michael cohen tells a packed hearing 'top story: on capitol hill he's ashamed . .._,.\ '\ aflz-xvggfl rgqg «a of the ten years he spent working for mr trump. news. our top story: president obama --'s news. our top story: president obama ——'s formerfixer news. our top story: president obama he is a racist, he is a conman, ——'s former fixer has made a number and he is a cheat. of claims about his former boss, labelling him a liar, 80, and a under oath, he testifies that racist. he said that donald trump donald trump knew his oponents‘ knew beforehand that his democratic opponenfs emails were being hacked, knew beforehand that his democratic opponent's e—mails were being hacked. he also produced the cheque he says was used to pay off the porn and produced the cheque he says was used to pay off the porn star star stormy daniels. president trump stormy daniels. the president of the united states meanwhile, is in hanoi where he is thus wrote a personal cheque about to begin talks with the north for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme korean leader kim jong—un. about to begin talks with the north korean leader kimjong—un. it is thought that they will talk about a to violate campaign finance laws. roadmap for getting the nuclear weapons on the green peninsula. and this video is trending on bbc .com. it is thought to be the world's tiniest surviving baby who has just left hospital after five months in intensive care. he was so small that could be held a fitted between two hands. that is all from me. stay with us on bbc news.

just after half past midnight. it is now time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm sarah montague. my guest today made her name as a journalist on one of russia's leading news websites. galina timchenko was editor of lenta.ru until she was fired, she claims as a result of pressure from the kremlin. she left russia and with some of her former colleagues, set up a new organisation, meduza, in exile, in latvia. it too reaches millions of russians. but what does her self—imposed exile say about media freedom in russia, and should she have stayed to defend herjournalism there? galina timchenko, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you so much. could you have stayed in russia? sure, sure. but you chose to leave — why? it's very a simple question. we left russia in 2014. it was very hard year. it was annexation of crimea. it was war with ukraine. and we realised that after my firing, kremlin administration just doesn't allow me to work in my profession. how do you know that it was the kremlin behind yourfiring? you know, it was obvious because i have heard from my colleagues, maybe a couple of times, that head of inner policy

in kremlin administration said, "who is majors in internet in russian segment of internet? "who is majors, who is the main figures." my colleagues said, "lenta is on the top." he said, "ok, editor—in—chief, editor—in—chief of lenta "will not work next year in lenta," for sure that it was direct order of kremlin. and lenta's owner, russian oligarch alexander mamut, said it directly to me. he said what? he said, "galina, i have no cards to play with kremlin. "they said that i should fire you. "and yourjournalist, ilya azar, who made his reports "from ukraine and euromaidan. "so you are fired this minute." right, and you. . .this was as a result, orjust shortly after an interview you carried with ukrainian far right leader in kiev.

it was trigger, not a reason. because all lenta's independent policy, that was the reason of my firing. because when we reached 3 million unique users per day, i brought these numbers to my owner and said, "ok, this is success." he said, "what? "it's like a federal tv channel audience." i'm scared.

your owner scared of the success you were having. exactly, because kremlin want to control all main channels of information and lenta became number one in russian internet. so you were fired and told the reason you were being is the kremlin weren't happy with you ? yep. what did you say? i say, ok. why — why didn't you push back? i had a contract. lenta.ru was private company and i had contract and owner of the company could fire me at any time. but the media regulator said the reason for that was there have been statements inciting national hatred. do you not accept the charge? ah, nope, nope. but you did carry inflammatory statements by the far right in ukraine. no, we havejust hyperlink

on this interview. president putin's spokesman, dmitry peskov, argues, "if somebody tries to spook the fact that there's freedom of speech "in russia, i am ready to argue with them forever." you know, all these guys from kremlin administration, they blame western media of double standards but they are very truly believers and very devoted believers in double standards. so dmitry peskov or any other kremlin guy could say anything they want about freedom of speech, but there is no freedom of speech in russia today. you say there is no freedom of speech. no. because his argument would be, as you say, not least the uk is guilty of double standards because of their approach

to russia today. oh, oh, it's revenge. it seems to me that, you know, russia today, free to speak as whatever they want to. but, you know, the main problem is that there is no rules in this game. there is no rules. me and my colleagues, we just counted, and we counted 90 laws against media and freedom of speech, 90. but all countries have rules. when you include a hyperlink in an article, are you not aware that you may fall foul, that you may be responsible for what is at the end of that link? you know, speaking about no rules, i may give you one more example. hatred speech is banned in russia and all rude, so—called f words and so on, is banned in russia. but we published all the article about these words, with russian linguists, with russian experts,

and scientists before the law came in power. and after that, they banned this article. it's against all rules. we published this article at i march, for example, and the law maybe ati may, state duma test this law. you're saying they applied is retrospectively? yes, retrospectively. when you are russian journalist or editor, you are like working in a minefield. every metre, every article should, or may, blow you.

you decided to leave, you could have stayed. no. why not? you know, in this year, i realised that russia became new soviet union. and once i lived in soviet union. i didn't want to stay here. because? because soviet union is autocratic state. there is...there is something... the most hatred, the most hatred. it's absence of freedom of speech, it's absence of rule of law, double standards and so on. ijust realised that i do not want to return to soviet union.

