hello, i'm ros atkins, this is outside source. the impeachment trial of donald trump has begun. but senators are not debating the president's behaviour yet — first they need to agree on the rules. nobody — nobody will dictate senate procedure to united states senators. the mcconnell rules seem to be designed by president trump for president trump. you'll remember the mining company vale and its deadly dam collapse last year which claimed more than 250 lives. prosecutors are pressing homicide charges against the company's former president, and 15 other people. china's new coronavirus is spreading. the us has confirmed its first case of the illness.

the impeachment trial of donald trump has started in the us senate. it's just the third time a president has gone on trial in us history. here's how it began. hearye, hearye, hearye. all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment. all the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives, against donald john trump, president of the united states. mr trump is accused of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. we'll go over those charges in more detail later. mr trump is accused of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. but the debate at the moment is not about the president's guilt or innocence. senators are arguing over the rules that will govern how the trial proceeds. the democrats are accusing the republicans of trying to rig the trial. mcconnell‘s resolution

is nothing short of a national disgrace. and it will go down in history as one of the very dark days of the senate. this is the man who came up with the rules — mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate. the proposals published on monday night did not allow for the house of representatives inquiry to be included as evidence. democrats were outraged. here's chuck schumer again. unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution does not admit the record of the house impeachment proceedings into evidence. so mcconnell seems to want a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence. no evidence! well, that complaint worked. not long after the session started mitch mcconnell agreed to allow the house inquiry to be recorded as evidence. he also compromised on the schedule, giving democrats a slightly longer period to present their opening arguments. but democrats are still angry about the rules concerning witnesses. at this point there's no guarantee witnesses will be allowed,

and a vote on that won't take place until midway through the trial. mitch mcconnell insists that's fair. the senate agreeing to pick up and carry on the house's inadequate investigation, which set a new precedent that could incentivise frequent and hasty impeachments from future house majorities. it could dramatically change the separation of powers between the house and the senate if the senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and the trial of an impeachment. what's more, some of the proposed witnesses, including executive branch officials, whose communications with the president and with other executive branch officials, lie at the very core of the president's constitutional privilege. just because mitch mcconnell is the majority leader doesn't mean he's guaranteed to get things his own way. here's the current

make—up of the senate. there are 53 republicans, 47 democrats and two independents who usually vote with the democrats. there are 53 republicans, 47 democrats and two independents that means democrats need four republicans to switch sides if they want to change the rules. we have no confirmation at all that will get republican support. house democrat adam schiff is one of the prosecutors in the trial — he issued this appeal at the start. the most important question is the question we must answer today — will the president and the american people get a fair trial? will there be a fair trial? i submit that this is an even more important question than how you vote on guilt or innocence, because whether we have a fair trial will determine when you have a basis to deliver a fair verdict. it is foundational.

let's hear from gary let's hearfrom gary o'donoghue, who's been following the proceedings since the very start. the trial will start properly tomorrow. what you had today is like when you get legal arguments at the beginning of a trial. not entirely similar, but this is the kind of thing that is going on here today. the problem is they vote on these legal arguments. so chuck schumer, the democratic leader in there, has just put down his first amendment and seeks to get a hold of white house documents that display the communications with the ukraine like mick mulvaney, his chief of staff, and his subordinates. so that is the first amendment. we are told there will be anything like 10—12 of those being put down today, like chuck schumer. it will be a pretty late night in the senate because they will all have to be voted on. and as you said later on in the trial, even if they don't get their way this time, democrats make get another opportunity to vote for things like

witnesses after some of the arguments have been heard several days down the line. so quite complicated, but what is definitely true is that there are hours and hours of this trial to go. and a couple of minor concessions by mitch mcconnell at the outset. donald trump is not in washington. he's in davos at the world economic forum. but he's offered this familiar defence from switzerland. the other is just a hoax. it's the witchhunt that's been going on for years. and frankly, it's disgraceful. this is the man who will be leading donald trump's defence during the trial, pat cipollone. he's the white house counsel. here's some of his opening remarks. once you hear those initial presentations, the only conclusion will be that the president has done absolutely nothing wrong. and that these articles of impeachment do not begin to approach the standard required by the constitution — and in fact, they themselves will establish nothing

beyond those articles. you look at those articles alone, and you will determine that there is absolutely no case. it's still very early days in this trial, but we're already getting a sense of how the democrats are going to make the case against the president. they're using a mix of powerpoint slides and video clips. here's an example. he also declared that he will fight off subpoenas. let's hear the president's own words. then i have article two, where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. well, we're fighting all the subpoenas! here's gary o'donghue again. this is clips of mr trump being played in the senate, the united states senate. it is extraordinary thing, if you like. bear in mind, senators are also sitting there, they're not allowed to say anything,

