spent daily on this case. outside, it looks like it's fort knox, like they guarding this... i've never seen so many policemen. it's anyone's guess how long it will take for the jury of seven men and five women, ordinary new yorkers of diverse backgrounds, to potentially reach a verdict. the complexity really- is more a matter of trying to connect the dots factually, . and trying to understand what it means to know about something, what it means to intend to do- something, particularly| when there is this other crime floating out there. joining us this week is mary—anne marsh, democratic strategist and lanhee chen, republican former domestic and foreign policy adviser to governor mitt romney

first, the latest headlines. a senior official in south africa's governing anc has said it's still too early to tell whether or not the party will lose its parliamentary majority. results released since the polls closed on wednesday have suggested that for the first time in 30 years, the anc will not command a parliamentary majority and may need coalition partners to govern. fourteen pro—democracy activists in hong kong have been found guilty of subversion in a landmark trial that has effectively wiped out the chinese territory's political opposition. they were among 47 people arrested in 2021 for staging unofficial primary contests for local elections. all were charged under a strict security law imposed by beijing. the former conservative mp, mark logan, has announced he is switching allegiance to labour and endorsing sir keir starmer at the general election injuly.

he was until yesterday the mp for bolton north east, and is now the third tory politician to switch to labour in recent weeks. hundreds of eurostar passengers have seen their trains delayed or cancelled because of a fault with the uk border force e—gates. the home office said the issue had been resolved and it was working to restore services. we start in the us. it's just gone 4pm in new york, wherejurors in donald trump's criminal trial are deliberating for a second day. the former us president is accused of concealing a payment made to buy the silence of stormy daniels — a former adult film star. just months out from the us presidential election, he's plead not guilty to sa counts

of falsifying businesses records. after weeks of testimony, the 12 new yorkjurors began their deliberations yesterday. and after about four hours, they asked to hear several pieces of evidence again — and that's what has been under way today. jurors asked to hear specific testimony from former tabloid publisher david pecker — and mr trump's ex—lawyer, michael cohen. both worked to supress stories detrimental to mr trump's 2016 campaign. it's a disgrace the millions and millions of dollars they've spent daily on this case. outside it looks like it's fort knox, like they're guarding this... i've never seen so many policemen. every day donald trump shows up to the courtroom and we hear some statement like that from him. live to new york — we can speak to our north america

correspondent nada tawfik. when we spoke to you 2a hours ago, we heard that the jury had asked to hear some of the evidence again, tell us how that has played out. yes, we are at nearly 11 hours into deliberations, no new notes today, jurors are getting on with their conversations scanning the evidence to see if the prosecution has met their burden of reasonable doubt, beyond reasonable doubt. the morning was really ta ken beyond reasonable doubt. the morning was really taken up a bit by trying to read outs thejudges instructions to read outs thejudges instructions to them about how they can interpret the law, and what they can infer from certain evidence. remember, a lots of these legal questions revolve around intent, so it they want to make sure that they are applying the law to the evidence at

hand. another chunk was taken up by reading outs, and really re—enacting some of the testimony that they had asked for. to court reporters reading out verbatim the questions from prosecutors to the witness david pecker and a cross—examination to david pecker, so all of that showing becausejurors to david pecker, so all of that showing because jurors are to david pecker, so all of that showing becausejurors are not to david pecker, so all of that showing because jurors are not able to have hard copiesjust how time—consuming it is when they have a question and need to see evidence again what a process that is. fix, site again what a process that is. a site to imagine — again what a process that is. a site to imagine the _ again what a process that is. a site to imagine the court _ again what a process that is. a site to imagine the court reporters - to imagine the court reporters re—enacting of that testimony, you mentioned david pecker, remind us why his testimony could be so crucial. . ., , crucial. prosecutors, in their closin: crucial. prosecutors, in their closing arguments, - crucial. prosecutors, in their closing arguments, said - crucial. prosecutors, in theirj closing arguments, said that crucial. prosecutors, in their - closing arguments, said that david pecker�*s testimony was devastating for donald trump and stands on its own, it does not need michael cohen.