so your concern was one of professional standards rather than, for example, feeling fears about your own safety. absolutely. you weren't worried or felt physically threatened or worried about your own safety. never, never. but we mentioned the consideration of russia today in the uk, which is under pressure for breaking british broadcasting rules and the argument is, there are plenty would say that because the regulator, 0fcom, found it a serious failure of compliance, that actually russia today should be sanctioned. do you agree with them? no, i am against all sanctions at all. so whatever rules they break... whatever rules they break, maybe i will disappoint you, but i'm against all sanctions and i'm against banning of all media.

irrespective of what is said. absolutely. because russia began with banning very small media, then banned a little bit bigger media and now we have tens of laws, every law could block you in russia like this. but there are broadcasting rules and laws the government media. we, in russia, have very, very simple and very good broadcasting law, an old law about mass media, and every rules, every rules and regulations are already in this law. i'm against additional banning. right, so, in the case of russia today, it was their coverage of the skripal poisonings when a former russian spy was allegedly poisoned by russian agents in the uk and their coverage was not seem to be impartial in their case, but you are saying, whatever they do wrong, whatever the allegations are...

no, no, no, no, no. they have to follow the rules but i'm against all additional banning and all additional rules. but if they break the existing rules, what are you saying should happen? nothing? some form of sanction? because the argument is if they are sanctioned on russia today, not least when we've heard some suggest that british news organisations, there would be there some retaliation in russia. i think, fine. some not sanctions but maybe they should pay some money for breaking the rules. ok, now, you... i will be ok. you said to me the influence of russia today is overestimated but the influence of russian hackers, or the russian cyber

army, are underestimated. what did you mean by that? you know, i'm in media business for 20 years and i know numbers and audiences of all my colleagues and if we, let's compare, for example, meduza's audience and russia rt audience, russia today audience... meduza is your new news organisation. yes, meduza is my new news organisation. and they are comparable. but meduza doesn't have such influence. nobody is speaking about meduza, you know?. it's some kind of ghost threat or something like this,

because russia today is showing us numbers in youtube, viewers in such other channels, but guys, 0k, please, give us very, very clear numbers of your audience. unique users per month, unique users per day. what do you say meduza's are? meduza has 12 million unique users per month. 12 million. you know that mediascope has 2.3 million monthly in russia. less than i million a day. in which countries, do you know? 70% of our audience live in russia. maybe 10 or 12 in ukraine, in belarus, and countries with big russian diaspora. ok, but your argument seems to be, look, take account of meduza as well as russia today. but there's a separate part to that quote of yours, which is the influence of russian hackers, or the russian cyber army, are underestimated. what are you suggesting is going on? first of all, do they affect you? yes — twice a week, somebody trying

to hack my e—mail or the e—mail of our editor in chief, or our private accounts on facebook or russian social media. and you're saying that hacking is, what, being orchestrated by the russian government? you talk about the cyber army. i know for sure that there are some questions in the kremlin administration concerning meduza, and russian trolls, troll factories, against us, and it was a campaign against us to hack our e—mails, or some private accounts on facebook and social media. you said, as well, russia for sure is deeply involved in the election process in the united states. how — what evidence do you have?

our special correspondent, he — maybe he published four orfive articles, one in cooperation with buzzfeed, about russian hackers, and he is deeply involved in this topic. we investigated russian so—called anonymous international hackers group. at first, maybe russian hackers, maybe they could open mailboxes of campaign managers, of private accounts, of twitter and so on. and russian trolls are deeply involved in a campaign against some topics, for example. so this is, what, inciting, spreading the wrong information about somebody? yes. i mean, you're not talking about some manipulation of the voting system.

no, no, no, no. it's propaganda, and the spread of misinformation. it is a propaganda machine, and it's to influence the public opinion. what is it that makes you an independent news organisation, rather than just dissidents who are campaigning against the current russian government? that is my favourite question, because every time i take part in conferences or forums or internet — some internet debates, everybody, everybody, is talking about fighting against the regime and fighting against propaganda and so on. and every time i say, guys, i'm not fighting against propaganda. i'm not fighting against the regime. i'm fighting for my audience, to promote information. i'm not saying that i am telling truth. authorised information, and to make them — you know, to bring them some

knowledge about what is happening, for real, with reliable sources, and with all sides of stories. 0k, well, let's tell all sides of the story about meduza. yes. who is it funded by? 80% of our budget is covered by advertising revenue, and last 20% thanks to our international partners. who are those international partners? unfortunately, some russian laws are describing — may describe these organisations as undesirable, and i do notjust want to put a target on theirforehead.

what, you won't say who is funding that 20%? you may read some articles about us... the suggestion — you have admitted that an exiled russian oligarch, mikhail khodorkovsky, has given you some funding. it was fine, but it was some kind of compensation for half a year negotiations. the oak foundation, from geneva? the swedish international development agency? no comment, no comment. i could not mention them. i do not want to. now, that is interesting. why, what do you think will happen to those, if you say who has funded? hypothetically — hypothetically, if somebody in the kremlin wants to put meduza down, they could declare these organisations undesirable, and every financial connection with this organisation will lead to a criminal investigation, and it should be a crime in russia.

