25/07/2017 Newsnight


Emily Maitlis is live from Washington as President Trump attacks his own chief law officer. Plus trade minister Liam Fox on chlorinated chicken.

Similar Content

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.

Download Subtitles