david pecker was the one first understand to really lay out what prosecutors said it was a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election. they said that david pecker meeting with michael cohen and donald trump in 2015 in trump tower, agreed to be the eyes and ears of the campaign, that he would write negative stories about donald trump's opponents and positive stories about him, but crucially alert michael cohen to any stories or whispers he heard, which ultimately resulted in the national enquirer paying hush money to a former playboy model, karen mcdougal, and we heard donald trump on audio discussing essentially reimbursing david peckerfor that reimbursing david pecker for that payments reimbursing david peckerfor that payments as prosecutors alleged was captured in that audio. he did not do that because he said after legal advice he thought it was not a good move. david pecker admitted

understand that he knew he was violating federal campaign laws when he made the hush money payments to benefit donald trump's campaign, so a key witness therefore prosecutors. thank you, starting work from you to cover that trial, probably back with you tomorrow to cover that on the context. let's turn to our panel. mary—anne marsh, democratic strategist and lanhee chen, republican former domestic and foreign policy adviser to governor mitt romney. and we can also bring in neama rahmani who's a former us federal prosecutor and now president of west coast trail lawyers. will start with you neama rahmani, since yourjoining the panel briefly, we heard from neither topic, she took us through what happened today in the courtroom, we heard from people saying it is quite typical forjurors to ask for certain bits of key evidence to be heard again. what did you read into

the developments of the last 2a hours or so? it the developments of the last 24 hours or so?— hours or so? it is typical for “urors hours or so? it is typical for jurors to — hours or so? it is typical for jurors to request _ hours or so? it is typical for jurors to request a - hours or so? it is typical for jurors to request a read - hours or so? it is typical for| jurors to request a read back hours or so? it is typical for - jurors to request a read back and some of it is reading what is important to identify the evidence, and it is david pecker, he was the prosecutions best witness for a witness for a reason, he directly connects donald trump to this catch and kill scheme, and it seems like thejurors are not and kill scheme, and it seems like the jurors are not focus on whether payments were done, they were legitimate to michael cohen, it seems like some of them are past that, they are not focus on intense and whether the false business records were to cover up another crime. 0ne records were to cover up another crime. one interesting things in america law, each state has its own rules, and under new york law, a misdemeanor with a cover up which

cannot be proven, and new york also notes that the jurors do not get those jury instructions in written form, which is why reading instruction has to happen in open court. , , ., ., court. let me bring you in lanhee chen, as court. let me bring you in lanhee chen. as the _ court. let me bring you in lanhee chen, as the deliberation - court. let me bring you in lanhee i chen, as the deliberation continues, how damaging do you think it is for the republican party? i how damaging do you think it is for the republican party?— the republican party? i think a certain amount _ the republican party? i think a certain amount of _ the republican party? i think a certain amount of this - the republican party? i think a certain amount of this is - the republican party? i think a certain amount of this is big i the republican party? i think a| certain amount of this is big -- certain amount of this is big —— baked — certain amount of this is big —— baked into _ certain amount of this is big —— baked into the ethos of the electorate, if you will. people have in their_ electorate, if you will. people have in their own — electorate, if you will. people have in their own minds a view of donald trump, _ in their own minds a view of donald trump, they— in their own minds a view of donald trump, they have their own view of the joe _ trump, they have their own view of the joe biden, and trump, they have their own view of thejoe biden, and i'm not sure the length _ thejoe biden, and i'm not sure the length of— thejoe biden, and i'm not sure the length of time of the liberations is the issue — length of time of the liberations is the issue. it is the outcome and disposition, and even then there may be disposition, and even then there may he question— disposition, and even then there may be question about how and whether it is truly— be question about how and whether it is truly impactful in the outcome of the election because we are looking at, i the election because we are looking at. ithink. — the election because we are looking at. ithink. a— the election because we are looking at, i think, a small percentage of voters _ at, i think, a small percentage of voters who— at, i think, a small percentage of voters who are undecided and really don't _ voters who are undecided and really don't have _ voters who are undecided and really don't have a — voters who are undecided and really don't have a strong point of view on where _ don't have a strong point of view on where they— don't have a strong point of view on where they would go in this

