western areas for thursday but into western areas for thursday but for the majority, we are under high pressure, so another fine start with sunshine. cloud building in the afternoon. a few showers again, hit and miss ones. then this weatherfront starts to work into western scotland and northern ireland in the afternoon, bringing more cloudy skies, more of a breeze and more persistent rain at times. it will be quite patchy. that weatherfront spreads across the country on friday, so we could see showers across england and wales and then into the weekend, this weatherfront will start to affect parts of scotland and northern ireland. generally, high pressure will remain the dominant feature, so a lot of settled weather through friday, the weekend and into the start of next week. northern areas are seeing the greatest chance of some showers, but in the sunniest spots, as we head through sunday and the start of next week, we could be into the low 20s. thanks, stav. and that's bbc news at ten on tuesday 16th may. there's more analysis of the day's

main stories on newsnight, which isjust getting under way on bbc two. the news continues here on bbc one, as now it's time to join our colleagues across the nations and regions for the news where you are, but from the ten team, it's goodnight.

controversy rages over rape trials withoutjuries in scotland. could a new pilot scheme improve convictions rates in rape trials, or undermine the principles ofjustice? we'll be speaking to a former snpjustice minister, who is implaccable opposed and the head of rape crisis is scotland who backs the principle. also tonight. the afghan interpreters and their families promised safety in britain, but stuck, some now for a year,

in hotels in pakistan, under effective house arrest. now i'm stuck here. the taliban are threatening me. i can't go to afghanistan, and i can't go to the uk. i'm stuck in the middle of things. fresh momentum for donald trump as the fbi is heavily criticised for its handling of its investigation into alleged ties between the 2016 trump campaign and russia. and misson mars — as nasa and the space industry meets to reboot efforts to put humans on the red planet by 2035 — an astronaut will be in our orbit to talk about the challenge. good evening. in the past few months we've been looking into the dismal record of the criminaljustice system when it comes to prosecuting rape. long delays, low conviction rates and what many see as a traumatising experience even getting as far as

court. the government in scotland has a radical plan to address some of the issues. a major challenge to the status quo over the prosecution of rape trials could have implications for the future prosecution of rape across the uk. such is the furore over a proposed pilot forjury—less, singlejudge rape trials in scotland that nicola sturgeon has made her first intervention since she quit in february insisting that "jury—less rape trials are not part of a politican inspired plan to undermine the justice system. the proposal for the the proposalfor the pilot scheme is based on a recommendation from lady dorian, scotland's second most seniorjudge. but the edinburgh bar association has already voted overwhjelmingly to boycott the pilot. here's sima. it's a controversial move. jury—less trials for some of scotland's most serious cases. the government there says, "there is no right to trial by jury in scotland. all accused persons in scotland have the right to a fair trial, but that does not, as a matter of law, mean the right to a trial by jury."

single judge trials are nothing new. data from 2019 to 2020 shows 84% of all criminal trials were tried under what's called summary procedure with verdicts reached without a jury. summary proceedings are dealt with by a sheriff or a justice of the peace. they're used in criminal cases for less serious crimes — things like minor theft and minor drink driving offences — similar to what happens in magistrates courts in england and wales. but now — as part of the victims, witnesses and justice reform bill, scotland is piloting juryless trials in rape and sex offence cases. and some lawyers are against the idea. it's nothing short of an attempt to increase conviction rates in rape trials and in attempted rape trials. and we see that as an absolute miscarriage ofjustice, and attempt to change the legal

system for no reason other than to potentially increase votes on the political stage. ministers argue juries in scotland return verdicts of acquittal at a significantly higher rate for sexual offence cases than for other crimes. official data shows 51% of people prosecuted for rape and attempted rape were convicted compared to an average of 91% across all offences. the scottish government says these figures form part of a long term trend in which conviction rates for rape and attempted rape have been the lowest of all offences in each of the last ten years for which comparable data is available. research by academics commissioned by the government says, "the evidence is overwhelming thatjuries, and their verdicts, are influenced by rape myths." they�* re stereotypes and prejudices held about rape victims and offenders. but there are many opposed to the idea — saying it will lead

to unfair trials. the law society of scotland has raised serious concerns. it says, "a jury will always be far more reflective of scottish society than a singlejudge can be, which greatly reduces the potential for subconscious bias to influence trial outcomes. juries are anonymous whilejudges are not." and the government may struggle to get the pilot off the ground. criminal defence lawyers up and down the country, whether it be through their local bar association or scottish solicitors bar association, will boycott any pilot scheme that is put in place. it is seen to be an affront to justice, a social experiment, and one that we cannot knowingly subject our clients too. the bill would mean other sweeping changes too. the number ofjurors in trials will be reduced from 15 to 12. and the abolition of "not proven"

