President Trump is having very
high-profile fights with two US
officials, the Federal Reserve Governor,
Lisa Cook, and the Health Boss Susan
Monores. Why, and do they have
implications for the rest of the world?
We'll discuss on this episode of the
BBC's Daily News podcast, newscast.
Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio
and there's loads of things happening
state side. So, we thought we would rope
in Katrina Perry to come and talk to us
because she's just been recording an
episode of the other podcast she does in
Washington, The President's Path. So,
welcome to what would we call this?
Britain's Path.
>> Well, thank you for the plug. It's
excellent. Everyone should listen to it
in addition to newscast.
>> Exactly. probably covering some of the
same subjects today, but also maybe we'd
start more from beginners start here
with some of the subjects we're doing
today, Katrina. So the well there's one
theme that covers two stories which is
the Trump administration uh intervening
in kind of like more like HR issues with
quite senior normally quite independent
officials
>> and actually that has been a theme of
this entire administration since Donald
Trump came back into office in January.
there has been a clear out um at various
departments and various agencies of
people that don't share the same world
view that President Trump has. Um and
also we've of course seen a clear out of
federal workers as well but we've seen a
lot of people go from the Department of
Justice from all of the agencies and
then today we see the Center for Disease
Control and uh the efforts by the
president to fire one of the Federal
Reserve governors as well. So let's talk
about the Federal Reserve first of all.
So this is Lisa Cook who yeah is one of
the governors of the Federal Reserve.
What actually what's the job that she
does?
>> Well, uh the dark art of setting
interest rates is one of the jobs. H
there are seven members of the board of
governors of the Federal Reserve. It's
supposed to be an independent role.
Their term is 14 years. So it's quite a
lengthy term. And the point of that is
to guarantee their independence that
they're not kind of coming in and out of
office in line with various presidents
and their whims. It's very difficult to
fire them. You have to have what's
called cause basically a very good
reason. Um and they're there to
basically their job is to set US
monetary policy and to keep an eye on
the economy and to make sure that
everything is being done in the best
interests of the American people. And
what is Trump's claim against Lisa Cook?
>> So his claim against her is that he he's
basically accusing her of mortgage
fraud, something that she vehemently
denies. Uh so basically there's a rule
here that if you are buying a house, you
can claim that it's your primary
principal residence. Similar rules exist
in most jurisdictions, I think. And in
doing so, people generally ask for a
more favorable interest rate from the
bank because, you know, they say, "I'm
going to be living there. I'm going to
treating it really well. I'm not trying
to make a profit off of it. And there's
a rule that you have to then keep it as
your primary principal residence for at
least a year to take advantage of that
interest rate. Now, what they're
accusing her of is trying to claim that
she had two primary principal
residences. She was a lecturer in
Michigan. She's from Atlanta, Georgia.
She bought two properties within a few
months of each other and they're
claiming that according to her mortgage
forms, she claimed both of them as her
primary principal residence and
therefore was trying to get a preferable
preferable rate for both of them. um
>> which they're saying would amount to
cause in terms of being able to fire her
because if she's someone in charge of
setting mortgage interest rates for
other people and if this is what they
say she's doing uh her herself. By the
way, these um these mortgage forms are
dated and these property purchases are
from before she was appointed to the
board of governors. She obviously
vemently denies all of this and has now
said that she's suing President Trump
because of his efforts to try and remove
her from her role.
>> And Katrina, to what extent is this uh
going to turn into a court case about
kind of HR issues and to what extent is
it going to be a court case about the
powers of the president to intervene in
institutions like the Fed? It's going to
be about the power of the president and
how he's wielding that power. What it
says about democracy, what it says about
the independence of these agencies who
have such a critical role, in this case
the Fed, such a critical role in terms
of monetary policy in this country. We
know the president has a beef, if you
want to call it that, with the chairman
of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.
He's been pressuring him to reduce
interest rates in this country.
something the president wants, something
the chairman and uh the members of the
board, not unanimously, but most of them
have said uh they don't see the timing
as being appropriate for an interest
rate cut at this time. If President
Trump was to be successful in removing
Lisa Cook and appointing in her place
someone who's loyal to him and has the
same worldview as him, shall we say,
then he would be potentially able to
sway the decision of the board of
governors in terms of interest rates or
at least that is the fear which would
then potentially have a dramatic impact
on the economy on lots of people's
personal wealth as well shall we say.