election _ where they would go in this election. naturally, the group to be watching _ election. naturally, the group to be watching out for. the length of time to deliberations go is less important than the outcome. | to deliberations go is less important than the outcome. i would brin: important than the outcome. i would bring neama — important than the outcome. i would bring neama rahmani _ important than the outcome. i would bring neama rahmani back- important than the outcome. i would bring neama rahmani back in, - important than the outcome. i would i bring neama rahmani back in, because the other key witness was michael cohen, and remember when i was covering donald trump in 2016 onwards, he was seen as one of the closest people to donald trump who in the and turned on him. ihla in the and turned on him. no question. — in the and turned on him. mr? question, but the state does not want to rely on michael cohen because he is an admitted liar and convicted felon, someone who has lied to congress, the sec. the state wants to corroborate his testimony with independent evidence, so there was the talk about the recording, the donald trump voice talking about the donald trump voice talking about the $100,000 payment to karen mcdougal. notes regarding the reimbursement, $130,000 regarding

the 400,000 plus that was paid over increments, that's what they want to focus on. it was a case about michael cohen alone, the state would lose. , �* michael cohen alone, the state would lose. ~ , ., michael cohen alone, the state would lose. ~ ., ., michael cohen alone, the state would lose. . ., ., , michael cohen alone, the state would lose. ~ ., ., lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a iece of lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string — lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on _ lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, _ lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, we _ lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, we had - lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, we had an - piece of string on this, we had an expert in the last two hours who said the jury would come expert in the last two hours who said thejury would come back by lunchtime tomorrow, but they have to be unanimous. lunchtime tomorrow, but they have to be unanimous-— be unanimous. they do, and his urest be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation _ be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation and - be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation and what - be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation and what the | be unanimous. they do, and his - purest percolation and what the jury was due _ purest percolation and what the jury was due and — purest percolation and what the jury was due and rendered _ purest percolation and what the jury was due and rendered their- purest percolation and what the jury was due and rendered their verdict, | was due and rendered their verdict, but we _ was due and rendered their verdict, but we have — was due and rendered their verdict, but we have indications _ was due and rendered their verdict, but we have indications of- was due and rendered their verdict, but we have indications of what - but we have indications of what voters — but we have indications of what voters think— but we have indications of what voters think and _ but we have indications of what voters think and in _ but we have indications of what voters think and in the - but we have indications of what voters think and in the case - but we have indications of what voters think and in the case ofi voters think and in the case of donald — voters think and in the case of donald trump, _ voters think and in the case of donald trump, if— voters think and in the case of donald trump, if he _ voters think and in the case of donald trump, if he is - voters think and in the case of donald trump, if he is found i voters think and in the case of- donald trump, if he is found guilty he would _ donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pav— donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a _ donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a price _ donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a price with - donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a price with the - he would pay a price with the voters. — he would pay a price with the voters. and _ he would pay a price with the voters, and you _ he would pay a price with the voters, and you know - he would pay a price with the voters, and you know that. he would pay a price with the i voters, and you know that from he would pay a price with the - voters, and you know that from an abc poll _ voters, and you know that from an abc poll last — voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week _ voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week that _ voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week that notes - voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week that notes that| abc poll last week that notes that 20% of _ abc poll last week that notes that 20% of trump _ abc poll last week that notes that 20% of trump voters, _ abc poll last week that notes that 20% of trump voters, not - 20% of trump voters, not independence _ 20% of trump voters, not independence are - 20% of trump voters, not - independence are undecided, said trump _ independence are undecided, said trump voters _ independence are undecided, said trump voters would _ independence are undecided, said trump voters would affect - independence are undecided, said trump voters would affect their i trump voters would affect their vote _ trump voters would affect their vote 16% — trump voters would affect their vote 16% of _ trump voters would affect their vote. 16% of that _ trump voters would affect their vote. 16% of that 20%, - trump voters would affect their vote. 16% of that 20%, said - trump voters would affect theirl vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would _ vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsider— vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsider their— vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsider their vote, - vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsidertheirvote, but| vote. 16% of that 20%, said they. would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they— would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would _ would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not _ would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote _ would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote for- would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote for him - would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote for him if. said they would not vote for him if he was _ said they would not vote for him if he was found _ said they would not vote for him if he was found guilty. _ said they would not vote for him if he was found guilty. in a - said they would not vote for him if he was found guilty. in a close - he was found guilty. in a close race —

