president trump has predicted a threefold increase in trade between britain and the us if the two countries strike a deal after brexit. there were more protests on the second day of his state visit, although the president claimed they didn't happen, calling reports about them "fa ke news". sudanese special forces — former members of a feared militia — are cracking down on unarmed civilian protests, killing at least 30 people. it's sparked international condemnation. military leaders have scrapped all agreements with the main opposition coalition. more than 2000 cases of ebola have now been recorded in the democratic republic of the congo, two thirds of them fatal. the outbreak began last august, but recently there's been a significant spike. health workers, who are facing attacks from suspicious locals and armed rebel groups, are finding up to 20 new cases a day.

now on bbc news it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. as donald trump and family revel in the pomp and circumstance of a state visit to london, his staunchest political foes back home continue to plot a pathway to impeachment. my guest today is funding much of that effort. tom steyer is a californian hedge fund billionaire turned deep—pocketed backer of liberal causes. his focus was climate change. now, it's impeachment. he is a powerfulforce in the democratic party. but is he in danger of pushing the party in the wrong direction? tom steyer, welcome to hardtalk.

stephen, thank you for having me. would it be fair to say that, over the last couple of years, the impeachment of president donald trump has become your political obsession? well, let me say this. i started an organisation called nexgen america, that is the largest grassroots organisation, political organisation, in the united states, which did the largest youth voter mobilisation in american history last year, that knocked on 10 million doors with their partners in the organised labour movement, and that also ran three statewide propositions to push for 50% clean energy by 2030.

so it's true that our organisation need to impeach has got over 8 million signatures, and i've spent a lot of time doing town halls talking to people about the danger that trump presents to the people of the united states and to our way of life. but it's also true that our organisation has done a lot of grassroots, the most of any organisation. true, and that's why i mention your commitment to the climate change issue. you have been committed to that for many years. you have funded various democratic party campaigns. but as i say, in the last couple of years, i would like to know how much money you have spent on the need to impeach president trump movement, and in particular on a whole series of tv ads that have run across the nation? i honest to goodness don't have a hard number, stephen. i think our campaign has cost over 30 million bucks. yes, i've seen estimates that go as high as 60 or 70, just on the impeachment campaign.

i think that's probably an exaggeration, but i don't think we have a hard number. but it's not far off, is it? it's somewhere between what i said and what you said. what interests me is that you started calling for the impeachment of donald trump long before robert mueller‘s special counsel investigation was complete, and your list of reasons why trump has to be impeached goes far beyond any sort of legal cause. well, really what happened was this. let me go into why i think he should be impeached. we got 50—plus legal scholars, constitutional lawyers, to come up with the criteria that he met to be impeached, and they gave us ten or ii, and we put them on our website. but what i've been saying for the last year and a half is that mr trump has met the criteria for impeachment in public sight, very clearly. one is the obstruction ofjustice, which mr robert mueller did a two—year, exhaustive investigation into, and you can read it.

yes, and refused to reach a conclusion. well, actually what he said was — and i have read it. what he said was, i'm not allowed to draw a conclusion from this, other than that he's innocent, and i can't say that. so here is the rules forfinding him guilty. here is the evidence, and they all meet the rules. but he never said, therefore, he's guilty. he said the only people who can draw that conclusion are congress. he has all the information. they are the people who have to hold him to account. i've done all the work and all the investigation. here it is. that's one thing. well, we'll get back to that, but one more, there's too many. there's three. the second one's corruption. he takes payments from foreign governments, through his real estate operations and from american corporations that are under hisjurisdiction. and three, he's refused any kind of oversight from congress. he's refused to have anyone in the administration answer a subpoena, testify to congress, on this or anything else while they're investigating him, for oversight. that is, all three of those are absolutely against the constitution, important refusals to do his duty

