we coming from washington post on we willjoin beyond 100 days and that is coming up with katty kay in just a moment or two. thanks for watching. you're watching beyond 100 days. the un suspects mohammabin salman was involved in hacking the phone ofjeff bezos, the head of amazon and the owner of the washington post. saudi arabia calls the allegations absurd, but the un wants an immediate investigation. bezos‘ phone was hacked by a malicious video file from an account reportedly belonging to the saudi crown prince. after a marathon senate session yesterday, it is day two of the president trump 0sma impeachment trial and democrats are setting out the evidence against him. pa rt of part of our strength is not only our military make strength of our

allies, it is what we stand for. also on the programme: prosecutors in new york make their rape case against film producer harvey weinstein. they say he was a hollywood power broker who was "no match" for his female accusers. chilli with a chance of a qantas. unseasonably cold weather in florida means reptiles are falling out of trees frozen stiff. hello, and welcome. i'm katty kay in washington, and christian fraser is in london. the big names are all in davos this week, an annual gathering where they swap ideas, exchange cards, agree to talk further about future plans. so, imagine at a similar business forum you meet the crown prince of saudi arabia. even for a tech giant like jeff bezos of amazon and the washington post, you might be flattered. but what he can't possibly have envisaged when he handed the crown prince his phone number, that it would later be used

to hack his smartphone. that is the extraordinary allegation from the un, whose investigation into the death of the washington postjournalist jamal khashoggi revealed that saudi arabia had been spying onjeff bezos with the possible involvement of the crown prince. the information comes from a 2019 forensic analysis of mr bezos‘ iphone that assessed with "medium to high confidence" that his phone was hacked in may 2018 through a message sent from a whatsapp account used by mohammad bin salman. investigators believe the spyware was hiding in a rather innocuous mp4 video that mr bezos opened. within hours, the saudis began stealing massive amounts of mr bezos‘s data, and it went on for months. the surveilliance was aimed at influencing, if not silencing, the washington post's reporting on saudi arabia. here is the response of the saudi government. absurd is exactly the right word.

the idea that the crown prince would hackjeff bezos's phone is absolutely silly. and my understanding of the report is it's not a report, it's a statement based on a report by a private company that has not been vetted by an independent agency and that has in its own conclusions no hard evidence to substantiate the claims it's making. so, what was stolen from the phone? in 2019, nude photos ofjeff bezos and texts he sent to his girlfriend lauren sanchez were leaked to the national enquirer. at the time, bezos accused the owner of the enquirer, david pecker, of trying to blackmail him. he said the magazine was threatening to publish more of these photos unless he called off the washington post's investigation into how they acquired them. the new york times reports that pecker had met with the crown prince in saudi arabia in 2017 and was developing a relationship. and the story drags in donald trump. we know the president is friendly with david pecker and has met with the crown prince. he makes no secret of his loathing forjeff bezos and has tweeted gleefully about the photos.

remember that through 2018, the washington post had been investigating whether the national enquirer had bought and spiked stories about the president's extramarital affairs. and this is what bezos wrote in early 2019. he clearly had his suspicions. bezos wrote... so, let's bring in agnes callamar, the un special rapporteur, and iyad el baghdadi, author of the forensic report. you just heard the response of the

saudi government who said you have no hard evidence. let me clarify first that i am not the author of the forensic report. the forensic report was prepared by fti. i have i'io report was prepared by fti. i have no relations with them. but however idid no relations with them. but however i did work very closely with bezos's security team ahead of commissioning the report and i had my eyes on the saudi information network as far back as october 2018, right after the murder of my friend jamaal khashoggi. my team had an idea that something very serious was going on months before we establish a relationship with bezos's security team. it is common for world leaders to have a twitter account, he was up account and somebody in their office might be sending out messages. why do you think the crown prince knew what was going on? it is clear to us right now that they were in jeff

basis is phone from may 2018 and we believe they continue to be in his phone until february of 2019. in fa ct phone until february of 2019. in fact i think mohammad bin salman was not very careful about revealing because he did exchange messages with jeff bezos that indicated and contain information that he could not have otherwise known. he knew about the photos? not about the photos only but in november of 2018, there is actually afterjeff bezos much to mohammad bin salman's dislike did not show up at the future investment initiative, the other divers future investment initiative, the otherdivers in future investment initiative, the other divers in the desert that was held in saudi arabia after the jamal khashoggi murder, jeff bezos happen to receive a text from mohammad bin salman saying i know about your affair. it also happened in february of 2019, this was a couple of days after i had exchanged a lengthy