he was found guilty. in a close race which— he was found guilty. in a close race, which it _ he was found guilty. in a close race, which it has _ he was found guilty. in a close race, which it has to— he was found guilty. in a close race, which it has to be - he was found guilty. in a close i race, which it has to be assumed he was found guilty. in a close - race, which it has to be assumed to be, race, which it has to be assumed to he 4%_ race, which it has to be assumed to he 4% is— race, which it has to be assumed to he 4% is the — race, which it has to be assumed to be, 4% is the ball— race, which it has to be assumed to be, 4% is the ball game, so - race, which it has to be assumed to be, 4% is the ball game, so it- be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth— be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking _ be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at _ be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at in _ be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at in terms of - be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at in terms of the | worth looking at in terms of the actual— worth looking at in terms of the actual physical _ worth looking at in terms of the actual physical effects - worth looking at in terms of the actual physical effects that - worth looking at in terms of the actual physical effects that it. actual physical effects that it would — actual physical effects that it would have _ actual physical effects that it would have on— actual physical effects that it would have on the _ actual physical effects that it l would have on the presidential actual physical effects that it - would have on the presidential race. neama _ would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani. _ would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani, we _ would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani, we heard- would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani, we heard closing i neama rahmani, we heard closing arguments from the prosecution and the defence this week before things wrapped up, as someone who works in this business, a formerfederal prosecutor as well, what was your assessment of how both the prosecution and defence presented their arguments? prosecution and defence presented theirarguments? i prosecution and defence presented their arguments?— their arguments? i was critical of both, the prosecution _ their arguments? i was critical of both, the prosecution went - their arguments? i was critical of both, the prosecution went far i their arguments? i was critical of. both, the prosecution went far too long, almost six hours, which is really too long any certain case, but i take issue with the defence strategy. they took the position that those business records were actually true, there were not false, there were legitimate legal defences purchases from michael cohen. it

divides all logic and credibility. the defence should have done is what was said in an opening statement, he said is the defence were to put on account for the organisation to talk about these records, and bring that witness to testify. that will assess —— that witness did not did and i would expect that witness is a donald trump does not run the organisation, he is not in charge of the day—to—day accounting, and these were mistakenly booked as legal expenses, which is where they lost some credibility.— expenses, which is where they lost some credibility. before you go, and want to ask all _ some credibility. before you go, and want to ask all of _ some credibility. before you go, and want to ask all of you _ some credibility. before you go, and want to ask all of you one _ some credibility. before you go, and want to ask all of you one question, | want to ask all of you one question, when do you think the jury will come back? i when do you think the “my will come back? ~ ., ., ., ., ., ., when do you think the “my will come back? ~ ., ., ., ., , back? i think tomorrow afternoon is a very good — back? i think tomorrow afternoon is a very good guess. _ back? i think tomorrow afternoon is a very good guess, jurors _ back? i think tomorrow afternoon is a very good guess, jurors are - a very good guess, jurors are ordinary people who want to go to theirfamilies, and approximately their families, and approximately 50% theirfamilies, and approximately 50% of vertex happen on a friday afternoon. using the rule of thumb,