as you heard the sergeant at arms saying under the pain of imprisonment, they have to shut up. they are not allowed to take any documentation that doesn't relate to the trial itself. and there sat there and listening to clips of donald trump being played by adam schiff. we haven't seen the audiovisuals from the president's side of the floor as yet, but anything could happen in this trial. gary, give us an idea of the sense of occasion there today? well, we've had a few of these in the last few days. and i think, you know, only the third president in history and all that to be impeached, and people are feeling their way through this process , are feeling their way through this process, not surprisingly because it doesn't happen. the last time it happened was 21 years ago in different servants dashed circumstances. and that's really been the model of this. bear in mind, the americans fought a war of

revolution, of independence breaking on from the whole rule of a king, the pomp and circumstances. that was pa rt the pomp and circumstances. that was part of the things they were breaking off from. in the last couple days and certainly today, we've got a very big sense of occasion, some pretty archaic language, as we heard at the top. and the prospect of a president on trial, potentially with the outcome being his removalfrom office. debate is continuing in the senate. this is congressman zoe laughlin speaking, one of the impeachment managers for the democrats. let's listen to what she's saying. and finally, important for the american people who expect a quest for truth, fairness, and justice. history people who expect a quest for truth, fairness, andjustice. history is watching, and the house managers urge that you support the amendment.

and i reserve the balance of my time. thank you counsel. mr sue pallone. mr philbin? thank you, mr chiefjustice. majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, senators. it is remarkable that after taking the actions of the breathtaking gravity of voting to impeach the duly elected president of the united states, and after saying for weeks that they had overwhelming evidence to support their case, the first thing that the house managers have done upon arriving finally in this chamber, after waiting for 33 days, is to say, "well actually, we need more evidence. we aren't ready to present our case. we need to have subpoenas and do more discovery because we don't have the evidence we need to support our case. " this

is stunning. it is a stunning admission of the inadequate and broken process that the house democrats ran in this impeachment inquiry that failed to compile a record to support their charges. it is stunning that they don't have the evidence they need to present their case, and that they don't really have a case. if a litigant showed up at any court in this country on the day of trial and said to the judge, "actually, your honour, we aren't ready to go, we need more discovery, we need to do similar subpoenas induce more work," they would be thrown out of court and the lawyers would be sanctioned. this is not the sort of proceeding that this body should condone. now, we'vejust heard that this is so important — let's consider what's really at issue in the resolution here in the amendment. it is a matter of timing, amendment. it is a matter of timing, a matter of when this body will

consider whether there should be witnesses or subpoenas for documents. why is it that the managers are so afraid to have to present their case — remember, they've had weeks of a process that they've had weeks of a process that they entirely controlled, they had 17 witnesses who testified first in secret, then in public, they've compiled a record with thousands of pages of reports, and there a p pa re ntly pages of reports, and there apparently afraid to just make a presentation based on the record that they compiled, and then have you decide whether there is any they are there, whether there is anything worth trying to talk to more witnesses about — why is it that they can't wait a few more days to make the presentation on everything they've been preparing for weeks, and then have that issue considered? because they don't think that there any democrat is any they are there, and they want to rend us through now. and they want to rend us

through now when it is something that they themselves failed to do. soi that they themselves failed to do. so i want to unpack a couple of the aspects of what they are asking this body to do. part of it relates to the broken process in the house, and how that process was inadequate and invalid, and compiled and inadequate record. part of it has to do with accepting their request to have this body to do theirjob for them, and what that would do to this institution going forward, and how it would alter forever the relationship between the house and the senate in impeachment proceedings. so first, as to the process in the house — what the house managers are asking this body to do now is to do theirjob for them. because they didn't take the measures to pursue their documents in the house proceedings. and there have been a number of statements made about how they tried to get the

documents and no executive privilege was exerted, and things like that. let's look at what actually happened. they issued a subpoena to the white house, and the white house explained — and we were told a few minutes ago that the white house provided no response or rationale — thatis provided no response or rationale — that is not true. in a letter on october 18, white house counsel explained in three pages of legal argument why that subpoena was invalid. and that subpoena was invalid. and that subpoena was invalid because it was issued without authorisation. we've heard a lot today about how the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house. that's right, that is what article one, section two says. it assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house, not to any member of the house. and no committee of the house can exercise the authority to issue subpoenas until it has been delegated the authority by a vote of the house. there was no vote from

