of 2 for. watching al-jazeera live from london 2230 g.m.t. it's just gone half past the hour we've been listening to the next stage and present donald trump's 2nd impeachment trial in which senators have 4 hours to question both the prosecution and the defense teams earlier on donald trump's legal team concluded that defense of the trial was unconstitutional and that it was politically motivated and that his language was just political rhetoric that other politicians have used as well so they're arguing that there's no clear link between donald trump's speech on january 6th in the capital insurrection which resulted in at least 5 deaths but really the key line of questioning we have heard donald

trump's defense team being repeatedly asked that question of when learnt of the siege what he knew when what action he took to prevent a riot what action he took to end the riot and that question has been asked repeatedly because so far there's been no adequate response from his team. so return to the questions in a couple of minutes 1st want to bring you some of the day's other news and the by the ministration says it will revoke the designation of yemen's who see rebels as a terror group on tuesday in an effort to alleviate the humanitarian crisis there but 3 who feel it is will remain under u.s. sanctions and the u.s. state department is warning the group might be hit with more sanctions especially those responsible for attacks on shipping and saudi arabia meanwhile the whose these military spokesman has tweeted that the group has hit saudi arabia's international airport and can call it at base with drones speaking to al jazeera mohammad a member of the political bureau defended the attack. what if we have

a size that our war is legitimate because it is based on the right for self defense would saudi and the u.a.e. stop their war on yemen we will stop immediately and without the need for any dialogue or political solutions in the past we stopped attacking saudi arabia hoping that it can change its policies and stop its aggression we have in the past introduced many concessions therefore we emphasize once again that we are not waiting for a change of heart inside the american administration or inside the saudi or your leadership. or president joe biden in the united nations fear that designating the group a terror organization could hold a deliveries into who he control parts of yemen where there's already a major threat of famine the u.n. is warning that at least $400000.00 children under the age of 5 in yemen could die of starvation this year if there's no urgent treatment for agencies say soaring rates of malnutrition are being driven by 6 years of war and the coronavirus pandemic they predict nearly 2300000 children under 5 will suffer acute

malnutrition this year many aid programs in yemen have been forced to close down or scaled back because of a drop in funding. the un human rights council has unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the release of ousted me and my leader unsung suchi and other detainees it also calls on the military to reinstate the government and exercise restraint with protesters may advise experienced its 7th and biggest day yet of protest against the coup despite human rights investigators saying there's growing evidence officers have been using live ammunition against the demonstrators . day after day the people who have made more him around the world have watched with horror photos and videos of brutality emerging from the streets of near the marge homes of security forces in full riot gear surrounding peaceful protesters and water cannons being fired into crowds of protesters being shot including

a young woman shot in the head as she stood alone and posing no threat with other peaceful protesters in the. iraq war a move ports and photographic evidence mean more security forces used live ammunition lethal force against protesters well you know the news a british human rights lawyer has been elected as the international criminal court's new chief will crimes prosecutor after weeks of debate member states voted for karim khan one of 4 candidates will begin the next 9 years in the summer of placing the 2 bensouda has been in the post since 2012 a legal battle to force royal dutch shell to pay for decades of oil spills in the niger delta is gaining momentum the u.k. supreme court says nigerian farmers and fishermen can sue the oil giant in english courts tens of thousands of nigerians want compensation for years of oil spills which have contaminated land and drinking water shell has argued that the leaks are

caused by local sabotaging their pipelines and not because of neglect i might address has more now from the costs. several courts before rejected the fact that shell has a duty to. do 2 to care about what it's been doing in the niger delta i spoke to an octave is a short while ago immediately after the court ruling and they were elated in the community as well as all galley which has a population of around 40000 people and billy which is also part of this case has a population of 2300 people and they. told us that this is an opportunity for them to bring their kids not only the case for a compensation and clean up but also to draw international attention to the operations of multinational oil companies in the niger delta how they go about their activities with impunity abusing human rights and all that this field that it's time now that they get here in the court of law in the united kingdom i asked

