you're watching the context on bbc news. amid international condemnation over sunday's attack, the israeli military has said it has investigated the possibility that weapons that had been stored in a facility near the location hit in rafah might have exploded following the air strike. our munition alone could not have ignited a fire of this size. i want to repeat it. our munition alone could not have ignited a fire of this size. the strike did kill two. senior hamas terrorists, who are directly responsible for attacks against - the israeli people. but, as we've also said many times, israel must take every— precaution possible to do more to protect innocent life. - to discuss the sitaution

in rafah — the us reaction — and a range of other stories — on the panel tonight democratic strategist hilary rosen and ian bremmer — president & founder of the eurasia group. first, the latest headlines. diane abbott has been readmitted as an mp to the parliamentary labour party, the bbc understands. it is not yet clear if she will be allowed to stand again in the election, but the news comes after bbc newsnight revealed labour's disciplinary process ended five months ago. she had been suspended after suggesting in april last year thatjewish, irish and traveller people do not face racism "all their lives". the parliament in georgia has thrown out a presidential veto and adopted the controversial bill that compels media organisations and ngos to register as foreign agents if they receive at least 20% of their funding from abroad. critics call it the "russian law" — they fear it will be used to trample human rights and ultimately will harm georgia's chances ofjoining the european union.

the government says the new law will bring transparency. pope francis has apologised for using a derogatory word to describe gay men, while discussing in a closed door meeting whether they should be admitted to the priesthood. the pope was talking to italian bishops at the vatican, a week ago, and reportedly said there were already too many gay men in the theological colleges. good evening. the israeli tanks have reached the centre of rafah, amid one of the most intense bombardments of the city since the war began. hundreds of palestinian families — already displaced — have fled temporary shelters following further air strikes that reportedly killed another 21 people. those figures from the hamas run health ministry. today ireland, spain and norway formally recognised palestine as a state. a significant sign of support for the palestinians, as the international

condemnation of israel's condemnation of israel's war continue to grow. this hour the un security council is meeting to discuss an air strike in rafah on sunday, which led to an enormous fire at a refugee camp — killing 45 people — including women and children. the israeli prime minister has called it a tragic incident. the idf says it is investigating but today put forward its preliminary findings. our correspondent hugo bachega has the details on that. one of the possibilities being investigated by the israeli authorities is that weapons being stored in a place near the site that was targeted — those weapons exploded following the attack, and that explosion triggered the massive fire. there was no evidence to support this claim. he said that pictures that have been analysed by the israeli military appear to show secondary explosions following the attack, which he said could indicate the possibilities that weapons were, you know, the source of this massive fire, and not the israeli air strike that happened on sunday. he said that the type of ammunition,

the type of explosives that were used in this attack did not have the power to trigger a fire of that scale. it has been widely reported in recent days that the un's highest court, the international court ofjustice, has ordered israel to halt its military operations in gaza. but did it? in the opinions published after the ruling it became clear that four of the five judges who addressed the complaint, believed that israel should be allowed to continue its military action in rafah, as long as that action did not put the palestinian population at risk of annihilation, either in full or in part. which explains why the following ruling is ambiguous and it is open to interpretation — israel will "immediately halt its military offensive and any other action

in the rafah governorate, which may inflict on the palestinian group in gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." i will leave that on screen a second, and you will see that that sentence is split into three parts. does it tell us in legal terms that israel must halt its entire rafah military operation? or does it say it can continue with that operation provided it does not constitute a genocidal risk? the ruling seems to allow different parties to make very different interpretations — which they have. with us tonight is barrister natasha hausdorff who volunteers as the legal director of the uk, lawyers for israel, charitable trust. welcome to the programme. good evening christian, good to be with you. evening christian, good to be with ou. �* , ., , ., you. it's not the first time that the judges _ you. it's not the first time that the judges have _ you. it's not the first time that the judges have differed - you. it's not the first time that the judges have differed in - you. it's not the first time that l the judges have differed in their thejudges have differed in their opinions, trying to find a form of compromise that everyone can agree on, the trouble is the compromise

brought about such a vague text that we've just seen that either side seems to be reading into it what they want. {iii seems to be reading into it what they want-— they want. of course it's not the first time that _ they want. of course it's not the first time that a _ they want. of course it's not the first time that a provisional - first time that a provisional measure or in this case has been misrepresented in the international media, we've seen the 26th of january order being presented as though it had possible genocide. afterjane donahue came on to hardtop several months after all of this misreporting had been circulating to correct the false impressions —— hardtalk. including from the bbc that israel must immediately cease its operations... would it be fairer than that the israeli government in its interpretation of this ruling content considers itself free to