as president, and is contrary to his oath of office. those are allegations. donald trump has responded by calling you, and i'm quoting him, wacky and unhinged, and to a certain extent one can see where he's coming from, when some of your reasons for saying that donald trump has to be impeached include things like bringing america to the brink of nuclear war, his attacks on the free press. now, you might not like his attitude to the press, but it certainly isn't an impeachable offence. well listen, as i said originally, stephen, we got constitutional lawyers to draw up what they thought. yes, but it doesn't mean that what they concluded was credible, in terms of impeachment. my point is, for a year and a half, i've gone around saying only two things, and then i said that he's not willing to talk to congress. and that's what i've said consistently, is one, he has obstructed justice, two, he's corrupt and has taken payment from foreign governments, which is absolutely against the constitution, and lastly, now he has refused to do hisjob as president and deal

with other branches of government. of course, in the end, impeachment is a political process that has to take place in the us congress. do you think it is healthy for us democracy and us politics that a billionaire like yourself can plough, let's agree, tens of millions of dollars into tv advertising, other sorts of campaigning, which create this sort of sense of a movement demanding donald trump's impeachment, when all of the opinion polls, and indeed all of the political anecdotal evidence that democrats as well as republicans see on the ground across america, suggests the us public by a majority doesn't want it to happen? well, actually, if you look at what's going on, what we've done is run a petition drive. we have more than 8 million americans... in a country of well over 300 million. of which about 100 million vote. so we've had 8 million americans sign a petition saying

that he should be impeached. and when you go around, the way that americans will get their information is by televised tv hearings. that is what happened in 1974 with richard nixon, another corrupt president who had the exact same kind of ratings that you referto, until, infact, the people in washington held a series of televised hearings showing his corruption, and showing that in fact he was a president who was doing damage to the country. the people of the united states changed as a result of those hearings — after, not before. and so what we've been saying all along is put the evidence on tv. we had one hearing, which was michael cohen. it moved your numbers 6%. and in fact, all we have to do is let the americans, whether they're democrats, republicans or independents, see the information, and they will be revolted. you're suggesting that in fact he hasn't done anything wrong. that's absolutely untrue. no, it's really not important what i think, what i'm suggesting. what i do think we need to come back

to, because of your answer and because of the importance of due process, is a discussion of your contention that there is clear evidence of obstruction of justice. my contention to you is that the reading of the robert mueller report, what mueller said in the response to it, does not indicate that there is clear evidence of sufficient grounds for charges of obstruction ofjustice. because, frankly, robert mueller could have indicated that was his belief if he chose to do so. he didn't, he left it entirely inconclusive. and the attorney—general, the top legal officer of the united states, looked at the evidence in the mueller report and concluded there was no basis for criminal charges. can i respond to that? the attorney—general of the united states has become the absolutely dishonest tool of mr trump. 1,000 prosecutors have looked at the evidence that you say is inconclusive, and say this is an open—and—shut case to bring obstruction of justice.

do you believe in the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty? of course i do, but that is a principle for the law courts. this, as you pointed out, is a political case. we have a president of the united states who is not obeying the rule of law, who is trying to make himself above the law, and to put his interests ahead of the interests of the people of the united states. so... and that is not a trivial point. so, if you are to get your way, and the impeachment of president trump, it will become a political process. it will go into the us congress and be dealt with by the house of representatives. your big problem as a democrat is that the leader of your party in the house, speaker nancy pelosi, says impeachment is off the table. it is so divisive to the country that, unless there is something so compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan, i do not think we should go down that path. it is just not worth it.

she is the speaker of the house, and what she is saying is that, if republicans don't go along with this, that i think we need a bipartisan vote in the senate, and i'm not going to do this on a partisan basis, as a democrat. the only thing i can say is this. this is about the people of the united states, notjust people in washington, dc. i know the rules of impeachment, and they do occur in washington, dc. but the only way that this will happen in the real world is if we put the evidence in front of the american people. let them see that there is actually a fundamental attack on the rule of law, and democracy itself, coming from the white house. and if they, in fact, look at that on a bipartisan, non—partisan basis, from a patriotic standpoint, and see our country is under attack by its own leader, that we will in fact get the result that i'm talking about. well, i don't want to trade opinion polls with you all day, but if you insist on bringing it back to the feeling amongst

