,

the basis for impeachments, Donald Trump's record

as a businessman, and Donald Trump's record during the first two or three

months of his administration. That was enough to point me

towards what seemed to be an inevitable end to the presidency

in the first term. And are you suggesting that

impeachment is imminent? Let's not forget that

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached until well into the fifth year

of his presidency. Richard Nixon didn't resign

until more than five and a half So I wouldn't say impeachment

is right around the corner, but I do think it's going to come,

and when it will come will be when Republicans come to realise

that this President is a liability The Lichtman rule of politics

is that the first requisite for any incumbent officeholder is personal

survival - not loyalty Impeachment, though,

is not a thing - it is a vote, Impeachment is a vote by a majority

- not a supermajority - of the US House of Representatives,

and, of course, Republicans But it would only take about two

dozen Republicans to defect from Donald Trump to get a majority

vote on impeachment, that's only about 10%

of Republicans in the House. So is there a loyalty

still from the Republican Party I think his party

stands on a knife edge. On the one hand, they desperately

want to support their president, and they don't want to see

an ugly impeachment process. On the other hand, they realise that

a president whose approval rating is in the 36-40% range

is a liability to their party and could be a liability

to their own personal re-election. I don't think Republicans

are at impeachment yet, but it wouldn't take all that much

to push them over the line. If Jeff Sessions is removed or goes,

do you think that will trigger No, I don't think the firing

of Jeff Sessions or the pushing of Jeff Sessions out by itself

would be enough for the party, the Republicans to move

towards impeachment. What might move them

towards impeachment would be that if the firing or resignation

of Jeff Sessions was a prelude to the firing of the special

counsel, Robert Mueller. That could push Republicans over

the line, although I'm not even So we are getting back to,

essentially, the Russia scandal Is your sense that impeachment

would come from treason? I think we are treading close

to possible treason. Russia attacked the United States -

it wasn't a military attack, but it was an attack nonetheless,

not only through hacking of Democratic e-mails

but through the use of Russian state-controleld media and through

the use of trolls and bots And if any of Trump's team

was involved in colluding with the Russians in that attack,

that arguably is treason. If Trump himself knew about it,

even if he didn't participate, that's another crime called

misprision of treason, the failure to report treason,

and if Trump himself was involved, I believe a strong case

could be made for treason. And treason is a very serious charge

- no sitting high public official of the United States has ever been

charged with treason in our history. You write in the book about Trump's

vulnerabilities - what do you see I wrote in The Case For Impeachment

that a Russian sword of Damocles is hanging over this administration,

it's hanging on a very That meeting with Donald Trump

Junior, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with

a multiplicity of Russian actors is, in my mind, pretty powerful

circumstantial proof of collusion. The purpose of the meeting

was to get from the Russian government dirt on Hillary Clinton,

their opponent. That alone, the willingness

the eagerness to take that meeting, is certainly strong circumstantial

But people listening to this will be possibly saying,

"There is a man who is clearly a Democrat, who is creating,

if you like, rumour for political spite."

Nonsense - I have been predicting elections since 1980,

and I have predicted about as many Republican victories

If I was just, you know, a flag for the Democratic Party,

In fact, I've lost all my Democratic friends because I predicted

Donald Trump's victory - I even got a note from him

acknowledging that prediction, saying, "Good call, Professor."

In addition, there have been plenty of presidents with whom I have

disagreed with their policies, but I've never before

predicted a president was going to get impeached.

I'm joined now by the Republican strategist Chris Neiweem.

Just before we came on air we should tell viewers the US house of

representatives had overwhelmingly backed new sanctions against Russia,

419-3. The question now is well Donald Trump have to go a long with

the overwhelming vote for stronger sanctions or will he resist it? It's

always difficult to predict what President Trump does, his behaviour

and his actions are always, they come directly from him and sometimes

he disagrees with his Republican party, he came to power in a very

diverse way. It will restrict some of his capabilities especially in

dealing with Russia. I think he will think it over but we could see

resistance based on his past actions. Looking at what happened

today, the health care, not a bell, a bill about a bill which was

essentially about appealing Obamacare, it passed by a whisker.

That after ruling out poor John McCain who has just undergone brain

surgery, this is not a man who looks in control at the moment. I think

that would be correct, it's a thin margin and we expected that. The

health care legislation affects every state different, the United

States sent by design was supposed to be more deliberate. I win is a

win so if they can get over the threshold and get it it's all that

matters. When I heard from the Independent Senator Angus King this

morning he said let me give you a brief synopsis of what we understand

the health care bill this afternoon and he paused and that was it.

Nobody understood what they were even voting on. That is a tragic

position for a new president to be in six months in. It's definitely a

very interesting political dynamic. Also remember the United States

Senate when you look at procedures and boats, voting to proceed to the

vote, we need to see the final vote on the text. I think it's going to

be close but ultimately this is why lawmaking is hard. He is calling on

the loyalty of the party right now at the same time he is trying to

fire his own Attorney General, and man who's he appointed just six

months ago, one of his earliest and most loyal followers who gave up the

good Senate position to be there. How do we understand what is going

on in that dynamic and what other Republicans should make of it?