continue the operation in rafah? let me be clear about what you have said the order has said, if i may come up first. if we compare it with other provisional measures that the court has ordered, for example in 2022 with respect to the russian federation it used a very clear language that russia did need to halt immediately its operations that began in february of 2020, i believe. :: began in february of 2020, i believe.- you're - began in february of 2020, i believe.- you're right, | began in february of 2020, i l believe.- you're right, it believe. 2022. you're right, it commenced — believe. 2022. you're right, it commenced on _ believe. 2022. you're right, it commenced on february - believe. 2022. you're right, it| commenced on february 2022. believe. 2022. you're right, it commenced on february 2022. that it must immediately suspend its... you're comparing that with the ambiguity of the statement they put out the other day? i’m ambiguity of the statement they put out the other day?— ambiguity of the statement they put out the other day? i'm comparing the clari of out the other day? i'm comparing the clarity of that — out the other day? i'm comparing the clarity of that order _ out the other day? i'm comparing the clarity of that order with _ out the other day? i'm comparing the clarity of that order with the - out the other day? i'm comparing the clarity of that order with the text - clarity of that order with the text of that we have in the order from friday, and there is a key qualification that i would respectfully suggest you missed out of the reporting even as to what was

put on the screen. that is the qualifier for all of the provisional measures that the court ordered on friday which states that israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the genocide convention, take these measures. and it's clear in that respect, that the court is only ordering israel to comply with its obligations under the genocide convention as it has in all of the previous provisional measures... it all of the previous provisional measures. . ._ measures... it talks about committing _ measures... it talks about committing to _ measures... it talks about committing to ensuring i measures... it talks about | committing to ensuring the humanitarian well being of the palestinian population. and therein is an obvious problem. we've had an incident, as mr netanyahu describes it, that reportedly killed or wounded close to 150 people on sunday. nsf is say there are no places to take all of them with severe injuries. the strike was outside, maybe inside, that's very much up for debate, the evacuation area. certainly in a part of gaza where the displaced people were told

to move, there are governments that now say that israel is not complying with the order even if you were to read it in the way that you interpret. read it in the way that you interpret-_ read it in the way that you interret. ., ., , ., _ ., interpret. no doubt encouraged by a lot of the misreporting _ interpret. no doubt encouraged by a lot of the misreporting that - interpret. no doubt encouraged by a lot of the misreporting that we've i lot of the misreporting that we've heard of friday's order. i think the judgment certainly is clear and enforced, that is reinforced with the separate opinions of the various judges who agreed with the order, and also of the separate opinions by the dissenting opinion —— dissenting opinion. and read in that context i'm afraid what is being said not least in the media but also by many of these states is incorrect, but i also need to be clear that misreporting doesn'tjust focus on the order, but on the facts that have been emerging since that strike you have referred to on sunday evening. it is certainly clear from maps that the idf has produced, that

the strike is not where the internationally prescribed terrorist organisation hamas has been claimed to be. it was out of the evacuation zone... it to be. it was out of the evacuation zone... , , ., to be. it was out of the evacuation zone... ,, ., _ ., ., ., zone... it is surrounded by a lot of tents, if zone... it is surrounded by a lot of tents. if you _ zone... it is surrounded by a lot of tents, if you look _ zone... it is surrounded by a lot of tents, if you look at _ zone... it is surrounded by a lot of tents, if you look at the _ zone... it is surrounded by a lot of tents, if you look at the satellite l tents, if you look at the satellite pictures, and therein is the question if it was merited. find question if it was merited. and there have _ question if it was merited. and there have been _ question if it was merited. fific there have been videos of question if it was merited. fific there have been videos of gazan residents on the ground talking about secondary explosions. forgive me, can ijust addressed the latest reporting is that the secondary explosions are most likely to have resulted from an ammunitions dump andindeed resulted from an ammunitions dump and indeed gazan residents have been speaking about how mass ammo depots and... ., �* ., ., ~ ., and... you're here to talk about the law, and... you're here to talk about the law. there — and... you're here to talk about the law. there is _ and... you're here to talk about the law. there is a _ and... you're here to talk about the law, there is a lot _ and... you're here to talk about the law, there is a lot to _ and... you're here to talk about the law, there is a lot to be _ law, there is a lot to be investigated as to what happened on sunday. in regard to the real income among the other parts of the really, the court says that its previous orders must be self fulfilled. that israel must open the rafah crossing for the purpose of providing humanitarian aid, the israel must

