hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. this is what you're asking us to say — a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office without facing criminal liability. if you don't have immunity, you're not going to do anything. you're going to become a ceremonial president. even before the day began, he kind of held account of workers and basically his campaign saying, since they can't be out on the trail, they're going to bring the trail to them here in new york. trump is claiming absolute immunity, which essentially means that presidents would be inoculated from any sort of prosecution. that's a really sweeping claim of executive power.

a hugely consequential day for donald trump. the criminal trial resumes in manhattan, a decision is pending on the gag order which he continues to flout. and a hearing in the supreme court on whether he is entitled to presidential immunity. all that within hours of trump being named as a co—conspirator in a new set of indictments in arizona. we have got top legal analysis for you tonight on a whole string of legal problems facing the former president. also tonight — the case that sparked the #metoo movement. a top court in new york's today overturned the 2020 conviction of the hollywood mogul harvey weinstein, on grounds he did not receive a fair trial. the scottish first minister scraps the snp's power—sharing agreement with the greens. opposition parties are threatening a vote of no confidence. and we will look at labour's proposal to renationalise the uk's railways. but is it full fat nationalisation we will get you an expert view. good evening.

the declaration of independence held certain truths to be self evident. that all men, and women, are created equal. is that equal before the law, neither above it nor below it? or should former presidents be immune from prosecution. notjust lawsuits while in office but consequences for crimes even afterward. that was the question before the supreme court in washington today. in new york the former president, currently on trial for conspiracy and corruption said that if the 9 justices failed to grant him immunity for official acts he had taken in office, then future presidents would be inundated with prosecutions that would hamstring their ability to serve in the white house. argument of immunity is very important. the president has to have immunity. this has nothing to do with me. this has to do with a president in the future, 400 years from now. if you don't have immunity, you're not going to do anything. you're going to become a ceremonial president who's just going to be doing nothing. you're not going to take any

of the risks, both good and bad. you're going to make some great decisions and save the country. and you're going to make some decisions which are unfortunate. but that's the way it is. but the justices in the supreme court, were sceptical. the chiefjusticejohn roberts questioned the scope of trump's argument when it comes to official acts: would a president really have immunity if they appointed an ambassador, roberts asked, in exchange for a bribe? how would you determine if a president's actions are part of his official conduct. justice thomas asked whether they should differentiate between a president, acting as president, and the president acting as a candidate? and then this from justice sonia sotomayor. we would be creating a situation in which we would be saying is, this is what you're asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office.

that's what you're trying to get us to hold without facing criminal liability. the attorney for special counsel jack smith, who is prosecuting the attempts to overturn the election, pushed back against claims that donald trump's efforts amounted to "official acts" as president, but the chiefjustice did push back, reminding the special counsel how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment. relying on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases, he said. we will talk about events in new york shortly. our correspondent nada tawfik will bring us up to date on the hush money case and the evidence we have been hearing today, but let's focus on the supreme court. gary o'donoghue has been carrying that angle for us. gary, as we have set out, the justices appeared sceptical of his claim of absolute immunity, but there is a question that needs to be

answered, do the allegations in the indictment fall under official acts of the presidency or not? why is that relevant?— of the presidency or not? why is that relevant? because there is a distinction being _ that relevant? because there is a distinction being drawn _ that relevant? because there is a distinction being drawn here - that relevant? because there is a distinction being drawn here and| distinction being drawn here and interestingly it is a distinction that one of the conservative members of of the court was very interested in, whether or not any of the things that donald trump is accused of fall into the private realm, because donald trump's lawyers acknowledge that private acts were subject or can be subject to prosecution. she went through some things that are part of the indictment and donald trump's lawyer acknowledge they were potentially in the private realm. what you are starting to see here is a way forward where perhaps the supreme court says, look there is a bunch of stuff in this case that may be subject to prosecution, there may be subject to prosecution, there may be some areas of the regional