the house. there was no vote from the house. there was no vote from the house. instead, speaker pelosi held a press conference, and she purported by holding a press conference on 2a september to delegate the authority of the house to manager adam schiff and several other committees, and have them issue subpoenas. although subpoenas we re issue subpoenas. although subpoenas were invalid. and that was explained to the house and to manager adam schiff and the other managers of the committee at that time in the 18 october letter. did the house take any october letter. did the house take a ny ste ps october letter. did the house take any steps to remedy that? did they try to dispute that, did they go to court? did they do anything to resolve that problem? no. because as we know, all that they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on. they just wanted to was issue a subpoena and move on. theyjust wanted to get was issue a subpoena and move on. they just wanted to get through was issue a subpoena and move on. theyjust wanted to get through the impeachment process as quick as possible and get it done before christmas. that was their goal. so

those subpoenas were unauthorised. now what about some of the other things that they brought up? the witnesses? witnesses who were directed not to testify? and part on this, we've heard adam schiff say several times at the white house never asserted executive privilege. let me be clear on this, that is a lawyer cosmic trick. because it is technically true that the white house didn't assert executive privilege, because there is a particular situation in which you do that, and a particular way in which you do that. but there's another doctrine of immunity, of senior advisers to the president that is based on the same principles as executive privilege, and has been exerted by both political parties since the 19705 at least. and this i5 since the 19705 at least. and this is what one attorney general explained about that. "the immunity

5uch explained about that. "the immunity such as visors ofjoy from testimonial compulsion by congressional committee is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional intere5t5. " that was attorney generaljanet reno... this is patrick philbin explaining the proceedings on day one of the impeachment trial of donald trump, which is taking place in the us senate. we will have extensive coverage of this through this programme and through many programmes to come, as well. i should mention the story that we will be coming to detail in a few minutes. the first case of this new coronavirus that has originated in wuhan in china, the first cases have been confirmed in china, korea, taiwan andjapan. been confirmed in china, korea, taiwan and japan. we will give you full details on that in the coming minutes. the labour backbencher, je55 phillips, has dropped out

of the party's leadership conte5t, leaving four candidates in the race to succeed jeremy corbyn. in a message to supporters, the birmingham mp 5aid she was not the person to unite the labour movement. the next leader will be announced in early april. je55 phillips‘ campaign chairman, we5 streeting, says he was disappointed but thought she'd made the right decision. the truth is that, having gone through the mp nomination stage, and now going to the union nomination of the stage, the truth is she just hasn't been able to build up enough support behind her candidacy to mean that if she were to become the leader of the labour party, that she'd be able to pull the whole labour movement together in the way needed to face up to the scale of the challenge. and rather than go into the next stage, which is constituency labour party meetings and going directly to the members, i think she's just decided that at this stage, it's just better now to have a reduced choice of those candidates remaining in the race who do have the opportunity.

this is outside source live from the bbc newsroom. our lead story... the opening se55ion of the impeachment trial of donald trump has begun. but republicans and democrats first need to agree how it should proceed. here are some of the other stories from the bbc world service. a5 harry and meghan begin their new life in canada — they've threatened legal action against photographers who they say are hiding in bushes outside their home near vancouver. photos of the duchess walking the dogs and carrying their son archie have been published in newspapers and online. brazil's prosecutor's office has accused the americanjournalist glenn greenwald of cybercrime. greenwald lives in brazil, and last year he published hundreds of mobile phone messages between judges and prosecutors involved in a major anti—corru ption investigation. that's from bbc brazil. cu5tom5 officers in turkey say they've cracked an attempt to smuggle more than 5,000 tiny turtles from georgia. they discovered the creatures when they x—rayed a car

at a border crossing. there's a multi—million dollar illegal trade in turtles that centres on southeast asia where they're popular as pets. that's on bbc.com/new5. the us centers for disease control says a passenger who's arrived in seattle from china has been diagnosed with the new respiratory viru5. this means infections have now been reported in six countries. so far, six people have died from illnesses relating to the virus, all in china where it originated. this means infections have now been reported in six countries. there are 291 confirmed cases across a number of cities including beijing and shanghai. most patients are in wuhan — that's where the first cases were reported in december. the small number of other cases reported abroad all involve people who've recently been in wuhan. two are in thailand, one injapan, one in south korea — and one in taiwan. this is from a journalist there.

the case there involves a woman female in her 505 who's been working in wuhan. she had a fever, coughing and difficulty breathing. she is also the first non—chinese national confirmed to have the virus. today, china's top leaders warned officials not to cover up the spread of a new coronavirus. they avoided any risk of understatement by saying anyone who concealed new cases would "be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity." needless to say, the number of cases are likely to go up as million5 of people travel for this weekend's lunar new year. let's focu5 let's focus on people's experience in beijing. steven mcdonald is there, he's been to the city's train station. here at beijing, this is the capital's oldest long—distance train station. you can see how many people here are moving around. and the news that this virus,

the coronavirus, can jump from person to person means that screening at places like this is much more important. australia is the latest country to join others in watching when people come off flights and testing them — especially when they're coming from wuhan. there is a case there of somebody who has returned from wuhan in brisbane who has been placed in isolation. they are unsure yet if he has the coronavirus, but 5cienti5ts here havejoined those in the uk, saying that although there are hundreds of people who have been infected, the real number could be in the thousands because look at how many people are travelling around china at the moment. the virus has not only 5pread to other chinese cities, but other countries. and that is why the authorities are not taking any chance5, and they've put all these extra 5creening measures in place.

