a re was fair. you are watching bbc world news. next up it is time for beyond 100 days. you're watching beyond 100 days as a us president goes on trial in the senate for only the third time in history. the debate is under way. the senate is now wrangling over the rules that will govern the format of the trial. the senate leader has given each side 2a hours over three days to present their cases. no decision will be taken on witnesses until the trial is under way. nobody, nobody will dictate senate procedure to united states senators. the mcconnell rules seem to be designed by president trump for president trump. meanwhile the president is in davos — where his impatience for democrats is matched only by his impatience for scientists

and climate activists. we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. comparisons are being drawn to the impeachment of president clinton in 1999. but on that occasion all 100 senators agreed unanimously to the rules. how times have changed. we'll bring you all the key moments in the senate as proceedings fully get underway hello and welcome — i'm katty kay in washington and christian fraser is in london. the impeachment trial of donald] trump is under way. though there is no real pretence that the men and women sitting these are the live pictures we can you from the floor of the senate. though there is no real pretence that the men and women sitting in the senate are acting as impartialjurors. the republican leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell has already told us:

"the outcome is predetermined". he is setting the rules, in coordination with the white house, to make this hearing as speedy as possible. the president could be acquitted by the end of next week. under the senate leader's rules which they will vote to approve tonight, each side will get 2a hours to present their case, over three session days, which means a lot of the evidence we are going to hear will be presented late into the night. what's more senators will be considering that evidence, before any decision has been made whether or not to admit key material witnesses, who have so far been blocked from giving evidence. the likes of former national security adviserjohn bolton. the minority leader chuck schumer said it all amounts to a cover up. the mcconnell rules seem to be designed by president trump for president trump. it asks the senate to rush through as fast as possible and makes getting evidence as hard as possible. he could force presentations

to take place at 2am or 3am in the morning so the american people won't see them. republicans senators say this is on democrats. they argue congressional leaders in the house put together two impeachment articles — without all the witnesses and the evidence included — to meet their own self imposed deadline. whatsmore the senate leader — and the president's legal team — say even if the facts were proved in the senate, in their view they don't rise to the level of an impeachable offence. the house chose not to pursue the same witnesses, they apparent it would now like, would now like the senate to pre—commit to pursuing ourselves. as i have been saying for weeks, nobody, nobody, will dictate senate procedure to united states senators. to remind you — there are two charges,

or "articles of impeachment," that were approved by the house — which are now in front of the senatethe first is abuse of power. it relates to president's trump's withholding of $391 million in security aid for ukraine, which the democrats say was aimed at pressuring kiev into investigating joe biden, the president's possible opponent in the nov election. the other charge is obstruction of congress. the white house has stonewalled. refusing to provide documents to congressional investigators while instructing top advisers and government officials to defy subpoenas. a similar charge was one of the articles of impeachment against president nixon, who had also defied subpoenas over incriminating tape recordings. so lets show the picture in the senate right now. this is live. this is adam schiff, one of the democratic managers, the chair of the intelligence committee. it's

very rare for the members of the house of representatives to be allowed to speak on the floor of the senate but there are seven who will be doing so. the debate tonight is all about rules, it's very procedural. nonetheless vitally important to how thius trial will unfold. we are expecting minority leader chuck schumer to push amendments to the rules proposed, which would demand the senate take a decision on subpoening witnesses and documents, before the trial begins. let's head over to capitol hill and speak to our correspondent gary o'donohugue who's outside for us so at the moment you have both sides laying out their initial cases, what are they trying to do right now? on the debate over the rules there have beena the debate over the rules there have been a couple of concessions in the rules as set out previously last night by mitch mcconnell. he has moved on a couple of things. the first one is that the initial arguments that he cited was going to make over those 24 hours will be

confined to two days each. that's going to add two days to the trial process, and also something that actually seemed pretty extraordinary which is now back down and there we re which is now back down and there were not going to automatically allow the proceedings of the inquiry and documents, etc, the evidence that was heard by the house committee. not automatically allowing that to the trial record in the senate, and they are going to do that now. a couple of concessions that now. a couple of concessions that the democrats can bank but still pretty unhappy. adam schiff has been playing clips of donald trump in the senate they to back up his case for witnesses, for example where donald trump has previously said he would be very happy for people to appear. so he has been quoting, if you like, in aid of his case. another hour and a half of this and then there's going to be a break and we are going to have a couple of hours of debate on the

proposals to change these rules. and then we will get a series of both later on. just to be clear. on these amendments being put forward tonight we're looking for a simple majority on those whereas the ultimate decision on these articles of impeachmentjust set decision on these articles of impeachment just set out decision on these articles of impeachmentjust set out has to be two thirds of the majority. exactly right. you need 51 to change the rules as proposed by mitch mcconnell, and of course there are 53 republicans 47 democrats see you are looking at for republican switching sides. now we have seen some murmurings from people like mitt romney from utah at the former president or candidate, lisa in alaska, susan collins was pretty much permanently playing footsie with the opposition in the senate. also saying she may consider the witnesses. a may not do that tonight but this won't necessarily be the