a deputy chairman of duma is quoted by russia today as saying such findings are reason enough to name meduza a foreign agent. yes, no. a foreign agent should be registered in russia. but there will be those who think, how can you be the honest new independent news organisation that you claim that you are, if you are not open about who your backers are? we are as open as possible. you know, we have a very, very simple choice. to cover some, of help, or to be blocked in russia altogether, and to leave our audience without our independent information.

that is a tough choice. there is another reason that meduza has been criticised recently, which is that... i know it for sure. i used to say, please look at our publications, not on ourfaces. 0k, well let's look also, though, at your handling of allegations made against your editor—in—chief, ivan kolpa kov. there were allegations of sexual harassment, which he denies. no. he does not deny them? there was no allegations, there was no denials. it's a different situation. it was an incident on the dance floor. he brought his apologies, the next day, and apologies were accepted — were accepted. and that's it. the incident was over, but... how many people left the company as a result of this? six.

six people left? six, not as a result. as a result, maybe, ivan had resigned, by himself. does he still work at the organisation? he is co—founder of the organisation. so does he still work there? yes. so he still work there? yes. six people have left? six people, yes. do you think that is an acceptable way of handling allegations of sexual harassment? you know, we had a special meeting of the board of directors, and we made an internal investigation. there was no sexual harassment. it was very... are you saying there was an allegation of sexual harassment? it was a claim of one person, who didn't see nothing. the reason this matters is that your company accused the state duma deputy leonid slutsky. you demanded his resignation when there were allegations against him, which he denied.

and people saw this as a double standard, when it actually happens to someone within your own organisation. i'm afraid i could not say i am 0k with this statement, because leonid slutsky denied all the incidents, and inside meduza's staff, there were no denials. it was an editorial meeting, when ivan brought his apologies about his words, just about his words and his behaviour, and those apologies were accepted. they were no denials. denial is a part of a crime. you yourself said at the time, those who look at themselves in the mirror and claim they have never made any mistakes or done anything nasty in their life are either liars... yes — it was a very rudejoke, very rude.

but it prompted not least the likes of russia today's chief editor, margarita simonyan, to talk about the hypocrisy of the so—called liberal clique. the ftjournalist max seddon — if meduza is going to style itself as the most progressive russian media, they need to do a hell of a lot better. what do you mean a lot better? should i cut the throat of the editor—in—chief after two words, or something? he resigned — that's it. so i ask you — you left russia in order to be able to tell the truth, as you saw it, as a journalist. yes. can you do that, even outside russia ? yes. i do not like the word "truth." authorised information. galina timchenko, thank you for coming on hardtalk. thank you, thank you.

hello there. the setting sun on wednesday marked the end of this balmy, warm spell for february, which has brought record—breaking temperatures. and we are returning to something back to near normal, onwards with something wet and windy this weekend. the big area of high pressure ebbs a way, the high pressure ebbs a way, the high pressure that brought the southerly winds and we see the influence coming back in the atlantic, areas of low pressure developing with weather fronts, and as they hurtle towards our shores and also dragons

on cooler airfrom the towards our shores and also dragons on cooler air from the north atlantic, right across the country, as you can see here. so we start to see the change early this morning taking place across the south—west corner of england into wales, increasing breeze, more cloud with showery burts of rain but elsewhere largely dry start to thursday, low cloud, mist and fog and quite a chilly start. so we could start off with a little bit of early brightness this morning, some low cloud, mist and fog, but quickly conditions go downhill across much of england and wales as showery bu rts of of england and wales as showery burts of rain moving, strong winds as well, in fact it will be windy across the south coast into the south—west. the best of dry and bright weather across scotland but notice the temperatures, 8— 13 degrees, much cooler than we've been used to but still above seasonal average. for friday, not a bad day, we are in between weather systems, high pressure will bring a fine dry day, variable cloud, some spells of sunshine but the next weather front will bring some wet weather to northern ireland later in the day.

and again those temperatures, low teens celsius at best, that band of rain moves through during friday night and into the weekend for the first of a series of low pressure systems which will bring some wet and windy weather to our shores this weekend. it will feel cooler as well for all, particularly because of the strength of the wind and the rain that we are seeing. saturday, then, start off dry with some brightness around by the winds will it continue to increase, quite a wet afternoon i think for many of some of the rain could be quite heavy across the north and west. something a bit brighter later on for northern ireland and we could even start to see something a little bit wintry on the tops of the mountains of scotland. those temperatures again ranging 9— 1a degrees. above average. sunday's chart shows the feature to the north and the south. uncertainty as to how far north of the rain will be but it looks like some southern areas could be windy and wet throughout sunday. further north, wet and windy with some snow over the higher ground scotland. in between there could be a slice of

slightly drier weather, but you will have to keep tuned to the weather forecast for this. will feel much cooler.