05/01/2018 Newsnight

The most explosive Kiss and Tell

book we've ever seen

about a sitting President.

Does it have the power though

to change anyones mind?

Allegations, accusations,

stories and quotes -

it portrays a man unfit to govern

America.

How much of it is true?

Do those who work with Donald Trump

recognize the chaos it describes?

We speak to White House insider

Sebastian Gorka and Janice Min,

who was at the pre-inauguration

dinner with those closest

to the President.

Why was the sentence

for John Worboys so lenient and do

we forget about the victims

of sex crime too quickly?

We'll examine how victims

are treated by the justice system

And is it cruel to breed dogs

like this - half of all flat-faced

dogs needed treatment for health

issues last year.

Why do we insist on making them

pets when they find it

so hard to breathe?

Good evening.

"The events I've described

in these pages,"

writes Michael Wolff, "are based

on conversations that took

place over 18 months

with the President and most members

of his senior staff."

The rest of the book is explosive.

He describes a President who behaves

sometimes like a child,

other times like an emperor -

neurotic, scared, phobic

and scorned by his own aides.

The President himself

denounced the book as lies -

denied the author even had access.

He tried to stop its

very publication.

That only sped things up and put it

in the best seller list.

So tonight, on the day the book

is published - four days early

and at the end of a long week

when its dominated

news the world over -

we speak to those inside the

White House.

And to one present on the same

occasions described

within the books pages.

We will ask how much of these

allegations are revelations?

And how much will they change

the mind of the base that brought

Donald Trump to power?

Despite threats from

President Trump, the publishers

neither ceased nor

desisted.

Instead, they brought the

publication of this explosive

book forward.

Fire And Fury is the work

of Michael Wolff, a journalist who

says he had access to

the White House for much of the last

year and spoke to the President

whilst writing it.

Trump's dismissed it as lies,

says he never allowed the access.

Others have also questioned

the accuracy of the details in

the book.

But the President is clearly spooked

by the allegations within it.

I absolutely spoke to the President.

Whether he realised

it was an interview or not, I don't

know, but it certainly

was not off the record.

It paints a White House in chaos,

a paranoid President, who

was horrified to actually win,

and a host of aides and advisers who

scorned his abilities.

The big questions it

raises are existential.

Was it treasonous of

Trump's son to meet

with Russian officials

during

the campaign?

Is the President of sound

mind to run America?

But it's the details that will stop

readers in their tracks.

Accounts of Donald Trump's phobias,

his fast food addiction,

his viewing habits, as well as his

relations with his wife, his

daughter, his own hair,

and his early bedtime.

The book's already

claimed its first scalp.

An almighty row has

broken out between the

President and his former White House

strategist, Steve Bannon, whose

comments first appeared in the book.

Both have threatened

to sue the other.

Bannon has found himself cut out

of big donor funding since

it appeared.

The big question is,

who is going to get this pen?

I don't know.

LAUGHTER.

It raises the spectre of an open

secret, shared by many.

Do those who worked for,

with and around Donald

Trump recognise this same world

Wolff describes, a White House with

no plan, a leader with no strategy,

an impulsive, piqued President, who

acts upon his instincts time

and again, with no interest in

third-party views?

Or has the writer

hyper-fictionalised

the world Trump's

critics were simply dying to see?

But the bigger question,

the fundamental one,

perhaps is this -

will any of what is

written in these pages

change Trump's power

or the

way those who voted

for him see him now?

If the answer is no,

then Fire And Fury may

just be sound and fury -

ultimately signifying nothing.

Joining me now Dr Sebastian Gorka,

who was Deputy Assistant

to Donald Trump and knows

the White House well.

And Dr Gorka, I know

in your previous Newsnight

encounters we have spent a lot

of time analysing whether Newsnight

is fake news, et cetera.

So for the sake of our viewers

and for the sake of moving the story

on, why don't we agree to recognise

that is how you view things and this

time try and shed some

light on how you see

operations in the White House.