allow in any un investigative team to enter the gaza strip and that israel will submit to the court a report detailing all the steps that it has taken in these context. that ruling suggest that the earlier rulings have not been abided by. that is the key criticism that the vice president of the court made in her dissenting opinion, that in fact these rulings are pointless, they already exist in the court's previous orders. let's take each of them and in turn if i made. just ruickl . them and in turn if i made. just quickly- you — them and in turn if i made. just quickly. you and _ them and in turn if i made. just quickly. you and i _ them and in turn if i made. just quickly. you and i both - them and in turn if i made. just quickly. you and i both know. them and in turn if i made. just l quickly. you and i both know that the rafah crossing _ quickly. you and i both know that the rafah crossing is _ quickly. you and i both know that the rafah crossing is shared - quickly. you and i both know that the rafah crossing is shared with | the rafah crossing is shared with egypt, and israel is not in a position to open it you know now unilaterally. she was the only one who recorded in detail the amount of humanitarian assistance that israel has been facilitating, over 30,000 trucks, we're looking at at the moment nearly 500,000 tonnes of aid

that has been sent... �*icrcrcr moment nearly 500,000 tonnes of aid that has been sent. . ._ that has been sent... 1000 trucks went in every _ that has been sent... 1000 trucks went in every day _ that has been sent... 1000 trucks went in every day before - that has been sent... 1000 trucks went in every day before the - went in every day before the conflict. ~ . ., ., conflict. which are not comparable because they _ conflict. which are not comparable because they contained _ conflict. which are not comparable because they contained building i because they contained building materials and other things that weren't humanitarian. so let's not apples and oranges. but critically, what the record of israel's latest updates to the court, despite the fact that they were put under an enormous time pressure, again, and other criticisms they outlined, what the initiatives indicate is it is not the impasse here but in fact hamas' activity on the ground which is after attributable to this latest explosion as far as we seek to this latest loss of life, but also stealing and diverted aid is what the international court ofjustice should be focusing on as opposed to passing the buck. the reason we're not saying this is because of politicalisation of the courts and least the current president's failure to recuse himself. under the

terms of the rome statute. that underscores the politcised nature of what we have been seeing over the last few days. what we have been seeing over the last few days-— last few days. natasha, thank you ve much last few days. natasha, thank you very much indeed _ last few days. natasha, thank you very much indeed for— last few days. natasha, thank you very much indeed for that. - last few days. natasha, thank you very much indeed for that. let's i last few days. natasha, thank you i very much indeed for that. let's get a view from our panel who are with us. make them more specific to enable their enforcement, and from the arguments that have followed, part of which we just heard, it doesn't do that, does it? that was a lot. and i think you _ doesn't do that, does it? that was a lot. and i think you said _ doesn't do that, does it? that was a lot. and i think you said it _ doesn't do that, does it? that was a lot. and i think you said it right - lot. and i think you said it right up lot. and i think you said it right up front, christian, which is what the court — up front, christian, which is what the court did was essentially pass the court did was essentially pass the buck — the court did was essentially pass the buck. this is a controversial issue. _ the buck. this is a controversial issue. that _ the buck. this is a controversial issue, that people are struggling with, _ issue, that people are struggling with, they want to condemn the... the civilian— with, they want to condemn the... the civilian casualties, but they also _ the civilian casualties, but they also want — the civilian casualties, but they also want israel to be able to defend — also want israel to be able to defend themselves and they are caught— defend themselves and they are caught in— defend themselves and they are caught in the middle. international courts— caught in the middle. international courts are — caught in the middle. international courts are not necessarily

well—positioned to mediate this kind of a conflict and i think that we see that — of a conflict and i think that we see that here. if of a conflict and i think that we see that here.— of a conflict and i think that we see that here. if the fourth time this year. _ see that here. if the fourth time this year. ian. _ see that here. if the fourth time this year, ian, that _ see that here. if the fourth time this year, ian, that south - see that here. if the fourth time this year, ian, that south africa | this year, ian, that south africa has asked the court to stop israel's fighting and the gaza strip, the fourth time they've equivocated on the request. what does that mean? we've got them sitting tonight to discuss his attack that took place on sunday, what does it mean for the politics of the security council when there is a wiggle room on the legal language?— legal language? look, the security council did finally _ legal language? look, the security council did finally get _ legal language? look, the security council did finally get one - council did finally get one resolution through that the americans abstained on, weren't prepared to actually veto in part showing president biden's frustration and speak with an israeli warden cabinet —— war cabinet, but this issue is not going to be resolved by the icj, or the un security council. it's going to get resolved by the israelis and hamas on the ground with very ineffectual pressure from the countries that

