is devoting serious attention. but for all that, there was no doubt who sparkled the most today — the woman with the diamond. i saw her ring and the diamond is massive! it's absolutely gorgeous. just knowing that you're sitting near meghan and prince harry, it'sjaw—dropping, it's really nice. a glittering future then? it certainly seems to augur well. nicholas witchell, bbc news, nottingham. now it's time for newsnight with emily maitlis. tonight, the net tightens around trump. michael flynn, his former national security advisor pleads guilty to lying to the fbi. was he ordered to do so by the president's son—in—law? and where does this take the mueller investigation now? we're live in washington with those who can explain. also tonight, ten years ago, police raided damian green's office and stumbled across porn on a computer.

is it in the public interest that they tell us? many conservative mps want to know what another police are playing at. any information they found was obtained using police powers. they found nothing illegal and yet evidence is now being put in the public domain. what were those former police officers doing? we'll ask this former chief constable, and a senior tory mp. and, we have new pictures from besieged eastern ghouta — just outside the syrian capital, damascus, where we find shocking evidence of widespread starvation — including children. is this the worst humanitarian catastrophe in what has proved a vicious civil war? good evening. to he lied, and he lied, and he lied, and tonight he pleaded guilty to those lies, appearing before the court in washington.

michael flynn was president trump's national security advisor who spent weeks protesting his innocence in dealings with russia. today, he appears to have agreed to a deal with federal prosecutors — which may yet lead them to the president's door. this evening, us networks are reporting that flynn is prepared to testify that donald trump's son—in—law directed him to make contact with the russians before he took office. flynn's decision to cooperate with the investigation led marks flynn's decision to cooperate with the investigation marks a major escalation in the scandal that has dogged trump's presidency — the president's lawyer insists it implicates no one but flynn himself. where will it lead? we head to washington in a moment, first, a look at the day's events. this was the moment many had been waiting for. a guilty plea by one at the top officials in the original trump administration. michael flynn accepted he had lied to the fbi about his communications with russia. he is no stranger to controversy. if i, a guy who knows this business,

if i did a tenth of what she did, lock her up, that's right. the lieutenant general was a passionate supporter of trump and his controversial policies. defending the mexican wall to me, when i caught up with him at the republican convention. as a military man, when he is talking about building a wall. when he is talking about a ban... yeah, we're going to build a wall. what's the matter with building a wall? i just visited the vatican. the vatican has one of the highest walls around it. why? why does the vatican have a wall around it? his loyalty was repaid. he was on the short list as trump's vice presidential pick, eventually becoming national—security adviser. it was an appointment that president obama himself had warned against, telling trump the day after the election not to bring

flynn into the white house. the beginning of his downfall came even before he was in thejob. allegations surfaced of a meeting he held with the russian ambassador about sanctions. conversations flynn first denied having, then remembering. he hung on for the best part of a month, was fired just 2a days into the job, when it became clear he'd misled the vice president, mike pence, with his lies. the president was very concerned that general flynn had misled the vice president and others. the evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation and a series of other questionable instances is what led the president to ask for general flynn's resignation. trump also then asked the fbi directorjames comey to end his investigation into ties between flynn and russia, that was according to news reports at the time. trump denied making such a request but he fired comey some months later. comey was quick to set straight his side of the story.

the administration then chose to defame me, and more importantly, the fbi, by saying that the organisation was in disarray. that it was poorly led. that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. those were lies, plain and simple. today's guilty plea accompanies flynn's promise to cooperate in the probe but the real question in all this is what chief prosecutor robert mueller really wants. flynn appears to have already cut a deal to shorten a possible five—year prison sentence. mueller will want something big in return. the prize many think he has his eyes on? trump himself. seth abramson is an attorney and writer who repeatedly accused the trump campaign of collusion with the russian government. he is in new hampshire. and ron christie is a republican strategist. he's in our washington bureau. gentlemen, great to have you both.

