a nasty head collision spelt the end of edison's night and possibly his season. that clearly hurt. son almost equalised soon after but the clumsiness of pedro porro drew the referee's whistle and haaland slammed it home. erling haaland takes manchester city to the cusp of four in a row. champions elect, again. city always seem to find a way, don't they? crucially, they are two points ahead of arsenal, with just one game to go, that a fourth consecutive premier league title is firmly in their grasp. it is theirs to lose, on a nightwear these spurs fans enjoyed the sweet taste of defeat and arsenal fans learned you can't rely on your enemies for help.

this programme continues on bbc one. of its former soviet states,

georgia? an extraordinary day in tbilisi. inside the parliament, the so—called "russia law" was voted through, amid scuffles. outside on the streets, riot police and demonstrators clashed. who will win this fight for the future of georgia? we'll hear from protestors and the main opposition leader. also tonight, we hearfrom union leaders after a five hour meeting with the labour leadership over its plans for extra rights for employees. we were really, really clear today — and they listened — that we want to make sure that new deal for working people is implemented, and that is ourjob to make sure

that happens, and i think we did that job today very well. day two of testimony for donald trump's ex—lawyer michael cohen in that new york court in the ex—president�*s hush—money trial. we'll talk to megyn kelly, journalist, talk show host and us political commentator. and we examine whether the biomass industry is worth the billions of pounds in subsidies the government is ploughing into it. who's going to win the battle for the future of georgia? today mps in the georgian parliament voted through a controversial, divisive law that has prompted weeks of protests. critics say the "foreign agent" law — also known by some as the russia law — would ban dissent. the white house is so concerned by the new bill that it has warned it may have to reconsider its relationship with georgia. today there were clashes between demonstrators and riot police in the capital tbilisi. it's not just about this particular legislation. for many it's about something bigger

— a battle over georgia's future, whether it becomes more european or is dragged back towards russia and its values. our south caucuses correspondent rayan demetri is in tbilisi. tell us what has been happening today and tonight? ihell tell us what has been happening today and tonight? well victoria, it is ast1am today and tonight? well victoria, it is past 1am but _ today and tonight? well victoria, it is past 1am but it _ today and tonight? well victoria, it is past 1am but it is _ today and tonight? well victoria, it is past 1am but it is still _ today and tonight? well victoria, it is past 1am but it is still quite, - is past 1am but it is still quite, this area outside parliament is still full of protesters, and they are making a lot of noise, as you can hear. just now some bikers also part of this protest movement, they drove past this area, and people have been cheering them. it has been a dramatic day here in georgia, and it was the day when the georgian governing party here, georgian dream, despite this mass protest that have been going on for over

three week, they past this controversial law dubbed the russian law but its opponent, we have seen tens of thousands of people taking out to the streets in the past few days, we have seen a very serious campaign of intimidation and threats against the opponents. opposition leader being beaten up and activists, these ngos that have been targeted by this law, also been threatened. people receiving threatening calls and notjust activists but their relatives, even their grand parents —— parents or their grand parents —— parents or their children, so all of this preceding today's vote, and the government passed the law, despite these protests, throughout the protest, the government has been kind of ignoring the voices of these people, that have been standing on this very ground, and demanding the government to withdraw the bill, but

they passed the law, and now it goes to georgia's president, she is in a deep conflict with the government. she's prowestern but she does not have executive power, she promised to veto this law it means they will have about two weeks' time before it goes back to part. and georgian government has enough votes to override her veto.— government has enough votes to override her veto. right, and i 'ust wonderthen. �* override her veto. right, and i 'ust wonder then, if �* override her veto. right, and i 'ust wonder then, if that i override her veto. right, and i 'ust wonder then, if that played i override her veto. right, and ijust wonder then, if that played out. override her veto. right, and ijust wonder then, if that played out as| wonder then, if that played out as you havejust wonder then, if that played out as you have just described, wonder then, if that played out as you havejust described, i mean those demonstrators behind you they look like they are going to be out there all night, tomorrow night, the night after, what to you think will happen? night after, what to you think will ha en? ~ night after, what to you think will ha--en? ~ , night after, what to you think will hauen?. , , , happen? well, these people 'ust turned u- happen? well, these people 'ust turned up while i happen? well, these people 'ust turned up while i i happen? well, these people 'ust turned up while i was i happen? well, these people 'ust turned up while i was talkingh happen? well, these peoplejust turned up while i was talking to l turned up while i was talking to you, well they are determined to keep protesting, until the government withdraw this bill, and the main reason why they're so angry