Trying to guess the behaviour of President Trump is very difficult.

Don't guess or predict that then, tell me how people should behave in

terms of their loyalty within the party? Everyone needs to think with

their priorities and what they think should happen and their own

integrity but this president does have a business negotiation

background, he is high standards and wants to see things a certain way.

He was being cautious and if he had nothing to hide let those

investigations go on and fall where they fall, I think it was peculiar

but that is where we are right now and we'll have to see where it plays

out and if he retains the Attorney General. At the moment it seems like

he will. There must be people like you, Republicans and critically

people in the Senate and the house who are asking themselves in all

faith how much longer can we support a president whose actions we might

not even understand let alone support. If Jeff Sessions is fired

or encouraged to go is that tipping point? It's an interesting case

study in American politics and democracy because this president

went to the people and that is where he got his mandate and that is who

elected him. Before the election he was beating up Republicans and

Democrats with both hands and won. It comes down to if the people

continue to support him and if you will continue to have a working

relationship to get the agenda through. I have never seen this

political dynamic, it's very unique and makes for interesting analysis

at least we can say that. So when a distinguished professor like Allan

Lichtman who has called the last nine presidential wins says that he

imagines the impeachment of Donald Trump not imminently, not September,

but down the line, you have to listen to that presumably? I think

you need to listen to it and look at it but with everyone in the universe

looking for something on Russian collusion we'll find out whether it

is collusion delusion or substantial and that talk about if there is

something there. The government has to get things done legislatively.

Chris Neiweem, thank you for coming in. Good to be with you.

Let's just pause the discussion about Donald Trump here

in the United States for just a moment

and take a look at American policy towards the fight

Pepfar is the multibillion-dollar US fund which

has saved thousands, if not millions, of lives

But doctors are warning that they face a difficult choice.

American policy now prohibits funding of such schemes

if they might have anything to do with abortion.

It's become known as the "global gag" rule, as Karen Allen reports.

A little over 20 years since the dawn of democracy,

South Africa projects the image of a country on the move.

But it has the largest number of people in the world

living with HIV AIDS - 7 million of them.

Yet the disease is no longer a death sentence

that it was for previous generations, thanks in part

to millions of dollars of US government aid.

You and I slept without condoms so all your exes are pretty much

One of the great success stories of how that US money

What is the point of this clinic if you can't help me?

But if the storyline strays into reproductive

health or abortion issues, the producers have to look

It's all about complying with tight US funding rules and those rules

With the stroke of a pen President Trump has enacted what's

It means that millions of dollars of US money for HIV is potentially

at risk if it's linked in any way to abortion.

HIV prevalence in South Africa is high.

There is a lot of work that goes towards it.

And this is work that we want to continue happening.

So I think this is where the main problem is,

that we are going to have to choose one, you know?

Are we going to choose to keep fighting HIV in the country,

or are we going to choose to give women the rights that they have

Unlike many other countries in Africa, abortion

But with high levels of stigma almost half of all terminations

There is anecdotal evidence that the pills used to induce

an abortion are stolen from state hospitals by members of staff then

With the introduction of the US rules, there's a fear

about a contraction of services here, forcing more women to seek

Here in Johannesburg you don't have to be a detective to discover

where to purchase abortion drugs on the black market.

We've taken our hidden cameras, with an actress posing as a client,

Watch the character in the dark jacket, he's the dealer.

He tries to steer her into a shop to hand over the pills.

It then emerges that the man sitting down is in fact his accomplice.

They just want to make the sale so he slips the drug

from up his sleeve and then in minutes the pair are gone.

The actress hands us the packet of five pills,

which she was instructed to take all at once.

We took the drugs to an accredited abortion clinic.

These are the pills that we picked up on the street, 500 Rand, ?30.

Yes they are the right drugs but the dosage, no, it's not.

We give clients four pills and this being five is an overdose.

Campaigners worry that with the shadow cast over funding

for all areas of health, including family planning,

more unwanted pregnancies and more terminations are inevitable.

Botched abortions are one of the biggest causes

The new global gag rule is only likely to make that worse.

And for HIV AIDS, which still claims millions of lives each

year, there could also be unintended consequences.

Even though I tested HIV-positive, I don't think it's a barrier for me

This woman, an aspiring young businesswoman,

owns her survival in part to the billions of US tax dollars

The US contributes two thirds of all bilateral funding worldwide.

I come draw blood every six months and collect my medication

But the money to keep her healthy now has conditions attached.

It cannot be traced to abortion services in any shape or form.

I don't see how people can sit in Washington and think

they can then influence me on that micro level.

I am restricted in terms of giving you health information

that you have a right to for you to make informed choice.

So it interferes with the doctor-patient

relationship in a very, very, very negative manner.

The problem with singling out abortion is that modern day health

care is all integrated, whether it's children's

Activists warn they could all be affected by this rule simply

With a children's clinic here and reproductive health and HIV

services down the corridor, this one-stop shop is the gold

standard that international health agencies are trying to promote.