they used one hourfor every afternoon. using the rule of thumb, they used one hour for every day of witness testimony, and this is the tenth —— 20 day trial, so those numbers line up. tenth -- 20 day trial, so those numbers line up.— numbers line up. mary-anne marsh, what about you? _ numbers line up. mary-anne marsh, what about you? i _ numbers line up. mary-anne marsh, what about you? i would _ numbers line up. mary-anne marsh, what about you? i would not - numbers line up. mary-anne marsh, what about you? i would not argue l what about you? i would not argue with tomorrow _ what about you? i would not argue with tomorrow afternoon, - what about you? i would not argue with tomorrow afternoon, but - what about you? i would not argue | with tomorrow afternoon, but given the importance _ with tomorrow afternoon, but given the importance, i— with tomorrow afternoon, but given the importance, i think— with tomorrow afternoon, but given the importance, i think they- with tomorrow afternoon, but given the importance, i think they would i the importance, i think they would rather— the importance, i think they would rather get — the importance, i think they would rather get it — the importance, i think they would rather get it right _ the importance, i think they would rather get it right and _ the importance, i think they would rather get it right and get - the importance, i think they would rather get it right and get it- the importance, i think they would rather get it right and get it soon. | rather get it right and get it soon. lanhee _ rather get it right and get it soon. lanhee chen? _ rather get it right and get it soon. lanhee chen? [— rather get it right and get it soon. lanhee chen?— rather get it right and get it soon. lanhee chen? ., ., ., ., ., ., lanhee chen? i am done for tomorrow afternoon. maybe _ lanhee chen? i am done for tomorrow afternoon. maybe we _ lanhee chen? i am done for tomorrow afternoon. maybe we will— lanhee chen? i am done for tomorrow afternoon. maybe we will be _ lanhee chen? i am done for tomorrow afternoon. maybe we will be in - lanhee chen? i am done for tomorrow afternoon. maybe we will be in for- afternoon. maybe we will be in for tomorrow afternoon, _ afternoon. maybe we will be in for tomorrow afternoon, thank - afternoon. maybe we will be in for tomorrow afternoon, thank you i tomorrow afternoon, thank you neama rahmani, will be back with the rest of the planet later will stop. around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news.

this is the context. let's turn to ukraine, where theres reportedly been a major development. joe biden has given permission

for the ukrainian army to start using us arms to strike into russian territory around the area of kharkiv. using us arms to strike into russian territory around the area of kharkiv. that's according to unnamed officials speaking to us media. this would be a major change in policy from the us, but it's important to stress that president biden has only given but it's important to stress that president biden has only given permission for defensive strikes near kharkiv, not the whole of russia. ukraine's second largest city has been under attack from russia in recent weeks, with russian artillery with russian artillery striking deep into the city. reports from our own bbc international editor, jeremy bowen early this week — suggested that those still in the city were sitting ducks to russian artillery. discussions on whether kyiv should be allowed to use western weapons against targets in russia has dominated debate in recent weeks. ukraine and some of its allies says it needs to hit troop concentrations and missile launch sites across the border. here's nato chiefjens stoltenberg

speaking earlier today. i believe the time has come to consider some of these restrictions to enable the ukrainians to really defend themselves. we need to remember this is a war of aggression launched by choice bite moscow against ukraine. russia invaded another country, invaded ukraine and ukraine has, according to international law, the right to defend themselves. it's enshrined in the un charter, and the right to self—defense includes also striking unitary targets, legitimate military targets, outside ukraine. russia has warned nato against allowing their weapons to be used on targets inside russia. on tuesday, vladimir putin warned of �*serious consequences' if western countries allowed ukraine to use their weapons on russian soil.