is because it's more thanjust the main reason why they're so angry is because it's more than just this law. they are saying that they're fighting for their country's future and they are absolutely confident their government, there is quite a lot of, here we go, right in the... take care. 50 lot of, here we go, right in the... take care-— take care. so these protests are marchin: take care. so these protests are marching now— take care. so these protests are marching now to _ take care. so these protests are marching now to freedom - take care. so these protests are l marching now to freedom square, take care. so these protests are - marching now to freedom square, a short, a short distance from here. and the vast majority of these demonstrators, they are young people, they are georgia's again z, today earlier on, when we were broadcasting live for over an hour, as this scene was unfolding, as the clashes were unfolding with the police, i was coming up and talking to lots of these protesters, and it happened to be that most of them were 18—year—olds, and they are saying that this is an existential moment for their country, they believe that their government is trying to drag them back to russia,

and they won't accept it, because they are saying this country has been fighting to break this links with russia for many decades. thank ou. now with russia for many decades. thank yom now the — with russia for many decades. thank you. now the motorcyclists - with russia for many decades. thank you. now the motorcyclists are - you. now the motorcyclists are cominu you. now the motorcyclists are coming back. _ you. now the motorcyclists are coming back, making - you. now the motorcyclists are coming back, making a - you. now the motorcyclists are coming back, making a lot - you. now the motorcyclists are | coming back, making a lot of... yeah, making a lot of noise, thank you so much. we can see them there. with their arms aloft, as they travel through freedom square and it reminds me of protests that we have seenin reminds me of protests that we have seen in other former soviet states. thank you so much. just before we came on air. just before we came on air. before we came on air, i spoke to protestor david zedelashvili, who's also a constitutional lawyer and scholar. he told us what the atmosphere had been like in the streets today and tonight. there was a spontaneous protest in front of the parliament. the protest was dispersed. and now you see once again, the people are in the streets.

they are angry. they are angry, and it is an anger directed to the regime. until now, the major demand of the protest movement was no to russian law, and now the mood is getting angrier and the demands are changing to no to russian regime. ok, but tell me, david, is it realistic, do you think, for people like you and the other demonstrators to get rid of your government? is that what you're saying, or are you you talking about waiting for the elections in october? the only way is the mass protest, and only a mass protest, making the regime to hold free and fair elections, to give up implementation of the russian laws that are designed to undermine

the integrity of elections in this country. that is our major aim now. that's what we are fighting in the streets at this time. how do you want to live your life in georgia? i want to live in a free, democratic european society. they want their own law. and the rule of law is a major theme this government takes. do you have a message for president putin? yes, i have, i have a message for the russian regime. russian imperialism has tried, and unsuccessfully, to subdue georgia, to subdue georgia's european orientation. our dream is a dream of civilization.

david, thank you very much for speaking to us on newsnight and to our audience tonight. thank you. ok, thank you. let's talk now to tina bokuchava, leader of the biggerst opposition party in the georgian parliament. thank you for talking to us. i want to ask you, do you believe this is about russia trying to recontrol georgia? about russia trying to recontrol georaia? . ~ i. about russia trying to recontrol georaia? . ~' ,, about russia trying to recontrol georaia? . ~' . ., georgia? thank you so much for havin: georgia? thank you so much for having me _ georgia? thank you so much for having me on — georgia? thank you so much for having me on your— georgia? thank you so much for having me on your programme. | georgia? thank you so much for - having me on your programme. yes, indeed, this is really an attempt by the russia made billionaire, who rules georgia currently, to derail georgia's euro—atlantic path, and to

leave us only at the behest of russia which has 20% of our country occupied. ourforeign partners have made it abundantly clear including the us, i had the opportunity to meet with him and he said the adoption of this kremlin inspired russian law, which is an attempt to stifle critical voices here in georgia, would be rupture point for the georgia—us relationship and for the georgia—us relationship and for the georgia—western relationship at large. the georgia-western relationship at larae. ., ., , large. forgive me for interrupting, so therefore _ large. forgive me for interrupting, so therefore when _ large. forgive me for interrupting, so therefore when you _ large. forgive me for interrupting, so therefore when you look- large. forgive me for interrupting, so therefore when you look at - large. forgive me for interrupting, | so therefore when you look at what is happening in your country, when you look at what is happening in ukraine, is president putin winning? president putin is not winning. he is is not winning in ukraine, and he is is not winning in ukraine, and he is not winning in georgia, and you

