Emily Maitlis is live from Washington as President Trump attacks his own chief law officer. Plus trade minister Liam Fox on chlorinated chicken.
Browse content similar to 25/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
Emily Maitlis is live from Washington as President Trump attacks his own chief law officer. Plus trade minister Liam Fox on chlorinated chicken.