It's very good of you to join us.

Was there anything in the coverage

of Michael Wolff's book that you

recognised?

Nothing at all

especially if you look at the basic

facts he gets wrong. In if excerpts

he can't even get right whether the

president knew John Boehner. He said

on the day he became president, he

had never heard of speaker of House.

Any child can go on Google and put

in the names and find photographs of

two golfing with each other. If you

look at the book, I haven't spent

money on it, but the introduction,

page 10, Michael Wolff states he

cannot verify any of the information

he has provided and as such it is a

work of fiction.

What he says is

many of the accounts are in conflict

with one another, it sound as if he

heard a lot of conflicting accounts,

wrote them up and let readers decide

what to think and the accounts came

from multiple sources he wrote up as

a factual, that is what journalists

do.

No if you wrote a story that

conflicted and said I will let the

viewers decide, you would be warned

or fired. A journalist must have two

verified sources. Michael Wolff is a

Charlton and a liar.

He paints a

pictures others have recognised a

picture of a president who sounds

like he has slightly lost his mind

and behaves in a child-like way, do

you recognise that in the president?

He repeats the Calumy of all the

left-wing Trump derangement

suffering people.

You don't

recognise.

I actually worked in the

White House. I'm not a political

hack who came in to write a book to

make money and please the elite that

failed both nations, whether the UK

or the United States. Donald Trump

won on the basis of facts that

Brexit won in the UK and wasn't

predicted by the elite. It is a

joke.

Paint a picture of what you

know to be true then. For example, I

I think we are told some of the

observations say most days Trump

preferred to be in bed at 6. 30

watching television and eating

cheeseburgers.

It is such garbage.

What time does he go to bed.

He

sleeps less than two and a half

hours a day. When he is tweeting at

4am no, one is tweeting for him.

That is the president of the United

States. Forget the palace intrigue.

What has he done. He has revitalised

NATO. We have had a record-breaking

stock market rally. Isis industried.

-- destroyed. One and a half million

jobs created. The lowest

unemployment in 17 years. Judge the

president on the facts, not on

delusional people who want to sell

books.

Help us with the details, it

is fascinating and Trump rules - no

one touched his tooth brush, he

liked McDonald's.

Are you serious?

Somebody's tooth-brushing habits.

Tell us you know it is not true.

I

won't waste people's time with this

rubbish. Let's talk about your tooth

brushing. How do you brush your

teeth?

The interesting thing...

Do

you floss?

It is the details that

allow people to know whether the

rest of it is true. Let me quote

something. Sean Spicer repeating the

mantra, you can't make this shit up

or Kelly Ann Conway who, mimed

putting a finger gun to her head

when she reported the president's

word.

In one book 13 people demanded

he retracts the quotes, because they

were made up. His book is like Harry

Potter.

He has never been told to

issue a correction.

I have no idea

what he has been told. I couldn't

careless. I couldn't careless

whether people have demanded

retractions. He is a hack.

Let's

move from the book itself. Just even

the quotes that Trump has put

directly to the public through

Twitter, in the last week, taking

credit for airline safety for seven

years or asking for good old global

warming, boasting of the size of his

nuclear button. That language makes

it easy for people to believe what

they're read something

No that is

the language that makes it easy for

an outsiding to decimate 16 members

of GOP and wipe the floor with a

woman who thought the position was

owed to her because of her gender.

The president connects with the

average man and woman what has been

ill-served by the elite on the left

and right for more than 20 years.

God bless the president and his

Twitter feed.

A lot of people say it

is painting a very accurate picture,

one that other reporters have

written about.

That is a very

scientific term, lots and lots. Lots

and lots of people a at the BBC?

What about Janice Min, she was at

the table and at the Roger

Ailes/Bannon dinner and verified

everything she read in the book. Let

her talk for herself.

Thank you very

much.

Thank you.