can see this in the streets of tbilisi where thousands and thousands and in fact hundreds of thousands and in fact hundreds of thousands of people, and the scale of the peaceful protest has been unprecedented, in georgia's recent history, even the national liberation movement in the �*80s or the peaceful rose revolution of 2003, did not have the scale that we are seeing now where hundreds of thousands of people are protesting the attempt by the government to derail georgia's euro aspiration, this is why putin is not winker because the ukrainian people are standing up to him in ukraine and the georgian people are standing up to putin and the putin inspired russian law that the government is trying to adopt here in georgia. can i ut trying to adopt here in georgia. can i nut it trying to adopt here in georgia. can i ut it to trying to adopt here in georgia. can i put it to you... sorry to interrupt again, can i put it this

was a democratic vote, mps voting in your parliament, on a bill, put forward by democratically elected government. aha, forward by democratically elected government-— forward by democratically elected government. �* ., , . government. a democratically elected government. a democratically elected government eden _ government. a democratically elected government eden hazard _ government. a democratically elected government eden hazard clearly - government eden hazard clearly shifted away and therefore has betrayed the aspirations of the georgian people. this is what has happened over the last four years, that this government has incrementally tried to erode georgia's democratic credentials and the pass of this law i was retracted last year, also due to large—scale protests but now has been adopted through three hearings, and all we have now is the presidential veto, which i suspect the ruling party will overcome, it has, it has also

really signified a rupture point with the georgian people and the aspirations that the georgian people have, for a prosperous, for a stable euro atlantic future. that is why this process is not democratic. also, it is notable to state, that the violence that we have seen in this the streets of tbilisi has been absolutely brutal. it is essentially the equivalent of state terrorism against its own citizens, where opposition leaders, civic activists are brutally being beaten by extra judicial squads, that the billionaire government uses against its own citizen, there have been mass arrest, mass beatings, mass intimidations where people are being ambushed in theirfamily homes, and ambushed in theirfamily homes, and a mercilessly beaten. we also saw

violence today in the plenary hall where i was present, as the government was trying to push through this bill. none of this is democratic. through this bill. none of this is democratic— through this bill. none of this is democratic. 0k. none of this is european- _ democratic. 0k. none of this is european. none of this are the values that the georgian people hold so dear, and that we have been protecting over decades in order to find our place in the european family. find our place in the european famil . . ~ find our place in the european famil . ., ~' ,, , find our place in the european famil . ., ~ , . ., family. thank you very much for talkin: to family. thank you very much for talking to or— family. thank you very much for talking to or our— family. thank you very much for talking to or our audience - family. thank you very much for l talking to or our audience tonight. peace seems to have broken out between sir keir starmer and trade union leaders. one of his fiercest union critics has told newsnight that he's definitely moved "in a labour movement direction" when it comes to workers' rights. the unite boss, sharon graham, told us that after the labour leadership met top union bosses today, that's after some accused starmer of rowing back on their pledges.

so what's going on? nick's here. there was a high noon feeling to this meeting with the trade union and labour party liaison organisation, top members of the shadow cabinet and top union bosses of the main affiliated unions. so sharon graham of the unite union had warned of a rollback on a roll back following the leak to the financial times of the latest version of the new deal for working people from the labour party which appeared to suggest that keir starmer was watering down proposals that are meant to strengthen workers' rights. and there appeared to be big changes, firstly talking about a full and comprehensive consultation with businesses and other groups, would that mean business had a veto? and the second was an apparent slowing down of the pace of the introduction of these changes. introduced in legislation within the first 100 days of a labour government if there is a labour

government, not done and dusted within those first 100 days. after five hours of talks today the trade union leaders came out and seem to be happy and i caught up with sharon graham and said to her had she managed to yank keir starmer from a very pro—business direction into a pro—labour movement direction? well, i couldn't possibly say, but what i will say is that today, he's definitely in the labour movement direction. i mean, for us again, you know, we are there with the workers' voice, and we were really, really clear today — and they listened — that we want to make sure that new deal for working people is implemented, and that is ourjob make sure that happens, and i think we did that job today very well. what do you say to the argument that when the labour movement goes for purity, it usually loses, and what this party needs to do, according to keir starmer, is win. well, i actually think workers' rights is a vote winner. i mean, i'm actually the leader of a trade union, i am with workers all the time up and down the country, and they want more rights. how can we be living in a country, the sixth richest economy