well, we can talk to the panel about those latest developments. mary—anne marsh, i will start with you, you used to advisejohn kerry, former secretary of state, what did you make of that news we are hearing from the white house about president biden event permission for ukraine armitage was us army to strike into territory around parking? it is territory around parking? it is welcome and _ territory around parking? it 3 welcome and overdue news, and ukraine needs everything to which this war which is has been doing heroically, but the delays of hurt and the delays by the congress, the republicans in congress, until there was intervention with donald trump to allow the boat to get the aid to ukraine has really hurt ukraine. i'm glad to see that president biden has moved a couple steps in the direction to use weapons, they have taken an incremental approach to all of this, and it worked certainly in the beginning through most of this

work on so that recently. now, there is time to make up and everyone needs to give ukraine everything it needs to give ukraine everything it needs to give ukraine everything it needs to defend itself, because they are fighting for everybody in need to and around the world. kudos to president biden for giving permission to use those weapons in a limited and well—defined way, and i don't think anyone takes vladimir putin's concerns about them to serious given what she has done. lanhee chen, there been some, the us and germany who have broadly opposed allowing kyiv to strike over the border because they do not want this to drag the us or germany and closer to drag the us or germany and closer to it conflicts with moscow, which is why this decision is limited by president biden.— is why this decision is limited by president biden. well, right, but the challenge — president biden. well, right, but the challenge for— president biden. well, right, but the challenge for the _ president biden. well, right, but the challenge for the united - president biden. well, right, but. the challenge for the united states in this— the challenge for the united states in this situation is that it is pretty— in this situation is that it is pretty clear where the us has been

in this— pretty clear where the us has been in this conflict, it is clear where america — in this conflict, it is clear where america needs to be going forward. it is important to try to enumerate the scope — it is important to try to enumerate the scope of our support with respect — the scope of our support with respect to where and how these strikes — respect to where and how these strikes can take place. having said that, _ strikes can take place. having said that, i_ strikes can take place. having said that, idon't— strikes can take place. having said that, i don't think it will be used to that, idon't think it will be used to anybody— that, i don't think it will be used to anybody that this is what the unit 96— to anybody that this is what the unit 96 is— to anybody that this is what the unit 96 is supporting, and we need to he _ unit 96 is supporting, and we need to he doing — unit 96 is supporting, and we need to be doing everything we can to push _ to be doing everything we can to push this— to be doing everything we can to push this the word a resolution as quickly— push this the word a resolution as quickly as— push this the word a resolution as quickly as possible. obviously, no one wants — quickly as possible. obviously, no one wants this conflict to drag on as it _ one wants this conflict to drag on as it has — one wants this conflict to drag on as it has for— one wants this conflict to drag on as it has for some period of time, and to— as it has for some period of time, and to the — as it has for some period of time, and to the degree that we can hasten the end _ and to the degree that we can hasten the end of— and to the degree that we can hasten the end of the situation, i would have _ the end of the situation, i would have to — the end of the situation, i would have to think it is in the american national— have to think it is in the american national interest as well. | national interest as well. i will sta with national interest as well. i will stay with you. _ national interest as well. i will stay with you, because - national interest as well. i will stay with you, because as - national interest as well. in ii. stay with you, because as marian touched on, it was republicans who sort of dragged their heels when it came to pass in ourfunding bills to support ukraine's military. tend came to pass in ourfunding bills to support ukraine's military. hand i support ukraine's military. and i think it was _ support ukraine's military. and i think it was a _ support ukraine's military. and i think it was a mistake, - support ukraine's military. and i think it was a mistake, quite - think it was a mistake, quite franklv _ think it was a mistake, quite franklv i_ think it was a mistake, quite frankly. i think it was important for america to send a signal we were