verdicts in all criminal trials. however the bill doesn't make clear how long the pilot will run, how cases will be chosen to be included in the pilot, and what criteria will be used to determine whether it's been successful or not. for victims, witnesses, and defendants the process is about getting justice — they will hope any changes will mean just that. joining me is sandy brindley, chief executive at rape crisis, scotland. and kenny macaskill, the snpjustice secretary. something radical needs to happen? changes have been made and further

changes will have to be made not just with regard to sexual offences and rape but with regards to the elderly and disabled and young people. any crime in the absence of witnesses is difficult but this is fundamental. we havejust come through covid and that is the biggest thing to hit our society and notjust the biggest thing to hit our society and not just the legal system. biggest thing to hit our society and notjust the legal system. but biggest thing to hit our society and not just the legal system. but we did not abandonjury not just the legal system. but we did not abandon jury trials but we have been in cinemas so that you could be tried by a jury of your peers and not be decided upon by someone who often comes from a different walk of life. you someone who often comes from a different walk of life.— different walk of life. you say a different walk of life. you say a different walk _ different walk of life. you say a different walk of _ different walk of life. you say a different walk of life _ different walk of life. you say a different walk of life for - different walk of life. you say a different walk of life for most l different walk of life. you say a i different walk of life for most who appear in court and that is a whole different ball game. let's stick to the idea of literally being alone in court, it would be less traumatising would it not for the alleged victim? i do not believe so. we have the ability to put in screens and for

people to give evidence through video camera. no one precludes that but i think what we are seeing and notjust in the legal possession but this is causing concern against widespread civic society. but where does corroboration _ widespread civic society. but where does corroboration lie _ widespread civic society. but where does corroboration lie because - widespread civic society. but where l does corroboration lie because there was a possibility that the need for corroboration would end. that was shelved by — corroboration would end. that was shelved by nicola _ corroboration would end. that was shelved by nicola sturgeon. - corroboration would end. that was shelved by nicola sturgeon. i - corroboration would end. that was | shelved by nicola sturgeon. i think we should remove the routine requirement for corroboration which was passed in 2014 by the scottish parliament. sandy supported that. that is what should be dealt with not removing a jury which is fundamental to the system. mit? not removing a jury which is fundamental to the system. why do ou fundamental to the system. why do you support — fundamental to the system. why do you support this _ fundamental to the system. why do you support this pilot _ fundamental to the system. why do you support this pilot scheme - fundamental to the system. why do you support this pilot scheme is - fundamental to the system. why do you support this pilot scheme is a i you support this pilot scheme is a way forward? i you support this pilot scheme is a way forward?— you support this pilot scheme is a wa forward? ~' , m. ~ ,~ way forward? i think kenny macaskill is riaht to way forward? i think kenny macaskill is right to highlight _ way forward? i think kenny macaskill is right to highlight that _ way forward? i think kenny macaskill is right to highlight that there - is right to highlight that there should — is right to highlight that there should be no barrier to getting cases— should be no barrier to getting cases to — should be no barrier to getting cases to court in the first place but when — cases to court in the first place but when they are in court i think

women _ but when they are in court i think women across scotland and men who have been_ women across scotland and men who have been raped are being let down by the _ have been raped are being let down by the justice system. now there is substantial international evidence around _ substantial international evidence around the impact of rape myths and i think_ around the impact of rape myths and i think what— around the impact of rape myths and i think what we all want is a system of fact—finding in these cases that is fain _ of fact—finding in these cases that is fain and — of fact—finding in these cases that is fair. and i think there is sufficient _ is fair. and i think there is sufficient objectives evidence to say that — sufficient objectives evidence to say that that is not happening. well ou sa say that that is not happening. well you say there _ say that that is not happening. well you say there are _ say that that is not happening. in you say there are rape myths, what are some of them?— you say there are rape myths, what are some of them? some of the key oints that are some of them? some of the key points that have _ are some of them? some of the key points that have been _ are some of them? some of the key points that have been found - are some of them? some of the key points that have been found in - points that have been found in research — points that have been found in research is around physical injuries, _ research is around physical injuries, the idea that women will fi-ht injuries, the idea that women will fight back— injuries, the idea that women will fight back during attempt to and if there _ fight back during attempt to and if there is— fightback during attempt to and if there is no— fight back during attempt to and if there is no injury that means there is not _ there is no injury that means there is not credibility. but we know from a lot of— is not credibility. but we know from a lot of psychological research that that is _ a lot of psychological research that that is not — a lot of psychological research that that is not the case. and people respond — that is not the case. and people respond counterintuitively and