la st but this won't necessarily be the last chance the democrats have pushed for a vote on things like witnesses. they will probably get another crack that in the phase that cotties another crack that in the phase that comes after the 16 hours of questions that senators are allowed to put to both sides which follows the presentation of both accounts from the white house and house democrats. just a reminder our viewers we will not be hearing from centres for the next period of whatever it is whether it is a week 01’ whatever it is whether it is a week or two weeks. which is kind of unusual because fit senators like the start of their own voice they've been told on pain of imprisonment an hour ago to shut up and keep quiet while the lawyers that members of the house of representatives takeover. that's absolutely right. the sergeant at our again said each day that as you say come on pain of imprisonment you have to be quiet. you cannot take come as a senator, you cannot take a phone in or your ipad in. cannot take any

documentation relating to anything else into the chamber. you have to sit at your desk and pay attention. now there is a chance that senators will be able to speak if for example if senate goes into private session. there is provision for that if they do that. but you are absolutely right. they are there to listen and it will be a very unusual experience for a lot of them. something that will not have come across in their careers up will not have come across in their careers up until now. and you will have to sit there and pay attention while both sides put their case. it is an extraordinary spectacle, isn't it, when you see the white house counsel pat cipollone sitting up there and making his case on behalf of the president to the whole assembled senate by then you hear adam schiff standing up there playing clips of donald trump. it's an extraordinary thing to be watching. on pain of imprisonment, i think it's a rule we could have on

this programme. we would be in the clink in an instant. so what is the goal for republicans. presumably it is to make this trial look as legitimate as possible in the eyes of the american public. but their strategy is a gamble. and here's why. this is a new poll from cnn/ssrs, it finds 69% of americans including a plurality of republicans, d0 want to see witnesses. at the moment the senate leadership is not winning that argument. you wonder if that's why theyjust had this change allowing some of the evidence from the house if it is to go on evidence from the house if it is to goona evidence from the house if it is to go on a bit longer. as for the presidents approval rating, ahead of the trial, its 43% — more or less where it has been for some time. but look at how closely that number corresponds to the percentage of people who don't want him removed from office — 45%. never has a president spoken so exclusively to his base as this one. very similar numbers there. we're joined now by ron christie — former advisor to george w bush

and from boston by democratic political analyst mary anne marsh. ron, let me start with you because you worked on capitol hill and the only other modern example we have of an impeachment trial was the 98 trial of bill clinton. how similar oui’ trial of bill clinton. how similar our things politically at the moment? good afternoon to you. i think you can draw certain parallels to what we saw back in 1999 when i was on capitol hill and what we see here in 2020. for one, there was a partisan interest to try to take out the sitting president of the united states. the republicans wanted to get rid of clinton the democrats wa nt get rid of clinton the democrats want to get rid president trump. we did not find a back in 1999 to what you do find now is that there's so much more rank partisanship. the procedure of how we would have a trial back in 1999, that was 100 to zero vote. and yet we still have not

adopted the rules for the three impeachment trial of donald trump. there's a lot more partisanship and more rancour on capitol hill now than there was 21 years ago. to democrats believe that if they can change the rules in their favour and allow more witnesses and allow more documents, they could alter the outcome potentially of this trial? no question. and the fact is they wa nt no question. and the fact is they want to but i think the more information and more evidence that comes out the more likely it is a donald trump is removed. it would certainly increase the pressure and a numberof certainly increase the pressure and a number of those republican senators, four, five, six or seven who were under tremendous pressure from the reelections, from their state and constituents to have a fair trial. this does not happen in a vacuum can fair trial. this does not happen in a vacuum can that will not just be the information we are seeing in the senate floor that the house democrats did to great effect in the video tapes of donald trump and everyone else. there will be news stories throughout this entire trial outside of this trial from of

optional revelations no doubt that will come forward. it will be impossible to ignore. if the entire weight of all the information presented by the house managers and outside events as well i will make this trial very difficult for republican senators in particular to ignore donald trump's actions. we just talked about what the republicans are seeking to achieve but we all know that 20 republicans are not going to switch sides and vote with the democrats. is the strategy for the democrats to try and string this out as long as they can to get as much of the evidence of the witnesses in front of the american public so that when he is eventually acquitted which you will be he does not get a clean bill of health? we will see. i'm not saying he's going to be removed by think this is a much more difficult than anybody thinks right now and i think mitch mcconnell has a much bigger challenge on his hands. just in an