indictment that may be more problematic —— original indictment. go back to the courts and sort out the distinction between original and private and sort out what you think you can actually prosecute given that distinction, restart the case. i don't think you are going to get from the supreme court a blanket total immunity, i think that it's very clearfrom total immunity, i think that it's very clear from what we saw this morning. but you are also not going to get, all is fine, carry on with this prosecution. it is going to be a more grey area than that and that is going to introduce even more delays than we have had up until now for this january the six case. the other cases _ for this january the six case. the other cases are _ for thisjanuary the six case. the other cases are delayed. the one in new york continues. the witness, the former publisher of the national enquirer was back on the stand. he was outlining the agreement with donald trump to buy and kill

damaging stories before the election, what more did we hear today? election, what more did we hear toda ? , ., today? yes, he went into further detail about two _ today? yes, he went into further detail about two of _ today? yes, he went into further detail about two of those - today? yes, he went into further. detail about two of those instances, first with _ detail about two of those instances, first with the playboy model, karen mcdougall. on the stand he said that he had _ mcdougall. on the stand he said that he had agreed with michael cohen to pay a _ he had agreed with michael cohen to pay a karen mcdougall at the direction of donald trump hundred and $50,000 to buy her story about and $50,000 to buy her story about an alleged _ and $50,000 to buy her story about an alleged affair. michael cohen assured — an alleged affair. michael cohen assured him that the boss will take care of— assured him that the boss will take care of it — assured him that the boss will take care of it. david becker said after speaking — care of it. david becker said after speaking to his general council about— speaking to his general council about being reimbursed he told michaei— about being reimbursed he told michael cohen, don't reimburse me, it's a _ michael cohen, don't reimburse me, it's a had _ michael cohen, don't reimburse me, it's a bad idea. the prosecution has used _ it's a bad idea. the prosecution has used that— it's a bad idea. the prosecution has used that to — it's a bad idea. the prosecution has used that to bridge to the stormy daniets— used that to bridge to the stormy daniels payment and explain why, as they allege, michael cohen made the

payment _ they allege, michael cohen made the payment to stormy daniels at donald trump's _ payment to stormy daniels at donald trump's direction. but again, back to the _ trump's direction. but again, back to the issue — trump's direction. but again, back to the issue of intent. david packer places— to the issue of intent. david packer places donald trump's concerns about the election— places donald trump's concerns about the election at the forefront of all of their— the election at the forefront of all of their conversations. he says after— of their conversations. he says after a — of their conversations. he says aftera dinnerat the of their conversations. he says after a dinner at the white house donald _ after a dinner at the white house donald trump asked david packer, how is karen _ donald trump asked david packer, how is karen. when her and stormy danieis— is karen. when her and stormy daniels did an interview, donald trump _ daniels did an interview, donald trump complained, he says, that they were breaking their agreement. at one point— were breaking their agreement. at one point david packer even said that stormy daniels owed him $400,000 for every time she mentioned him against their agreement. mentioned him against their agreement-— mentioned him against their aareement. �*, , ., agreement. let's bring in someone else. i'm joined now by the former us federal prosecutor sarah krissoff. where does this leave jack smith and the january six case which is before

lower courts in washington? it the january six case which is before lower courts in washington? it does not a- ear lower courts in washington? it does not appear that _ lower courts in washington? it does not appear that that _ lower courts in washington? it does not appear that that case _ lower courts in washington? it does not appear that that case is - lower courts in washington? it does not appear that that case is going i not appear that that case is going to be proceeding quickly, certainly not on the timeframe that jack smith once. there is a lot, really interesting questions raised by the court here on both sides of the aisle. they have a lot to sort through and muddle through. especially given the lack of case law that they have to rely on. it is very likely that they send this back down for some clarification. some of these points regarding the prosecution as well. the these points regarding the prosecution as well. the issue of whether acts _ prosecution as well. the issue of whether acts were _ prosecution as well. the issue of whether acts were committed i prosecution as well. the issue of. whether acts were committed under official duties, it is an important point and you can see why this you can bring it back supreme court wants to get this right. full stop george bush at the time of the iraq invasion went into iraq without a un

resolution. it would be limiting for a president if there were no immunity for some acts carried out during official duties.— immunity for some acts carried out during official duties. trump's team reasons legitimate _ during official duties. trump's team reasons legitimate arguments - during official duties. trump's team | reasons legitimate arguments about stunting the ability of the president to do theirjob. the thing is that trump came in guns a blazing asking for this overreaching, full, absolute immunity, which the court shut down very quickly and trunk�*s team backed off a bit. we have more nuanced legal arguments that took place. nuanced legal arguments that took lace. �* .,

