only one of those, as you correctly said, made its way to the executive complaints unit. obliged to deal with a complaint they have and not complaints they might like to have or other complaints that might be available. that's what they did in this instance. one might wonder how they came to the decision, because could they not look at the context? even if the complaint was just about naga munchetty, you're sayinig the complainant didn't mention dan walker at all, can they not look at the fact he initiated the conversation? there is a mention of dan walker in the finding that they have put together in the letter to the complainant. and it does indicate that dan walker's contribution was not shall we say helpful in the conversation. dan walker led naga munchetty to the conclusion is herself that she was voicing personal opinions and should stop. so it is a more complex and nuanced situation and some of the people who have reacted to the headlines in the newspapers and other and elsewhere have appreciated. what's puzzling some viewers as well is that naga munchetty specific

only one of those, as you correctly said, made its way to the executive complaints unit. ok at the context? even if the complaint was just about naga munchetty, you're saying the complainant didn't mention dan walker at all, can they not look at the fact he initiated the conversation? there is a mention of dan walker in the finding that they have put together in the letter to the complainant. and it does indicate that dan walker's contribution was not shall we say helpful in the conversation. dan walker led naga munchetty to the conclusion is that she eventually made, including the statement by naga herself that she was voicing personal opinions and should stop. so it is a more complex and nuanced situation and some of the people who have reacted to the headlines in the newspapers and other and elsewhere have appreciated. what's puzzling some viewers as well is that naga munchetty specifically said in the clip was that she specifically wasn't accusing anyone of anything. how did the bbc come to the conclusion that somehow her comments crossed a line and it seems to be accu

and decided that even though this was a finely balanced judgements, the executive complaints unit gotdone anything wrong. so it's a complete reversal of the bbc‘s strongly entrenched position from last week. many people out there, who of course have been very vocal about this, and will be very pleased at the decision that the bbc has finally made. but will also be asking the question, should the bbc have taken so long to get to the point where they think they should have been, when the decision was originally made. i was interested towards the end of e—mail, which lord hall sent every member of staff you're the bbc, he said he would also be looking at some of the processes and procedures around how the bbc assesses these issues. yes, he said specifically he has asked the editorial and leadership teams to discuss how we manage late exchanges on air around these kinds of topics in the future. and saying impartiality is fundamental to bbc journalism. so what he seems to be saying there is, he's not blaming the executive complaints unit for reaching the decision that they did under the ru

and then, there is a third appeal stage, if you would like the executive complaint units.s out in its rules that you have to point out more specifically what you are unhappy with about the bbc‘s initial rulings. the complainant chose only to focus on what munchetty had said in that exchange. that was what was put as the appeal before the executive complaints units, and that was all it could rule on, and all it did rule on. was oh, thank you very much indeed for bringing us that update, that news hasjust much indeed for bringing us that update, that news has just come into us update, that news has just come into us of course within the last hour, we will be speaking to trevor phillips in the next 15 minutes or so, sir trevor phillipsjoining us us at about half past eight. let's get the headlines now and bbc news. a series of investments announced by the chancellor including a significant rise in the national living wage. meanwhile, the prime minister denies an allegation that he groped a female journalist at a lunch two decades ago. the bbc reverses the decision to uphold a

the bbc‘s executive complaints unit, which is independent of bbc news, says she was allowed to express were racist, but not comment about donald trump's motives. describing a remark as racist is not the issue at stake here. the issue at stake here is whether it was right to go on to ascribe motive, in this case to president trump, but it could have been to anybody else. it suggests that we are impartial on racism. the bbc isn't impartial on crime. if a crime happens, we call people a criminal. we have to be impartial on the reasons why these remarks were made, and there was speculation in the programme which she made, amongst others, about the nature and the reasons why those remarks were made and we can't do that, whether it is president trump or whether it is anybody else that we are assessing in that way. amongst those disagreeing, a number of bbc journalists, and the writer afua hirsch, whose letter criticising the decision has been backed by more than a0 black and asian writers, actors and broadcasters. it's ludicrous to say it's fine for a presenter to express her own experience