willing _ for america to send a signal we were willing to _ for america to send a signal we were willing to stand with ukraine and -ive willing to stand with ukraine and give them what they needed. there is a political— give them what they needed. there is a political reality on the ground in america. — a political reality on the ground in america, which is that you have large _ america, which is that you have large numbers of republicans and democrats and people in between who ask questions about what the endgame is, about— ask questions about what the endgame is, about the accountability for money— is, about the accountability for money going to ukraine. these are fair questions that politicians and policymakers are working to answer. there _ policymakers are working to answer. there is _ policymakers are working to answer. there is no _ policymakers are working to answer. there is no question that we should have been_ there is no question that we should have been furnishing aid, and doing what we _ have been furnishing aid, and doing what we can do, i think we still have _ what we can do, i think we still have a — what we can do, i think we still have a responsibility to do that in some _ have a responsibility to do that in some ways, but there are some very real political— some ways, but there are some very real political challenges people have to — real political challenges people have to acknowledge and understand that the _ have to acknowledge and understand that the public in america among broadly— that the public in america among broadly speaking, is not nearly as supportive — broadly speaking, is not nearly as supportive of this effort as they were _ supportive of this effort as they were it— supportive of this effort as they were if you years ago.— were if you years ago. indeed, lanhee chen _ were if you years ago. indeed, lanhee chen and _ were if you years ago. indeed, lanhee chen and we _ were if you years ago. indeed, lanhee chen and we would - were if you years ago. indeed, lanhee chen and we would be | were if you years ago. indeed, - lanhee chen and we would be back with you shortly, but thank you for that take on the breaking coming into the white house. a lot of elections happening right now — let's take a look at the latest from mexico. final rallies wrapped up on wednesday, ahead of sunday's

vote in presidential, congressional and local elections. it's almost certain mexico will elect its first woman as president — with claudia sheinbaum the frontrunner. she's a 61—year—old scientist with the current ruling party. but these races have been somewhat overshadowed by a painful record: the most violent election campaign in the country's history. the pri — an opposition party — has accused the government of making no effort to protect candidates — after a mayoral candidate in the country's west was shot and killed at a campaigned event on wednesday. he was the latest of dozens of people standing to run, who's been killed during campaigning, in a wave of violence largely perpetrated by mexico's drug cartels. let's discuss this in more detail with our panel,. let's discuss the violence, then talk a bit about the

politics in relation to the us. mary—anne marsh, it is really shocking to hearjust how violent and bloodied this election campaign has been. it’s and bloodied this election campaign has been. �* , , and bloodied this election campaign has been. 3 , , , ., has been. it's very disturbing, and the fact it is _ has been. it's very disturbing, and the fact it is connected _ has been. it's very disturbing, and the fact it is connected to - has been. it's very disturbing, and the fact it is connected to the - the fact it is connected to the cartels makes it worse, and that as many looming issue not only messed —— mexico but the united states and elsewhere regarding drug trafficking. in the broader sense, you have seen more and more violence in countries around the world and the united states around elections, and i think that is a bad, disturbing, uneasy pattern for everyone to feel going into these elections. mexico has an election, you have an election, we have an election, the eu has an election, there are elections all over the world, and when you see violence as a tool or weapon in politics, that is not how politics works. it has been used over time in history here or there, been used over time in history here orthere, but been used over time in history here or there, but there seems to be an increasing element of violence

brought to bear in political discourse and rallies, and using that, bullets, to settle something that, bullets, to settle something that should be determined by a ballot, and that needs to come to an end. it ballot, and that needs to come to an end. , , ., . ., ballot, and that needs to come to an end. , , ., ., ., end. it is distraction, and lanhee chen, end. it is distraction, and lanhee chen. america — end. it is distraction, and lanhee chen, america has _ end. it is distraction, and lanhee chen, america has always - end. it is distraction, and lanhee chen, america has always watch | chen, america has always watch closely what is happening in mexico and politics, not least because of theissues and politics, not least because of the issues at the border, so i am guessing that this is also going to be closely watched this time. it will be closely watched. this is a historic— will be closely watched. this is a historic election, you have mexico election— historic election, you have mexico election is— historic election, you have mexico election is first woman resident, which _ election is first woman resident, which is — election is first woman resident, which is exceptional in and of itself, — which is exceptional in and of itself, but i think the politics of what _ itself, but i think the politics of what happens at the southern border or the _ what happens at the southern border or the united states, the issues around — or the united states, the issues around aggression and more broadly around _ around aggression and more broadly around the _ around aggression and more broadly around the fence in the us, around continuing — around the fence in the us, around continuing pressure on tourist flows between _ continuing pressure on tourist flows between the countries, economic flows. _ between the countries, economic flows, us— between the countries, economic flows, us - — between the countries, economic flows, us — mexico— canada trade is