Um, and that's the major fear about what
that says about the independence of the
Federal Reserve and the president and
his administration.
>> And then the second case, which is
similar in some ways but different in
others, is about the boss of the Center
for Disease Control. Um, what do we
think is going on there?
>> Yeah, Susan Monz is the well was it
seems the director of the Center for
Disease Control. And that's an agency
that was set up 79 years ago to get
ahead of a malaria outbreak here in the
US. She's the 21st director of it, but
the shortest serving one only a month in
office. The president saying, well,
actually in this case, a Twitter post,
an ex post came from the um Department
of Health and Human Services, which is
the department headed up by Secretary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to say that she
was no longer working there. Now, her
lawyers have put out a statement
basically saying this is news to them,
that she hasn't resigned and that she
hasn't been formally fired. Uh, so they
are unclear as to what is going on, but
she had she basically was appointed
acting director in January. President
Trump wanted to put somebody else in the
role. That person couldn't get uh
through the various hoops, if you like.
So, Susan Monz became the director. she
was Senate confirmed and here she is in
the role a month now. Three other senior
leaders in the CDC have also resigned um
basically saying that they can't carry
on the job that they're doing under this
administration that they don't agree
with the policies from Secretary Kennedy
particularly around vaccines
particularly around infectious diseases
and a whole host of other things and she
also has been quite critical of the
policies of the president as well. Um
she there's a statement actually from
her lawyer where she says she has
refused to rubber stamp unscientific
reckless directives and fired dedicated
health experts at the request of the
secretary. She chose instead protecting
the public over serving a political
agenda and for that she has been
targeted. Uh they said this is not about
just her. It's about the systematic
dismantling of public health
institutions, the silencing of experts,
and the dangerous politicization of
science. The attack on Dr. Monores is a
warning to every American. Our
evidence-based systems are being
undermined from within. And that is what
we've seen happening at the Department
of Health and Human Services here. And
we've seen many, many medical
professionals raising flags about some
of the things that have been done away
with under this administration. They've
stopped funding research uh to many
projects that have um let's say possible
outcomes that are not in line with
President Trump's view and the
administration's view. They've stopped
public health information as well. So, a
lot of files were taken down off these
websites that give advice on vaccines,
give advice on various diseases. All of
that information has been removed and
there's great concern from the medical
and scientific community here in the US.
And just to be clear, like this stuff is
dominating the news in America more so
than say Russian strikes on Ukraine.
>> Oh, without doubt. I mean, the case of
these two women is everywhere on the US
networks here this morning and
particularly the push back. They do have
the same lawyer, which is very
interesting. Um, and Lisa Cook's case,
the the Federal Reserve governor we were
talking about, her case is due before
court tomorrow. it's going to be heard
by a Biden appointed judge. So that's
giving another point of consternation to
the White House and to some of the more
conservativeleaning media here. But
yeah, both of these cases are are
absolutely dominating coverage here
today anyway um over anything that might
be happening in Ukraine or in the Middle
East or anywhere else.
>> And this is this is labeled lawfare by
people who tend to be on the the
opposing side or the the potentially
losing side in the court case.
>> Yeah, exactly. And I mean, we've heard
that term from the president and his
team for some time now, haven't we? The
weaponization of various parts of the
government. They felt they were on the
receiving end of it before President
Trump came into office and now they're
being accused of carrying out the very
same thing now that they are in office
and in these positions of power.
>> Katrina, thank you very much.
>> Thanks, Adam. And someone who's
definitely not going to Donald Trump's
state banquet when he's here for his
state visit in September is the Liberal
Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey who says he
is going to boycott it and he explained
his reasons when he sat down in the
newscast studio.
>> And Sir Ed Davy's here. Hello.
>> Hello Adam.
>> Did you have a nice summer holiday by
the way?
>> A great summer holiday with the family.
Uh went to France caught up on some
sleep. It was good.
>> Good. Um, and I see that while you were
away, you were doing some like kind of
soularching about whether to go to the
state banquet or not with Donald Trump.
And it was actually soulsearching,
wasn't it?