really matter, to the security of israel. that's where we are. as long as... is notjust the prime minister, notjust the war cabinet, the entire israeli population, a strong majority believes that this war needs to continue, that hamas needs to be destroyed, whatever that means, however long it takes, and they believe that the civilian casualties in gaza are the responsibility of hamas. that is not the position of the us, it's not the position of france or the uk or germany or any other country in the world, but as long as that's the position of all of israel, you are not moving towards ending this role war. ~ ., , ., ., so the war. where does that leave. .. so the international— war. where does that leave... so the international environment _ war. where does that leave... so the international environment is - war. where does that leave... so the international environment is just - international environment is just ineffectual. international environment is 'ust ineffectuar.�* international environment is 'ust ineffectual. ., , , ., ineffectual. where does this leave joe biden being — ineffectual. where does this leave joe biden being so _ ineffectual. where does this leave joe biden being so explicit - ineffectual. where does this leave joe biden being so explicit about | joe biden being so explicit about his redlines, we've had drunker be saying in the last few minutes, we don't have a plan to take care of rafah civilian safety and security, now we have a disputed attack on where it was within a displacement camp where there are hundreds of

people sheltering and places they were told by the israelis to go to. so where does that leavejoe biden? in theory, joe biden's red was crossed — in theory, joe biden's red was crossed. that that did happen, he urged _ crossed. that that did happen, he urged them not to go into rafah, until there — urged them not to go into rafah, until there was a plan to avoid civilian— until there was a plan to avoid civilian casualties, and they went anyway — civilian casualties, and they went anyway. now, they did kill hamas leadership, two hamas leaders, and so it does— leadership, two hamas leaders, and so it does show that hamas leadership is actually hiding among civilians _ leadership is actually hiding among civilians and putting their own civilians — civilians and putting their own civilians at risk. so there is this catch-22 — civilians at risk. so there is this catch—22 that is that joe biden's cross— catch—22 that is that joe biden's cross to — catch—22 that is that joe biden's cross to bear right now with his how much _ cross to bear right now with his how much does — cross to bear right now with his how much does he pull back and how much does he _ much does he pull back and how much does he just— much does he pull back and how much does he just let netanyahu do what he will? _ does he just let netanyahu do what he will? but my view at this point is that— he will? but my view at this point is thatjoe — he will? but my view at this point is thatjoe biden, the united states. _ is thatjoe biden, the united states, the uk, none of them have much _ states, the uk, none of them have much influence over benjamin netanyahu right now, and ian might

have a _ netanyahu right now, and ian might have a different view but, he doesn't — have a different view but, he doesn't care what these governments say. doesn't care what these governments say the _ doesn't care what these governments say. the governments that haven't really _ say. the governments that haven't really weighed in and my view are the middle east governments, if egypt _ the middle east governments, if egypt and jordan and some of the surrounding governments that actually — surrounding governments that actually could take more palestinian refugees. _ actually could take more palestinian refugees, that actually are on the ground _ refugees, that actually are on the ground and in a position to do something here, were to get more active. _ something here, were to get more active. than — something here, were to get more active, then perhaps that might have an impact. _ active, then perhaps that might have an impact, but right now i don't think— an impact, but right now i don't think that — an impact, but right now i don't think that western countries are going. _ think that western countries are anoin. ., think that western countries are hoin _ ., ., , think that western countries are main, ., ., , ., , ., think that western countries are anoin. ., ., , ., , ., ., going. not only do they not matter, but it's a feature _ going. not only do they not matter, but it's a feature not _ going. not only do they not matter, but it's a feature not a _ going. not only do they not matter, but it's a feature not a bug - going. not only do they not matter, but it's a feature not a bug for - going. not only do they not matter, but it's a feature not a bug for the l but it's a feature not a bug for the israeli prime minister, if he is the one that is seen by israel as standing upfora one that is seen by israel as standing up for a policy that's immensely popular among his countrymen at a time that the united states is saying slow other people were saying slowdown, please take care of the civilians, please find a way to not continue with this killing, then he is actually an a strong position. especially with the far right coalition that believe in

from the river to the sea only apply to jews, from the river to the sea only apply tojews, not palestinians. that is the group that he needs to stay in power, that is what the prime minister needs. the united states has no influence here over israel's decision—making which is pending kind of shocking, of course that is horrible for biden in an election year. because it makes him look so weak on the left, who, you know, his supporters on the left that israel is completing committing a genocide. and under trump, this is the guy that wants israel to fight with one hand behind his back him and no—one would want to be the us president in this environment. around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news. let's look at some of the other stories making headlines today.