china's government is putting out a message that everything's under control. what on wednesday, there's an emergency meeting of the world health organization. they'll consider declaring an international public health emergency over the virus. drjennifer nuzzo is an expert in infectious diseases at thejohns hopkin5 center for health security. it be really helpful if they could compile all the available information, including what information the who may have, and provided to them from china that hasn't been publicly announced. i think key to this convening is really to have external 5et5 of experts 5crutinising all the available data and making some expert definitive statement as to what level of public health risk the situation warrants. and how does this virus compare with similar viruses that we've encountered in the past? so we don't fully know. obviously this is sort of the third coronavirus that has sparked global tension — the first being sars in 2003, the second one being mers, just a few years after that.

it's hard to tell to what extent this virus compares to those two. sars was a global epidemic where multiple countries where it infected, and there were 8,000 people in total infected and about 800 deaths. obviously that would be a very worrisome situation. by comparison, mers has been a much more contained situation with fewer case numbers because of lack of transmission. and so we are still sorting out what sorts of threat this really represent5. but so far, i think some of the evidence of potential person—to—person transmission is concerning. however, some of the reports about the numbers of severely ill and deaths are not as many as one might fear, so that might be, you know, possibly reassuring new5. it's really too early to tell.

going back to washington, the impeachment trial of donald trump continues. this the first day of the trial, from's defence team is currently on the floor. pat philbin is the deputy counsel to the president suckering the house managers have eight minutes remaining. the house is certainly not asking the senate to do the house'sjob. we are asking the senate to do itsjob, to hold a trial. have you ever heard ofa to hold a trial. have you ever heard of a trial that doesn't have evidence, that doesn't have witnesses? good timing, just as i was saying, the deputy counsel to the president was speaking, he wrapped up and walked away, as you saw. this is one of the impeachment managers, a member of the house of representatives, a democratic member of the house of representatives. and

as you can see, republicans, democrats, and legal representatives are taking their turn. we'll will come back momentarily. hello there. this winter here in the uk has not been a snowy one so far — not by any means. at the same cannot be said in other parts of the world, particularly canada. these pictures come from the eastern side of canada, where over recent days, some spots have experienced record snowfalls. a very slow moving area of pressure brought some significant snow particularly in newfoundland. you can see this area of cloud turned up and spun around for quite a while before moving along. so that gave a huge dumping of snow, this next weather system gave a bit of a top up. things have been settling down, we have an area of high pressure building across the eastern side of north america, underneath this high. we've had some beautiful

weather across the eastern side of the us, if rather chilly weather. things are settling down even as far north as the eastern side of canada. the same cannot be set for other parts of north america. out west, we have some rain and mountain snow affecting parts of british columbia and the far west of canada, also the northwest of the us, some spots here seeing a foot of snow, around 30 cm. also notice here another weather system developing, and this will bring a mixture of rain and snow. through the plains and into the midwest, some quite significant and possibly disruptive snow stop on the southern edge of the system, we are likely to see some intense thunderstorms down towards the coast of the us. weather could make further headlines across us and canada over the next few days, but certainly when we have had such a significant snow in newfoundland, it looks much quieter with some spells of sunshine certainly staying on the chilly side. a little closer to home

in europe, this swirl of cloud in the western mediterranean is a very slow moving area of low pressure. it has been named by the spanish weather seriousness as a storm and gloria, it has been bringing a whole set of weather. there's been snow in places over high ground, we've also had some strong winds and gills and places, kicking up some big waves crashing onto the shoreline. there's also been an awful lot of rain. running the forecast into tomorrow, some of these southeastern parts of spain actually turned a bit drier than they had been. the worst of that weather shifts further north, the rain close to barcelona also getting into the south of france, and across the pyrenees we will see lots of snow with the risk of avalanches. but elsewhere across europe, quiet weather in the forecast. all these temperatures across northern europe look low on the face of it, but they aren't actually that low for the time of year. it is relatively mild. back here in the uk over the next couple days, it will turn a bit milder,

with a lot of clout around. miller details coming up in half an hour.