thank you. seth, tell us how big you think this is. for our audience, what is the most serious charge now? this is the biggest news in the russia probe so far by a fairly good distance. it means a prosecutor doesn't offer this order plea agreement to the defendant, unless a defendant can offer incriminating evidence against someone who is above them on the chain of command. and someone who is above the national security adviser would be the president and vice president of the united states. you don't think this is about wheeling injared kushner, the president's son—in—law, you think this goes to trump's doorstep? there are a number of people who are lateral in the hierarchy which includes donald trump jr and jared kushner who may be looked at, but you would not offer this sort of deal which was a sweetheart dealfor mike flynn, unless you are going up the chain

of command rather than laterally. you are not seriously suggesting this could indicate both the president and vice president? where would that leave the administration? mike pence was the head of the transition team. all of the allegations right now against mr flynn involve his behaviour and negotiations over sanctions while he was on the transition team. a statement says mike flynn spoke to very senior officials on the transition team while he was engaged in these negotiations. jared kushner has already been identified as one of those officials, but people suspect mike pence could be one of the others as he was running the transition team. ron, i will bring you in, and it's a brave republican to try and defend this tonight. what do you make of what you are hearing? good evening, emily. i am not as troubled by seth is by what unfolded here today. let me explain this. as someone who worked for a presidential transition back in 2000 for the bush administration, you are working in a government building, right behind us

here in washington, dc. you are doing everything you can to transition so when the president of the united states leaves the parade route and walks into the white house, the staff are up and fully running. on a daily basis, as a domestic policy adviser, it would be yourjob to speak to other officials in the government. i would surmise that as a national security adviser, coming into the administration, it would be yourjob to establish relations with foreign ambassadors in the united states, who are serving their nations. so the notion that mr flynn lied, that is his responsibility, and that is why he was fired 25 days into the trump administration by the president himself, for those lies, for which he was implicated and indicted today. to suggest this goes to the president or the vice president themselves, i think that is way to speculative at this point and there is no evidence in fact to prove that allegation.

is there anything wrong with what flynn is now accused of doing? let's be clear, the allegations right now are not that mr flynn was trying to establish a relationship with the russians in december 2016, it is that he was negotiating us policy on sanctions and israel, before he and mr trump were actually the legal government of the united states, and that is a violation under the logan act which is very rarely enforced, but it has to do with citizens illegally negotiating with foreign governments, having no colour or authority to do so. having said that, let's understand the allegations which came out today and what mr flynn pled to is only the smallest point of what he told mr mueller, who was careful to shield what he knew about mr flynn's conversations in his charging documents. ron, i'm trying to work out if you are representative of other republicans, in office,

i saying this is nothing to worry about. or is there a growing voice which says this is becoming too big to ignore? emily, i come at this from the perspective of being a lawyer and having served in the white house and four years, and knowing what it is like to bring the government up to speed so the president and vice presidents can assume office. the logan act is... but you would never have done these things. you would never have set up meetings with russian ambassadors in that transition period, would you? i would not have, absolutely not. but the logan act which was passed in 1799 says it is illegal for private citizens to interfere with official government business. i would contend to you as a lawyer, if you're working a federal office building in the united states, and you're bringing the president and vice president into office, it is not meddling as a private citizen of any conversations he might have. why would he live in? —— why would

he like? —— lie? why would he live in? —— why would he like? -- lie? that is the 64 million question. presumably, just back to you, seth, if he has pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi and he has cut some sort of deal, what would that look like? we are not used to plea bargaining here, talk us through it. the maximum sentence mr flynn pleaded guilty to has a one to five year sentence in prison, but he could see no time in federal prison whatsoever. mr christie keeps referring to federal buildings being used for the transition — it should be clear from the statement of the offence today that mr flynn was having contact with "very senior officials in the transition" who were at mar—a—lago in florida, not in a federal building, and at the time is the flynn was having those buildings, mr trump was at mar—a—lago. i'm not a defender of mrtrump oer pence. i speak from experience