freeze — respond counterintuitively and freeze. ~ ., , , ., freeze. were it not be better to educate the _ freeze. were it not be better to educate the people _ freeze. were it not be better to educate the people that - freeze. were it not be better to educate the people that are - freeze. were it not be better to i educate the people that are cited for jury educate the people that are cited forjury duty, to be not lead to change attitudes in society to what is rape and rather than change the court system? i is rape and rather than change the court system?— is rape and rather than change the court system? i think we definitely need to do that _ court system? i think we definitely need to do that in _ court system? i think we definitely need to do that in terms _ court system? i think we definitely need to do that in terms of - court system? i think we definitely need to do that in terms of publicl need to do that in terms of public education — need to do that in terms of public education around rape and what is played _ education around rape and what is played out — education around rape and what is played out often as attitudes towards _ played out often as attitudes towards women and their sexual behaviour~ — towards women and their sexual behaviour. i think that is a multi—generational effort and in the meantime _ multi—generational effort and in the meantime we're definitely seeing men walking _ meantime we're definitely seeing men walking free from courts. that meantime we're definitely seeing men walking free from courts.— walking free from courts. that is not a reasonable _ walking free from courts. that is not a reasonable point, - walking free from courts. that is not a reasonable point, kenny i not a reasonable point, kenny macaskill bussi mike flood rape myths are pervasive?— macaskill bussi mike flood rape myths are pervasive? we've never done any research _ myths are pervasive? we've never done any research on _ myths are pervasive? we've never done any research on juries - myths are pervasive? we've never done any research on juries in - done any research on juries in scotland so we do not know that. this suggestion that people are making decisions on a myth, there is

no evidence of that. we do need to challenge and that is why we educate and we have done things like cinema adverts to broaden out but in courts juries are directed that they cannot make an assumption for example that there was no resistance because we know that people are traumatised and sometimes fixated by fear. and they cannot either have any views about delayed reporting because people sometimes do not go to the police for a few days. and if there are further directions that should be given by thejudge further directions that should be given by the judge than we can consider that. given by the judge than we can considerthat. but given by the judge than we can consider that. but we cannot take away the ultimate decision from the jury, thejudge can away the ultimate decision from the jury, the judge can advise on the law and on errors that the wider public have but should not make the final decision. it is public have but should not make the final decision.— final decision. it is a problem if ou have final decision. it is a problem if you have a _ final decision. it is a problem if you have a pilot scheme - final decision. it is a problem if you have a pilot scheme with i final decision. it is a problem if- you have a pilot scheme with almost a prescribed outcome because the outcome you want naturally is

greater conviction, morejustice outcome you want naturally is greater conviction, more justice for women. if this is a pilot scheme that did not work then what would happen? i that did not work then what would ha--en? ~ that did not work then what would ha en? ~ ., , happen? i think we need to be careful not— happen? i think we need to be careful not to _ happen? i think we need to be careful not to see _ happen? i think we need to be careful not to see this - happen? i think we need to be careful not to see this as - happen? i think we need to be| careful not to see this as some happen? i think we need to be - careful not to see this as some are trying _ careful not to see this as some are trying to— careful not to see this as some are trying to create a certain level of convictions. i think anyone would recognise — convictions. i think anyone would recognise the conviction rate is low, _ recognise the conviction rate is low, the — recognise the conviction rate is low, the lowest of any crime type and also — low, the lowest of any crime type and also particularly low in single complainer cases where there is only one person _ complainer cases where there is only one person who is making the complaint _ one person who is making the complaint against the accused. sol think— complaint against the accused. sol think there — complaint against the accused. sol think there is no doubt there are significant — think there is no doubt there are significant issues that require to be dealt — significant issues that require to be dealt with. there are many things we can— be dealt with. there are many things we can do— be dealt with. there are many things we can do to — be dealt with. there are many things we can do to improve responses to rape especially proceduraljustice rape especially procedural justice and rape especially proceduraljustice and reducing how traumatic the system — and reducing how traumatic the system is — and reducing how traumatic the system is but fundamentally unless we address the question ofjury attitudes— we address the question ofjury attitudes we will not improve the ability— attitudes we will not improve the ability to— attitudes we will not improve the ability to access justice after rape and that— ability to access justice after rape and that should concern us all. but