in the world, and you can fire and rehire workers. how is that possibly ok for that to happen? so i think it's a good thing, it's a win—win, it's a win for everybody. what are labour saying? the leadership did not seem to be bothered about those trade union leaders coming up and saying diplomatically we've got away. shadow cabinet embers were silent, angela rayner went out of a side door and this is what labour chair annelise dodds did not say when i caught up with her! anneliese dodds. peace and harmony in the labour movement? you may think the labour leadership the day before prime minister's questions might have more to say. would rishi sunak talk about beer and sandwiches or trade union leaders calling the shots? and out of any tory leader would like to get up of any tory leader would like to get up and running. but the labour

leadership are pretty relaxed about all this. they think they have a very robust set of changes and reforms that they say will transform the lives of working people. and they are adamant there has been no great change from what was agreed within the labour movement at the national policy forum lastjuly that did represent a watering down of the original 2021 proposals. their view is on the consultation with business, no great change. on the timetable for introduction, it was only ever going to legislation introduced within100 days, no way you could get it on the statute book within 100 you could get it on the statute book within100 days. and of the three core proposals from 2021, an outright ban on zero—hours contracts, outright ban on hire and rehire, full employment rights from day one, those had all been watered down by lastjuly. and at the time since then the trade unions have

agreed that national policy forum document. . ~ agreed that national policy forum document. ., ~ , ., , agreed that national policy forum document. . ~' , ., , . general secretary of the fire brigades union matt wrack was at the meeting today. help me out, in 2021 labour said in terms of their dealfor help me out, in 2021 labour said in terms of their deal for workers a complete ban for zero—hour contracts and on fire and rehire and full employment protection on day one. neither of the three things are still happening. why have you settled for less for your members? well i will not go into details of what was discussed in a confidential meeting today but we have issued a joint statement this afternoon saying that the agreed national policy forum position which was agreed lastjuly is the basis on which we will develop policy in the run—up to the general election. that is the position of the trade unions took into that discussion and the position we have jointly come out at

the end of that with. what position we have jointly come out at the end of that with.— the end of that with. what i do not understand — the end of that with. what i do not understand and _ the end of that with. what i do not understand and perhaps _ the end of that with. what i do not understand and perhaps your- the end of that with. what i do not - understand and perhaps your members may not understand is why you accepted that? we may not understand is why you accepted that?— may not understand is why you acceted that? ~ ., ., ., .. , accepted that? we are not accepted any watering — accepted that? we are not accepted any watering down. _ accepted that? we are not accepted any watering down. in _ accepted that? we are not accepted any watering down. in 2021- accepted that? we are not accepted any watering down. in 2021 it - accepted that? we are not accepted any watering down. in 2021 it was i accepted that? we are not accepted | any watering down. in 2021 it was to be a complete _ any watering down. in 2021 it was to be a complete ban _ any watering down. in 2021 it was to be a complete ban on _ any watering down. in 2021 it was to be a complete ban on zero-hours i be a complete ban on zero—hours contracts. if i be a complete ban on zero-hours contracts. . ., , be a complete ban on zero-hours contracts-— contracts. ifi could 'ust finish, we have agreed _ contracts. ifi could 'ust finish, we have agreed the- contracts. if i could just finish, we have agreed the policy - contracts. if i could just finish, i we have agreed the policy agreed contracts. if i could just finish, - we have agreed the policy agreed at the national policy forum injuly, the national policy forum injuly, the policy—making process in the labour party, that all the unions attended and it was a long and difficult process and that is the basis on which we go forward. and what we've all agreed is that clearly work needs to be done on how you turn that into actual legislation. and we accept that is difficult process to take undertake and we will sit down in the next few weeks with the labour party to achieve that.— weeks with the labour party to achieve that. ., ., ., , ., achieve that. can i get an answer to the question — achieve that. can i get an answer to the question which _ achieve that. can i get an answer to the question which is _ achieve that. can i get an answer to the question which is why _ achieve that. can i get an answer to the question which is why have - achieve that. can i get an answer to the question which is why have you | the question which is why have you accepted that what was agreed, it is