researchers at kings college in london say that giving smooth peanut butter to babies could help them develop lifetime protection against an allergy to the food. the study suggests that teens who ate it up to age five were less likely to develop an intolerance, than if they avoided the food. the owners of royal mail are expected to recommend accepting a £5 billion takeover offer on wednesday. the government would have to approve the deal, from a czech billionaire — who has promised the company would remain based in the uk. a survey carried out by a team at oxford university suggests that very few people are using ai products on a regular basis. only 2% of people in the uk said they used apps like chat gpt each day. there was a similar pattern in five other countries around the world.

some breaking election news here in the uk that we just want to bring to you before we move back to matters in the us. the bbc understands that diane abbott was given the labour whip back today. she had been suspended during a disciplinary process. i spoke with our correspondent jack fenwick for the latest details. so let's remember 13 months ago, the very long standing labour mp diane abbott wrote an article for the observer in which she suggested thatjewish, irish and traveller people had not been subject to racism all their lives. she was then suspended pending an investigation, and we've not heard an awful lot about that investigating investigation for quite a long time now. investigation for quite a long time now. if she did not have the whip restored, then she wouldn't be allowed to stand again as a labour mp at the election. so time is of the essence. now, bbc newsnight this morning reported that that investigation concluded five months ago, but that diane abbott had still not

been told whether she would have the labour whip restored and whether she'd be allowed to stand again. now, this evening, we understand that diane abbott has been offered the labour whip back. as we understand it, the party had been trying to broker a deal whereby they gave her the whip back but she didn't stand again at the next election. now, what's not clear this evening is whether diane abbott has accepted that offer of the labour whip back or whether she will be standing at the election. we might get some more information on that later. for those watching in the uk, make sure you tune in to newsnight tonight — clearly going to be an interesting watch. this could be one of the most defining weeks of the us election campaign. after nearly five weeks of testimony, 22 witness called, just two for the defence, the closing arguments have begun in donald trumps hush money trial. in donald trum'ps hush money trial. in donald trump's hush money trial. there could be a verdict by the end of the week. the former us president faces 3a

charges of allegedly falsifying business records to cover up payments made to adult film star stormy daniels ahead of the 2016 election. he has denied all of the allegations. today, it was the defence up first, and their target was the star witness michael cohen who lied to congress, to the banks, to the courts and to his wife. he is the �*mvp of liars' they said, who cannot be trusted to give a truthful account of what role donald trump played in the catch and kill scheme. after lunch it was the prosecution's turn to pull together the thread of the case they have made. they are about half way through, what we are told will be a four hours closing argument. let's speak to our correspondent nada tawfik who has been following the case from day one in new york. so what have we heard from the prosecution in the last few hours? yeah, well look, but prosecutors really took aim at this credibility issue of michael cohen, saying that the reasons that donald trump chose michael cohen as his fixer were the same reasons that the defence want jurors to discount his testimony, that he is a liar and cheater. they

said that donald trump and michael cohen were drawn to each other like moths to flames, because they were very much the same. and prosecutors are saying that essentially michael cohen should be used as a tour guide through the physical evidence they say is indisputable, and testimony that shows that donald trump loomed over every piece of decision—making. they really framed the alleged catch and kill scheme as something that may have been responsible for electing donald trump. they say that as soon as the money changed hands with those hush money payments, that's what made the catch and kill scheme illegal, violating federal campaign finance laws. and that's critical, christian, becausejurors critical, christian, because jurors are critical, christian, becausejurors are going to be instructed on the case law and so we have prosecutors outlining where they see donald trump explicitly violating the law. and prosecutors are kind of

continuing, they are arguing now that donald trump's campaign was in panic mode after the release of the access hollywood tape, a tape which donald trump claimed was just locker room talk. they say the stormy daniels story would have proved it wasn'tjust daniels story would have proved it wasn't just locker daniels story would have proved it wasn'tjust locker room talk, there were actions behind his words, they say stormy daniels�* story served as the modem for the alleged election fraud. ., ., fraud. 0k, we have time to get reaction from _ fraud. 0k, we have time to get reaction from our _ fraud. 0k, we have time to get reaction from our panel. - and joining us as is rachel paulose, the former us attorney for the district of minnesota. rachel, the bottom line is donald trump was a candidate whose campaign was in a tailspin, the story pending with stormy daniels, he can�*t not afford another scandal, he has a relationship with mr becker, he was running back, has the prosecution made a strong enough case and did they tie it together today to make that case? ~ ~ .