nuanced legal arguments that took lace. ., ., nuanced legal arguments that took lace, ., ., ., nuanced legal arguments that took lace. ., ., ., ., ., place. another quick word on another case that we — place. another quick word on another case that we have _ place. another quick word on another case that we have not _ place. another quick word on another case that we have not introduced - place. another quick word on another case that we have not introduced to l case that we have not introduced to our viewers. a federaljudge today made a decision on the defamation case in the $80 million or so that he has been ordered to pay. what happened there? the he has been ordered to pay. what happened there?— happened there? the 'udge essentially * happened there? the 'udge essentially declined h happened there? the judge essentially declined to - happened there? the judge l essentially declined to throw happened there? the judge - essentially declined to throw out the jury decision. essentially declined to throw out thejury decision. it's no essentially declined to throw out the jury decision. it's no surprise. it's normal for the losing the jury decision. it's no surprise. it's normalfor the losing party the jury decision. it's no surprise. it's normal for the losing party to challenge that. the judge said no so the bed expands. i challenge that. the 'udge said no so the bed expands.— the bed expands. i want to get your thou~hts the bed expands. i want to get your thoughts on — the bed expands. i want to get your thoughts on another _

case in new york today, the decision to overturn the 2020 conviction in new york of the disgraced hollywood film producer harvey weinstein. one of the most prominent figures exposed by the #metoo movement, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison, but a 4—3 majority of the appeals court has ruled today the conviction was unsafe. they have ordered a retrial. he will remain in prison for a separate rape conviction. so, sarah, why was this conviction overturned? the court said improper evidence was offered by the state.— offered by the state. individuals who said they — offered by the state. individuals who said they were _ offered by the state. individuals who said they were assaulted i offered by the state. individuals| who said they were assaulted by offered by the state. individuals - who said they were assaulted by when seen but who were victims who testified but for whom there were no particular criminal charges related to those victims. the state presented this as a pattern of conduct, a course of conduct in the highest court of new york said that was improper to introduce this evidence that was essentially out side of the charges that were in the case and before the jury. haifa side of the charges that were in the case and before the jury. case and before the “my. how common is that? as i _ case and before the jury. how common is that? as i understand _ case and before the jury. how common is that? as i understand it, _ is that? as i understand it, this has been more typical of late that

prosecutions have brought in witnesses that speak to a defendant's character. does it set a dangerous precedent in relation to other cases where there have been convictions?— other cases where there have been convictions? , , .., , convictions? there is extensive case law on this, — convictions? there is extensive case law on this. how— convictions? there is extensive case law on this, how much _ convictions? there is extensive case law on this, how much information | law on this, how much information beyond the four corners of the allegations you can admit in a case. in each one of those cases the prosecutors have to make decisions. are they going to seek to introduce the information and risk what happened here? risk an appeal being rejected is later, or are they going to limit the information they provide to the four corners of the complaint. the prosecutors went pretty broadly here beyond what was in the complaint and unfortunately this is the result, we are almost four years later, which is hard to

believe. , ., .., ., ., believe. they have called for a retrial and _ believe. they have called for a retrial and that _ believe. they have called for a retrial and that rests - believe. they have called for a retrial and that rests with - believe. they have called for a retrial and that rests with the l retrial and that rests with the manhattan district attorney, who has to consider a couple of things, obviously, whether he can get a conviction with a limited number of witnesses. but also putting some of these witnesses, who would allege they have suffered sexual abuse back on the stand? yes they have suffered sexual abuse back on the stand?— they have suffered sexual abuse back on the stand? yes he has a number of thins to on the stand? yes he has a number of things to weigh _ on the stand? yes he has a number of things to weigh in _ on the stand? yes he has a number of things to weigh in deciding _ on the stand? yes he has a number of things to weigh in deciding whether. things to weigh in deciding whether to proceed again with this case. i suspect he probably well, but it is incredibly traumatic for these victims to have to testify again. to tell their story publicly, to have the nation's attention on it. it was incredibly dramatic the first time, it will be so again. there are a lot of things that the da has to consider and whether to proceed with the case, but i expect they will,