hour we have two concessions from mitch mcconnell that we did not have over an mitch mcconnell that we did not have overan hourago mitch mcconnell that we did not have over an hour ago about the process. i think this is going to be much tougher no matter what happens in the end we are going into with a lot of questions and it's a matter of holding donald trump accountable for his conduct in that election and vacation of election itself has integrity, is not interfered with by a foreign government, russia, ukraine or anybody and that's what's really on trial here. not only the conduct but also this section. i think everything about our democracy come our democracy is on trial two and people cannot underestimate what that means. it will seem odd that you are making decisions on the evidence would you know full well that there are other material witnesses out there, but i was persuaded by one of the arguments mitch mcconnell put forward, enough that the senate's a job as per the constitution is to act and oversee on the trial. they are not there to put the investigation forward and

gather the evidence, that the house role and his point is you may end up confusing two roles. good evening to you, christian. under pain of imprisonment happy anniversary to you. never thought we would be here three years later, so here we are. no, we did not either. to answer your question more specifically the constitution says the house should have the power to impeach the senate shall have the power to conduct the trial. the house of the opportunity to call witnesses, to subpoena documents and do everything that the democrats are claiming they now want. within the president both richard nixon and president clinton that the courts expedite and reviews of the challenges between the two branches of government to say we wa nt branches of government to say we want to subpoena this witness or subpoena this document at the democrats elected not to do in the house, they wanted to impeach by christmas. the senate roll under the constitution is to conduct a trial not to be conducting additional

evidentiary matters. ron christie there and mary and marsh. have a quick look at what's happening in the floor of the senate, adam schiff is still there. little interesting back story here because we did hear from the president's legal team at the very beginning of this and the president's li lawyers spoke for about five minutes, that's what lawyers do. adam schiff has been speaking by my reckoning now for about 20 minutes, so... he's there with us for a while. these are their graphics not ours. right, this is what we are being fed from the city and was looking at that earlier and saying we are not explaining it to our poor audience. he isjustifying the case for as we were hearing of why the need the witnesses. legal a nalyst why the need the witnesses. legal analyst and former us attorney camp is with us now. on this issue of

dissent and documents because we are going to be speaking a lot about that today until all of this road map is sorted out explain to get to our audience from 50,000 feet why is process matter so much. in matters for a process matter so much. in matters fora numberof process matter so much. in matters for a number of reasons. process matter so much. in matters fora number of reasons. one is process matter so much. in matters for a number of reasons. one is the framers understood with the word trial meant and then i think the adam schiff and the democrats are correct that assumes there will be facts, facts are usually put forth before juries with her through witnesses and/or documents that we have a process with neither of those. on the second reason it's very important is because we don't have a record developed by an independent counsel or special prosecutor who had the power of the grandjury like ken prosecutor who had the power of the grand jury like ken starr. as we get back with clinton. but that valid critique that democrats could have done more in the house and the issue

is what's fair to the american people given the gravity of this trial and the implications for the presidency itself. not just for donald trump and i believe the american people deserve the full facts, and if you can make that argument that one political party could have done more in this moment certainly it's not, there's nothing precluding senate republics from allowing witnesses and evidence at least the stuff that was developed in the house of representatives that i would say given everything that leaked out since the articles were issued there's a lot more evidence that actually should be submitted in this trial to have a fair process for the american people and frankly for the american people and frankly for donald trump. it's a bit of a shame that the founding fathers did not leave some footnotes. we are a lwa ys not leave some footnotes. we are always trying to interpret what they we re always trying to interpret what they were actually meaning. in terms of these impeachment articles the republican point they put forward for the president is this does not rise to the level of impeachment and we don't really know because abuse

of power was not in the constitution. yes, but most scholars here have ta ken constitution. yes, but most scholars here have taken the division that abuse of power is impeachable at the time the constitution was ratified there was not a federal criminal code, so they could not have excepted something that did not exist would be the metric for impeachment. there's plenty of evidence from the federalist papers and documents as well as the history both before and after impeachment to the framers were worried about the use of the power of the presidency to stay in power. remember on the side of the pond monarchs were not en vogue and it did not want any one person to have exclusive power, so what they were really worried about knowing at the presidency has a lot of power it was what we are seeing here with donald trump. using that office to get reelected and in this moment the question for the senate is do they care, do we care as

americans. not so much is this impeachable or whether this happened, the facts and the law pretty well established. at the political question as to whether there's an appetite to put a stop to using the office to stay in power, because with good for this goose is what's good for the next. stay with us we will go quickly to the senate floor, this is jay, he is on the president's legal team let's take a listen. is not a criminal trial or not should be confused with it. believe me. what has taken place in these proceedings is not to be confused with due process. because due process demands, and the constitution requires that fundamental fairness and due process, hearing a lot about that, due process is designed to protect the person accused. when the russia

investigation failed it devolved into the ukraine. a quid pro quo can one that did not prove out it was then bribery or extortion, then somebody said one of the members of the house said treason. but instead we get to articles of impeachment. to articles of impeachment that have a vague allegation about a non—prime allegation of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. members, managers, right here before you today who have said that executive privilege and constitutional privileges have no place in these proceedings. on june 28, privileges have no place in these proceedings. onjune 28,2012 attorney general eric holder became the first united states attorney general to be held in both seminal