what ra -e and that should concern us all. emit what rape crisis would say, kenny macaskill, is it is traumatising enough for a woman to even get to court so do not make court more traumatic. i court so do not make court more traumatic-— court so do not make court more traumatic. ., ., , ., , traumatic. i do not see how the “my can do that. — traumatic. i do not see how the “my can do that. you i traumatic. i do not see how the “my can do that. you could i traumatic. i do not see how the “my can do that. you could do i traumatic. i do not see how the “my can do that. you could do what h traumatic. i do not see how thejury can do that. you could do what we i can do that. you could do what we did during covid and had thejourney in a cinema and have the accused and the witness in different venues. so none of that applies. we need to work out the criteria for this trial, doesn't need a 50%, 70% conviction rate? all these things have not been considered. and what i think no one should be suggesting, the legal profession or anyone else is not saying we should not look at things to address matters. so we have the ability forjudge to say to a journey you can consider, you cannot consider that there was no fighting or resistance. if there are additional points like that than bring them in but do not take away the jury. bring them in but do not take away

the 'u . ~ . bring them in but do not take away the'u .~ ., bring them in but do not take away the 'u . ~ ., ., bring them in but do not take away the'u .~ ., ., the jury. what you make of the fact that bar associations _ the jury. what you make of the fact that bar associations across - that bar associations across scotland have said that they will pilot this scheme and will boycott this if it goes ahead? i pilot this scheme and will boycott this if it goes ahead?— this if it goes ahead? i think it is uuite this if it goes ahead? i think it is quite disappointing. _ this if it goes ahead? i think it is quite disappointing. we - this if it goes ahead? i think it is quite disappointing. we find - this if it goes ahead? i think it is i quite disappointing. we find some inflammatory rhetoric from the legal profession _ inflammatory rhetoric from the legal profession on this proposal but what ithink— profession on this proposal but what i think we _ profession on this proposal but what i think we need is a substantive look— i think we need is a substantive look at — i think we need is a substantive look at the _ i think we need is a substantive look at the issues. i think it is totally— look at the issues. i think it is totally right that there is debate about _ totally right that there is debate about this and is at the right thing but i _ about this and is at the right thing but i do _ about this and is at the right thing but i do not think that kenny macaskill is right to see that the issues _ macaskill is right to see that the issues have not been considered. there _ issues have not been considered. there is— issues have not been considered. there is a — issues have not been considered. there is a report published online that sets — there is a report published online that sets out the parameters of the pilot scheme. so a lot of thought has gone — pilot scheme. so a lot of thought has gone into developing this but fundamentally it is for parliament to make — fundamentally it is for parliament to make a — fundamentally it is for parliament to make a decision and i think it is for the _ to make a decision and i think it is for the legal profession is to make the case _ for the legal profession is to make the case and give us substantive reasons — the case and give us substantive reasons why they are opposed to this so we _ reasons why they are opposed to this so we can— reasons why they are opposed to this so we can engage in proper debate around _ so we can engage in proper debate around it — so we can engage in proper debate around it. . ~ so we can engage in proper debate

around it. ., ,, , ., so we can engage in proper debate around it. ., ,, y., over 1,000 afganis including 500 children are stuck in hotels in pakistan in a sort of hotel arrest, more than sixty of them for more than a year. they have been granted eligibility to settle in the uk by the ministry of defence because they worked as interpreters with british forces during the campaign against terror in afghanistan. but if they even leave the hotel premises, they risk arrest and deportation back to afghanistan, as their pakistani visas have expired. the uk government stopped charter flights to britain for these interpreters and their families last november due, they said, to a housing shortage. and now families have been advised to look for their own accommodation here. but that could mean a very long wait before they are brought here to safety. here's nawal al—maghafi, newsnight�*s international correspondent. scenes of desperation. it's august 2021, and the taliban have taken over the country, including the capital, kabul. chaos as afghans flee,

leaving everything behind to start a new life. there was, you know, crowds of people, thousands of people. nobody could pass over there. gunfire it's a dangerous escape. i see a small explosion. it was a little aflame, but explosions. a few seconds after that, i heard, you know, some gunshots, some firing. after the explosions, people, they were shot and they were running everywhere. thousands of people who worked with the british forces during their campaign against terror were now a target. i think people, more than 300 people, women, wives and children, you know, they have been, you know, just killed. turning back to what was now the taliban's afghanistan meant retribution or even death. nearly two years on, and they're yet to make it to the promised safety of the uk.