the bbc‘s executive complaints unit, which is independent of bbc news, says she was allowed to expressrds were racist, but not comment about donald trump's motives. describing a remark as racist is not the issue at stake here. the issue at stake here is whether it was right to go on to ascribe motive, in this case to president trump, but it could have been to anybody else. it suggests that we are impartial on racism. the bbc isn't impartial on crime. if a crime happens, we call people a criminal. we have to be impartial on the reasons why these remarks were made, and there was speculation in the programme which she made, amongst others, about the nature and the reasons why those remarks were made and we can't do that, whether it is president trump or whether it is anybody else that we are assessing in that way. amongst those disagreeing, a number of bbc journalists, and the writer afua hirsch, whose letter criticising the decision has been backed by more than a0 black and asian writers, actors and broadcasters. it's ludicrous to say it's fine for a presenter to express her own experien

the bbc‘s executive complaints unit, which is independent of bbc news, says she was allowed to express about donald trump's motives. describing a remark is racist is not the issue at stake here. the issue at stake here is whether it was right to go on to ascribe motive, in this case to president trump, but it could have been to anybody else. it suggests that we are impartial on racism. the bbc isn't impartial on crime. if a crime happens, we call people are criminal. we have to be impartial on these issues. the reasons why these remarks were made, and there was speculation in the programme which she made, amongst others, about the nature and the reasons why those remarks were made and we can't do that, whether it is president trump or whether it is anybody else that we are assessing in that way. amongst those disagreeing, a number of bbc journalists. afua hirsch‘s letter criticising the decision has been backed by more than a0 black and asian writers, actors and broadcasters. it's ludicrous to say it is fine for a presenter to express her own experience of racism, but she shouldn't cas

the bbc‘s executive complaints unit says she was allowed to say the words were racist, but not commentissue at stake here, the issue at stake is whether it was a right to go on to ascribe motive, in this case, to president trump. it could have been to anyone else. it suggests we are impartial on racism. i mean, the bbc isn't impartial on crime. if a crime happens, we call people a criminal. what we have to be impartial on is the reasons why those remarks are made. and there was speculation in the programme, which she made, amongst others, about the nature and the reasons of why those comments we re made. and we can't do that, whether it's president trump or whether it's anybody else that we are assessing in that way. but many disagree. a number of bbc journalists have signed a letter, backed by prominent writers, actors and broadcasters, saying the decision must be overturned. it is ludicrous to say it's fine for a presenter to express her own experience of racism, but she shouldn't cast judgment on the person being racist. that's suggesting that, as people of colour who have experienc

the bbc‘s executive complaints unit says she was allowed to say the words were racist, but not comment as a racist is not the issue at stake here, the issue at stake is whether it was a right to go on to ascribe motive, in this case, to president trump. it could have been to anyone else. it suggests we are impartial on racism. i mean, the bbc isn't impartial on crime. if a crime happens, we call people a criminal. what we have to be impartial on is the reasons why those remarks are made. and there was speculation in the programme, which she made, amongst others, about the nature and the reasons of why those comments were made. and we can't do that, whether it's president trump or whether it's anybody else that we are assessing in that way. but many disagree. a number of bbc journalists have signed a letter, backed by prominent writers, actors and broadcasters, saying the decision must be overturned. it is ludicrous to say it's fine for a presenter to express her own experience of racism, but she shouldn't cast judgment on the person being racist. that's suggesting that, as people of co

he said many of you asked i personally review the decision of the executive complaints unit, i had doneed the complaint itself, it was only ever in a limited way there was only ever in a limited way there was found to be a breach of our guidelines. in this instance, i don't think that her words were sufficient enough to uphold the complaint. there was never any sanction against naga and i hope this step makes it clear. it talks about what a fine journalist and presenter she is. he goes on to say he is asked teams to discuss how we manage lie discussions on air in the future. you might recall she had been commenting on president trump's comments to a woman in congress who he said should go home and naga munchetty had made reference to that, sane people of colour who work in the bbc, knows what those sort of comments mean. —— that people of colour. that complaint that was upheld has been reversed. she had been sharing her own personal experience and got widespread support, including from the mayor of london. back to our top story and the white house is stepping up its attack on democrats