rolling back on that.— rolling back on that. there is no rowin: rolling back on that. there is no rowing back _ rolling back on that. there is no rowing back in _ rolling back on that. there is no rowing back in terms _ rolling back on that. there is no rowing back in terms of - rolling back on that. there is no rowing back in terms of this - rolling back on that. there is no i rowing back in terms of this policy, what was agreed in policy discussions at the national policy forum lastjuly is what will go into the process for the labour manifesto and this has the potential is the unions are committed to, the unions were in unanimous on this, potentially transforming the working lives of millions upon millions of people. why should the world of work be one of low pay and exploitation and we are determined to put an end to that an increase workers' rights and trade union rights. that is the agenda that is affiliated unions we take into this discussion with the labour party. take into this discussion with the labour party-— labour party. sorry to labour the oint but labour party. sorry to labour the point but in _ labour party. sorry to labour the point but in 2021— labour party. sorry to labour the point but in 2021 there _ labour party. sorry to labour the point but in 2021 there was - labour party. sorry to labour the point but in 2021 there was to i labour party. sorry to labour the point but in 2021 there was to be labour party. sorry to labour the i point but in 2021 there was to be a complete ban on zero—hours contracts. complete ban on zero-hours contracts-— complete ban on zero-hours contracts. ~ , ., , contracts. we will see what comes out of the final— contracts. we will see what comes out of the final position _ contracts. we will see what comes out of the final position in - contracts. we will see what comes out of the final position in the - out of the final position in the labour manifesto. as trade unions we are working to deliver what our members have asked and what all our

unions have discussed and what the tuc has discussed and we will take that into the process as labour develops its manifesto for the forthcoming general election. this has the potential for improving lives of tens of millions of working people across the country. and i think the unanimity of the trade unions in the meeting today is a reflection of how important the unions see that as being. haifa unions see that as being. how unha-- unions see that as being. how unhappy are — unions see that as being. how unhappy are you _ unions see that as being. how unhappy are you that - unions see that as being. how unhappy are you that nancy elphick is now a labour mp?— is now a labour mp? you're talking about a different _ is now a labour mp? you're talking about a different matter— is now a labour mp? you're talking about a different matter here - is now a labour mp? you're talking about a different matter here but l about a different matter here but yes no secret with lid, we've written a letter to keir starmer expressing our concern about natalie elphicke becoming a labour mp. in my view and in our view her policies had not changed, she remains a right—wing anti—worker, anti—trade union politician. have not changed, she has just union politician. have not changed, she hasjustjumped union politician. have not changed, she has justjumped from a sinking ship. she has 'ust “umped from a sinking shi -. ~ , ., she has 'ust “umped from a sinking shi. ~ , ., , ., she has 'ust “umped from a sinking

shi.~ , ., ., , ship. when you first heard that she had switched _ ship. when you first heard that she had switched to _ ship. when you first heard that she had switched to labour— ship. when you first heard that she had switched to labour what - ship. when you first heard that she had switched to labour what did i ship. when you first heard that she | had switched to labour what did you think? i had switched to labour what did you think? ~' had switched to labour what did you think? ~ , ., , ., ~ ., think? i think it is a mistake for the parliamentary _ think? i think it is a mistake for| the parliamentary parliamentary labour party to accept her under the labour party to accept her under the labour whip. labour party to accept her under the labourwhip. i labour party to accept her under the labour whip. i think my views reflect those probably of the majority of union and labour party members and they've made those views clear, she is explicitly on trade union rights have supported the latest anti—trade union laws and spoken out in favour of those were as keir starmer is committed to repealing latest bit of legislation. and she specifically attacked members of unions for taking strike action. so we are justifiably angry about her comments and will express our views to keir starmer.— our views to keir starmer. should she have the _ our views to keir starmer. should she have the whip _ our views to keir starmer. should she have the whip removed? - our views to keir starmer. should she have the whip removed? i - our views to keir starmer. should l she have the whip removed? i think that is the logical _ she have the whip removed? i think that is the logical position, - she have the whip removed? i think that is the logical position, yes. - she have the whip removed? i think that is the logical position, yes. i. that is the logical position, yes. i do not think values reflect labour party values and when you consider other people who have lost the whip it seems unfair to us that other people have had endless delays in