>> Yeah, I was. I mean, um, the idea had
occurred to me uh when Gaza was really
getting so awful uh uh that, you know,
he was the one person who could do
something. Um, but uh the idea of
refusing an invitation from his majesty
was something I uh took very very
seriously. Um, I have a huge respect for
the monik. Uh, I've been really honored
to be able to go to previous state
banquetss. Uh, probably over half a
dozen now. Um, and uh, I don't didn't
want to take the decision lightly. So, I
really thought about it, talked to my
wife, I even prayed I'm a Christian. Um,
really wrestled with it. Um, but I came
to the conclusion and frankly the recent
events in Gaza just confirm that
>> that when you you see those pictures of
those children, you can see their
skeletons and you see the reports on the
beauty and elsewhere of of starvation,
the UN IPC confirming there's a famine
in
>> Gaza City, uh, children killed while
queuing for food and frankly the images
of the emaciated hostages as well. Um,
something absolutely has to be done and
you know we've been debating in
parliament. I've asked lots of prime
minister questions about it. The
Democrats have actually led quite a lot
of the opposition to push the UK
government to do more. Um, but I felt
that with Donald Trump being literally
the only man outside the Netanyahu
cabinet who has the power to bring this
to an end, he can phone up Netanyahu. He
can he can phone the Qatari government,
the Gulf States and say get hammers to
release the hostages. So I think I don't
want him to come to this country to have
a you know a slap up meal all that pomp
and ceremony and not be reminded
>> that he has that power.
>> But your your absence probably might not
even do that.
>> Well, I don't it might not. I mean I
can't be sure, can I? Uh but the truth
is I haven't been to these banquetss.
You don't get to talk to him. Um or even
his most senior entourage. That's not
unfortunately how it work. It's very
formal. There's
>> so the impact of this is what you're
doing now which is talking about it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I hope there's a
conversation uh in the media uh and
there is now uh there has been during
this the day conversation uh in the
public conversation amongst politicians
conversation in the government and they
feel uh that they really have pressure
on them to really raise this and make
this a big issue of his visit. I mean,
you have changed your mind on this,
though, because back on News Night in
April, you were asked and you said it
would be disrespectful to the king not
to go.
>> In terms of whether I I go, if I if he
does come and I was invited by King
Charles III, I would go because I'm not
going to disrespect our monarch. And you
know what? With the MAGA entourage that
will come with Donald Trump, I think the
king needs all the support he can get.
>> Now, you've decided over the summer you
won't go. What? What? Well, um I
actually called for the state visit in
the first place back in January because
I do believe in engaging even with
someone like Donald Trump and I and the
Democrats have been the most critical of
Donald Trump on everything from uh his
trade policy to his attitude to
President Zilinski on so many issues. I
disagree with Donald Trump, but I think
normally you want to sit down with
somebody. Um but it was this issue about
uh the king. Uh and you know in that
interview in April I was really clear
that I I felt I want to be on his side
and he's been put in a difficult
position. Um but my mind has changed and
it's changed primarily because of what
we've seen in Gaza.
>> Uh and it is so so shocking. There is a
humanitarian catastrophe and frankly
Donald Trump is complicit in it because
he has the power to to take action.
>> Do you think Kirst should be boycotting
this banquet as well?
>> No, I don't actually. I think he has a
job. I mean, he actually gave the
invitation so he can't invite someone
pretty dramatic
uninvited, wouldn't it?
>> Yeah. Um, so I don't think that would
work. And I think I've made clear in
this interview already. I do believe in
talking to people who you don't agree
with. Um, however, I have a a chance to
create the debate, which I think has to
be had. It would be just so wrong if he
came to this country and didn't hear and
the news media is picking up wasn't
reporting that we believe
>> he has a duty. And um, I hope it does
trigger a debate. Um, we'll see. We're
going to keep raising it. uh the Liberal
Democrats will keep raising it and
hopefully um it becomes part of the
discussion around his visit. I don't
think I'm alone amongst people in our
country who think Trump is no longer a
reliable ally.
Uh uh and therefore we have to be
particularly careful how we deal with
him on so many issues. But I think on
this issue beyond all others, the sense
of urgency that one feels when you see
those images
>> and and let's remember, you know,
Netanyahu government isn't allowing the
international press into Gaza. A record
number of journalists have been killed.
>> He denies there even is a famine.