given, after balancing those issues. thank you for coming on. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's take a look at some stories making news across the uk... a 13—year—old girl is due to appear before magistrates tomorrow, after being charged with attempting to murder three people at a school in wales. two teachers and a pupil were taken to hospital with stab wounds after the incident in ammanford; they've all since been discharged. a former senior executive at the post office has told the inquiry into the horizon it scandal that she's "truly sorry for the devastation" caused to branch managers. angela van den bogerd dealt with many of the legal cases against sub—postmasters. she said she never "knowingly" did anything wrong. the army has said it's "too early to know" whether two household cavalry horses will return to official duties, after they were injured when they bolted through central london yesterday. the horses —— named quaker and vida

—— were spooked by the noise of builders moving rubble. they've been operated on and remain in a serious condition. three soldiers in a tight cyclist were taken to hospital in the incident —— three soldiers and a cyclist. it's starting to feel like we are into election season here in the uk as well. a first major announcement from labour today — they are promising to renationalise nearly all passenger rail services within five years if they win the next election. the party says a new public body, great british railways, will inherit the existing contracts when they expire, taking on responsibility for running all services. here's the labour leader, sir keir starmer. i want our railways to work properly with an absolute focus on passengers. at the moment, i think anybody using the railways would say they're pretty dysfunctional. there's record numbers of delays and cancellations. you've got prices on fares that don't match the quality of the service, and of course then

you've got the government stepping in with huge subsidies. so, you know, the privatisation has not worked. it's deteriorated under this government. ourjob, if we're elected into government, is to pick this up, fix it. as you'd expect, the tory government has been quick to dismiss the plans. here's the transport secretary mark harper. no idea how to pay for it. there are going to be increased costs. if you nationalise all those companies, you're going to have to hire civil servants to manage it. joining me now is phil sherratt, editor of modern railway magazine. phil, good to have you with us. is it nationalisation? it is phil, good to have you with us. is it nationalisation?— it nationalisation? it is partial nationalisation. _ it nationalisation? it is partial nationalisation. it _ it nationalisation? it is partial nationalisation. it is - nationalisation. it is nationalisation. it is nationalisation of the train companies, the majority of which are still under private sector contracts, national rail contracts they are called. however, there are certain parts of the rail system

that won't be nationalised. the freight sector which is all private operators, they aren't proposing to touch that. open access operators for example in the east coast main line is they will send a private sector. and the majority of trains on the network. can sector. and the ma'ority of trains on the network.— sector. and the ma'ority of trains on the network. can it be run as an integrated — on the network. can it be run as an integrated business _ on the network. can it be run as an integrated business if _ on the network. can it be run as an integrated business if you - on the network. can it be run as an integrated business if you still- integrated business if you still have garages and rolling stock outside of state control? you can't have track without trains on them. the crucial thing is bringing together track and train, but when you talk about that the key thing is the operators and creating their dynamics and relationships within the industry to make it function better. this is something that has been talked about for some time. there was a review in 2018 that reports in 2021 and what labour is proposing is quite similar to what

was in those recommendations. since that report in 2021 the conservatives have changed tack and gone to a more private sector led approach. labour's proposal is to create what was in the review. the key question _ create what was in the review. the key question we want to know is will it be cheaper? that key question we want to know is will it be cheaper?— it be cheaper? that is ultimately a decision for _ it be cheaper? that is ultimately a decision for the _ it be cheaper? that is ultimately a decision for the government - it be cheaper? that is ultimately a decision for the government to - it be cheaper? that is ultimately a . decision for the government to make. whoever forms the government. fares are regulated the majority of them, there is a balance to be had. there is a line that there are two sources of funding for the railway, the fare payer or the taxpayer. over recent years the balance has shifted more towards the people buying the tickets and paying the fare is, but if labour choose to change that. they are saying they want to cut costs and eliminate waste. that is easy to say, we will wait to see what the detail of that is and how