hello, i'm ros atkins. this is outside source. our focus today is washington. the impeachment trial of donald trump has begun but the senators are not really debating the president pot site behaviour yet. they're focusing on procedural rules. nobody will dictate centre procedure to united states senators. the mcconnell rules seem to be designed by president trump for president trump. a charge in —— money coming in brazil is being charged with homicide in brazil... this new coronavirus is now spreading from

china. the us has confirmed its first case. president trump's impeachment trial is under way in the us senate. the president's party is in control what happens because unlike in the house of representatives where the democrats have a majority. in the senate is the republicans who have a majority. they are so far refusing to meet the democrats wish to have witnesses called saying that it decision that will be made further in the trap. but the republican have had a couple of procedural issues are ready for survey pro asked the timetable for the trial, saying argument will hurt over three days not to. there are grants have been more of a process, three hours into proceedings let's go live and listen to the us senate. this is adam schiff from the house of representatives and also making the case. counsel can repeat all the way

that the president didn't have a chance to participate, didn't have a chance to participate, didn't have a chance to participate, didn't have a chance to offer evidence, they can say it is much as they way, it doesn't make any more true when they make the same faults are present tatian time and time again. itjust makes it that much more deliberate and onerous. the president could have presented evidence in the judiciary committee. he chose not to. and there is a reason for that. there is a reason why the witnesses they have talked about aren't material witnesses, they don't go to the question of whether the president withheld the aide for this correct purpose, because they have no witnesses to a resolve the president on the facts. you should watch to see these documents will stop you should want to see. you should want to know what these private e—mails and text messages have to say. if you're going to make

a decision about the president's guilt or innocence, you're going to make a decision about whether he should be removed from office, you should be removed from office, you should want to see with these documents say. now, if you don't care, if you have made up your mind, that means the president of my party or whatever reason, i'm not interested. once more, i really don't want the country to see this. with that as a wholly different matter. but that is not with your oath requires. it's not what your oath requires. it's not what your oath requires. it's not what your oath requires. your oath requires you to do impartialjustice which means to see the evidence, to see the evidence, that is all we are asking. just don't blind yourself to the evidence. i yield back. the majority route leader is recognised. i sent majority route leader is recognised. isenta majority route leader is recognised. i sent a motion to the desk to table the amendment and asked for yeas and

nays. the question is on the motion to table ? nays. the question is on the motion to table? is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the role. mr alexander. ms baldwin. mr barrasso. mr bennett. mrs blackburn. mr blumenthal. mr blunt. aye. mr booker. no. mr bozeman. mr braun. as that list is read out, let's do some more details about what is happening in the centre. the jurors about what is happening in the centre. thejurors in the star about what is happening in the centre. the jurors in the star the 100 senators and the rules state that they should approach this row without bias when each senator was sworn in, they were asked, let me just... "

that was what they were asked. but some people are already on record saying they have no intention of upholding that oath. for sample here is the leader of the republicans in the senate speaking last month. i am not an impartialjuror. this is a political process. there is not anything judicial about it. impeachment is a political decision. in any courtroom trial, if a juror said they were coordinating with the defendant's legal team — which mitch mcconnell also said — they would be removed from the jury. not here. if this were a normaljury there might be some questions asked about the democrats too. among their senators are elizabeth warren and bernie sanders, both candidates to run against donald that is not it was with warren, that isjoe biden. that is not it was with warren, that is joe biden. i that is not it was with warren, that isjoe biden. i was going to show of a picture of elizabeth sanders —— warren and bernie sanders. if this were a normal trial that conflict of interest would prevent them from being jurors. not here.

everyone knows, including the senators, this trial isn't about due process and justice — it's about politics. for evidence of that, look no further than the disagreements over whether new witnesses can be heard. the republicans want to vote on that after opening arguments have been heard, the democrats want the vote straightaway. to show us which new witnesses might be added to this drama, anthony zurcher went to the cinema. this is washington and not hollywood, so it all gets a bit political and procedural. but we could be looking at a whole new cast of characters in the final act. the heavy. lev parnas, a soviet—born businessman and lawyer with a sketchy past who says donald trump knew about everything from the start. president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my movements. the insider. john bolton, trump's former national security adviser who reportedly objected to what he saw as misconduct and is willing to talk. ambassador bolton had looked pained and he then in the course of that discussion said that rudy giuliani

was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. the money man. mick mulvaney — trump's acting chief of staff who democrats say is behind the hold on us aid to ukraine. i was involved in the process by which the money was held up temporarily. reporter: to be clear, what you just described was a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. we do that all the time with foreign policy. the silent son. hunter biden — who republicans allege used his father, democratic presidential hopeful joe biden, to profit in ukraine. by the way, where's hunter? and, the whistle blower. the mystery man from the cia whose complaint started all this drama. any or all of these men could be called to testify in the senate trial. last week a cnn poll found that 69% of american voters support bringing in new witnesses.