civil and criminal contempt. the respective proceedings mr manager wrote the white house assertion of privileged it's backed by decades of president that has recognised the need for the president and his senior advisers to receive candid advice and information from their top aides. and indeed that's correct. so that is the council speaking on the senate floor and he is representing donald trump during the mill investigation as an experienced litigator, he had to argue before the us supreme court at least 12 times and this is why he has been chosen. you can head making exactly the case who were talking about on the issue of abuse of power and whether it constitutes a crime or grounds for removing president from office. looking back at the history of this and there are 14 republican senators currently sitting in the senate today who back

in 1999 voted to remove bill clinton from office on the argument that he had obstructed justice. can they now turn around and say well, he has objective power but that does not count? it's important to keep in mind that the framers of the constitution were not drafting it with republicans and democrats in mind. there were not political parties that were worried about, today what the all of this is about. what are you are on team blue or team rat and winning at all costs. what's lost is the broader picture of what's happening to the constitution. the supreme court has said all along when it comes to questions of separation of power that no one branch has all the power, and when power accumulates in the presidency of the problem is tyranny, and that ultimately ends up

with problems with individual rights being violated, and it's that narrative of course with russia still attempting to interfere with our election it gets lost in the back politics of it all. and i think it's fair to say given that the resolution for clinton for the roles of that trial was bipartisan and this was sprung by mr connell on the morning that we are even more entrenched in blue camp versus red camp where we should be now, work where we really should be thinking about in terms of camp americans and camp constitution. and unfortunately that gets lost in the debate. he talked about can start and the powers he had as a special prosecutor during the clinton investigation. the big difference and we are comparing the two impeachments and will do through the night, but the big difference is that we knew all the facts. most of them had been before the grand jury but the difference this time as we don't know all the facts because those witnesses have not yet given evidence. that's a huge difference.

can * operated under a statute that has since expired and the statute gave him access to a grand jury in the job of a grand jury is to gather evidence gather documents to talk to witnesses. and they hear for weeks and weeks often times and then decide whether to make a charge. the way to get a grand jury involved here would have been for attorney general bar to have appointed a special prosecutor the way for my acting attorney general rod rosenstein appointed robert muller but of course the white house made the determination not to turn over it whistle— blower complaints to congress in contravention of a statute and so that was not a situation where bill barr was going to appoint a special prosecutor and we have heard that democrats could have done more to go to the courts that have been someone that's publicly agree with that being said you can make the argument that the president position to respect

congress. thank you very much for joining us. plenty more to come. hello there. the weather should even out a bit more over the coming few days. with more cloud more widely. today was certain he saw contrast after it frosty start and sunny skies, the sun going down in those clearest guys in temperatures dropping away. other areas have been stuck under a layer of cloud all day and temperatures have not risen very much at all. it's a pretty mild. the cloud that we've got more across northern and western areas is sinking its way south to the temperatures will dip for a while and underneath the clearest guys in the possibly recover later. most are purchased by the end of the night in the far south of england and may still be the mist and fog patches around and certainly milder as you head for the north. still high—pressure in charge of our

weather, not really moving very far at the moment and run the top of that we've introduced this atlantic air bringing cloud and drawing mild air bringing cloud and drawing mild airfrom the north air bringing cloud and drawing mild air from the north as well. much work cloud around on wednesday, cloud your are southern and eastern parts of england compared with today and maybe some sunshine now and againi and maybe some sunshine now and again i think the best of it will be for the northeast of scotland where we have a bit more shelter from that southwest breeze. for many the winds and very lights not stirring things up and very lights not stirring things up at alla and very lights not stirring things up at all a bit misty from the hills, but temperatures why the interval figures hills, but temperatures why the intervalfigures are hills, but temperatures why the interval figures are mildly today and you and underneath all that cloud very mild in the northeast of scotland. or cloudy weather for thursday and friday across the north of scotla nd thursday and friday across the north of scotland briefly for a week with the front and we look to the atla ntic to the front and we look to the atlantic to start to bring in a bit ofa atlantic to start to bring in a bit of a change showing the weekend. this is the picture on saturday and for many of us still going to be dry, more of a self to southwest breeze picking up and it may introduce one of two showers out

towards the west and head of a band of cloud and rain in those temperatures nine, 10 degrees so still pretty mild may be a huge amount of sunshine. we went to sunday will find that band of rain pushing down across england and wales very light and patchy and wa ltz wales very light and patchy and waltz that moves through much worse sunshine following and a few showers up sunshine following and a few showers up towards the northwest. the air gets a bit cold until some milder air hanging on on the southeast corner of england. more definite change in the weather looks likely as we head into next week. strengthening wins that bring some more unsettled weather.