these are ahmed and khan — not their real names. once interpreters for the british forces, they're amongst a thousand people, 500 of them children, that the british government advised to head to a third country in order to be relocated to the uk. there is this humiliation. you put me in prison, in one room, for 17 months. i need to work. i need to get education. i need to get the experience. i need to get a job. i need to get a good job. but since january 2022 until now, i'm here in this one room. living in transit hotels paid for by the british government, their entire lives contained into a few rooms. without pakistani visas, they cannot move beyond the hotel grounds. otherwise, they risk arrest and deportation back to afghanistan. the same place like always.

it's like a golden cage, you know, especially for me. i'm under a lot of pressure here, mentally and physically. they're essentially under house arrest. their crime? working with the british forces in afghanistan. i was a senior british interpreter with the british forces in afghanistan, in southern province, south afghanistan, helmand, the heart of the taliban. i was happy. the british army's staff were very good. the attitude was good with us. we were happy with them. the home office has put so much emphasis on refugees taking the safe and legal route to the uk. and that's exactly what these afghan interpreters have done. they've followed the government guidance. they have been deemed eligible to relocate to the uk by the ministry of defence, yet they're still waiting in limbo, stuck in these hotel rooms

with no idea when they're going to be flown here. and it's the home office that's responsible for relocating afghanis here to the uk. we hear stories of people who attempt to take their own lives. who are in absolute despair because of the lack of education, the lack of prospects, the lack of entertainment, the lack of mobility. they are basically locked into those compounds. for months now, danjarvis, a labour mp who served in afghanistan, has raised this issue in the commons. you just said that the government doesn't seem to have a plan. what should be the plan? well, i think people who are currently sat in hotels in islamabad need to have some sense of whether there's going to be any support in terms of providing accommodation. at the moment, they're being told that they're going to have to scope and secure their own accommodation. that's incredibly difficult to do. people from pakistan could go to uk hotels where at least they could start integrating into uk

society, setting themselves up with jobs, setting their children up for school access. but what we currently see is that the uk simply says those hotels are going to be closed. and what very few people know is that at the same time, hotels remain open in pakistan and people are left simply out of sight and out of mind. they need to be priorities for coming to the uk, to be given safety, first of all, and then settled here on a permanent basis. the problem is there are far too many people in a very inefficient immigration system who are taking ages to process, who frankly at the end of that process will not have a legitimate claim for asylum in the united kingdom. and they are blocking the queue for other, more deserving asylum seekers who are clearly in a place of danger. that's what has got to end, and that's why the government's got to get its immigration policy changed. that's why we need the legislation going

through parliament at the moment. since 2021, over 21,000 afghans have resettled in the uk and more than 8,000 have taken illegal routes to the country. but from the afghans in pakistan, only five have made it to the uk in the last year. the rest have been given no indication of when they'll be relocated. do you think that this group of afghanis are being disadvantaged in comparison to those who came on boats illegally? there's no doubt that they are being disadvantaged. we know that those people coming across the channel in boats, a significant cohort of them are from afghanistan. but the people we're talking about who are stuck in islamabad are doing the right thing. and there's no doubt in my mind that they've been largely forgotten about. i hope that they haven't been abandoned, but it is for the british government now to get a grip of this particular problem and honour the commitments that they've made to these people. but they don't feel safe

and with no end in sight, their patience is wearing down. they're now considering other ways to escape. now i'm stuck here. the taliban are threatening me. i can't go to afghanistan and i can't go to the uk. i'm stuck in the middle of things and now i'm prepared to go illegally to european countries. i have been waiting for over 12 months and more. if they don't tell me soon, then i'm going to go illegally to european countries, to france or italy, other european countries illegally. i'm comfortable with that. i'm just waiting here. a wait that can go beyond this year to the next. and in response to that report, a government spokesperson told us:

now, donald trump has scored a win with a long—awaited report over alleged ties between the 2016 trump campaign and russia. the 306—page report into the fbi's handing of its investigation, by special counseljohn durham, a former trump appointed attorney in connecticut, found the federal bureau of investigation's inquiry lacked "analytical rigour." he accused the fbi of acting on "raw, unalysed and uncorroborated on "raw, unanalysed and uncorroborated intelligence" and pointed to repeated instances of "confirmation bias." in a moment i'll be talking