the american people, i do have to just quote you the most recent polls. within the last month, ipsos/reuters poll — 57% of adult america say that continued investigation into trump would negatively interfere with government business. 54% of the nation — across the nation, the surveys most recently suggest 54% against impeachment. so you're not taking the public with you. my point is there's no way for the public to understand this. we've had one hearing. it moved impeachment polls 6%. we should be having a dozen hearings. and in fact, when you say it's going to interfere with the the business of the united states government, the business of the united states government in washington, dc is at a standstill, stephen. i don't know if you're aware of it, but if you look at the big issues in the united states, comprehensive immigration reform — not possible to be discussed. gun violence — off the table. climate — we're the only country in the world that's not in the paris accord. we have an inability to discuss

energy policy at any level. sorry, are you suggesting to me that going down the track of a full—fledged impeachment process is going to improve the possibilities of getting things done in washington? well, let me give you a scenario where in fact that is exactly true, because what i'm positing and which i believe to be entirely true is that this government is at system failure — an inability to even discuss, let alone pass, legislation on the major issues of the day. so let's talk for a second about the idea that we actually have a series of hearings, at which americans across the country get to see exactly what the president is doing, get to react to it, and come to the conclusion together that there is something they can do. you are so fundamentally out of sync with many, many elected representatives of the party you have backed for so many years. we talked about nancy pelosi, but on the ground, it's people like hakeem jeffries, a congressman who is in the democratic caucus, who has told the new york times very recently, listen,

we didn't campaign on impeachment. we didn't campaign on collusion, or obstruction ofjustice. what we campaigned on was lowering healthcare costs, and that's what we should be focused on. 0k, let me make a couple of points about american politics. hakeem jeffries is the number five person in the democratic party in the congress. he is part of the leadership that reports on a daily basis to the speaker, nancy pelosi. 0k, let me ask you a question. you're telling me that because he's connected to nancy pelosi, who you no longer speak to, you're telling me that all of these people are totally misreading the interests of their own party? let me make a point to you, listen for a second. they're saying that what we campaigned on was healthcare costs. 0k, let me ask you the question. what is the chance there's going to be something done on healthcare costs between now and 2021? well, i wouldn't think it's good. but it could be a whole lot worse

if you undertake a partisan, toxic war — which the white house, by the way, says bring it on. they've said, and i'm going to quote you the campaign managerfor trump 2020, brad parscale, says the more they beat the drum for impeachment, the more that emboldens our campaign. bring it on. let me make two points. mr trump has lied 10,000 times by the count of the washington post. secondly, when people talk, if you polled people before the election, they would say healthcare was their number one thing. but the real question is why? it's not that healthcare suddenly became an issue in 2018, what happened was the republicans three times try to take away the affordable care act, which would remove healthcare from tens of millions of americans and they came within one vote in the senate of doing so. so if you actually look at what happened in 2018, the number of democratic voters went up to two—thirds. not because they suddenly discovered they needed to go to the doctor, but because the republicans were trying to take away their healthcare, were doing a lot

of destructive things. so when you say it wasn't about the impeachment of mr trump, i beg to differ. it was very much about the threat that mr trump represents to the people of the united states that made the turnout by democrats to go from 35 million four years ago to 59 million. that was not the problem. the problem is that many democrats don't agree with you, but let's leave that on one side. but this is just a data—driven question, stephen. i, well, i just want to ask you one very simple question, and i think it's simple. which is more important to you, right now? impeaching donald trump or getting a democrat into the white house in 2020? but you're asking me this question as if for some reason impeaching donald trump is going to give donald trump a better chance? not at all. i'm just asking you which is your priority. which is more important to you today? the impeachment of trump or working to get a democrat in the white house? i believe that impeaching mr trump

is critical for america and i also believe it is the single thing that is worst for donald trump. let me quote to you... because there's an impression that you're giving that somehow it's a choice and it's not. it's not my impression, i'm just trying to put to you different opinions from inside the party that you have finance to the tune of many tens of millions of dollars over the last three orfour years. david axelrod, who knows a thing or two about winning presidential elections because he was one of the key strategists and advisors for barack 0bama, he has described your determination to use your money to push the impeachment campaign as, and i'm quoting him, "a vanity project", which is doing the democrats no good. he did say that about a year ago. but you know something? we are the peop— and he said that and that implied somehow we were going to hurt them in 2018. but in fact, we were the largest grassroots organisation in the united states, we did the biggest turnout of youth in the history of the american ? of america, the turnout of people under 30 went from 18% four years ago to 41%, that's the largest generation in america. and they vote at a 44 point spread