this is beyond 100 days from the bbc. you're watching beyond 100 days with me katty kay in washington, christian fraser in london. a us president goes on trial in the senate for the third time in history. mr trump's lead lawyer presents the white house's case that senators should acquit the president in his impeachment trial. after you hear those initial presentations, the only conclusion will be that the president has done absolutely nothing wrong. house impeachment manager adam schiff responds urging senators to reject the rules outlined in the resolution. if the house cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence,

it is not a fair trial. it is not really a trial at all. at a high—profile meeting in switzerland president trump clashes with greta thunberg — attacking the pessimism of environmental campaigners. let's go straight to the senate floor and this is the lawyer for the president, pat cipollone, arguing about the rules of the case. we will ta ke about the rules of the case. we will take a quick listen. he means that u nless take a quick listen. he means that unless you do exactly what he says regardless of your constitutional rights, you are obstructing. the president was not allowed to call witnesses. by the way, there is still evidence that we haven't been allowed to see. i wonder why. no

witnesses. let's think about something else for a second. let's think about something else. they held these articles for 33 days. we hear all this talk about an overwhelming case. an overwhelming case that they are not even prepared... pat cipollone making the case that democrats have been delaying the process and then can't argue that they didn't have enough time. the president is in davos watching all of this. he still has his phone with him and can still tweet. he tweeted just in the last few minutes. read the transcript! he has tweeted this before. the transcripts refer to the transcript of the phone call between president trump and the president of ukraine on the 25th ofjuly. in which mr trump discussed investigations and used the phrase do us a favour

though. that phrase is what we are watching here in the senate is all based on. thousands of miles away in davos but you can bet he is fully engaged with all of this. why mikey has the twitter machine. goal there was an intense discussion within the white house whether it would be betterfor the president to stay in washington as the trial got under way or whether to travel to davos to the world economic forum. by all accounts, the president was hesitant about going — but in the end they decided, a business as usual approach, was a better look than locking oneself away in the white house. and in davos, it was business as usual as the president decried the scientists and climate activists who he compared to ancient soothsayers. once again the president locked horns with and the star of the climate change movement greta thunberg. the president spoke at length about the economic importance of oil and gas. greta thunberg was equally uncompromising, she excoriated the political leaders, "in case you hadn't noticed" she said, "the world is currently on fire".

our diplomatic correspondent james robbins was there. getting away from it all? donald trump has flown over 4000 miles from washington to the alpine heights of davos hoping to look more like a president on the world stage, less like a defendant back home. he is treading carefully on all of the ice and snow — any fall here would look terrible. but will this gathering of the world economic forum 5000 feet up in switzerland give an embattled president the high ground he claims? ——he craves? even without impeachment, he is way out of step with the main goal of this meeting, to do much more to tackle global temperature rise. to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. they are the heirs of yesterday's foolish fortune—tellers and i have

them and you have them and we all have them and they want to see us do badly, but we don't let that happen. being here today in switzerland and not in washington, the president may feel that he is among friends, surrounded by more than 100 fellow billionaires. but in truth, he is in a much more vulnerable and uncomfortable position than any of them. i'm a big believer in the environment. right now we are doing extremely well in the united states. but what i want is the cleanest water, the cleanest air and that is what we are going to have, that is what we have now. so who are the world's biggest polluters? the us is the second largest producer of c02, accounting for nearly 15% of global emissions. but china is responsible for nearly double that. the next biggest emitters of carbon dioxide are india, russia and japan, which produce another 15% of emissions between them. britain accounts for 1.1% of the total. one of president trump's fiercest

critics is also here in davos. greta thunburg, swedish teenage climate activist, wants to hold everyone to account on behalf of her generation, accusing governments worldwide of empty promises. the fact that the usa is leaving the paris accord seemed to outrage and worry everyone. and it should. but the fact that we are all about to fail the commitments up for in the paris agreement doesn't seem to bother the people in power even the least. president trump will be using the rest of his time in davos to focus on one—to—one meetings with other world leaders. he will be discussing everything from trade disputes to the huge tensions of the middle east. but the long shadow of events in washington still seems to reach here to switzerland. james robbins, bbc news, davos. let's bring in our north

america editorjon sopel. it is surreal to hear him talk on the world stage about his economic achievements and trade policies when all of this is going on in washington. he thinks it is good politics and the us economy is doing very well. you would think that humming to 2020 donald trump has made a rational decision focusing on that rather than on impeachment and the problems he is facing just down the problems he is facing just down the road from here on capitol hill. i think it makes sense as a strategic decision. it is just a bit odd and you know that donald trump will be watching events here in washington very closely even though he is 4000 miles away. we have had some rule changes from mitch mcconnell, john, are the republicans feeling a little bit on the back foot given that there are poles coming out suggesting that 51% of

the american public wants him out of office but something like 73% are saying that they want witnesses at this trial. is that putting pressure on some republicans? i'm sure it is and there are republicans who are facing real action in 2020 who are in vulnerable states and feel that they have got the democrats breathing down their neck and they think that if they vote for something that appears to be a whitewash would no witnesses called, that would be weaponised by the democrats and could cause much discomfort. they think they would like to see witnesses called even though the white house would like to get this trial done and dusted as quickly as possible. i've that is the real thing to watch over the coming days. there will be arguments for and against, but it is when you get to the issue of whether witnesses should be called that we will see whether this is going to really add to donald trump's

