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 it's dominated news the world over, we speak to those inside the white house. and to one present on the same occasions described within the book's 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 this nor desisted and instead the publication of the explosive book forward. fire and fury is the work of michael wolff, journalist who says he has access to the white house to much of the last year and spoke to the president while writing it. trump ‘s dismissed it as lies, says he never allowed the access. others have also questioned the a ccu ra cy others have also questioned the a ccu ra cy of others have also questioned the accuracy of the detail in the book. but the president is clearly spooked by the allegations within it.|j 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 aids and advisers who scorned his abilities. the big question its races abilities. the big question its ra ces a re abilities. the big question its races are existential. was a treasonous trump ‘s fund to meet with russian officials during the
campaign? with russian officials during the ' 7 is 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. the council donald trump's phobias, his fast food addiction, he is viewing habits, as well as its relations with his wife, his daughter, early bedtime. the book is a ready claimed its first skull, an almighty row has broken out between the president and his former white house to just stephen bannon whose comments first appeared in the book. with to sue the other, then and found himself put out of big donorfunding then and found himself put out of big donor funding since then and found himself put out of big donorfunding since it appeared. any questions, who will get his pen, i don't know? it raises the spectre ofan i don't know? it raises the spectre of an open secret shared by many. to those who worked with and around donald trump, they recognise the same world wolf describes, a white house with no plan, a leader with no strategy, an impulsive peak president who acts upon his instincts time and time again with no interest in third—party views. or
has the right to haka fictionalised the world? has the right to haka fictionalised the world ? trump has the right to haka fictionalised the world? trump ‘s critics were simply going to see. the bigger question, the fundamental one perhaps if this— will any that is written in these pages change trump ‘s palok all the way those voted for him see him now? the answer is no, then fire and fury mayjust be sound and fury, ultimately signifying nothing. to me now is sebastian gorka, to ' —— deputies destined to donald trump and knows the white house well. i know in your previous news encounters we have analysed whether newsnight at self is fake news, et cetera, so to the sake of our few with as the sake of moving the story on, what do we agree to recognise that that is how you view things and this time shed a little bit more light on how you see operations in the white house. it is good of you to join us.
operations in the white house. it is good of you tojoin us. was operations in the white house. it is good of you to join us. was there anything in the coverage of michael wolff's book that struck a chord with you, that he recognised? nothing at all, especially if you look at the basic facts, he gets com pletely look at the basic facts, he gets completely wrong, it is except that of ready been published, he can't even get right with the president newjohn boehner, he says on the day that he became president he had never heard of him, the speaker of the house john boehner when never heard of him, the speaker of the housejohn boehner when any child can go on google and put in the name donald trump and john boehner and find photographs of those to mendelssohn with each other two years ago. on page ten, the author, michael wolff, who has been caught lying repeatedly in the past in his previous books, states that he cannot verify the accuracy of anything that is in the book. 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 whatjournalists 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. his introduction tells you as much. 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 destroyed. 1.5 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. shejoins me now from la. thank you forjoining us. tell us what went on that night — you were one of a very small select group, just six guests
at the dinner with 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 dr gorka, i think that the position from trump loyalists is that 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, forfive 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, ithink 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 he said "i'm darth vader, i'm satan". 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 tojerusalem 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. he was entrusting bannon. to today now. 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 afterjust 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 ourjudicial 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 a breeder and you had a change of heart, didn't you? yes, after i saw how they were mass produced. i bred one litter and i went to see somebody who was a big breeder, a licensed one, and it wasjust something and i thought, if there are that many people wanting these dogs, something is going to happen. so you recognise they are not well dogs, healthy, are they? in my opinion, if they are bred right and they are tested right, they can live fantastic happy lives. can they be bred in a way that doesn't hurt them? the way that a lot of these breeds started out, they were not
as extreme, so if you dial back hundreds of years, then you're talking. at the moment, we are struggling to find a balance between the aesthetics and what's going on inside them and the problems it causes in their lives. when you talk about the aesthetics, 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 ba byface but, once you have them, you realise
there are notjust breathing issues, thereafter gastrointestinal issues. your mum didn't even get through childbirth. she was brought in to rescue unknown that she was pregnant but she was purchased off 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. 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 the breed, and if that is done, there isn't an issue. what problems are we talking about? these two are putty in your hands, fast asleep, they seem fine.
but what is it that happens to dogs like this? what might happen, if we took them outside in warmer weather and we trotted them for a few minutes, problems might start becoming quite visible. they have a hard time breathing, oxygenating their blood, because anatomically, they are not... they're not functioning well. it's notjust the breathing, it's the digestion, it's everything inside. putting all that together, should you be stopping their breed completely? should we see an end to french bulldogs and pugs? we don't have to ban breeding. i don't think it's constructive to ban breeding.
we have two breed them right, to breed them back to where they can function. which means mixing them? for lindsay, 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? i think 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. goodnight. hello and lock into sports day.