which suggests that where the president elect or the vice president elect might be. just because they are not physically in the office building i am making reference to does not mean it is nefarious, that he was at mar—a—lago. i will agree with you on this. seth's comment about the terms, as a lawyer i look at this and say the special counsel is clearly going higher, because the crimes he was alleged to have committed would have put him injail for 20 plus years. there is clearly someone else that general flynn will be co—operating with, with the special counsel, that could take us even further inside the gates of the white house. and as to who that person is or who the persons might be, i think that is what the next parlourgame here in washington is, who is next? we have run out of time but thank you forjoining us. the case of pornography found on a minister's office computer raises serious questions.

is the deputy pm lying? or is the story of a police officer who's overreached his powers. today, theresa may's deputy, damian green, strongly denied once again that he had downloaded or viewed pornography on his office computer. it came as a response to the claims of a retired police detective, neil lewis, who said thousands of legal images were found on it nine years ago, and that the investigation at the time should never have been closed. he believes it was in the public interest to reveal this now. scotland yard is investigating him for allegedly leaking the confidential material. so, who do you trust? and how comfortable are we with the way this has emerged? we'll speak to a former police officer and to green's colleague dominic grieve. first, here's david grossman. it is worth reminding ourselves why police came to search computers in damian green's office. the home office claimed a threat to national security. the cabinet office asked the net to find the mole.

the cabinet office asked the met to find the mole. without a warrant the met persuaded the commons authorities to let them search damian green's parliamentary office. there was outrage among mps, especially as police concluded he had not committed a public offence. the then director of public prosecutions who throughout the case is now a labour shadow minister. ——threw out. i have concluded the information leaked was not secret information or information affecting national security. skip forward nine years and retired police officers are now alleging that mr green's computer had pornography on it, although nothing illegal. former pc neil lewis examined one of the computers in 2008, and has spoken exclusively to bbc news. the shocking thing was, as i was viewing it, i noticed a lot of pornography thumbnails, which indicated web browsing. but a lot, a lot of them.

mr green, however, denies having done anything wrong. i have said i am not commenting any further while the investigation is going on. i have maintained all along, i still maintain it is the truth that i did not download or look at pornography on my computer. but obviously, while the investigation is going on, i can't say any more. the raid on mr green's parliamentary office was controversial at the time and it is controversial again. many conservative mps want to know what the police are playing at. any information they found was found got using police powers. there was nothing illegal but evidence is now being put into the public domain. there is anger that after his retirement former constable lewis has kept his notebook of the investigation after retirement and is showing it to reporters.

nearly a decade later, to disinter this based on one surviving evidential source, a notebook which constable lewis has kept in his possession after retirement seems more than a little odd. the allegations against mr green have come not only from former constable lewis but from the more senior assistant commissioner, bob quick. is this the police getting involved in politics? i don't think so. there are plenty of politicians around that the police dislike more than damian green. he would not be top of the list. i know him a little and he is an honest man with integrity. i would not anticipate bob quick is doing this maliciously or anything else. it would just appear to be you have police officers with some information and they have shared it in the way they have. meanwhile, the politics is getting complicated. a cabinet office investigation into the conduct of damian green

is expected to report imminently. cabinet colleagues want it resolved quickly. the brexit secretary, david davis, has apparently told friends he may resign if damian green is forced out. dominic grieve is a conservative mp, former attorney general and was shadow home secretary at the time of damian green's arrest in 2008. tim brain is former chief constable of gloucestershire. very nice of you both to come in this evening. do you accept this was unacceptable behaviour? it is chilling that police should have your computer and once they have it they can use it against you whenever they want. they are not using the computer against you, we are looking at notes that the officer kept and has kept for a long time. there is nothing sinister... i don't know if he was told to destroy them. interesting he was