discomfort as a trial unfolds.“ they are going together witnesses, they are going together witnesses, they have to swing for republicans. does that affect the host manages this trial? most of the senate on the republican side are forever trump, they are not going to shift their view. are they tailoring their evidence and speaking to a group of five or six senators? i think if you look at the trump ultras, the people who are absolutely on donald trump's side and feel he can do no wrong, they would like to have had the motion to dismiss the whole case of the impeachment goes nowhere and donald trump ceases to be impeached. there was a recognition that they we re there was a recognition that they were not the votes for that so that will not be pushed. i think mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate, with his 53 senators, he is very conscious that he wants to keep control of the senate after the november elections. it is notjust

about donald trump's future, it is about donald trump's future, it is about mitch mcconnell‘s future as well. in as if he pushes the senators to hard, they might rebel, vote to allow witnesses to be called, so that they can go back to their people in their state and say that they stood tall and demanded that they stood tall and demanded that they stood tall and demanded that the president face a proper trial and not just a that the president face a proper trial and notjust a whitewash as it were. i think that is what is in a lot of republican minds as well as the straight issue of what should happen to president trump. thank you for joining happen to president trump. thank you forjoining us. for some of our bbc colleagues, this isn't the first impeachment trial they've covered. some two decades ago — a fresh—faced nick bryant was in washington to report on president clinton's trial. let's bring him in for analysis this time round, nick, you haven't aged a day.

it was my most extravagant ever student purchase, that code. searching high and low in the hope that i could find it head of the second impeachment trial. the only sadness is that i didn't get to wear it with a polo neck sweater which was my out of office garb. lets move on to the actual trial itself. nick, you haven't changed very much. but american politics has changed considerably. i knew there would be a good segue there. it is not the same senate as it was back in 1998 where you had 100 senators voting together as a block in order to support the rules that were being proposed. how much is the fact that there has been this breakdown in political terms affect what we are seeing at the moment? it was a different senate, but i don't think

we should think it was some kind of bipartisan shangri—la back then. it simply wasn't. the clinton years we re simply wasn't. the clinton years were when us politics did start getting toxic and start getting very polarised and clinton's impeachment was a product of that. but i think a couple of things are at work. the senate in those days were determined to show that they were very different than the house. they had a different than the house. they had a different personality and where the world's greatest deliberative body. they were the grown—ups in washington and the house members we re washington and the house members were the scrappy kids. you saw that in when they came together and agreed on their rules unanimously, 100 supporting the rules. but there we re 100 supporting the rules. but there were disagreements and i don't think were disagreements and i don't think we should forget about those. one of those was over whether witnesses should be called. we didn't have witnesses appearing in person in the bill clinton trial. we got them on tape. they were deposed by the house managers. there were three of them including monica lewinsky. and what we got in the trial was actually her

appearing on video rather than in person. but in orderfor appearing on video rather than in person. but in order for that to happen there wasn't100% agreement, farfrom happen there wasn't100% agreement, far from it. it happen there wasn't100% agreement, farfrom it. it was happen there wasn't100% agreement, far from it. it was a happen there wasn't100% agreement, farfrom it. it was a party line vote so we shouldn't forget that even back then, despite the senate wanting to be growing up, despite there being a lot of trust between there being a lot of trust between the senate minority leader, the democrat and the republican majority leader, there were big disagreements. one of the reasons they didn't want witnesses on the floor was because the allegations we re very floor was because the allegations were very different, when they? they we re were very different, when they? they were about sex and to see them talking about sex on the senate floor... talking about sex on the senate floor. .. another thing, coming in there, there were a lot of centres at that time who had faced similar accusations themselves and some accusations themselves and some accusations that were far worse. you had people there like ted kennedy. had some great lines of the senate who had pretty bad pasts when it came to their relations with women and their extramarital affairs etc. it made them very squeamish about the possibility of them appearing in

person on the senate floor. it was excruciating to watch at times and to his on the detail of the clinton case and i sat in the senate and watched the centres and the jurors themselves onto this. you can see themselves onto this. you can see them sitting very uneasily as some of the more salacious details came out. there was some reporting today that if they gotjohn bolton and that if they gotjohn bolton and thatis that if they gotjohn bolton and that is a bigger, would have to be, the evidence he gave would have to be given in private and i wonder if in the clinton trial, with those free witnesses you talked about, there is a precedent there and that is how they would do it, they would be deposed behind closed doors and then we would see clips, videos, that sort of thing. apps that is the way they would go although it is hardly... mitch mcconnell, we has the votes to stop that from happening. there are three in the clinton trial, monica lewinsky, verdantjordan, the african—american