>> Precisely. uh and uh I think we can't I
don't think reasonable people can can
sit and watch those images on the TV and
hear those reports here those the
evidence that comes from doctors who who
go to Gaza and and come back from all
the aid agencies and so many of the
people not say that this is a man-made
famine that's what the UN IPC said a
man-made famine
uh uh that is just outrageous and I know
there are many many people in Israel
who disagree with Netanyahu on this and
are protesting on different aspects of
of
>> but is there is there something that the
Star government could be doing to either
put pressure on Israel or to put
pressure on Israel's ally the US that
Starmmer hasn't done yet?
>> I mean you look at David Lami statements
like he uses the most emotive language a
foreign secretary could to condemn the
Israeli government.
>> Yeah. And I welcome the fact that he he
has done but I think there's more we
could do
>> such as
>> well we have argued that we should have
a full-scale uh arms embargo. I know the
government have this carve out for
components of F-35 fighter jets. I think
we need to look at ways of preventing
the sale of those. I think we need to uh
have more sanctions against individuals.
If they really do go ahead and Yahoo
himself
>> yes I I've said that in the House of
Commons. I mean the situation is about
to get worse. remember if they really do
continue this attack and they're making
preparations and some this there's the
signs of fighting outside Gaza City
already a million people in Gaza City
uh they are telling them to leave many
of them have left and been forcibly
displaced many times before I going to
make the situation even worse if that's
even possible imaginable and so the
urgency of this and uh let's remember we
also have the UN General Assembly
meeting starts on the 9th of September.
Uh there's a debate uh and discussion on
the 23rd of September about um whether
or not uh Palestine should be recognized
and you're in favor of that
>> very much. I wouldn't put the conditions
that Stara has put on. Actually, I think
we should just go ahead and send that
very clear message, but we know that
France is there, that Canada is there.
So, our close allies uh are saying to
both Israel and to the United States, um
I'm afraid you're not doing the right
thing. And so, as we see what could
happen in Gaza City, as we see the UN
debate on the recognition of Palestine,
we need to ramp up the pressure at every
moment. And you know, as leader of the
Liberal Democrats, I don't have that
many opportunities to do that and to get
the debate and to try to push the debate
into the area that I think it should be.
And the urgency and the gravity of this
moment uh is such that I think I think I
think I've taken the right decision.
>> Right. That's foreign policy. Let's talk
about domestic policy. Um what is the
Libdam position on on the small boats
crossing the channel? Do you want them
to stop? We want the small boat
crossings to stop. We have said that for
several years now. We think the asylum
hotels should be closed. The question is
how do you do those?
>> And I think the conservatives come quite
a big question.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm going to
answer it. Give you our answer. I think
the conservatives obviously utterly
fail. That's why they're the problem
indeed. I think the conservatives caused
the problem. I think they deliberately
created the asylum application backlog
by not processing asylum applications
and they then they had to put people in
hotels and so the tourists actually
caused the problem.
>> Well, and also they would argue that
they had the Rwanda scheme and so lots
of people who arrived were going to be
held and then sent to Rwanda and then
this government cancelled that.
>> Well, first of all, the Rwanda scheme
was came after their asylum application
backlog in the hotels. So, first of all,
don't let don't let them get away with
that. And their Render scheme after
spending £800 million saw no one uh
deported there. Uh so, I'm afraid an
utter failure
>> and deliberately rather than just kind
of from carelessness.
>> I think they just got the wrong policy
and uh I would go further. I think
>> no. And so what they acted and knew that
this would hap this backlog was going to
grow and grow and grow and that the
hotels would grow in number.
>> Well, they must have done. I mean, you
know, unless they're completely stupid,
it looks to me a deliberate ploy. They
were trying to say say to people, you
won't if you come over here, you'll be
just be put in a hotel. And I'm afraid
they just got their analysis wrong. They
don't understand the issue and they were
utterly incompetent. But actually their
failure goes further and it's a failure
that Farage is part of because before we
left the European Union there was an
agreement between the UK and every
European country a returns agreement
under something called the Dublin
Convention and that gave us the legal
right to return people who came here and
let's remember that we didn't have a
small boats problem before we left the
EU. So what makes me pretty cross and
I'm not having a go at you Adam but I
think the BBC and others uh need to ask
Niger Farage more searching questions.
Um why did you campaign on an issue
which made this problem in the first
place? Do you want to apologize for
actually creating the small boats
problem because the legal powers that
would have been available to send uh
these people coming on boats back to
France or back to wherever has been
taken away and we've seen how difficult
the current government has found it but
just okay two things there were small
boats arrivals before the UK fully left
the EU. Well, well, a tiny tiny number.