But there is a fear that the global gag rule could impose guilt

by association for services that have got nothing

Thousands of miles from here President Trump's signed into law

rules which some view as an assault on South Africa's sovereignty.

But turning the country's back on the biggest donor

The taxpayers in the United States have a right.

And the health care workers in South Africa and the women

in South Africa have a right to also attain their highest level of care

Many believe the US is overstepping the mark, threatening to damage

sweeping gains made to improving the health of millions

Self-sufficiency still beyond the horizons of many African states.

I'm joined now by two seasoned Trump watchers -

Susan Glasser from the news website Politico

and James Kirchick from the Brookings Institute.

Very nice to have both of you. If I could start with you, we have heard

a lot this week about Russia, we have had Jared Kushner two days

running in those hearings, we will be hearing from Paul Manafort the

former communications director, tomorrow. Allan Lichtman was telling

me that Trump could be the first president found guilty of treason. I

think that is a really great charge to be throwing around. Treason is a

very specific definition in the United States, you have to be aiding

and abetting an enemy of the United States with whom we are at war.

Russia is an enemy of this country, but we're not at war with them, so I

think the rush to that sort of conclusion, the use that language is

really ill tempered and inaccurate. I not trying to defend Donald Trump,

his position on Russia and what the campaign did. I thought what we saw

during the campaign, Trump speaking of his admiration for Vladimir

Putin, calling on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton, it was

abominable, unpatriotic, un-American, but it does not rise to

the level of treason. Susan Glasser, over to you, do you think his

critics are getting carried away on this one? Smoke with no fire? Well,

look, first of all, we are at the beginning stage of multiple

different investigations, including, most seriously, the FBI and special

counsel investigation headed by Bob Muller. Jamie makes an important

point, to throw around words like that is probably not constructive

for opponents of President Trump. The impeachment word has been used

almost since noon on January the 20th, when Donald Trump became

president, and the bottom line is, even if that were to be the outcome,

we're talking about years of investigations and a very difficult

political process on Capitol Hill before anything of that kind would

happen. You get the sense from talking to lots of people who are

understandably confused, they think, when will impeachment happen? Next

month or something? Democrats are confused as to why Republicans are

not more outraged by any sense of collusion or dealings with Russia,

let's say, watched you make of that? As someone who has been very

critical of the Republicans and the stance they have taken over the past

year and a hard, really, Russia, I have to say that they are partly

right to be a little sceptical of the outrage being expressed by

Democrats. If you look at the record of the Obama administration on

Russia over the last eight years, starting with the recent policy that

began only six months after Russia invaded Georgia, we had a procession

of moves that were basically feckless in dealing with Russia. In

2012, Barack Obama mocked Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate,

forcing Russia was our number one geopolitical threat, and now lots of

Republicans are looking at Democrats, who laughed at them four

years ago is for being these retrograde cold warriors, lecturing

conservatives and Republicans that they are all pawns of Vladimir

Putin. A lot of conservatives are very sceptical. Would you agree

that, actually, the ill ease started with a Obama, and all the

concessions, or all the weakness that Goodin saw in him? I think you

have to go back much farther than that, the bottom line is that George

W Bush first encountered Vladimir Putin as president back in 2001 and

said he was a man he could do business with. There has been a long

arc of four presidents, because Bill Clinton also had a brief opening up

with Vladimir Putin. It is fair to say that both Democratic and

Republican presidents have come in believing that they could work more

closely with Russia, that we had national interests that would

converge on key issues around the world, and all of them have found

themselves disillusioned. Donald Trump is a huge outlier in that he

is the only one of them who has come in fawning over Vladimir Putin's

anti-democratic tendencies, fawning over Putin as a leader, and

basically saying that he admires him and wants to work with him. Inside

United States, in a partisan sense, it is both Democrats and Republicans

who have an enormous amount of hypocrisy to go around, both have

switched their positions based on nothing to do with Russia but having

to do with the partisan politics of Russia changing in the United

States, so that does make it, I think, very congregated in trying to

sort through, but both parties have enough hypocrisy to go around on

this issue. We're running out of time, so big picture, Jamie, six

months into the Trump presidency, if someone said to you, how is it going

now, I talk to members of the administration who say, ignore the

tweets, the bombastic side of Trump, he is getting on with the job and it

is working - is that how it seems from inside Washington? In

Washington, things can seem worse than they do out in the country.

That said, Donald Trump has not really accomplished any major pieces

of legislation so far. He is attacking his own Attorney General,

there are rumours now that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,

might be resigning some time before the end of the year. So it is not

going very good for him. I am not going to say impeachment is on the

horizon, that is being hysterical, but it is not going well for him.

Thank you both very much indeed. After Sean Spicer's departure

from the White House last week, we leave you with President Trump's

new director of communication, the former Goldman Sachs investment

manager Anthony Scaramucchi, The President's fake news media

enemies are already trying to make None more so than the

Daily Show's Trevor Noah, who may just have worked out

his secret sauce. If you thought Donald Trump

was inimitable, take a look. A spell of wetter and windy weather

coming our way tomorrow, but there will be some brighter

parts to pick out, and if you're in eastern areas, it's

the morning, the best