and there are republican senators who may back this happening. senator mitt romney has been very critical of donald trump in the past, more moderate republican senators like susan collins and lisa murkowski are being watched too. there is no confirmation that will happen i should say. we are also watching lamar alexander, pat toomey, and rob portman. bear in mind, this is the make—up of the senate. the democrats only need four of them to switch and they'll win a vote on the issue of witnesses. remember though — for a president to be removed from office, that requires two—thirds of senators in support — and that looks a long, long way off for the democrats. at the moment, the senators are voting on an amendment brought by chuck schumer, the democrat. let's

bring in anthony's life with us from washington. explain to us what this amendment is, please. the men is to issue a whole raft of subpoenas to the white house and administration to get documents that the house impeachment managers say have been denied them in their house impeachment investigation and could prove pivotal to show the contacts between the trump administration and ukraine deliberations within the trump administration on that suspension of us government aid to ukraine and any reasons behind it. they say these are building blocks that could help prove the case they are making that this military aid was held up in a quid pro quo in order to pressure the ukrainian government to announce an investigation into one of donald trump bonsai political rivals. this is not going to be the only amendment offered. there is another coming up also about subpoena documents. there could be another one later on whether to subpoena

witnesses to testify. these are all being proposed by the democrats who say they need this information to substantiate their case. we are waiting for this vote to come through. just what we do without need to remove the suspense at the moment, is there any chance of the democrats getting the relative support? there is a chance, i was just listening to the names there, lamarr houston under was in favour of killing this proposal, so he was one of those swing votes... let's listen in to the senate. there, we can see 53 in favour... the democratic leader is recognised. mr chiefjustice, i sent an amendment to the desk to subpoena certain documents and records from the states berman and i asked that it be read. the court will read the amendment. —— the clerk will read the amendment. we are just waiting

for the various procedures to follow... for the various procedures to follow. . . the for the various procedures to follow... the senator for the various procedures to follow. . . the senator from for the various procedures to follow... the senator from new york mrschumer follow... the senator from new york mr schumer proposes an amendment number 1285 at the appropriate place of the resulting cause and assert the following section... let's bring you back in, anthony, just me what is just happened stop and whatjust happened, the vote was 53—47 to table the amendment, that essentially means... to kill the amendment. republicans without looking at exact vote by vote tabulation but there are 53 republicans, 53 votes to table the motion, so i think it is safe to say that the republicans stuck together on this vote to do away with chuck schumer‘s proposed amendment. what you are seeing right now is they are reading a new amendment, a second proposal being offered by chuck schumer and from what i hear, this proposal is going to be specifically to request documents from the state department. i don't think there is any reason to believe that vote on

this would be any different from the one previously. there have been some reports from republicans, some state m e nts reports from republicans, some statements including mitt romney that republican senator from utah you mention saying that while he may be open to having people testify to having new subpoenas go out having john bolton come in and testify before the senate trial, he is going to not vote for any of this right now and rather get through opening arguments and then have a vote afterward which is the way mitch mcconnell proposed that. i think this is the first indication at least that mitch mcconnell pots are for pumping caucus is sticking together, they are going to do this child the way he sets out and the democrats attempt at least in the beginning to get some sort of guarantee are not going to work. —— to do this trial. the usual demonstration both of democrats and all of us watching and the chances of donald trump being removed from office which requires two thirds of the senate are very low. very low.

it's a matter of simple math. there are 47 democrats in the senate. the need to be 67 votes to remove donald trump from the presidency, that means 20 republican senators would have to decide what all of the democrats in order to remove him from office. that would include both from office. that would include both from senate republicans who represent states that are very, very pro—donald trump. essentially political suicide on the part of those senators unless there is some sort of massive shift in public opinion in these estates in donald trump's base of support if new evidence comes out which is why there's a big fight over these witnesses, over these documents, the reality is unless something changes, u nless reality is unless something changes, unless something new and explosive comes to light too, there is just not going to be that kind of a swing for the republicans to vote to remove donald trump. anthony, thanks as everfor your remove donald trump. anthony, thanks as ever for your help. much remove donald trump. anthony, thanks as everfor your help. much more background detail on the impeachment trial of donald trump on the bbc news app in the bbc news website.