one of them why not pursue this case in the nigerian judicial system or they told me that in fact because of the nature of the judicial system in nigeria they don't believe that they will have adequate hearing that will have that we were just as they deserve so that's why they're taking their cases now to the u.k. and the netherlands and that's the reason why they're happy today that the u.k. case court has agreed with them the time in fact prosecute shell for its subsidiary operations in nigeria set one last bit of news from exley has called developments that mario draghi telling the president that he has gathered enough political support to become the country's new prime minister the former president of the european central bank was asked to take over after the collapse of giuseppe conti's administration he will lead a government of national unity with ministers from various parties appointed as the country struggles with the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

let's head back to the u.s. senate where donald trump has been delivering its defense as a follow president that has now wrapped up and we're hearing senators they have the opportunity to ask questions of both the prosecution and the defense teams. of the house of representatives has to thank you mr president but you know my counsel said before this is been my worst experience in washington and for that i guess we're sorry but man you should have been here in general 6. so the counsel for the president keep blaming the house for not having the evidence that's within the sole possession of their client who we invited to come and testify last week we sent a letter on february 4th i sent it directly to president trump inviting him to come and to explain in fill in the gaps of what we know about what happened there and they sent back a contemptuous response just

a few hours later i think they've maybe even responded more quickly to my letter than president trump did in the as a commander in chief to the invasion and the storming of the capital the united states but in that letter i said you know if you decline this invitation we reserve all rights including the right to establish a trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference what's that well justice scalia was the great champion of it if you don't testify in a criminal case it can't be used against you everybody knows that that's the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination but if it's a civil case and you plead the 5th or you don't show up then according to justice scalia and the rest of the supreme court you can interpret every disputed fact against the defendant that is totally available to us so for example. if we say the president was missing in action for several hours and he was derelict in his duty and he does it deserted his duty as commander in chief and we say. that as

insider in chief he didn't call off the dogs and they say oh no he was really doing whatever he can if you're puzzled about that you can reserve resolve that dispute factual dispute against the defendant who refuses to come to a civil proceeding he will not spend one day in jail if you convict him this is not a criminal proceeding this is about preserving the republic dear senate that's what this is about setting standards of conduct for the president of the united states so this never happens to us again so rather than yelling at us and screaming about how we didn't have time to get all of the facts about what your client did bring your client up here and have him testify under oath about why he was sending out tweets denouncing the vice president of the united states while the vice president was being hunted down by a mob that wanted to hang him and was chanting in this building hang mike pence hang my pants traitor a traitor traitor of the. next question. served from

west virginia to suppress our senate question to the desk directed to the house managers. question for the house managers a clerk or a report would the president be made aware of the f.b.i. and intelligence information of a possible attack and would the president be responsible for not preparing to protect the capitol and all elected officials of government with national guard and

law enforcement as he did when he appeared when he appeared in front of the st john's episcopal church. it's the risp responsibility of the president to now president of the united states our commander in chief daily briefings on what is happening in the country that he has a duty to protect additionally. the president would have known just like the rest of us know all of the reports that were out there and publicly available how many of you received call saying to be careful on january 6th

to be careful that day i'm not who i'm seeing reports it doesn't seem safe how much more the president of the united states donald trump is our commander in chief absolutely had a duty and a sworn oath to preserve protect and defend us and to do the same for the officers under his command and he was not just our commander in chief he incited the attack the insurgents were following his commands as we saw when we read aloud his tweet attacking the vice president and with regard to the vice president i'm sure they did have a good relationship but we all know what can happen to you one who has a good relationship with the president when you decide to do something that he doesn't like i'm sure some of you have experienced that when he turns again to you after you don't follow his command. you heard from my colleagues that when planning