it might work out. in what the detail of that is and how it might work out.— it might work out. in terms of trains running _ it might work out. in terms of trains running on _ it might work out. in terms of trains running on time, - it might work out. in terms of trains running on time, a - it might work out. in terms of trains running on time, a lot i trains running on time, a lot of people will say, it's worth a shot, it can't be worse. i people will say, it's worth a shot, it can't be worse.— it can't be worse. i think that has to be our focus _ it can't be worse. i think that has to be our focus in _ it can't be worse. i think that has to be our focus in the _ it can't be worse. i think that has to be our focus in the short - it can't be worse. i think that has| to be our focus in the short term, regardless of what we do in terms of organisation of the railway, public private sector. there are things we can probably do now. one of which is sorting out the industrial disputes with the drivers union that has been ongoing, there are more strikes coming up shortly. that is obviously has significant impact on the railways and puts people off travelling. that is a short—term thing we can do. improve industrial relations more generally and sort out some of the endemic issues. quite a lot of that doesn't require the structural changes. what labour is proposing with bringing these operators into the public sector is saying it will do that when the contracts come up so that will

happen progressively anyway. they have said they want to get on and do things in the meantime and i think thatis things in the meantime and i think that is the right approach. there are some things the conservative government could do now. good to talk to you. — government could do now. good to talk to you, thank _ government could do now. good to talk to you, thank you _ government could do now. good to talk to you, thank you for - government could do now. good to talk to you, thank you for coming l talk to you, thank you for coming on. the scottish first minister, humza yousaf, has scrapped the snp�*s power—sharing agreement with the greens. mr yousaf said recent tensions between the parties over the scrapping of key climate targets in scotland had convinced him to go it alone. the party will return to minority rule with "immediate effect". scottish tory leader douglas ross announced at this morning's first minister's questions that he would be tabling a vote of no confidence in humza yousaf, a vote we are expecting next week. the scottish labour leader, anas sarwar, has called for a snap election. let's speak to iain macwhirter, columnist for the times and author of disunited kingdom. good to have you with us. not very long ago the first minister said the bute house agreement was worth its weight in gold, why has the balance

shifted? the weight in gold, why has the balance shifted? ., , ., ., ., , , shifted? the gold standard has been devalued in bute _ shifted? the gold standard has been devalued in bute house. _ shifted? the gold standard has been devalued in bute house. it - shifted? the gold standard has been devalued in bute house. it is - devalued in bute house. it is difficult to know exactly what happened. people are still trying to disentangle it from rumours and such that have been going around. late last night humza yousaf decided that he couldn't afford to wait around for the minority scottish green party to decide at its emergency general meeting next month that it was going to detach itself from the bute house agreement and end the coalition. he decided it was best to seize the initiative, take control and send the green ministers packing. it was a pretty ruthless exercise. they were deeply shocked by it, extremely angered. one of the

green ministers said it was a betrayal that the snp had capitulated to reactionary and backward —looking groups and sacrificed future generations. really it's a bad divorce. i sacrificed future generations. really it's a bad divorce. i heard the deputy _ really it's a bad divorce. i heard the deputy leader _ really it's a bad divorce. i heard the deputy leader of _ really it's a bad divorce. i heard the deputy leader of the - really it's a bad divorce. i heard the deputy leader of the greens| really it's a bad divorce. i heard i the deputy leader of the greens on the deputy leader of the greens on the radio saying that on some of the social issues there was a fringe of socially conservative snp members who had got the ear of humza yousaf, you can think of what that might be, rent controls, prescription of puberty blockers that have been paused on the back of the inquiry. there is the issue over their green plans as well, net zero. is it true that humza yousaf is under pressure within his own party? he that humza yousaf is under pressure within his own party?—

within his own party? he has been under pressure _ within his own party? he has been under pressure with _ within his own party? he has been under pressure with in _ within his own party? he has been under pressure with in his - within his own party? he has been under pressure with in his own - within his own party? he has been i under pressure with in his own party over this alliance with the green party, which many in the snp feel has been unacceptable and has led to a number of catastrophic policy failures such as the policy return screen and the hate crime act and the gender recognition reform bill which was inspired by the green party and had to be vetoed by the european government. they talk about these elements but what they mean are their gender radical feminists in the snp likejoanna cherry who have been very hostile towards a number of the transgender policies of self identification and giving puberty blockers to young children.