democrat to republican. so whatever david axelrod says, what the truth is, is that the programmes that we ran had more influence in turnout, which is the actual reason the democrats won the house, than anybody else. so whatever he was saying, what we did was change that election in a way that nobody else did. how upset are you by the state of the democratic party today, then? because we've talked about the current leadership in the congress, let's talk about the frontrunner for the presidential nomination. ijust looked at a poll before i came into the studio, joe biden was scoring 32% amongst democrats. the next up was bernie sanders at 1a%, neither, it has to be said, is a fresh or new voice in the democratic party.

but the interesting thing isjoe biden, like nancy pelosi, has made it plain. he doesn't think impeaching the president is the route to power in 2020 for the democrats. how disappointed are you by that? well, let me make a point. of the 2a announced democratic candidates, over half of them are for impeachment. sure. and how many of those are doing well in the polls? well, i think you've got to put in — joe biden is really the only leading contender who is not for impeachment. and he's cut — he is, as you say, he is trying to carve out for himself a position as the moderate, the person who is in the middle, who is not taking on progressive causes, but is in effect moderating between the progressive wing of the party and moderate republicans. that's his — that's where he's trying to establish himself. why didn't you run? because last year you were clearly toying with it. you tempted and taunted a few reporters by saying that you weren't entirely sure what you were going to do. you've now said that you're not going to run for 2020. why?

look, i said, ‘to me the biggest threat to the country as the president', that the biggest impact i could have was trying to make sure that america stood up for the rule of law. who are you going to back, then? biden‘s at 32%. you've got to find someone to stop him if you want your kind of democrat to get to the white house. if you want a fighter who will push the impeachment of president trump, who is it? but, steven, let me say this, you are acting like this is a one issue off by itself. the democratic party has a — is, you know — we're a — publicly — commonly described as a large tent. there are progresses in the democrat party, a bunch of them are running for president and they are very progressive on climate, they are very progressive on economics, there is a whole host of issues where there's in the democratic party, a range. who do you think right now has the voice that is closest to yours? look, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out... give me a name. no, i'm not going to. why not? and i'll explain to you. because we're trying to figure out the right strategy to push the power

down to the people so they can make the smartest decision. and if you look at what we've done, that's what we do. we registered people to vote, we encouraged — we go door—to—door to encourage them to vote and we help get them to the polls. so what we're trying to do with propositions on the ballot to change the law directly, with turnout to vote strategies and by petition drives is actually not what you're describing, which is one person going to have his way with the system, but actually, to take the power away from elites and give it to the people so that the populations that don't participate, who are underserved and underrepresented actually can have their voices heard. that is a very interesting point to make. so that's what we're going to try and do in 2020 as well. well, my question to you would be how does a california, liberal, progressive, billionaire hedge funder become the guy who reconnects the democrats to those states that donald trump took in 2016 and which swung the election?

i'm thinking michigan, i'm thinking west virginia, i'm thinking 0hio, i'm thinking wisconsin... how, given everything you have described as your set of values, are you going to be the guy to reconnect the party with those voters? look, the people — in michigan, what we're going to do is what we did. by the way, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania were all huge democratic victories in 2018 and the reason was that democrats turned out. in fact, what you're — there's a real question. and i inherently disagree with what you're saying. because what we're saying is the way that michigan and wisconsin and pennsylvania become democratic is by giving people a straightforward, honest message about what they care about and getting them to turn out. in fact, there are many more democrats in the united states than republicans. and impeachment, which i come back to, gets in the way of that core message. i absolutely disagree. what we are pushing

and impeachment is to do it now. this is something that is a multi—month, but not a year—long process, not a six—month process. the whole — we've been pushing for hearings now to have this happen, let the american people see what it's in, make a decision and then move on. but in fact, this is something that is time—bound and urgent and that at some point it goes away. but if you don't get your way... no, no, i want to answer your question because you are challenging me about me being the person in wisconsin, in michigan and pennsylvania. we were there. were were in every college campus in those places. but we're almost out of time and i've got one more important question. we were getting people to turn out and vote with their values, not imposing our values but making democracy work, which is what is not evident. what i said to you is we have a breakdown in democracy in the us. it's because people don't believe in the system. because 80% of the people think is a sham and what we're trying to to do is rebuild the idea