This problem has mushroomed. Okay. And
actually, let me there's another point
about this. Um, people who uh claim
asylum in um some other EU countries
don't go to other EU countries now
because they know they can be sent back
because of these agreements that they
have in the EU. They are now coming to
the UK because we don't have the power
to send them back. Yeah. So, so actually
by pulling out of the EU and pulling out
of these agreements, uh, Farage and the
Conservatives have created a pull factor
to the UK because these people and the
these legal traffickers realize that
there's no legal power anymore.
>> Okay. Under the EU's Dublin Convention,
actually, net more people were sent to
the UK as a result of that than left the
UK.
>> I know that. I know that figure but the
problem is it doesn't deal with the
deterrent effect. how many people didn't
come
>> right
>> because they would have been sent back
and you know you heard the touries
talking about Rwanda you hear about all
this deterrent effect we had a deterrent
effect it was incredibly uh effective
and of course the statistics can't show
that cuz they can't right you can't show
the people who didn't come and so I
think it was a powerful legal uh weapon
that we had which Farage and the
conservatives broke and sorry Ed I'm
going to come back to this again um
these people are getting away with
pretending it's someone else's fault
when it's their fault. You know, whether
it's uh because of Brexit and because of
and the tour is the way they broke the
immigration system. I I think it's
really important that listeners and the
media hold both the conservatives and
Farage to account for creating this
problem.
>> Why do you think they don't?
>> Well, you're a member of employee of the
BBC. I think Farage is allowed to get
away with blue murder. Frankly, uh, a
lot of what he says,
>> not literal murder.
>> Well, no, it was a a figurative term.
Um, but but I think, uh, some of the
things he sells, he's clearly a been
watching a snake or a salesman at work.
Uh, they're just not true, half of what
he says, uh, and he has to be exposed
for that.
>> Are you dialing up your rhetoric against
him as a as a sort of ad hominemm?
>> No, I'm I'm doing the job of the media,
trying to hold him to account. And
here's another thing. I let me tell you
our uh solution for this because rejoin
the EU.
>> Well, no. Have a an agreement with them.
The government's had got a very timid
agreement just with France. Uh they say
it's a pilot. It needs to be far more uh
comprehensive. Let me give you another
solution which is a liberal democrat
solution which would work. We should
process the asylum applications much
quicker. We should also say
>> which is what the governments say
they're trying to do
>> trying to do. It should have been done a
ages ago. the tries failed yet again.
Here's another example which the
government isn't doing and refuses to
do. If someone is here after say 3
months claiming asylum rather than
putting up in a hotel the expense of the
taxpayer, give them the chance to work.
Let them pay their way. Give them a
temporary temporary right to do that
while
>> that wouldn't be a pull factor.
>> Well, the pull factors being created by
leaving the EU because of the fact that
we can't return people. That's the
biggest pull factor we're seeing uh
today. uh and the fact that it would be
temporary. And let me also be clear, if
people are found to not have a valid
asylum claim, they should be deported
totally
to Afghanistan.
>> Well, well, to to wherever they're able
to and then we reach those agreements. I
think Afghanistan is a very difficult
case and I'm glad you brought that up
because we now hear that different
people think we can talk to the Taliban
and uh in a way which uh would undermine
people who had escaped their tyranny and
indeed uh uh in some cases torture and
threat of death. You know, I'm all up
for talking to the Taliban to get peace
and stability. Don't get me wrong, we
should try and talk to people, but we
should also protect
>> So, we should recognize So, we should
recognize the Taliban as the official
government of Afghanistan.
>> Well, I mean,
>> the UK government doesn't do that at the
moment.
>> No, but it still deals with them. Um, so
I mean, you you're right about the
diplomatic uh nicities, but it still has
uh channels of communication. uh what
what I would say uh on uh the Afghan
point that Farage is talking about, I
wonder what the families of the soldiers
who were lost and who were injured
um feel about what they're saying. I
mean, maybe they agree them, but I I
wonder if they think that's the right
thing. And um given we know and many
many MPs will have had cases in their
constituencies of uh Afghans who
supported us work with our soldiers
um very bravely have had family members
killed as a result and we made a pledge
to them that we would look after them
how they feel about what Farage is now
saying.