told to destroy them. i find that quite an interesting observation that was made. i have got at home lots of police records that go back 40 years of that there is nothing odd about individual officers keeping their own notes. no one has ever told me to destroy any of that. we're not looking at the computer, we are looking at somebody‘s collection of what is considered to be important. we have to put this into context of has unravelled. have to go back to the weinstein revelations and the moral panic that gripped westminster in the immediate aftermath of that. allegations were made. a cabinet office enquiry has opened up and police officers have come forward with what they saw as relevant information to that inquiry. that is what we are talking about. do think it is about whether a minister has had pornography on his computer? it is a workplace computer. are we happy that our mps can have this kind of material on what is an official computer?

as a member of the public, i would like to know the answer to that. nobody is doubting the fact there is some kind of electronic trace of this material on a computer. we need to have some answers now this information is in the public domain. let's ask dominic grieve. are you happy with that? this cannot be right. other citizens do not have these powers to investigate crime, including carrying out acts like acquiring data that nobody else can. it is for the purpose of a criminal investigation. they acquire that information, whether it is correct or not, and then they decided many years later to put it into the public domain because we think it will make an important point.

they are in breach of their own code of conduct. if they thought it was relevant to this enquiry, what they should have done was to go to cressida dick, the chief commissioner, and to say, might this be relevant to the inquiry being carried out at the cabinet office? and then it would be handed over. neil lewis offered to go to the inquiry but they did not take him up on it and that's why he went to the press. maybe they thought it was irrelevant. there is this information about the minister who was back in the spotlight shouldn't they be doing the public service by coming forward and saying yes, we remember this, even if it was a decade ago? certainly not. i was attorney general. in my time as attorney general i have acquired all sorts of information which would be grossly improper for me to put into the public domain. even if there was pornography on that pc which was being looked at by damian green? you are saying no relevance now? the police went to westminster in 2008 because there was an allegation of a breach

of the official secrets act. actually they carried out a bad investigation which attracted a lot of public criticism. i don't know what they found in the course of that enquiry but it is apparent what they found is not criminal. even on their own say—so it did not lead to any criminal prosecution, nor any criminal investigation, a separate one. eight years later, they choose to put material that an ordinary citizen would be prohibited from acquiring under data protection rules into the public domain on their own judgment. there is a way of dealing with that. if you think something is relevant, you do it by proper official means. you do not go freelancing, as these officers have done. it has the smack of the police state about it. i find it very worrying. is it about a vendetta? it has the sense of bending the bin man about it.

i think we have to look at mr lewis today. i have never seen that officer before in my life until we have seen the images today for some he does not strike me as a vengeful person going through a series of vengeful acts. was he right to do it? we have to look at a different motivation. police officers can feel very strongly about information they might feel the public should know about that is being suppressed. these officers are taking a risk in doing what they are doing. the first risk is the internal enquiry. the second risk is the court of public scrutiny through a slander or libel action. i ask the question, why have they been able to take the big risk, other than they feel it is information which should get into the public domain? what should happen now? should it go to cressida dick? should the pm dismiss the investigation as a result of these actions? where are you? we musn‘t get muddled.

there was an allegation against damian green of misconduct, which is being enquired into by the cabinet office. he denies it. that it is a serious allegation and quite rightly it should be investigated. i am not sure i understand the alleged link between that enquiry on the allegation of illegal pornography found on his computer. he denied the access to it. what if he is lying? the issue at the moment is, is it properfor two retired police officers in breach of the police code of conduct to take information which they acquired, or say they acquired, during the course of a criminal investigation it into the public domain? what if the public feels they need to know? we know that with historic cases, people are always been blamed for not coming forward with information they had at theirfingertips.