i think this was the final straw. strangely it was not over the abandonment of the scottish government's ambitious climate emissions targets. it seems to be about the cas report. emissions targets. it seems to be about the (as report.— about the (as report. briefly, the vote of no _ about the (as report. briefly, the vote of no confidence, _ about the cas report. briefly, the vote of no confidence, will- about the (as report. briefly, the vote of no confidence, will he - vote of no confidence, will he survive that?— vote of no confidence, will he survive that? �* , , . , survive that? it's very much up in the air because _ survive that? it's very much up in the air because the _ survive that? it's very much up in the air because the green - survive that? it's very much up in the air because the green party l the air because the green party announced that they will be supporting, they will be voting with the conservatives and labour and the liberal democrats in this vote of no confidence in humza yousaf. given the snp has 63 seats in parliament it comes down to one vote of a former snp msp and minister who has defected to alex salmond's party.

it's in the balance. bile}. defected to alex salmond's party. it's in the balance.— it's in the balance. alex salmond now holds _ it's in the balance. alex salmond now holds the _ it's in the balance. alex salmond now holds the balance _ it's in the balance. alex salmond now holds the balance of - it's in the balance. alex salmond now holds the balance of the - it's in the balance. alex salmond | now holds the balance of the snp it's in the balance. alex salmond i now holds the balance of the snp in his hands. taste now holds the balance of the snp in his hands. ~ , . ,, hello there. there were two different types of weather across the country for thursday, neither being warm. across england and wales, there was a lot of cloud around with some patches of rain and these grey skies, the rain, was all tied in with an area of low pressure out in the north sea. you can see the extent of the cloud here. further north, though, we had much brighter weather in scotland with some lengthy spells of sunshine. so if you wanted the sunnier weather, scotland was the place to be. however, we did see some of those brighter skies push in into northern ireland and northern england through the afternoon. now, overnight, we've got a few patches of rain to come and go across southern areas of england, perhaps south wales as well. away from that, most of the uk having clearing skies, especially during the second part of the night, becomes largely dry, and there will be quite a widespread frost in rural areas. so we are looking at a cold and a frosty start to the day for many on friday. but overall, it's a much brighter day with more

in the way of sunshine. the exception southern england, where there is the threat of some rain, especially in the southwest. and through the afternoon we'll see some showers break out. they'll become quite widespread, but especially across northern and eastern scotland and eastern areas of england. wherever you are, we're looking at another chilly day for the time of year, with temperatures well around about 8—14 degrees. now, this weekend will see an area of low pressure move up from the south. and this brings with it the threat of some rain. now, on saturday, the rain will be affecting southern england across parts of wales, the midlands and east anglia. there will be a chilly wind gusting into the 25 miles an hour, not desperately strong, but given those low temperatures, the wind, i think, will make it feel that bit colder. for northern ireland, scotland and northern england, after a cold and frosty start, again, we're looking at an afternoon of sunny spells and passing showers, some of the showers having a bit of hail mixed in and temperatures below average once again. the second part of the weekend, the same area of low pressure threatens some rain across eastern england. now, there is a chance this rain

could be a bit more extensive across the midlands and slower to clear, but away from that area, again, after a cold and locally frosty start, we're looking at some sunny spells and a number of showers, especially across the north and the west of the country. temperatures continue to run below average for the time of year. however, as we get into next week, if you're fed up with this chilly weather, it does look like we'll see something of a change to much milder weather conditions. however, it's not necessarily dry. there will be some rain and showers around next week.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. ai tech is evolving at breakneck pace as billions head to the polls this year. coming up on al decoded, we look at the protential for harm. ai decoded coming up but before that... it's time for sport, and for a full round—up from the bbc sport centre, here's lizzie greenwood—hughes. onto football, and it's manchester city's turn in the premier league title race. they're playing brighton away tonight knowing a win would move them within a point of the leaders arsenal with a game in hand. the game has been going around half an hour, and city are two goals up. kevin de bruyne with a brilliant dipping header. phil fodenjust a

phil foden just a lucky deflection from a free kick for