>> Are you saying that that Faraj saying
he'd have negotiations with the Taliban
about returning refugees from the UK to
Afghanistan in future? that's insulting
to British war veterans who fought in
Afghanistan.
>> I think it's the real danger that that
it'll be taken as an insult because they
they fought for the rights of of people
and they fought with these some of these
Afghan people who are uh whose lives are
in question. Here's another thing that
we could do though to try to find ways
forward, you know, and we did this in in
in government. Um when the Syria crisis
blew up, we work really hard to try to
keep people near Syria, uh the EU wor
with Turkey, for example, so that people
who are fleeing conflict can actually
stay in the region and you use overseas
aid to make sure that the refugee camps
are decent places to live, that kids can
get education, they get healthcare in
decent refugee camps near the region
where the war is. Well, Nigel Farage
wants to destroy the overseas aid budget
to prevent that happening where it is
and so he'd make the situation worse.
>> No, but by your logic then if a refugee
flees country X because of a war or
whatever and they can be hosted in a
refugee camp in country Y with nice
facilities where they're well looked
after. What's so bad about a person
being removed from the UK to country Y
where the refugee camp is and processed
there
>> in
>> instead of go yeah
>> in some
>> I don't know if I got my letters the
right there but you know what I mean why
so that this is a why is it okay it's
called third country processing why is
third country processing okay for
somebody when they're leaving their home
country but it not okay for when they're
being removed from the UK
>> well hold let's also be careful what
we're talking about here the Rwanda
propos proposal was not a third country
processing.
>> True. Cuz it was actually sending
something to Rwanda permanently to be
processed in the Roman
>> to a country and a region they may have
had nothing ever to do with. Right.
>> So what we're talking what we did uh was
to make sure that refugee camps in the
area where that family came from were
decent places to live. Yeah.
>> And that meant that when a war is ended
there they can have maybe look at the
choice of going back. Now that seems to
me humane approach. That does not mean
by the way we shouldn't take our fair
share of asylum seekers and refugees.
I'm completely believe no but the UK
should take the moral responsibility.
>> No, but you see what I mean though. The
logic of that is that it's okay for
people to be temporarily processed,
housed, whatever you want to call it, in
a third country.
>> Well, they are at the moment. They have
been for for decades. There's nothing
new about that.
>> No. So why is it not okay for somebody
who arrives in the UK by a small boat to
be taken from the UK to that third
country to be housed there?
>> Well, are you in favor of that? Well,
I'm in favor of stopping the small boats
uh completely. And what I've said uh
what we want is what we used to have
before the uh Farage and the Tories got
their way, a returns agreement uh with
our European neighbors that would solve
the the small boats problem. Uh, and
that's why I'm afraid uh Farage should
be apologizing, not posturing.
>> Um, Ed, I have to say, last time you
were sat on the newscast sofa, it was
just before Christmas, you were in a
Christmas jumper. We were talking about
your Christmas single.
>> This seems like a much more serious Ed
Davyy than. I wonder if like the whole
going on zip wires, absorbing Ed Davyy,
maybe that's you've he's you've
consigned him to history. No, I think
anyone who's
>> serious times,
>> anyone who's known me over the years
knows that uh it's possible to do both
and I do do both. You know, if you want
to talk about economic policy, I'm I'm
really happy to talk about that.
Government's making a mess of it almost
as bad as the conservatives who left the
economy in such a mess. Cost of living
issues, health and care, which actually
the Christmas single was all about young
carers, as I'm sure you recall. So I can
do those uh serious but I do think
sometimes actually uh it's right to for
politicians to um do things different
and engage with people and have a smile.
Uh obviously uh this issue we've been
talking about today
>> going back to to Gaza that there's no
smiles there. It's just uh tears and uh
sadness and um sense of desperation.
>> Ed, thank you very much.
And that's all for this episode of
Newscast, apart from to say three final
things. Ed Davy's single actually peaked
at number 37 in the charts at Christmas,
which is not bad going. We've got a
special episode of Newscast landing
tomorrow, Friday, which will look ahead
to the return of Parliament, which
happens on Monday. And if you'd like to
hear more about the big Russian attack
on Keev that happened on Wednesday night
into Thursday morning, there's an
episode of Ukraine Cast, our sister
podcast, which has all the details of
that. And that episode of newscast
looking at British politics will be
heading your way very soon. Bye-bye.