Michael Wolff said today

that he stands by "everything

reported in the book".

We asked him for an interview,

but he wasn't available.

Janice Min is part-owner

of The Hollywood Reporter

and was invited to the dinner party

attended by Steve Bannon

and Roger Ailes that is

recounted in the book.

She joins me now from LA.

Thank you for joining us. Tell us

what went on that night, you were

one of a very small select group,

just six guests at the din we are

Roger Ailes, Steve Bannon. What do

you remember of it?

I remember

almost every detail. This was a

small party of six guests, at

Michael Wolff's house and listening

to your guest, I think that the

position from Trump loyalists is

Michael Wolff is an outsider. It is

from my experience with Michael, I

don't see that. He was such an

intimate and a so warmly received by

Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes and

Roger's wife and had such a level of

trust with them that the

conversation we had was stunning. It

was... The things from start to

finish, for five hours, they poured

their hearts out about the

Republican Party and how they were

going to, who they were going to put

into cabinet. Roger Ailes offered to

coach candidates in their

congressional testimony. They talked

of Rudy Giuliani. Steve Bannon said

they owed him something, because he

had come out forcefully and spoke on

the shows in the United States, when

no one else would after the access

Hollywood tapes. Roger Ailes said,

you know, just let him be

photographed walking out of Air

Force One. Just detail after detail

that, were they openly spoke so

comfortably in front of Michael. To

any way characterise him. You can

try to dispute the facts, but you

can't dispute the relationship he

had with people in the White House.

At that dinner, did it seem as if

Steve Bannon was in the driving

point, you had the Fox news

Executive, Roger Ailes, were they

still in shock that he had won?

No,

you know, I think Roger Ailes might

have been in a bit of shock. He had

said that, he had said to me, he was

sitting to my right, he said, you

know, these guys are a little right

of my tastes and I'm a life long

Republican. He was surprised, but

Bannon, he is full steam ahead. He

was invigorated, I think this whole

notion we have of him that he is

foaming at the mouth and crazy and

he had given an interview to Michael

Wolff that made news before this

dinner where me said I'm Darth

Vader, I'm say it tan. He came in

with a great mood and sat down and

one of the first thing he said, we

are going to move the Embassy to

Jerusalem in Israel and they had a

discussion about that. Then they

started ticking off cabinet

appointments, Supreme Court

appointments. They were, he was... I

would say it was his relationship

with the president was he was a take

charge guy and there were things he

said that made me think he didn't

think Donald Trump was dwell on the

details.

A lot of what Wolff recounts

suggests a man in the White House

who is not really in control of his

faculties, who is impetuous, who is

perhaps losing his mind, who has not

had the trust of many of his

advisers and start first. Is that

something that you see and

recognise, or is this Wolff going

too far and just writing down

conversations without verification,

as Sebastian Gorka said?

I remember

Michael Wolff, for starters, I know

Sarah Huckabee Sanders got upset and

said they didn't know he in there,

he wasn't allowed. Whatever the

actual scenario was, let's say

Donald Trump really didn't know,

which I don't believe that there was

a reporter sitting in the west wing

for weeks and weeks without his

knowledge? What does it say about

the organisation of the White House

or its press team? I don't think

there's a good answer anyone can

come up with about why Michael Wolff

was in there, except that he was

allowed, which in hindsight it

embarrassing.

One last thought, if

this is read by critics of Trump,

they will happily believe it because

it feeds their narrative. Would it

make any difference to his base, and

will this public split with Steve

Bannon hurt Trump's electoral

chances this year or next time?

I

think Bannon and Trump are a

lovesick couple that go back and

forth. I don't think it's anything.

It's a mutually beneficial

relationship. I don't think this is

the end of them. I'd be surprised.