this attack the insurgents predicted the donald trump would command the national guard to help them well he didn't do much better he may not have commanded the guard to help them but it took way way too long for him to command the guard to help us this is all connected we're talking about free speech this was a pattern and practice of months of activity that is the incitement that is the incitement the activity he was engaged in for months before january 6th not just the speech on january 6th all of it in its totality is a dereliction of duty of the president of the united states against the people who elected him all of the people of this country the mosque mispresent i sent

a question to that to the dust for the former president's counsel so i rule. over that has a question for the house counsel. report to question. mr president. for the former president's counsel sorry thank you miss from

the house managers said yesterday that due process is discretionary meaning the house is not required to provide and indeed did not provide in this knap impeachment any constitutional protections to a defendant in the house impeachment proceedings what are the implications for a constitutional order of this new house president combined with the senate's power to disqualify from public office a private citizen in an impeachment trial going through his private that's a complicated question could i have that read again please. the house managers said yesterday that due process is discretionary meaning the house is not required to provide and indeed did not provide in this snap impeachment any constitutional protections to

a defended in house impeachment proceedings what are the implications for our constitutional order of this new house combined with the senate's power to disqualify from public office a private citizen an impeachment trial. well 1st of all. due process is never discretionary good lord the constitution requires that a nuke used to have the right to due process because the power that a prosecutor has to take somebodies liberty when they're prosecuting them is the ultimate thing that we try to save in this case just now in the last 2 hours we've had prosecutorial misconduct what they just tried to do was say that it's our burden to bring them evidence to prove their case and it's not it's not our burden

to bring any evidence follower it at all what's the danger well the danger is pretty obvious if a majority party doesn't like somebody in the minority party and they're afraid they may lose the election or if it's somebody in the majority party and they're surprised that citizen who wants to run against somebody in the majority party well they could simply bring impeachment proceedings and of course without due process they're not going to be intitled to a lawyer they're not going to be entitled to have notice of the charges against them. it puts us into a position where we are the kind of judicial system and governing body that we're all very very afraid of from what we

left hundreds of years ago and what regimes all around this world that endanger us that's how they act that's how they conduct themselves without giving the accused due process taking their liberty though given them just a basic fundamental right under the 5th through the 14th applied to the states due process if you take away due process in this country too from the accused if you take that away there will be no justice and nobody nobody will be safe but it's patently unfair for the house managers to bring an impeachment proceeding without any again without any investigation at all and then stand up here and say

one they had a chance to bring us evidence and to. let's let's. let's see what we can do about flipping around somebodies of other constitutional rights to having a lawyer or to having. to see the evidence at all it just gets brought in without any but as it was here without anybody having an opportunity to review it beforehand they actually sent it to us on the 9th of the the day after we started this. so it's a really big problem the due process clause applies to this impeachment hearing and it's been severely and extremely violated this process is so unconstitutional because it violates due process i'm not even to get into the

jurisdiction part. the due process part should be enough to give anybody who loves our constitution and loves our country great pause to do anything but acquit donald trump thank you. mr president these. thank you mr president as president i think the question to the death for the as managers.

has a question for the house managers in the corker report a question. former president trump and his attorneys have cited the brandenberg the ohio case in support of their argument that the 1st amendment protects trump did the brandenburg case prohibit holding public officials accountable through the impeachment process for the incitement of violence. thank you mr president senators. so let's start with the letter of more than $140.00 constitutional law professors which i think they described as partisan in nature that's

a slur on the law professors and i hope that they would withdraw that there are very conservative luminaries on that list including the co-founder of the federalist society ronald reagan's former solicitor general charles fried as well as prominent law professors across the intellectual ideological interest credential spectrum and they all called their 1st moment arguments frivolous which they are now they've been they've retreated to the position of brandenburg versus ohio they want their client to be treated like a guy at the mob i think they said a guy in the crowd who yells something out even on that standard this group of law professors said there's a very strong argument that he's he's guilty even under the strict brandenburg standard why because if he incited imminent lawless action and he intended to do it and it was likely to cause it how do we know is likely to cause it he did cause it they overran the capital right so even if you want to hold the president of the