of by and for the people, everyone gets an equal vote. so that's exactly what we're doing. that's what our organisation does and that's what needs to happen for the united states to go back to being a vibrant, proud country. a yes or no answer, please. laughter. if you don't get your way, impeachment into the house of representatives as you say, now, will you walk away and take your money away from the democratic party? first of all, you don't understand. we don't give money to the democratic party. we run programmes to energise voters and get them to come out. it doesn't go through the democratic party. we run independent programmes really try and push power down to the people. so we're going to stop doing that. i guarantee we're not going to stop doing it. am i going to pout and take my ball and go home? stephen, what we're trying to do is something that we can't walk away from. we are in a crisis in the united states. you are acting as if this is partisan bickering over small ball. this is not partisan bickering about small ball, this is a question about democracy existing in the united states itself. if the president doesn't have to obey the law, if the president is a king who does

— gets to do what he wants, fine, let's establish that. but if you want to set that precedent, i certainly don't. i don't think it's one you can walk away from, i think it's one that will endure and it will make us a much worse country. tom steyer. stephen. that was more than one word, but i thank you, i thank you for it. laughter. thanks for being on hardtalk. thank you. hello, most parts of the uk saw some wet weather on tuesday as an area of low pressure pushed its way from south to north. the centre of the low will push increasingly out into the north sea now, as the hours go by. but it will trail a weather front behind it, to keep things pretty grey and wet in the north on and off throughout the day. we also, though, have this

front from the south, and we'll see more out of that as we look to wednesday evening overnight into thursday. for this morning, it's scotland and northern ireland, though, that sit under the band of cloud and rain, and for much of the day, the prospects will be rather dank. first thing, perhaps a bit of brightness for the north—east of england, some showers to the north—west, a few for north wales. some decent sunshine as we head for the south into england. a few early—morning patches of mist are possible, but they should be fairly short—lived. and actually, for england and wales on the whole, a lot of fine weather. perhaps a bit of sunshine, as well, just getting into southern scotland later on in the day. just a chance of a few showers forming across the centre of the south—west peninsula, across towards 0xfordshire, through the afternoon. in terms of our temperatures, just 12 there in aberdeen, perhaps up to 20 further south, where we get more in the way of sunshine. then we go through wednesday evening into thursday. remember that front down there across the continent? looks like it's just going to bump some rain up towards the far

east of england. now, there is some uncertainty as to how far onshore this pulse of rain will make it. if it does come onshore, it could be very heavy. at the moment, it looks like the majority will sit offshore in the north sea. actually, our wednesday night into thursday does look largely dry, but through thursday daytime, we certainly are expecting that low to track its way further north. but again, the uncertainty is in the detail as to exactly how tight into the east coast it will come, and how quickly it will move north into scotland. thursday for many will be a pretty decent day, with some bright or sunny spells, but there is a chance certainly on some of those north sea coasts for some heavier pulses of rain at times. and then, late in the day, the heavier, more persistent rain and some pretty blustery winds to make their way into scotland. scattered showers for northern ireland, too. 0ur temperatures still somewhat on the disappointing side. average values at best, perhaps a little below. that low pushes away to the north for friday, but then we're looking at another system firing up from the continent to close out our week, with almost all areas likely to see some heavy rain at some stage, and some strong and gusty winds.

again, the timing will be quite difficult, because we're expecting to see these areas of low pressure firing through in quick succession. but certainly wet to the south on friday, still unsettled for the weekend.

this is the briefing. i'm sally bundock. our top story: after the pomp, politics and protests, president trump prepares to mark the 75th anniversary of the d—day landings on the last day of his state visit to britain. disgraced australian cardinal george pell launches a bid to overturn his conviction for child sexual abuse. a rematch for old rivals. roger federer wins in paris to set up a french open semi—final clash with rafael nadal. mission to moscow. president xi flies to russia for trade talks with vladimir putin.