coming _ flows, us — mexico— canada trade is coming up _ flows, us — mexico— canada trade is coming up for negotiation and exteriors, _ coming up for negotiation and exteriors, these are issues the next minute _ exteriors, these are issues the next minute -- _ exteriors, these are issues the next minute —— mexican president with the with in— minute —— mexican president with the with in concurrence with the current administration or a change in administration or a change in administration injanuary given administration or a change in administration in january given the election— administration in january given the election results here in the us and what _ election results here in the us and what we _ election results here in the us and what we see in mexico shortly. mary—anne marsh and lanhee chen, thank you for the moments, and the elections will be at the weekend in mexico, some other developments coming from the us, reuters is reporting that presidentjoe biden is expected to sign an executive order on migration in an attempt to take rates or control of the us southern border with mexico. it says thatjoe biden order will likely shut off i seldom resent —— request and deny entrance to grants once a daily threshold is exceeded. so that is from the white house on that, and just to remind you as well of the other breaking news from the white

house, and that is that president biden has partially lifted a ban on ukraine using directed —— us provided weapons for strikes inside russia, it is mental to our partners at cbs news. ukraine may use us weapons near the ukrainian city of kharkiv, concentration of russian troops and russian artillery is, ask whether it includes russian aeroplanes, the officials told him they never could shoot up down a russian plane over russian soil that is coming to attack them. that news coming from the white house, your watch in the context on bbc news. i will be back with the panel in a few moments might stay with us on bbc news. hello there.

today, we've seen a mixture of sunshine and showers, a familiar mix, but fewer showers are mostly focused on south—eastern parts of england. other eastern areas of england, though, seeing a spell of rain just for a while. that may well tend to move away temporarily. and it is going to be turning drier over the next few days as high pressure noses in from the atlantic, but we've still got that northerly wind overnight. it will bring more cloud to eastern parts of england and we'll see a bit more rain arriving later on in the night as well. further west, though, we're going to have clearer skies and lighter winds, a few short lived mist and fog patches by the end of the night and a little bit cooler where we have the clearer skies. temperatures in scotland could be down to six or seven degrees. still some cloud, though, coming in on that northerly breeze for eastern england into the midlands and may well bring with it some rain or some showers. those becoming confined to the south—east of england in the afternoon. other areas may brighten up a bit, but it's further west and further north that will have the best of the sunshine, light winds as well — a very pleasant day. if anything, it's going to be a bit warmer than today. so we'll see temperatures in the sunshine getting up to 20 or 21 celsius. again, a bit coolerfor some eastern areas of england,

perhaps as it will be for saturday. there's our area of high pressure. the winds are falling lighter. even across eastern parts of england, still a northerly breeze, so maybe one or two showers here. not very many, many places will be dry, and again, we've got the sunnier skies closer to the high to the north and west of the uk, and those temperatures again reaching 20 or 21 celsius, a little bit cooler around some eastern parts of england. but temperatures are going to rise here the second half of the weekend — a change of fortunes to come. the high pressure is never quite making it to the uk. it's getting squeezed on sunday and all this cloud is coming in from the atlantic around the top of the high that will be working its way into much of scotland, northern ireland. eventually bring a little rain into the far north—west, but we've still got some sunshine for england and wales and a sunnier day with lighter winds across east anglia and the south—east means it's going to be warmer here as well. temperatures are going to peak at 22 or 23 degrees. still quite warm in the sunshine for eastern scotland, cooler in western scotland with the cloud. and things are going to change a bit

as we head into next week. there's some rain in the forecast mainly for northern areas of the uk. further south, it's looking generally dry still and, if anything, still quite warm as well.

hello, i'm rajini vaidyanathan. you're watching the context on bbc news.

in a major change in policy, us presidentjoe biden has given