having their cases heard while natalie elphicke is taking it to the parliamentary labour party. thank ou ve parliamentary labour party. thank you very much- — donald trump's former lawyer michael cohen was back for his second day of testimony in the ex—president�*s hush—money trial. mr cohen has told the court that trump approved a plan to reimburse him for $130,000 paid to adult film actor stormy daniels as hush money. the ex—fixer�*s evidence gets to the heart of the prosecution's argument, that trump falsified business records to cover up payments to daniels. trump has pleaded not guilty to 3a counts of fraud and also denies having any sexual encounter with daniels. mr trump's defence team attacked cohen's credibility as a witness, he admitted lying but said he did it out of "loyalty" and to "protect" trump. let's talk to will pavia, new york correspondent for the times, who was in court. tell our viewers what happened

today? we tell our viewers what happened toda ? ~ ., ., today? we had the end of the prosecution — today? we had the end of the prosecution questioning - today? we had the end of the | prosecution questioning where michael cohen talked about protecting charm and line for him. he also described after he was investigated for campaign violations investigated for campaign violations in finance how he saw there was a pressure campaign to get him to stay loyal and not turn on the president. there were some chuckles when he said that in the public gallery because he was of course testifying against donald trump at the time. thenin against donald trump at the time. then in the afternoon we had the defence opening cross examination and it started with a bang because the attorney for donald trump said we have not met michael cohen but while the trial was under way you called me something unprincipled which michael cohen had to acknowledge. so it started with feisty exchanges about things that were said about donald trump. getting michael cohen to acknowledge

that he hoped that donald trump would be convicted and he wanted to see him hedged like an animal which is not something you necessarily want your star witness to say publicly as the trial is getting under way. 50 publicly as the trial is getting under way-— publicly as the trial is getting under wa . j , ., , ., under way. so they're trying to show he is out for — under way. so they're trying to show he is out for revenge? _ under way. so they're trying to show he is out for revenge? exactly - under way. so they're trying to show he is out for revenge? exactly and l he is out for revenge? exactly and sa in: , it he is out for revenge? exactly and saying. it can _ he is out for revenge? exactly and saying, it can cast _ he is out for revenge? exactly and saying, it can cast him _ he is out for revenge? exactly and saying, it can cast him as - he is out for revenge? exactly and saying, it can cast him as a - he is out for revenge? exactly and saying, it can cast him as a kind . he is out for revenge? exactly and | saying, it can cast him as a kind of embittered employee seeking to blame his troubles on donald trump. he said he was so enamoured with donald trump and almost obsessed with him and michael cohen admitted that he had loved working for him. but of course that he felt let down and betrayed by him. so definitely saying that he had an axe to grind, that was the theme of the cross—examination. that was the theme of the cross-examination.- that was the theme of the cross-examination. and how was donald trump — cross-examination. and how was donald trump reacting _ cross-examination. and how was donald trump reacting listening l cross-examination. and how was l donald trump reacting listening to this? it donald trump reacting listening to this? , ., ., donald trump reacting listening to this? , ., , ,

this? it is hard to say because he had his eyes _ this? it is hard to say because he had his eyes closed, _ this? it is hard to say because he had his eyes closed, he - this? it is hard to say because he had his eyes closed, he looked . this? it is hard to say because he l had his eyes closed, he looked like he was asleep or mayjust have been pretending to be, for much of the cross—examination. at moments he seemed to come under direct examination reading some of these extracts but for a lot of the afternoon he was sitting with his eyes closed and some of the time with his chin on his chest. so he did not look like he had any huge reaction so far.— did not look like he had any huge reaction so far. just before we came on air tonight i spoke to the us journalist, television and podcast host megyn kelly — someone who has interviewed donald trump multiple times — about what she makes of the proceedings at this stage in the trial. i asked how she thought the case was playing out across the states. it is hard to say- _ playing out across the states. it 3 hard to say. legally the case is a joke and never should have been brought. but i believe it is going to play well but the jury and in all likelihood they will convict him because the judge is

likelihood they will convict him because thejudge is biased likelihood they will convict him because the judge is biased against donald trump and the jury instructions which are make or break will be biased against donald trump and prosecutors have done what they need to do in order to lay down that path. so i do expect a conviction but i do not think is right.- but i do not think is right. when ou sa but i do not think is right. when you say looks — but i do not think is right. when you say looks expect _ but i do not think is right. when you say looks expect a - but i do not think is right. when l you say looks expect a conviction that would be because the jury has listened to all the evidence in court and come to that conclusion? yes but i really think that the jury instructions are what will make the case. if they had an honestjury instruction it would ask the journey to decide whether the hush money payment to stormy daniels was made and understood by donald trump and they would ask whether this is the kind of payment that would ever be paid outside of the electoral context. that is the relevant question to determine whether it is governed by campaign finance law which is the underlying crime they say he violated. if the answer is