let's switch away from that story for the moment. outside source business next. we're going to turn to brazil because prosecutors in brazil are pressing homicide charges against the former boss of the mining company vale, over the collapse of a dam owned by the company last year which claimed more than 250 lives. the dam collapsed here in brumadinho. our reporter daniel gallas is in sao paulo. he is further south in sao paulo. he is joining he is further south in sao paulo. he isjoining us now. a lot of people remember this story but for people who don't, remind us of what happened and its connection to this company. we are just a few days away from the first anniversary of this tragedy which is the worst industrial accident in the history of brazil. a dam that is used to store mining waste from iron ore bites collapsed in 270 people died from that accident. up until now,

there haven't been any charges but not 16 people have been charged with homicide which is very serious of a neckis homicide which is very serious of a neck is asian to be made against the ceo and 15 other people of the mining company and of the german consulting group to have sued as well. the prosecutors said that the accident happened on the 25th of january, but actually the crime, the homicide crime was committed way earlier when the executives from these companies were producing false documents that testified that the dam was secured. some very strong words from the prosecutors today. have we heard from either the company or those accused ? have we heard from either the company or those accused? the german consulting group said they want, and they are cooperating with the authorities. vale in the executive he is no longer a part of the copy both issued statements in which they said that we should wait for further

investigations into the matter because this is a very complex accident, and there will be a report out later this year stating what happened, that it would be premature for prosecutors to accuse them of homicide. but of course the families of the victims are happy with the results that came out of this prosecutors press conference because they say that the company and the executives must pay for what happened. daniel, think of a much for that update. next, we're going to talk about the streaming battle, i'm surea to talk about the streaming battle, i'm sure a lot of you will be following this. a number of entertainment giants are fighting for our time and attention. disney announced today it's launching disney plus in march, a week earlier than planned, in the uk, france, germany and other european countries. it is already available in the us. and rival netflix is out with its own update. michelle fleury is in new york for us. this battle is not new, we have

known this is coming for a while but i guess the entry to market of these players especially disney plus is changing the dynamics. you have disney plus just the latest but it is already a crowded field, apple tv, you have amazon who is already there. here in america we have the telecoms provider at&t, you have comcast which is the owner of nbc network, they watched peacock digital channel service, there is this rush to kind of get into streaming. the idea you will watch tv... it now seems all of that is being replaced or kind of added with the streaming war. in the case of netflix a lot of attention has been made because unlike dizzy, it simply provides video through online that you can download and carry and watch on your phone and laptop and wherever you go via the internet. the other company is a part of

something much bigger, and they would like you to spend more time on their ecosystem. in the case of dizzy if you thing about a committee on theme parks, cruises. you have the film franchise. —— in the case of disney. if they can take video with their new disney plus service to add value to the other products and generate more profit, that's the goal. is different with netflix and thatis goal. is different with netflix and that is why analysts are casting a more critical eye over this company and its financials. in terms of netflix's figures and a right and someone saying that some of, and the last few hours? in the last half—hour we know that the revenue for the last quarter was over $5 billion. i think the key number that people were looking at was their paid subscribers, in other words how many people are actually paying the money to use their service? they are atan money to use their service? they are at an impressive 8.76 nguyen globally, that versus 7.6 million that were forecast. but here's the thing. that is mainly down to subscribers outside of america. in

its home market where you have this new rifle disney plus that we have been talking about, netflix added just 420,000 paid net subscribers. it sounds like a lot but when you think that people were looking at the company expected them to at 600,000, that is the real concern. netflix is responding by spending a lot of money generating new content, you have got these big hits like the irishman which is an oscar contender, you have marriage story, you got time to add 600,000, that is the real concern. netflix is responding by spending a lot of money generating new content, you have got these big hits like the irishman which is an oscar contender, you have marriage story, you got town the which are, it's putting up their costs, can they add enough subscribers for that pay? thank you michelle. was beat to michelle through the i'm sure. we will go back to washington and the impeachment trial of president trump which has started and we will get you up—to—date. 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 tackle the number of cases. angus crawford reports. brother, son, grandson. this is hayden. wow. a video filmed 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. it was a parent's worst nightmare — we had to sit there and watch our son slowly die in front of our eyes, literally. to find out the truth, they felt they had no choice but to sue. you can't 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 thought about it as kind of fighting for a voice for hayden,

and fighting for, you know, acknowledgement of his life and his rights. i don't think we would have got the answers we had any other way. the hospital did eventually admit liability, years later. that picture is being 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. this is outside source live from the bbc newsroom.