lawyer who had allegedly arranged following sea to get a job to try to silence her about the affair and another guy called sidney blumenthal who had become part of the clinton white house. he was deposed on video tape. some of his experts were broadcast, and lewinsky, ‘s tape. some of his experts were broadcast, and lewinsky,‘s were official. that was back in 1999. the politics was so much different then. lot was a big part of the senate. he was very mindful of what had happened to republican leaders in the house. newt gingrich, the former house speaker, he pushed against bill clinton and wanted to terminate his presidency and saw the lewinsky affair as his way to do it. but he took that to the people in the mid—term elections and end up losing his seat and losing his job. mid—term elections and end up losing his seat and losing hisjob. the guy that succeeded him was a guy called

bob livingston, a guy from louisiana, guess what, the day clinton was impeached, he had to stand down because he had had extra marital affairs himself. so the politics are very different in 2020 than they were back in 1999. although maybe not that different. a trip down memory lane. i remember a moment in the trial when a defender of bill clinton said they will tell you that this is not about sex and it is all about sex. bill clinton, when he was impeached, approval rating of 71%. it didn't do him much harm. we have some news coming in from what is happening down there on the senate. chuck schumer, the democratic leader has been proposing these amendments to mitch mcconnell‘s rules for this trial. the first amendment he has proposed has been to so documents and witnesses from the white house, mick mulvaney, acting chief of staff is one who is mentioned in particular and that amendment will now be

debated and it can be debated up for two hours. we don't know how many minimums are there are, i don't understand that there is a limit on amendments. they could be four or five amendments that would push this process into a period of delay so thatis process into a period of delay so that is what is happening at the moment there on the senate floor. still to come in the programme we will have the latest senators' vote and you have been hearing affair with breaking news about the amendment on the impeachment trial. the nhs in england faces more than £4 billion in legal fees to settle outstanding claims of clinical negligence, according to figures obtained by bbc news. the total estimated cost of all unsettled claims now stands at £83 billion. the government has pledged to fight the cases. angus crawford reports. brother, son, grandson. this is hayden.

a video film when he was just hours old. but later, he was rushed to hospital and after a failure to treat a virus which attacked his heart, he died there. he lived forjust six days. we had to sit there and watch our son slowly dying front of our eyes literally. to find out the truth, they felt they had no choice but to sue. you cannot bring that person back. nothing is going to bring them back. and the only thing that helps is to have acknowledgement that they existed, that they mattered, and answers. i haven't really thought about it as suing the nhs. i have thought about it as fighting for the voice of hayden and fighting for, you know, acknowledgement of his life and rights. i don't think we would have gotten the answers we had any other way.

the hospital did eventually admit liability years later. that picture has been repeated across england. payments for clinical negligence have doubled since 2015. last year, the nhs paid out £2.3 billion but the total cost of outstanding claims now stands at a staggering £83 billion. and we have learnt legal fees make up £4.3 billion of that. compensation comes from a central fund topped up every year by the hospitals themselves. as we've been hearing, president trump's impeachment trial has opened in the senate. senators are currently hearing arguments about whether to approve the rules for the trial — as set out by the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. the republicans want the trial done and dusted, and the charges dismissed

or the president found not guilty, as soon as possible. as the proceedings got underway, the lead house impeachment manager for the democrats — adam schiff — told senators that attempts to prevent witnesses from being called and evidence being entered into court would mean that this could not be a fair trial. if you only get to see part of the evidence, only allow one side or the other a chance to present their full case, your verdict will be predetermined by the bias in the proceeding. if the defendant is not allowed to introduce evidence of his innocence, it is not a fair trial. so to fully prosecution. if the house cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence, it is not a fair trial. it is not really a trial at all. there is nothing going on on the senate floor but they will come back to discuss this amendment that has just been proposed by schumer. let's bring back in ron christie — former advisor to george w bush,

and from boston, the democratic political analyst mary anne marsh. let's get into the ukraine's of a little bit. chuck schumer has proposed this amendment to the rule saying they want to subpoenaed documents and witnesses. from the white house, one of those witnesses, mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. what are they actually trying to find out with these documents of witnesses in connection with the allegation that the president was trying to pressure ukraine in order to get his, an investigation into the bidens for his own little ends? in addition to being acting chief of staff to president trump on his alter the acting omb chief. he is the one that has put the stop to the aid actually being transmitted and provided to ukraine. that is an important connection there and with the chiefjustice, chiefjustice roberts there, that is the quickest code because you are going to get turned round anywhere in the country right now. one of the point is that mitch mcconnell said he had the

votes for his resolution last night, that was not true. given james we have seen the past hour, it is now being reported that he made those changes under pressure from susan collins and the republican senator from ohio who is not up for real action until 2022. i think mcconnell has a much tougher time already holding on his republican carcass than other people think. what you make of that, ron? because as mary and says, there are many who aren't up and says, there are many who aren't upfor and says, there are many who aren't up for election this time but there are some who are for real action and this is the moment of greatest peril for them when they have to vote on whether to allow witnesses and documents. good evening. this is where the political element and political aspects of this impeachment trial come into play. you are looking at senators like gardnerfrom colorado, you are looking at senators like gardner from colorado, collins you are looking at senators like gardnerfrom colorado, collins from maine, there are several senators who will be on the ballot in november and given the overwhelming