no, hush money is paid in many circumstances having nothing to do with an election then that should be the end of this case. but what we have got to as a world in which the media and thejudge pretending have got to as a world in which the media and the judge pretending that the relevant inquiry is did he have a dual purpose or is itjust for the campaign. it does not matter what was in his head, the law says that we look at the nature of the payment. not the subject of belief of the payer. so i think it will be reversed on appeal. haifa of the payer. so i think it will be reversed on appeal.— of the payer. so i think it will be reversed on appeal. how do you think this is affecting _ reversed on appeal. how do you think this is affecting trump _ reversed on appeal. how do you think this is affecting trump and _ reversed on appeal. how do you think this is affecting trump and his - this is affecting trump and his political fortunes? this is affecting trump and his politicalfortunes? if this is affecting trump and his political fortunes?— this is affecting trump and his political fortunes? if anything i think helping _ political fortunes? if anything i think helping him. _ political fortunes? if anything i think helping him. we - political fortunes? if anything i think helping him. we had - political fortunes? if anything i think helping him. we had a i political fortunes? if anything i i think helping him. we had a new political fortunes? if anything i - think helping him. we had a new york times poll released yesterday that was a follow up on a pole that they did six months ago in november. almost identical in results. here in the united states it boils down to the united states it boils down to the swing states basically and how they will vote because other states

are reliably red or blue so a handful of swing states decide the election and it shows that trump is leading in five out of six by hefty margins in most of the states. and thatis margins in most of the states. and that is what it showed also in november. since novemberjoe biden has unleashed tens of millions of dollars in advertising in the swing states trying to bash donald trump. the criminal trial, the first of a possible and sitting us president has begun and he has been smeared night and day but it has not done a thing. and so i do not think that their campaign is helping the democrats and there is still evidence it is turning. would you expect the polls to change for the worse if there is a

conviction or might he do better in the polls? conviction or might he do better in the olls? . , conviction or might he do better in the olls? ., , , , ., the polls? that is the big question riaht the polls? that is the big question right there. _ the polls? that is the big question right there. you — the polls? that is the big question right there, you are _ the polls? that is the big question right there, you are asking - the polls? that is the big question right there, you are asking the - right there, you are asking the right there, you are asking the right question. the polls right now say that some 20% of republicans and many more independents say if he is a convicted felten they won't vote for him. i don't believe it. i don't believe it. i don't believe it, because if you look at the polls we just discussed the new york times poll, that is not how they are answering pollsters now and they all i know he on trial for a felony in new york, i don't believe it because people are notorious for trying to sound like a good person, when they speak to a pollster, convicted felon, no not me and then they are poll, that is not how they are answering pollsters now and they all i know he on trial for a felony in new york, i don't believe it because people are notorious for trying to sound like a good person, when they speak to a pollster, convicted

felon, no not me and then they are in the voting booth, "yeah, trump". i believe that maybe it would be different if he was convicted on one of the federal cases but this is being criticised by democrats everyone as thin as best. i being criticised by democrats everyone as thin as best. i want to ask ou everyone as thin as best. i want to ask you as — everyone as thin as best. i want to ask you as a _ everyone as thin as best. i want to ask you as a rally _ everyone as thin as best. i want to ask you as a rally in _ everyone as thin as best. i want to ask you as a rally in march - everyone as thin as best. i want to ask you as a rally in march donald | ask you as a rally in march donald trump said he thought you were making a carrie by pretending you like —— career by pretending you like —— career by pretending you like him, how do you respond in i am oen like him, how do you respond in i am open about— like him, how do you respond in i am open about the _ like him, how do you respond in i am open about the fact _ like him, how do you respond in i am open about the fact i _ like him, how do you respond in i —.n open about the fact i don't like him. not pretending. but, idon't have to like him. i like his policies, and i have been open about that too. i am open about the fact i prefer his policies to those ofjoe biden, but is he a good man in my opinion? i have thoughts and i have some questions on it but these are the nominees we have and it is a mostly bilateral choice and so i have said before, there are certain issues that are driving my vote and i certainly couldn't pull the lever for i certainly couldn't pull the leverforjoe biden.