that case? well, i think that remains to _ that case? well, i think that remains to be _ that case? well, i think that remains to be seen, - that case? well, i think that remains to be seen, we - that case? well, i think that remains to be seen, we are | that case? well, | think that - remains to be seen, we are still that case? well, i think that - remains to be seen, we are still in the middle — remains to be seen, we are still in the middle of— remains to be seen, we are still in the middle of the _ remains to be seen, we are still in the middle of the prosecution - the middle of the prosecution so approximately— the middle of the prosecution so approximately four— the middle of the prosecution so approximately four hour - the middle of the prosecution so approximately four hour closing i approximately four hour closing argument — approximately four hour closing argument if— approximately four hour closing argument if not _ approximately four hour closing argument if not longer. - approximately four hour closing argument if not longer. but- approximately four hour closing argument if not longer. but i. approximately four hour closing i argument if not longer. but i think the prosecution _ argument if not longer. but i think the prosecution has _ argument if not longer. but i think the prosecution has certainly- argument if not longer. but i thinkl the prosecution has certainly shown that donald — the prosecution has certainly shown that donald trump _ the prosecution has certainly shown that donald trump committed - the prosecution has certainly shown that donald trump committed a - that donald trump committed a misdemeanor— that donald trump committed a misdemeanor in— that donald trump committed a misdemeanor in cooking - that donald trump committed a misdemeanor in cooking the - that donald trump committed a - misdemeanor in cooking the books, the question— misdemeanor in cooking the books, the question is— misdemeanor in cooking the books, the question is can _ misdemeanor in cooking the books, the question is can they— misdemeanor in cooking the books, the question is can they also - misdemeanor in cooking the books, the question is can they also show. the question is can they also show that this _ the question is can they also show that this was — the question is can they also show that this was a _ the question is can they also show that this was a felony, _ the question is can they also show that this was a felony, that - the question is can they also show| that this was a felony, that donald trump _ that this was a felony, that donald trump falsified _ that this was a felony, that donald trump falsified business _ that this was a felony, that donald trump falsified business records . that this was a felony, that donald i trump falsified business records for the intent _ trump falsified business records for the intent of— trump falsified business records for the intent of covering _ trump falsified business records for the intent of covering up _ trump falsified business records for the intent of covering up the - trump falsified business records for the intent of covering up the story. the intent of covering up the story of his— the intent of covering up the story of his encounters _ the intent of covering up the story of his encounters with _ the intent of covering up the story of his encounters with pawn - the intent of covering up the story| of his encounters with pawn stars, for the _ of his encounters with pawn stars, for the purpose _ of his encounters with pawn stars, for the purpose of— of his encounters with pawn stars, for the purpose of influencing - of his encounters with pawn stars, for the purpose of influencing thel for the purpose of influencing the election. — for the purpose of influencing the election. i— for the purpose of influencing the election. i think— for the purpose of influencing the election. i think that _ for the purpose of influencing the election. i think that also - for the purpose of influencing the election. i think that also raises i election. i think that also raises additional— election. i think that also raises additional questions _ election. i think that also raises additional questions as - election. i think that also raises additional questions as to - election. i think that also raises . additional questions as to whether alvin _ additional questions as to whether alvin bragg — additional questions as to whether alvin bragg and _ additional questions as to whether alvin bragg and prosecutors - additional questions as to whether alvin bragg and prosecutors in - additional questions as to whetherl alvin bragg and prosecutors in new york have _ alvin bragg and prosecutors in new york have the — alvin bragg and prosecutors in new york have the ability, _ york have the ability, jurisdictionally, - york have the ability, jurisdictionally, to- york have the ability, - jurisdictionally, to enforce york have the ability, _ jurisdictionally, to enforce federal law. . ,,. jurisdictionally, to enforce federal law. . a ., jurisdictionally, to enforce federal law. . ~ . ., ., law. the defence saint michael cohen is a florid witness, _ law. the defence saint michael cohen is a florid witness, he _ law. the defence saint michael cohen is a florid witness, he lied _ law. the defence saint michael cohen is a florid witness, he lied to - is a florid witness, he lied to everybody, is he the best chance of getting donald trump off? he is not the best chance _ getting donald trump off? he is not the best chance of _ getting donald trump off? he is not the best chance of getting _ getting donald trump off? he is not the best chance of getting donald i the best chance of getting donald trump _ the best chance of getting donald trump off. — the best chance of getting donald trump off. but— the best chance of getting donald trump off, but he _ the best chance of getting donald trump off, but he is— the best chance of getting donald trump off, but he is a _ the best chance of getting donald trump off, but he is a very- the best chance of getting donald trump off, but he is a very good i trump off, but he is a very good chance _ trump off, but he is a very good chance of— trump off, but he is a very good