There is such a narrative that's

been constructed since Trump was

running, since he was the candidate,

that everything is fake, and it's an

easy way to dismiss things you don't

like, so do think that Michael Wolff

in a book with troubling details

will be treated any differently to

any member of the press who has sat

and reported on Donald Trump for a

year would be naive. If Michael

Wolff had released a bomb cyclone of

news about Donald Trump, that

happens to make their heat on this

particular book hotter than any

story in the New York Times or the

Guardian for what ever else has been

covering Trump for this time.

Thank

you for coming in.

The former black cab driver

John Worboys was convicted of 19

offences, including one rape,

although police believe

he attacked many more women.

Yet he was released this week

after a decade behind bars,

to the shock and surprise

of his victims.

What was it that led

to such a short sentence?

And how likely is it that such

a prolific offender can be

reformed to the point

where he won't offend again?

Our policy editor, Chris Cook,

has a look at the sentencing,

parole and rehabilitation

of sex offenders.

John Worboys, the so-called black

cab rapist, is suspected of perhaps

hundreds of assaults.

After an investigation

riddled with mistakes,

he was finally jailed indefinitely

in 2009, but he's been cleared

for release from prison

after just nine years.

Part of the issue with the Worboys

case is that he was only tried

and convicted for a subset

of the crimes for which he

is the prime suspect,

so he was convicted for one count

of rape, five counts of sexual

assault, one attempted sexual

assault and a dozen cases

of drugging his victims.

For all of that, he got

an indefinite sentence,

so he had to serve a minimum

of eight years in prison,

after which he could be released,

but only if he could prove

that he no longer posed

a danger to the public.

The process is tough on victims,

especially as a number were not told

that Worboys was going to be

released at the end of this month,

and most of the 83 complainants

to the CPS never got

their cases heard.

There are some victims

who want their day in court,

but there are others who don't

want to appear in court and feel

that's right for them.

But this comes back

to communicating to victims.

If we are hoping to gain confidence

for victims to come forward,

in such horrific cases,

I may add, we have got to have

better communication.

Where cases weren't taken to court,

it was either because of a lack

of evidence or because they were not

expected to add to his sentence,

but not taking them to court also

means the parole court can't take

account of them.

If you think about the sentencing

process and the parole review as two

ends of the same process,

with the sentencing judge deciding

that the person should

have their liberty taken away

from them and the Parole Board

deciding at the end of that process

whether it should be given back

to them, you certainly wouldn't

consider at the sentencing stage

taking into account the views

of people who had made untested

complaints against somebody,

complaints that hadn't

been proven in court,

and it's exactly the same,

or it should be, as regards

the parole review.

One curiosity of our judicial system

is we are not permitted to know how

Worboys argued he is

no longer a risk.

The statutory instrument governing

the Parole Board says information

about proceedings must not

be made public.

I'm not allowed by law to explain

the reasons for our decision,

and I've said before,

I'd like to get that changed,

and so if this pushes the idea

that the Parole Board processes need

to be much more open

and transparent, and we get support

for that, then I think some good

will have come out of all of this,

and people in future will be able

to have much more confidence

in the system.

This isn't the first time that

Professor Hardwick has made

this sort of argument.

Late last year, he gave a speech

which said, "At present,

some of the decisions that we make

are subject to ill-informed

criticism, but how could it be

otherwise when we do not provide

information about why

we made a decision?"

He also has concerns about access

to the parole hearings themselves.

For example, he says

that a victim can attend

to read a victim statement,

but must leave after they have done

so, whereas he was impressed that,

in Canada, anyone can apply

to attend a parole hearing -

victims, academics,

the media and interested

members of the public.

Worboys was a serial

predator who drugged women

before assaulting them.

Without openness, we do not know how

he persuaded the Parole Board

that he is a reformed character.

It's extremely difficult for some

offenders to persuade

the Parole Board that they are fit

to be released.

The usual mechanism of doing

so is completing what are called

mainstream sex offender treatment

programmes, and a report last year

found that the mainstream sex

offender treatment programme wasn't

reducing reoffending rates and,

in some cases, may have

been increasing them.