to senator ronjohnson, the former chairman of the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. but first, here's david. investigating the investigators. it's taken four years, but special counseljohn durham's report is highly critical of the fbi and its pursuit of donald trump. and even normally trump—critical journalists are saying so. it is regardless devastating to the fbi and to a degree, it does exonerate donald trump. in 2016, allegations emerged that donald trump had colluded with the russian government to win the election. that senior russian officials had supplied his campaign with disinformation. and even that russia held compromising video of mr trump. in short, the president elect was a russian asset. if this report were true, that russian intelligence had truly compromising material on the president elect and that there was some cooperation or collusion between his campaign

and the russians, that would be unprecedented in american history. what gave the allegations a measure of credibility was that the fbi had launched an investigation codenamed crossfire hurricane, and told the world that it was investigating. the fact that there was no evidence at all for the claims meant donald trump's attorney general, william barr, launched an investigation into what had led the fbi to start crossfire hurricane. it's that report that was published last night. and it's extremely critical of how donald trump was treated. the speed and manner in which the fbi opened and investigated crossfire hurricane "during the presidential election "season, based on raw and analysed and uncorroborated intelligence," also reflected "a notable departure from established practice," it said. the initial "raw and uncorroborated intelligence" came from the steele dossier, written by former british spy christopher steele in this london office.

his work was actually commissioned by hillary clinton's campaign. on this, the durham report is damning. our investigation also revealed that senior fbi personnel displayed "a serious lack of analytical rigour towards the information that they received." it goes on... "in particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded directly or indirectly by trump's political opponents. " even former senior fbi leaders accept the agency failed. i've been all over the world many times, and when you used to put the three letters together, fbi, it meant something. and there's tens of thousands of individuals in that organisation killing themselves every day to do the best thing they can for everybody. but it only takes a couple to make some bad mistakes or put in their thoughts instead of looking at something neutrally or really by the rule of law, and then you've got an issue. so hopefully that's not

going to happen again. that's not the right way to do an investigation. it's clear that some of the fbi agents who investigated donald trump wanted him gone. john durham's report refers to a text by one of the fbi investigators against trump to others on the team on the day that he won the election. "viva la resistance," it reads. and there were many similar communications. right now, our intelligence agencies are occupied by deeply weaponised and partisan officials. and you can have all the policies and practices in the world, but it won't stop political actors with their own political end games from achieving them. and so ultimately, this isn't aboutjust reforming a policy or practice here. it's about deep and lasting wholesale change. all this allows credence to donald trump's claims that the deep state attempted to destroy his presidency. for his supporters, it's reason enough to dismiss the other investigations against their man. any way you slice it, this is damaging for the united states.

to discuss this, i'm joined by prominent trump supporter and republican senator ron johnson, and former advisor to president clinton and political journalist sidney blumenthal. first, to you, senatorjohnson. good evening and thank you very much for joining us. this is a very bad day for the fbi. clearly, there were fbi agents who were keen to bring the president down, but it did not prove deep state collusion, or they would have been arrests and presumably convictions. well, first of all, i'm glad to be with you. i'm not sure it didn't prove that. i know thatjohn durham did not issue any more indictments, so part of the problem is that you have to indict here in washington, dc, where thejury have to indict here in washington, dc, where the jury pool would be 99% democrat. most of what was revealed in the durham report was known. he just confirms what we already knew,

that the fbi, for example, tried to pay or offered christopher steele $1 million to verify his report. we knew the whole steele dossier was paid for by the hillary clinton campaign and pushed on the fbi by people like michael sussman, and your next guest, who went to the state department to try to push this completely false story about russian collusion with trump, so this was the largest political dirty trick in us history. it interfered in the 2016 election, and now we know exactly how members of the cia, former intelligence official, also interfered in the 2022 election. i will put that election straight to sidney blumenthal when i talk to him, but first of all, —— i will put that accusation to him. the first of all, i would like to ask you more broadly, do you think there is a question over whether the fbi in america can be trusted or not?

no, they have violated that trust, and again, i think the vast majority of fbi agents have integrity, and you could trust them. the problem is, we have and we have had, at least, politicalactors is, we have and we have had, at least, political actors at the highest levels of the fbi, people like elisa page, andrew mccabe, james komi, the acting director of the fbi. these were political actors. the fbi knew that the steele dossier, one of the sources was investigated as a russian spy by the fbi, and they knew that as early as october 2016. and yet, they allow the investigation to go forward, the muller investigation to continue... so, senator, iwant muller investigation to continue... so, senator, i want to pick you up on that, because essentially, although you are saying there are a lot of very good fbi agents, you seem to suggest that there is something rotten at the core of the fbi stop isn't that an incredible danger, and a jeopardy in the united