chance of getting _ trump off, but he is a very good chance of getting donald - trump off, but he is a very good chance of getting donald trump| trump off, but he is a very good i chance of getting donald trump off because _ chance of getting donald trump off because he — chance of getting donald trump off because he was _ chance of getting donald trump off because he was admittedly - chance of getting donald trump off because he was admittedly a - chance of getting donald trump off because he was admittedly a very. because he was admittedly a very flawed _ because he was admittedly a very flawed witness _ because he was admittedly a very flawed witness for— because he was admittedly a very flawed witness for the _ because he was admittedly a very. flawed witness for the prosecution. he is— flawed witness for the prosecution. he is a _ flawed witness for the prosecution. he is a convicted _ flawed witness for the prosecution. he is a convicted liar, _ flawed witness for the prosecution. he is a convicted liar, he _ flawed witness for the prosecution. he is a convicted liar, he is - flawed witness for the prosecution. he is a convicted liar, he is a - he is a convicted liar, he is a felon. — he is a convicted liar, he is a felon. he _ he is a convicted liar, he is a felon. he is _ he is a convicted liar, he is a felon, he is a _ he is a convicted liar, he is a felon, he is a disbarred i he is a convicted liar, he is a i felon, he is a disbarred attorney, and for— felon, he is a disbarred attorney, and for the — felon, he is a disbarred attorney, and for the prosecution _ felon, he is a disbarred attorney, and for the prosecution to - felon, he is a disbarred attorney, and for the prosecution to have l and for the prosecution to have to rely so _ and for the prosecution to have to rely so heavily— and for the prosecution to have to rely so heavily on _ and for the prosecution to have to rely so heavily on him _ and for the prosecution to have to rely so heavily on him to - rely so heavily on him to essentially— rely so heavily on him to essentially explain- rely so heavily on him to. essentially explain donald rely so heavily on him to - essentially explain donald trump's intent. _ essentially explain donald trump's intent. is _ essentially explain donald trump's intent, is definitely _ essentially explain donald trump's intent, is definitely a _ essentially explain donald trump's intent, is definitely a drawback- essentially explain donald trump's intent, is definitely a drawback for| intent, is definitely a drawback for the prosecution. _ intent, is definitely a drawback for the prosecution. of— intent, is definitely a drawback for the prosecution. of course - intent, is definitely a drawback for the prosecution. of course mr- intent, is definitely a drawback for. the prosecution. of course mr trump did the prosecution. of course mr trump did not— the prosecution. of course mr trump did not take — the prosecution. of course mr trump did not take the _ the prosecution. of course mr trump did not take the stand _ the prosecution. of course mr trump did not take the stand himself- the prosecution. of course mr trump did not take the stand himself so i did not take the stand himself so the question— did not take the stand himself so the question of— did not take the stand himself so the question of his _ did not take the stand himself so the question of his intent - did not take the stand himself so the question of his intent is i the question of his intent is best known _ the question of his intent is best known to— the question of his intent is best known to him _ the question of his intent is best known to him and _ the question of his intent is best known to him and was _ the question of his intent is best known to him and was not - the question of his intent is best- known to him and was not explained to the _ known to him and was not explained to the jury— known to him and was not explained to the jury by — known to him and was not explained to the jury by him. _ known to him and was not explained to the jury by him. of— known to him and was not explained to the jury by him-— to the “my by him. of course the 'u . to the jury by him. of course the 'u , the to the jury by him. of course the jury, the defence _ to the jury by him. of course the jury, the defence i _ to the jury by him. of course the jury, the defence i should i to the jury by him. of course the jury, the defence i should say, l to the jury by him. of course the i jury, the defence i should say, only needs one. the end, the trial has pushed people further into their camps. but not everyone is in those camps, there are a set of voters who are undecided, who don�*t like either of these candidates. willa conviction matter to them? i of these candidates. will a conviction matter to them? i think it will. i must — conviction matter to them? i think it will. i must say, _ conviction matter to them? i think it will. i must say, i _ conviction matter to them? i think it will. i must say, i am _ conviction matter to them? i think it will. i must say, i am not i conviction matter to them? i think it will. i must say, i am not sure i it will. i must say, i am not sure how you could push americans further into their camps than they already are, but i suppose, you know, there�*s always a bar that can be