They've now introduced some

new courses, which are again

completely untested.

Some of the Worboys complainants

had their investigations botched.

Most didn't have their

cases taken to court.

A number weren't told

about his release.

All of them want to know why he is

now considered safe for release.

Now, Viewsnight.

Tonight, with another idea for 2018,

author and columnist Grace Dent.

That was Grace Dent.

In a moment, you're going

to meet Spike and Edward.

Whisper it quietly, but they have

squashed faces and short skulls.

They're French bulldogs.

And vets are urging pet

owners to think twice

about buying them and their ilk,

as they suffer such

bad health problems.

According to data from

the Kennel Club, registrations

of these brachycephalic breeds -

pugs, French bulldogs -

have shot up.

In 2007, just 692 French

bulldogs were registered.

Last year, that went over 21,000.

More than 50% needed

to visit a vet last year

for respiratory linked problems.

So is it cruel to create

these pure breeds?

And should we lose

the pug completely to

save these animals pain?

Joining me now, Lindsey Scanlon,

she runs the French Bulldog Saviours

rescue charity in North Yorkshire,

and Dr Crina Dagu from the London

Vet Clinic, a busy practice.

And Spike and Edward, who are past

their bedtime.

You used to be agreed about you had

a change of heart, didn't you?

Yes,

after I saw how they were mass

produced. I had one litter and I

went to see somebody who was a big

reader, a licensed one, and it was

just something and I thought, if

there are that many people wanting

these dogs, something is going to

happen.

So you recognise they are

not help the dogs, are they?

In my

opinion, if they are bred white and

they are tested right, they can live

happy lives.

-- if they are bred

right. Can they be great in a way

that doesn't hurt them?

The way that

a lot of the breed started out, they

were not as extreme, so if you go

back hundreds of years, they were

talking. At the moment, we are

struggling to find a balance between

the athletics and what's going on

inside them and the problems it

causes in their lives.

When you talk

about the athletics, is there a

hypocrisy in the public mood, that

they want the look of these dogs...

Are we a nation of animal lovers,

even if it causes the dogs pain?

Sure, a lot of celebrities have

them, they are friendly characters,

they are wonderful, very fun dogs.

It's very hard to not fall for the

round, googly eyes, for the Babyface

but, once you have them, you realise

there are not just breathing issues,

thereafter gastrointestinal issues.

-- there are.

Your mum didn't even

get through childbirth.

She was

brought in to rescue unknown that

she was pregnant but she was

purchased on social media. Somebody

from the general public purchaser,

gave into a rescue, not realising

she was heavily pregnant. She got to

the end of her pregnancy and had big

problems, she had a Caesarean

section, and then we told her larynx

collapsed.

So you understand people

saying they should not be bred

purely?

I don't think there was an

issue with reading them all. If they

are bred right, if health tests are

done, and we are trying to educate

people on breed, and if that is

done, there isn't an issues.

What

problems are we talking about? These

two are putty in your hands, fast

asleep, they seem fine. But what is

it that that happens to dogs like

this?

If we took them outside in

warmer weather and we trotted them

for a few minutes, problems might

start coming quite visible. They

have a hard time breathing

oxygenating their blood, because

anatomically they are not... They

are not functioning well. It's not

just the breathing, it's the dye

gesturing, it's everything inside.

Putting back together, should you be

stopping their breed completely? --

not just the breathing, it that I

digestion. Should we see an end to

bulldogs and pugs?

I don't think

it's constructive to ban reading. We

have two breed them right, to breed

them back to where they can

function.

Which means mixing? When

you hear that could be the end to

the pure pug and French bulldog, do

you think that's a good thing or bad

thing?

It's a bad thing. Health

tests should be done before any dog

is bred.

Thank you both. I

appreciate you coming down from

Yorkshire with these little guys.

That's about it for tonight.

We are back on Monday. Have a great

weekend. Good night.