we give the police powers others do not have. they do not and must not be allowed to abuse those powers. there are ways of dealing with allegations. the police thought this was relevant. there are perfectly clear channels through the met commissioner for dealing with it. not by going to the press. what we are seeing here is exactly what the politicians would like, to focus on the police are not themselves. thank you both very much indeed. on monday, we brought you extraordinary and distressing pictures from eastern ghouta — the part of syria just outside the capital damascus — that has been under siege for years. this week, the united nations called for the urgent evacuation of hundreds of the sick and injured. and tonight, this programme has gathered evidence that food shortages have led to child starvation — and the most widespread malnutrition of the vicious civil war. here's mike thomson — and a warning that it contains distressing images. this is what siege means. young children are among the first to suffer. this is an eight—year—old child.

who in the world would accept that? do you think it is normal? he should be taller and stronger. after nearly four years of siege, the third of children surveyed in eastern ghouta are stunted, due to malnutrition. we are nine people in the house. we have one meal a day until the next morning. at night he does not sleep. he would pick up anything off the floor to eat. with only tiny amounts of aid now trickling in, the un says the plight of the area per flight children has reached crisis proportions. acute malnutrition today is five times higher than it was ten months ago when we did the last malnutrition assessment, close to 12% of children are facing today acute malnutrition in eastern ghouta. that is the highest level of the cute malnutrition we have ever recorded across syria.

there is little food for sale in the markets and the prices are now beyond the reach of most. bread costs 85 times the price it does in neighbouring damascus. and, as winter sets in, the price of a cylinder of gas has topped $300. it is not enough that we are hungry and cold. we are covering ourselves with nylon sheets to keep as warm and lighting fires to cook. god help us extra is what we are like barn animals now. we eat barley. what can i say? with few if any nutrients to hand out, doctors are rovman powell is to help. translation: we are witnessing incidents where children are fainting at school because parents are sending their children to school without having breakfast, and sometimes without even having dinner. within 24 hours a child sometimes receives no meals. with food and medical supplies

vanishing, and this week woith its brief ceasefire now at an end, the un is desperately trying to get those with the most urgent medical needs evacuated. local officials insist the area's malnourished children must be brought out too. if we wait another month, 11% of children, most of them will die. most of them are critical. over recent weeks, many families have lived in their basements, the only places offering shelter from the bombs and mortars. but there is no refuge from hunger. translation: we are picking up anything we can, even food from the bins. my twin babies are dying. we need milkjust for the twins. everything's expensive. for the sake of god, open the road.

i kiss your hands and feet. we're dying, dying of hunger. the fear is, having created this hunger, bringing the rebel enclave to its knees, only victory might persuade the syrian government to break its own siege. mike thomson. lina khatib is head of the middle east programme at the chatham house think tank. just seeing some of those images seems incomprehensible. this is meant to be the de—escalation zone, an area where things were getting better. actually, things never got better in ghouta. ghouta has been under siege forfour years now. it is only nominally part of the de—escalation zone agreement. we are seeing an escalation, as we can see. the ceasefire that was in place for a short period of time has quickly ended.

since mid—november we have seen around 250 air strikes in the area. the humanitarian corridor has been shut off by the forces of assad. why is that still in place if he feels dominant there? he does not yet feel he has won. the strategy the regime is using in eastern ghouta has been used before in areas like madaya, which got a lot of media attention because there was a famine in that area. it was used in homes and also eastern aleppo. it is a strategy. until the regime is satisfied that the rebel groups holding these areas have essentially broken down, it will not lift the siege. unfortunately it is not over yet in eastern ghouta.

if you're looking and saying there should be used that the absence of isis should have given syrian people hope, shouldn't it? this is the problem when only the terrorist angle is focused upon. the conflict is about more than terrorism. it is essentially about a regime that has been oppressing its people and this oppression contributed to the rise of terrorism and other things. so, ghouta has nothing to do with isis. it has been running parallel to the isis problem. in four years of sieges, isis only rose since 2013. ghouta was under siege since 2013. when you look back over this period, what are the strategic points missed? should there have been an intervention on assad sooner or was when putin came in? what do you think?