our lead story is... the opening session of the impeachment trial of president trump has begun — but republicans and democrats first need to agree how it should proceed. let's remind ourselves of how this impeachment trial came about. president trump is accused of inappropriate repressuring ukraine to investigate his democratic rival joe biden and his son hunter. hunter biden took a seniorjob at a ukraine energy company called burisma at the same time as his father who was vice president at the bowman ministration was pushing for that company to be investigate for corruption. this meant george kent, a state department official who worked on anti—corruption department official who worked on anti—corru ption efforts department official who worked on anti—corruption efforts in the uk, type macro —— ukraine, testified under biden being on the board of

the company could pursue —— create the company could pursue —— create the perception of a confidential but nothing was done or proven. donald trump is urpi to be said that he thinks this will set up was suspect. he has offered no evidence to back those campaigns up. injuly of last year, president trump made a phone call with the new president of ukraine, volodymyr zelensky. he was to graduate him on his election went but during the call, donald trump raise the issue of investigating the bidens. go onto the next month august and co—published this story, the us metairie aid was being withheld from ukraine. here's the bbc pots are paul adams on why that military aid is essential to this impeachment trial. ukraine has basically been at war with russia for more than five years, ever since russia annexed one part of ukraine and armed separatists in another. the russian elite have not still accepted the fact that ukraine is an independent entity. and until they have recognised that, ukraine will always be in trouble. more than 13,000 people have been killed in this war.

without american military aid, ukraine would struggle to defend itself. donald trump's improve despite all the controversy, donald trump's approval rating has been going up in the last couple of months. according to gallop polls, his rating was at 39% in october and it's 44% now, roughly where barack obama's approval rating was in the january before he won his second term. but since world war ii, the average approval of a president has been 53%, so it's still not that high. this trial has the potential to shift public opinion in either direction. here's one pollster. there is really three things to keep in mind thinking about the american public. first, most americans believe president trump did something wrong, something like 60% of americans think he did something wrong. second, most americans want to see the senate trial operate something approximating a fair hearing where the senators are impartial, there is some sort of

hearing of evidence. we will care and covering it as we come out with it. bye—bye. hello there. we will see a change of weather type next week, as you'll see later on. it will probably make forecasting a little more straightforward. because everything recently has been very slow—moving and quite difficult to get the cloud, hence the missed and fog right. but over the next few days, we should be seeing lots of cloud, more over the uk and milder conditions, as well. still got high pressure in charge, light winds but cloudy skies should be moving down from the north. so sunshine is much more limited on wednesday and across england and wales. probably the best of the sunshine again across eastern parts of scotland. little bit of damp and drizzly weather across the north of scotland. on the whole it will be dry. although we are seeing more cloud across england and wales then we had on tuesday,

temperatures should be higher, 10—13 celsius with sunshine in aberdeenshire, very mild for this time of year. now during the evening, we keep generally cloudy skies that should limit the frost again. overnight, as we head into thursday, we still have the area of high pressure in charge. light winds for the most part, stronger winds coming in across northern most parts of scotland. together with that weakening weather front, it will mainly affect the far north of scotland on thursday with some outbreaks of rain. some fresher breezes picking up through the english channel, otherwise light winds — again, misty and murky in the hills, lots of cloud around. those temperatures a shade lower, around 8—9 celsius, but still pretty good for this time of year. that high pressure will take a bit of shifting. as the weather front moves into the high—pressure, it tends to weaken and get so far, then starts moving northwards again, as an area of low pressure comes in from the atlantic. so what's left of the weather front, you can hardly see it, but there's a little rain on it. maybe a bit more sunshine across the north of scotland for a while. again, this mixture of generally cloudy skies first hour, temperatures 7—9 celsius.

now let's head towards the weekend, and we are slowly seeing the weather changing a bit. the high—pressure drifting towards continental europe, lowering pressure coming in from the atlantic. but having said all that, saturday for the most part will be dry with a bit of sunshine coming through as the breeze freshens up a touch. a few showers breaking up across the western parts of the uk, ahead of the weather front which is still hanging around their towards the far northwest. decent temperatures because of the south to south—westerly breeze, 9—10 celsius. that weather front tends to push its way across the uk during saturday evening, saturday night. wetter weather likely to be in the west with weather pushing eastwards tending to weaken. there will be some patchy rain eastwards across england and wales, the first rain for quite some time. but behind it, we get to some sunshine arriving with a few showers towards the northwest wintry over the hills, as the edges get a bit colder but not desperately cold. 6—7 celsius, still

near—normal around scotland and northern ireland. over next week, we will fluctuate between milder air and cooler north—westerly winds, then milder south—westerly winds once again. that should give you an indication that it is turning much more unsettled. now we have some city forecasts here. cooler air, 6—7 celsius, not that cold. there is no desperate air to come, and for some it will be in the double figures for the next week ahead. but there will however be some much wetter weather. we have one band of rain sweeping through, then sunshine and showers, another area of low pressure spitting towards the northwest of scotland, bringing more rain and another one following later on, as well. so all change next week.

this programme contains flashing images. tonight at ten, at the world economic forum in davos, president trump hits out at climate campaigners, calling them "prophets of doom". the president arrived in switzerland, as his impeachment trial was getting under way, back home in washington dc. he came to davos, with a provocative message for the world's climate experts, who are calling for urgent action to save the planet. we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their