surpassed. but if you look at independence, a significant number of people that say they are not committed to either party, would say they would be influenced by a conviction. it�*s certainly plausible, i�*ll tell you in addition to the fact that you�*ve got challenging witnesses, you also have a very diverse jury, as you should, and at least one of those jury members gets their media and news information primarily from truth social and x. all you need is one juror that says they�*re not going to support a conviction, we�*re talking about the former president of the united states in a case that on its face, is considerably less serious than other cases that haven�*t actually come to trial fully yet, and yet this is one that will matter massively for the upcoming election. can you find one juror that�*s prepared to say i don�*t want to convict on the basis of that? i

think there�*s a pretty good chance you can, and in that regard, i was quite surprised that biden watt said he wanted to start politics on the back of his, the biden campaign today, when they not sure this will go their way at all. i'sre today, when they not sure this will go their way at all.— go their way at all. i've only got a minute. but _ go their way at all. i've only got a minute, but maybe _ go their way at all. i've only got a minute, but maybe it _ go their way at all. i've only got a minute, but maybe it does i go their way at all. i've only got a minute, but maybe it does showl go their way at all. i've only got a i minute, but maybe it does show that the verdict is unimportant, it shows the verdict is unimportant, it shows the character of the former president, the people he implies, how he bent them to his will. yes, but i how he bent them to his will. yes, but i don't — how he bent them to his will. yes, but i don't think— how he bent them to his will. yes, but i don't think there's _ how he bent them to his will. yes, but i don't think there's much you can tell— but i don't think there's much you can tell anybody in america about donald _ can tell anybody in america about donald trump that they don't think they already know. and so the question— they already know. and so the question is whether this will have any impact, whether this change is his mobility, whether he, if he gets convicted _ his mobility, whether he, if he gets convicted of a felony, weather, what kind of— convicted of a felony, weather, what kind of a _ convicted of a felony, weather, what kind of a sentence or punishment the judge _ kind of a sentence or punishment the judge has— kind of a sentence or punishment the judge has come i don't know if the answer— judge has come i don't know if the answer to— judge has come i don't know if the answer to that. obviously, judge has come i don't know if the answerto that. obviously, i judge has come i don't know if the answer to that. obviously, i have my doubts— answer to that. obviously, i have my doubts that — answer to that. obviously, i have my doubts that even if he were convicted, that he would be thrown injail. _ convicted, that he would be thrown injail. and — convicted, that he would be thrown injail. and i— convicted, that he would be thrown injail. and i don't think that convicted, that he would be thrown in jail. and i don't think that at this stage _ in jail. and i don't think that at this stage the child matters very much _ this stage the child matters very much for— this stage the child matters very much for the selection.-

much for the selection. rachel, thank you _ much for the selection. rachel, thank you for— much for the selection. rachel, thank you for being _ much for the selection. rachel, thank you for being with - much for the selection. rachel, thank you for being with us, i much for the selection. rachel, i thank you for being with us, we'll thank you for being with us, we�*ll be right back after the break. hello. we�*ve seen some pretty hefty downpours getting going today and we have more of the same to come over the next few days, although there will be some drier, sunnier gaps in between the showers. so not a complete wash—out, but certainly a very mixed weather story. now, on the earlier satellite picture, you can see a fair bit of clouds streaming in from the atlantic, bit of cloud streaming in from the atlantic, bringing outbreaks of rain. and in this clearer slice here, yes, we did see a little bit of sunshine, but that also allowed some big showers and the odd thunderstorm to pop up. some of those showers continuing through the evening, into the night, most of them fading through the early hours of wednesday. so most places starting wednesday morning on a dry note — temperatures, 10, ii, 12 degrees. a fair amount of cloud, some showers from the word go, but most places seeing some spells of sunshine. now, as we go through the day, the showers will become more widespread across england, wales, northern ireland, perhaps most especially across scotland. here, we will see some slow—moving, heavy, thundery downpours which could dump a lot of rain

in a short space of time, leading to the risk of localised flooding and some travel disruption. some of those really intense showers perhaps getting into the far north of england as well. further south, not as many showers, temperatures climbing to 20 or 21 degrees towards the south—east of england. now, through wednesday night into thursday, this area of low pressure will still be close by. but as it shifts eastwards and a little bit further southwards, well, that will shift the focus for the showers southwards as well. so the most widespread showers by thursday afternoon across southern and southeastern parts of england. further north and west, not as many showers, some spells of sunshine, quite a brisk north or north—westerly wind. so that will make it feel a little bit on the cool side, but still in the best of the sunshine, highs of 19 degrees. by friday, cloud and still some showers down towards the south and the east. also, more cloud into the northern half of scotland. but in between, quite a lot of sunshine and certainly a drier end to the week. and that is a sign of things to come for the weekend because this area

of high pressure will be nosing its way in from the west.