states, and actually, by suggesting that the fbi can't be trusted, there is a danger that does stir up trouble? it is larger than the fbi. there was briefing that the hillary clinton campaign was going to accuse donald trump of colluding with russia and that was completely false so corruption runs deeper than the democratic party in these campaigns. so we have a much larger problem thanjust at the so we have a much larger problem than just at the top of the fbi. our current fbi director under his leadership the fbi continued to brief the senate intelligence committee that the tantric document had integrity, did not. let committee that the tantric document had integrity, did not.— had integrity, did not. let us return to _ had integrity, did not. let us return to sidney _ had integrity, did not. let us| return to sidney blumenthal. had integrity, did not. let us - return to sidney blumenthal. however you may think it is just bad apples

clearly it is more than bad apples in the fbi, this is an incredibly damning report.— in the fbi, this is an incredibly damning report. actually not and it is the culmination _ damning report. actually not and it is the culmination of _ damning report. actually not and it is the culmination of a _ damning report. actually not and it is the culmination of a four- damning report. actually not and it is the culmination of a four years i is the culmination of a four years attempt — is the culmination of a four years attempt to— is the culmination of a four years attempt to prop up a donald trump conspiracy— attempt to prop up a donald trump conspiracy theory that the deep state _ conspiracy theory that the deep state staged a hoax to unjustly persecute him when the fbi investigated the russian interference in the 2016 election in order— interference in the 2016 election in order to _ interference in the 2016 election in order to help him, donald trump. that is— order to help him, donald trump. that is the — order to help him, donald trump. that is the conclusion that has been confirmed — that is the conclusion that has been confirmed. by the us intelligence community, the senate, intelligence committee _ community, the senate, intelligence committee and the manner report as well as independent news reports. can i_ well as independent news reports. can ijust get some clarification, you do agree that this report shows

there were fbi agents, long live the revolution are whenever it was, fbi agents were anxious to do donald trump down?— trump down? this report is not a marshalling _ trump down? this report is not a marshalling of— trump down? this report is not a marshalling of new _ trump down? this report is not a marshalling of new facts - trump down? this report is not a marshalling of new facts and - marshalling of new facts and evidence, it is a stream of very old cherry— evidence, it is a stream of very old cherry picked pieces and a stream of opinions _ cherry picked pieces and a stream of opinions. it contains nothing new. the whole — opinions. it contains nothing new. the whole business about the steele dusky based on the intelligence and information produced by former british intelligence agent christopher steele, was not and i repeat not, the basis of opening crossfire hurricane by the fbi. but do you take _ crossfire hurricane by the fbi. emit do you take the accusation from senatorjohnson that you were involved in pushing that agenda? that is a complete falsehood and typical— that is a complete falsehood and typical of senatorjohnson who was a far right _ typical of senatorjohnson who was a far right wing conspiracy theorist in the _ far right wing conspiracy theorist in the spirit ofjosep mccarthy from

his home _ in the spirit ofjosep mccarthy from his home state of wisconsin. and senatorjohnson has a long history of conspiracy theories and falsehoods. and it is quite typical of him _ falsehoods. and it is quite typical of him. let— falsehoods. and it is quite typical of him. , ._ , of him. let me “ust say every time there is an — of him. let me just say every time there is an interaction _ of him. let me just say every time there is an interaction between . there is an interaction between donald trump and law enforcement that perhaps there's elements that are bang to rights and elements that are bang to rights and elements that are not an adviser for space so for people like you, legal interaction with donald trump is not getting you anywhere, is it? well with donald trump is not getting you anywhere. is it?— anywhere, is it? well we will find out about what _ anywhere, is it? well we will find out about what happens - anywhere, is it? well we will find out about what happens with - anywhere, is it? well we will find i out about what happens with donald trump _ out about what happens with donald trump. there is a special counsel who has— trump. there is a special counsel who has been appointed by the attorney— who has been appointed by the attorney general investigating his involvement in the january the 6th interaction. and his obstruction of justice _ interaction. and his obstruction of justice and — interaction. and his obstruction of justice and illegal handling of classified material at mar—a—lago.