satisfied after the first two stages, they can take that further to a stage because of the executive complaints unititial ruling and that was all focused on naga munchetty‘s comments, not those by dan walker, and they say that is the straightforward reason why there is no mention in the final ruling because the complainant said they we re because the complainant said they were unhappy about how naga munchetty‘s complaints were dealt with in the initial one. thank you for shedding light. why don‘t we go straight to ollie for the sports. dina asher—smith has been back out on the track, at the world athletics championships, 2a hours after winning silver in the 100 metres. she posted the fastest time in the 200 metres heats. to reach the semi—finals. let‘s head live to doha, and speak to our reporter ade adedoyen. ade, no signs of fatigue? you sometimes worry when the sprinters double up but no sign of any tiredness from dina asher—smith. she looked very comfortable, it was an easy qualification. the big story is that the defending champion is out, she has pulled out of the 200 metres. the silver medall

the bbc‘s executive complaints unit says she was allowed to say the words were racist, but not commentst is not the issue at stake here, the issue at stake is whether it was a right to go on to ascribe motive, in this case, to president trump. it could have been to anyone else. it suggests we are impartial on racism. i mean, the bbc isn't impartial on crime. if a crime happens, we call people a criminal. what we have to be impartial on is the reasons why those remarks are made. and there was speculation in the programme, which she made, amongst others, about the nature and the reasons of why those comments we re made. and we can't do that, whether it's president trump or whether it's anybody else that we are assessing in that way. but many disagree. a number of bbc journalists have signed a letter, backed by prominent writers, actors and broadcasters, saying the decision must be overturned. it is ludicrous to say it's fine for a presenter to express her own experience of racism, but she shouldn't cast judgment on the person being racist. that's suggesting that, as people of colour who

if a whistleblower makes a complaint that is deemed urgent in nature, it must be presented to the united states congress. the president cannot hold it back. the executive branch cannot make it a complete. and what makes it worse, the president seems to be playing games with this whistleblower complaint and teasing out little bits of information contained in it here and there in order to play to his political advantage. it's even worse than holding back the complaint from us, he's now using pieces of it to try to gain advantage over his political opponents. at the very least, over the next 24 hours, we need to come to a conclusion that the law needs to be followed because the president can withhold from us whistleblower complaints that are know the flattering to him, that potentially implicate him, then what's the point of having a whistleblower law? what's the point of having a process to protect people who are uncovering corruption in the administration if the administration can keep those complaints secret? and let's just be honest, if this president gets away with it, the next democratic president can get away with it, the next republican president

united states. as you full well know, the head of the executive branch of government. under that is the attorney general of the united states. attorney general barr mentioned multiple times in the whistleblower complaint in the transcript. and the doj was given a heads up about a whistleblower complaint about the week before the referral. >> i do think the attorney general has gone rogue. he has for a long time. since he was mentioned in all of this, it's curious that he would be making decisions about how the complaint would be handled. >> you sit on the senate judiciary committee. will there be an investigation? >> well, there must be. but the problem is senator graham runs that committee. he has not been that promising. he cares about ukraine. i went there with him and john mccain. to show support for the ally. some of things he said since this cape out has not been promising. we should have an investigation of this. and importantly and easily the attorney general should recuse himself from determination like this. and should not have made that delay in giving the whistleblower complaint to congress. that should have gone directly to congress. that didn't happen. the attorney general knowing full w