united states of america to that minimal standard forget about his constitutional oath of office but as i said before that would be a dereliction of legislative duty on our part if we said all we're going to do is treat the present united states like one of the people he summoned to washington to commit insurrection against us ok the president swore to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the united states that's against all comers domestic and foreign that's what our says right. did he do that on the contrary he's like the fire chief he doesn't just say go ahead and shout fire in a crowded theater he summons the mob and sends the mob to go burn the theater down and when people start madly calling him in ringing the alarm bells he watches it on t.v. and he takes his sweet time for several hours he turns up the heat on the deputy fire chief who he's mad at because he's not making it possible for him to pursue his political objectives and then when we say we don't want you to be fired chief

ever again he starts crying about the 1st amendment brandenburg was a case about a bunch of klansman who get assembled in a field and they weren't near anybody such that they could actually do violent damage to people but they said some pretty repulsive racist things but 3 in court said they weren't inciting imminent lawless action because you couldn't have a mob for example break out the way that this mob broke out and took over the capital united states of america and by the way don't compare him to one of those klansman in the field asserting their 1st amendment rights assuming he were the chief of police of the tellme who went down to that rally and started calling for a rally at the city hall and then nurturing that mob cultivating that mob pulling them in over a period of weeks and days naming the date in the time in the place roiling the beforehand and then just saying be my guest go and stop the steel come on back to

tom paine use your common sense use your common sense that's the standard of proof we want there already treating their client like he's a criminal defendant they're talking about beyond a reasonable doubt that they think they were making a criminal case here my friends the present the former president is not going to spend one hour or one minute in jail this is about protecting our republic and articulating and defining the standards of presidential conduct and if you want this to be a standard for totally appropriate presidential conduct going forward be my guest but we're headed for a very different kind of country at that point. the gases i think question.

the senator from kansas mr marshall as a question for the counsel for the former president the core quote read the 'd question the house managers single article of impeachment is 100 on the accusation that president trump singularly incited a crowd into a riot didn't the house managers contradict their own charge by outlining the premeditated nature and planning of this event and by also showing the crowd was

gathered at the capitol even before the speech started and barriers were pushed over some 20 minutes before the conclusion of president trump's speech. yes the house managers contradicted their own charge by outlining the premeditated nature and planning of this event and by also showing the crowd gathered at the capitol even before the speech started and barriers were pushed over some 20 minutes before the conclusion of president trump's speech the answer is yes and i want to take the rest of my time to go back to the last question because it was completely missed by the house and insurers brandenburg vio heigho

is an incitement case it's not in elected fishel case. that's would in bond and the whole problem that the house managers have an understanding the 1st amendment argument here is that elected officials are different than everybody else he's talking about fire chiefs fire chiefs are not elected officials. police officers are an elected officials elected officials have a different. higher standard from the holdings that i gave you the highest protections i should say it's not a higher standard it's a higher protection to your speech because of the importance of political dialogue because of what you all say in your public debate about policy about the things that affect all of our lives that's wic important stuff and you

should be free to talk about that in just about any way that you can brandenberg comes into play from a constitutional analysis perspective when you're talking about incitement is the speech itself insightful to riot. or lawlessness one of the 2 and the answer here is no in brandenburg through again bible believers require you to look at the words of the speech you actually can't go outside the words of the speech you're not allowed to in the analysis spend on tweets going back to 2015 or everything they want to focus on that was said in the hours and the days afterwards are not a political bull or relevant to the scholastic inquiry

as to how the 1st amendment is applied in this chamber in this proceeding and so again you need to be focused on what's the law and then how do we apply it to the set of facts and so it's important to have that understanding that elected officials and fire chiefs are treated differently under 1st amendment law. and those of the benefit of you all which is the benefit of us all because we do want you to be able to speak freely without fear that the majority party is going to come in and impeach you or come in.