more than 80 mps and 50 peers have written to the prime minister today to ask him to end the subsidies for a controversialform of renewable energy. they argue burning trees in the uk is not a justifiable way of preventing climate change. kate's here. fill us in. this is about biomass, and the idea _ fill us in. this is about biomass, and the idea is _ fill us in. this is about biomass, and the idea is that _ fill us in. this is about biomass, and the idea is that tree - fill us in. this is about biomass, and the idea is that tree unlike l and the idea is that tree unlike fossil fuels can be regrown quickly and absorb the carbon, we use it, about 11% of electricity here comes from biomass, governments are seen it a as way of boosting renewable energy but it is controversial partly because how much carbon is released and where you get your wood from. so some is lowering emissions whereas other ideas whereas if we harvest regrown forest that would be higher than coal and despite that, it looks really good on paper and thatis it looks really good on paper and that is because international regulations mean that carbon

emissions are counted where the biomass is cut down not where it is burned. if you import the wood as most is here in the uk, it doesn't count towards our biomass tally. and count towards our biomass tally. and there is loads of money involved in this there is loads of money involved in thi - , ,, ., there is loads of money involved in thi , ., ., this there is. so eto encourage the industry the _ this there is. so eto encourage the industry the government _ this there is. so eto encourage the industry the government has - this there is. so eto encourage the industry the government has spent more that than 22 billion since 2002. basically bill payers and more than a third has gone to one company drax who run a massive power station in selby, the government is considering whether to continue the subsidy does after 2027 to bridge a gap to 2030 when other carbon capture subsidies are due to come in, but this letter today has asked for those subs dis to be stopped. the letter is basically saying to the prime minister, "stop wasting money, stop causing unnecessary carbon dioxide, don't pretend that by burning canadian wood in britain we are doing anything to save net emissions." stop the subsidies in 2027. if you can't do it without subsidies, you shouldn't be doing it. we have more nuclear coming.

we could, for that matter, if we can get carbon capture working, we can work on gas more effectively. there are all kinds of ways in which the market will adjust. i'm a great believer in using market incentives, but don't use them in ways which are bogus. well, kate mentioned earlier the uk's largest recipient of green subsidies for biomass, drax. they've been under particular focus, as this year the bbc reported it had burned wood from rare forests in canada. now newsnight has seen evidence of hundreds of environmental breaches at the mills, which turn wood headed to drax into pellets. the uk's largest coal power station transformed to run on renewable energy. by 2018, drax power station in selby had converted four of its units to burn wood pellets.

wood, which is largely sourced from north america, including british columbia in canada. well, it's one of the most beautiful places in the world. a friend of ours, when she saw a photo of the area around our house, said, "oh, i understand why you moved there. you live in a postcard." on the edge of smithers, where jake gilden has lived since 2008, is a mill which dries wood shavings and forms them into pellets which then shipped to the uk to be burnt. that process, he thinks, is impacting his picture perfect environment. it can feel like your lungs are restricted. anybody with a pulmonary condition like asthma or heart conditions often have to stay in their houses, not engage in any of the recreational activities.

so people have to move out of valley who have any kind of lung condition. and itjust is a terrible thing from the point of view of people's health. drax started importing wood pellets from pinnacle renewable energy in western canada in 2012. from 2021, the drax group purchased pinnacle and additional mills. i've seen the smoke columns coming out of those plants. the one in houston, the column of smoke reaches smithers, and you can see it in the wintertime, in particular coming up the valley and adding to our air pollution issues. now all sources of energy have some impact on the environment. but drax has been in the spotlight because it has received hundreds of millions of pounds of green subsidies annually. payments given to the biomass industry. and funded in part by bill payers.

earlier this year, the bbc reported drax burned timber from rare forests in canada, places it had claimed were no go areas. now newsnight has been given data by land and climate review about the next step in drax's supply chain, these pellet mills. and it shows that since drax started sourcing wood pellets from them in 2012 across ten mills, they've breached canadian environmental regulations 189 times. more than 25 violations took place after drax took ownership. most relate to air pollution. those who did this research say the number of breaches is significant. i would say so, especially given the repeated nature of many of these offences. given that locals in some of these towns are already very concerned about the specific air pollutants that drax is breaching, sometimes two times more than they're allowed, in one case three times over the limit.