polling data that seems to indicate the american people want additional witnesses, additional documents, these senators could very well vote with the democrats to change the way the system works. but i would note once again that everything that adam schiff, the house manager, said, is an indictment on their own impeachment. they did not compel witnesses, subpoenaed documents, they had a rush to get this through christmas and as a result, all of the things that they now seek from a political standpoint they pushed through. ron, is their political perilfor the through. ron, is their political peril for the republicans if through. ron, is their political perilfor the republicans if they have these documents and witnesses as part of this trial, could it even affect the outcome of this trial? or do we still go with the idea that this is a pretty much forgone conclusion? we go with the idea that it isa conclusion? we go with the idea that it is a foregone conclusion. in the case of mick mulvaney, the democrats are trying to say that he put the bra kes are trying to say that he put the brakes on this. the president of the united states has until the end of the fiscal year to disburse funds

after they have been appropriated by the congress. the notion that the president held it up for political purposes, the present can hold it up due to a corruption concerns that does not rise to a high crime or misdemeanour so i do not believe that any of these additional documents or witnesses that the democrats seem to compel from the president and his team will have any difference in the outcome eventually in this impeachment enquiry and trial. we have heard different things from collins, mitt romney, and others in the last few days, what do you sense from what they are saying? do think they are honest in their view that they want to hear their view that they want to hear the evidence and then make a decision on witnesses or are they stalling for time? we will see, won't we? but to me, the biggest of element thus far at this hour is the fa ct element thus far at this hour is the fact that the republican senator from ohio was not for real action and we haven't talked about it a lot. we have talked about romney and

collins and gardner and so many others, but not portman. and by the way, portman used to be the head of omb under bush so he knows exact what is going on here. the facts are not in dispute in this case. it has been clear from listening to pat cipollone and everybody else they are not even trying to dispute the fa ct, are not even trying to dispute the fact, they are trying everything but. i think that rob portman is stepping up now and putting pressure on mitch mcconnell to change the rules of the procedure under which this procedure is going to happen already and we are only a couple of hours into this, i've mcconnell has a much bigger challenge on his hands. everybody think this is a foregone conclusion, the more evidence, witnesses, information that comes forward, the tougher it will be to hold onto this and this is the peril for president trump. thank you both very much forjoining us on this, the first formal day of the senate trial of president trump on those charges of the obstruction of congress and abuse of power. we

will be watching all of it over the next few days stay forward. i will be back there watching it all. they should be more cloud more widely. today we saw more contrast after a frosty start, sunny skies, the sunny skies going down and temperatures dropping away. other areas have been stuck under a layer of cloud all day and temperatures haven't risen very much at all but it has been pretty mild. that club that we have got more across northern and western areas is sinking its way southward so the temperatures will dip for a while underneath the clear skies across parts of and wales and possibly recover later. lowest temperatures overnight in the far south of englund and mr fogg patches around, milder as you head further north. high pressure still in charge of our weather. not moving very far at the moment. around the top of that we

have this atlantic air ringing in cloud and drawing in mild airfrom the north as well. much more cloud around on wednesday. cloudier skies. in an eastern part of england compared to today. the best of it will be in the north—east of scotla nd will be in the north—east of scotland where we have a bit more shelter from that south—westerly breeze. for many the winds are very light and not slowing things up at all. temperatures widely in double figures and a mile a day, even across southern and eastern parts of england. very mild in the north—east of scotland. more weather on thursday and friday and across the north of scotland we will have a wea k north of scotland we will have a weak weather front and then we look to the atlantic to start to bring in a bit ofa to the atlantic to start to bring in a bit of a change during the weekend. this is the picture on saturday. for many others it is still going to be dry. we more of —— we have more of a south to south—westerly breeze. there

temperatures nine, 10 degrees also. still pretty mild but maybe not a huge amount of sunshine. as we move into sunday, we will find that band of rain pushing down the crossing in and wales very light and patchy and once that moves through, we have much more sunshine following and if you shower is up toward the north—west and may be wintry on higher ground. not desperately cold but still some milder air hang on in the north—east abingdon. more change into next week and we will find strengthening winds and that will bring more unsettled weather.

this is bbc news. i'm carrie gracie. the headlines at 8pm. donald trump becomes only the the third us president in history to face an impeachment trial. his opponents outlined the case against him. those articles charge president donald john drum with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. the misconduct set out in articles is the most serious ever charged against a president. it's the witchhunt that's been going on for years. and frankly, it's disgraceful. earlier, and thousands of miles away from washington, donald trump launched a stinging attack on environmentalists at the world economic forum in davos. he criticised environmentalists who spread pessimism. this is a time for tremendous joy and hope, and optimism and action. but to embrace the future, we must reject perennial prophets of doom