we have _ classified material at mar—a—lago. we have the georgia investigation into the _ we have the georgia investigation into the fraudulent electors involving the attempt to steal the election— involving the attempt to steal the election on his part. and we have the 35— election on his part. and we have the 35 counts in new york. so he faces— the 35 counts in new york. so he faces a _ the 35 counts in new york. so he faces a cyclone, a tornado of legal problems — faces a cyclone, a tornado of legal problems |— faces a cyclone, a tornado of legal roblems. ., ., ., ,., faces a cyclone, a tornado of legal roblems. ., ., ., , ., ., problems. i want to ask your final cuestion, problems. i want to ask your final question. very — problems. i want to ask your final question, very briefly. _ problems. i want to ask your final question, very briefly. sadly - question, very briefly. sadly blumenthal, what is the path back to a more peaceful and recent discourse in america?— in america? well we are going to have to deal _ in america? well we are going to have to deal with _ in america? well we are going to have to deal with the _ in america? well we are going to have to deal with the extremism | in america? well we are going to i have to deal with the extremism in our country. and the conspiracy theorists in the far right. and there lies and falsehoods promulgated by donald trump and his

acolytes like senatorjohnson. that ma ut acolytes like senatorjohnson. that may put that _ acolytes like senatorjohnson. that may put that to _ acolytes like senatorjohnson. that may put that to senatorjohnson. acolytes like senatorjohnson. that i may put that to senatorjohnson. and the may put that to senatorjohnson. situc the broadcaster may put that to senatorjohnson. fific the broadcaster fox may put that to senatorjohnson. r"ic the broadcaster fox news as well. senatorjohnson, you have a serious problem? senatorjohnson, you have a serious roblem? ~ , ., , ., problem? with testimony from johnson wider that sidney _ problem? with testimony from johnson wider that sidney blumenthal _ problem? with testimony from johnson wider that sidney blumenthal was - problem? with testimony from johnson wider that sidney blumenthal was one | wider that sidney blumenthal was one of the _ wider that sidney blumenthal was one of the people pushing the false narrative — of the people pushing the false narrative so it is unbelievable the bbc would do that. but in this country— bbc would do that. but in this country we need to stop accusing the other— country we need to stop accusing the other side _ country we need to stop accusing the other side of heating which is what is happening right now. your fermenting hate and exacerbating that and _ fermenting hate and exacerbating that and we need to focus on agreement. and i give credit to british— agreement. and i give credit to british intelligence. they are pushing _ british intelligence. they are pushing this political agenda. sidney— pushing this political agenda. sidney blumenthal is a co—conspirator and you should not have _ co—conspirator and you should not have done — co—conspirator and you should not have done that. of co-conspirator and you should not have done that.— have done that. of course sidney itlumenthal— have done that. of course sidney blumenthal denies _ have done that. of course sidney blumenthal denies that - have done that. of course sidney blumenthal denies that a - have done that. of course sidney blumenthal denies that a leak, i have done that. of course sidney - blumenthal denies that a leak, thank

you very much indeed. conferences about all kinds of academic and business endeavours take place somewhere in the world every day. but there's something about a gathering called the "humans to mars summit" which has a different ring. the annual event opened in washington dc today at the national academy of sciences building, with nasa, the space industry, members of congress and international partners, mathematicians and musicians, and with the aim of "injecting a sense of urgency into our common goal of sending humans to mars." but what are the chances of that goal of a human setting foot on the red planet by the mid—2030's being met? i will bejoined by sian proctor in a moment. lets go back to 1989 and the first time a us president engaged with "life on mars". next for the new century, back to the moon, back to the future and this time back to stay. and then journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet. a manned mission to

mars. joining me is sian proctor, a professor at south mountain community college and an analog astronaut. the rallying call, because there is some sense that you're not going to get there by 2035, what are the chances of it? i get there by 2035, what are the chances of it?— get there by 2035, what are the chances of it? i think the chances are aggressive — chances of it? i think the chances are aggressive but _ chances of it? i think the chances are aggressive but it _ chances of it? i think the chances are aggressive but it can - chances of it? i think the chances are aggressive but it can be - are aggressive but it can be obtainable if we can hit our targets for the moon. because the gateway to mars is the moon. 50 for the moon. because the gateway to mars is the moon.— mars is the moon. so do you think what we're — mars is the moon. so do you think what we're talking about - mars is the moon. so do you think what we're talking about here, - mars is the moon. so do you thinkl what we're talking about here, kind of space supremacy, is that an issue? i of space supremacy, is that an issue? ., of space supremacy, is that an issue? ~ , ., ., ., , issue? i think space exploration is about creating _ issue? i think space exploration is about creating a _ issue? i think space exploration is about creating a diverse _ issue? i think space exploration is about creating a diverse and - about creating a diverse and inclusive space for all humanity and i think it is important for strong leadership in this space in order to obtain this. so the united states has always led the way and we will