complaint illegally and possibly at the direction of the executive branch. the km the can only conclude the serious misconduct at issue involved the president of the united statesw is kyle chang. he covers congress for "politico." let's start there. your reaction? there is a lot in there. a lot to on pack. >> what is remarkable is what we don't know. it sounds extremely grave and extremely serious. and the way it was released this late night release that describes this flurry of correspondents between adam shift and the intelligence community. the dni. he is treating this as an extremely grave and urgent matter and it speaks to something. i'm not sure he knows the content of this complaint. so it could range anywhere from something mundane and explainable to something extremely serious involving the president. >> kyle, what do we know what is going to happen next? what is chairman shift requesting happen? >> he demanded access to this whistle-blower's complaint. if he doesn't get that, he's going to demand possibly through a subpoena the testimony from the dni from joseph mcguire. sow wants him in nt fro of the committee in a public hearing to explain why he is

complaint. arthel: chris, if the president of the united states is not directly involved or implicated, is the info provided by the whistle-blower protected under executiveaw prevent the release of a transcript of a conversation that the president says was totally appropriate? >> well the transcript part of your question is a good one, and that depends really -- the president of the united states is the ultimate classification, the person who determines classification. obviously he's the person who is allegedly involved. i actually think and i agree with michael in terms of this is not an entirely clear area, but i think the way around this and i heard congressman schiff, congressman schiff, the intelligence committee, or the oversight committee, could issue a subpoena for the individual who allegedly made this complaint, not even necessarily and this is an important distinction, i have seen it discussed i have heard it discussed about the report itself, what does this person actually allege? one way you can also get that information is subpoena the person who supposedly made this complaint and talk to them about it. the house intelligence committee coul

all the uaw plants their chief complaint is this, general motors has right sized its production into words of gms executives bringing down too much capacity here in the unitedhe same time, becky, the number of vehicles built by general motors and imported from gm plants in mexico continues to grow and from the uaw perspective, they don't understand it they don't understand why a plant is being idled here in the u.s. while production continues to grow in mexico. that's at the crux of the what's going on between the union and general motors. >> wow phil, thank you. we will check in with you later this morning as well >>> when we come back, though, is the window for a trade deal closing. kevin rud will join us to talk about some weak data that came out over night and whether or not an agreentan sme ctill be made that's next right here on "squawk box. features as the rx, the new... the lexus rx has met its match. if they're talking about you... you must be doing something right. experience the style, craftsmanship, and technology that have made the rx the leading luxury suv of all time. lease the 2019 rx 350 for $399 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at

united state above the executive branch. >> you commanded s.e.a.l. team two and retired from the navy. 23 days after the trump/zelensky call and four days after the whistleblower made his or her complaint, you were subpoenaed before this committee. >> yes. >> chairman schiff wrote a letter on september 13 accusing you 6 being part of an unlawful cover upand speaker of the house said not once but twice that you broke the law, that you committed a crime. she said the acting director of national intelligence blocked him, meaning the ici gichlt, from disclosing the whistleblower complaint, this is a violation of the law. you were falsely accused of committing a crime. you were required to follow not just an opinion of what the law is, but the opinion from the justice department, an 11 page opinion about whether or not you were required by law to report the whistleblower complaint. correct? >> that's correct, congressman. >> and that opinion says, the question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of urgent concern that the law requires the dni to forward to the intelligence committee. we conclude that it does not. did i read that accurately? i better have, right

if a whistle-blower makes a complaint that is deemed urgent in nature, it must be presented to the united states congress. the president cannot hold it back. the executive branch cannot make it a secret. and what makes it even worse is the president seems to be playing games with this whistle-blower complaint. he seems to be teasing out little bits of information that are contained in it here and there in order to play to his political advantage. it's even worse than holding back the complaint from us. he's now using pieces of it to try to gain advantage over his political opponents. at the very least, over the next 24 hours we need to come to a conclusion that the law needs to be followed. because if the president can withhold from us whistle-blower complaints that are not flattering to him, that potentially implicate him, then what's the point of having a whistle-blower law? what's the point of having a process to protect people who are uncovering corruption in the administration if the administration can keep those complaints secret? let's just be honest, if this president gets away with it, the next democratic president can get away with it, the nex