phone call withjeff after i had exchanged a lengthy phone call with jeff bezos's security team and gave an extensive report about saudi disinformation regarding jeff bezos. two days later, jeff bezos receives a text from a whatsapp text from mohammad bin salman saying what you're being told is not true which begs the question of how did he know he was being told anything? how convinced are you from having reviewed the report that the saudi crown prince may have been himself personally involved in the hacking of mr bezos's found ? involved in the hacking of mr bezos's found? fairly convinced. i wish to respond to the creek street address for the foreign minister of saudi arabia. fti is a company of some of the leading experts in cybersecurity contrary to what the prime minister said. the company was vetted actually by the fbi because

the investigation was part of an ongoing fbi investigation. they followed the strongest approach in order to protect the chain of evidence. in addition to their own work, we have done —— approached for independent cyber security experts and asked them to review the findings and conclusions of the fti study. they did that over several days of exchanges, including with fti. they identified alternative hypothesis, they discussed those alternative hypotheses with fti and the conclusion from the independent experts reinforced our belief in the fti conclusion and our conviction that we needed to go public to raise the alarm as a wake—up call to everyone concerned with

cybersecurity. so you have asked now for this investigation from the saudi government of the saudi government. will be the implications if everything that is alleged if streak? what are the applications in terms of saudi arabia's leadership with other countries and with individuals? the first implication is that we are all extremely vulnerable to this kind of hacking. the fact that the richest man on earth with a high level of resources, very high level of resources, very high level of resources and protection, could be hacked and could be hacked for months without noticing it, i think should be a look call to everyone and including those doing business in saudi arabia who may have as you pointed out in your introduction exchanged phone numbers with the ci’owi‘i exchanged phone numbers with the crown prince. so that is a first key message. the second is that the

investigation done by fti and by independent experts, they were done by others demonstrate we are confronting a technology that we do not control. we are confronting an industry that is unregulated and yet it has huge implications for human protection, fort national security and for economic relationships. that needs to be addressed. can we just put ourfinger on how needs to be addressed. can we just put our finger on how this relates to the jamal khashoggi case? probably that is where you got involved. are you saying that he was being monitored in a similar way? that is the third message i take from today's allegation. the hacking of jeff bezos's from today's allegation. the hacking ofjeff bezos's file occurred at a time when jamal khashoggi ofjeff bezos's file occurred at a time whenjamal khashoggi was writing is very critical pieces. it occurred at a time when the phone of at least four other saudi dissidents

we re at least four other saudi dissidents were hacked. it may also have occurred at a time when the old phone ofjamal occurred at a time when the old phone of jamal khashoggi occurred at a time when the old phone ofjamal khashoggi was hacked but we do not know that because the phoneis but we do not know that because the phone is in the hands of the turkish authorities and they have not revealed what they know about the hacking or possible hacking of this phone. so there is a context here. june 2018 is when a campaign of intimidation and silencing or at least of controlling is initiated by saudi arabia. clearly in the aftermath of the killing, we see this account of mohammad bin salman being used for the purpose of at least instilling some fears injeff bezos and that is not right. and as has been pointed out, that certainly was the case that his phone was being hacked and his personal information was being communicated.

why do you think... obviously information was being communicated. why do you think... 0bviouslyjeff bezos has a very powerful enemies at why do you think he came to fti? why did he not go to the regular authorities come to the fbi or cia? he did go to the fbi. the selection here of what to do with this information was something that took a lot of strategizing over weeks and months. the question is if you have a case against mohammad bin salman, against someone who is a defective head of state, what do you do? what will the fbi exactly do in this case because is someone with sovereign, some were not under the authority of the fbi? for this some were not under the authority of the fbi? forthis reason some were not under the authority of the fbi? for this reason that we saw that the un is really the best and most credible and most independent institution to actually carry the sinks forward. to look into the matter. 0k, thank you both very much

for joining matter. 0k, thank you both very much forjoining us on this. a lot of questions especially at saudi arabia around this. you wonder the government and particularly the crown prince have actually suffered very relatively light consequences because of the killing of jamal khashoggi. you do have to wonder whether this kind of investigation with the un weighing in which is kind of unusual in and of itself, you and i said early this morning why is a human involved because of the jamal khashoggi killing of course. if there will be any more repercussions in the impression was of the said government. what do you think about the last point he made there that this was an investigation into a head of state? who do you go to? well naturally you go to your head of state and you said this is what is going on but of course there was a ship betweenjeff bezos and donald trump is not one or he could go to the us president and said this is what is happening. you would not go to the us president, you'll go to the fbi which is an independent body

from the executive. but they will go to the president ultimately though, would they not? they would have the judicial branch —— involved but there should be some kind of investigation. the fact that he felt that they had to go around the us authorities is it in of itself interesting given that close relationship but there will be a lot more questions i imagine if there is fallout will be a different question. let's turn to the impeachment. day one of the senate impeachment trial was a marathon. the senators were in session for 13 hours last night. until two untiltwo a:m.. well, the rules have now been fixed. today, is the first of three days of evidence from the house managers. the democrats are first up who are prosecuting the case. we are by now familiar with the central allegation but let's remind ourselves of the charges, of which there are two. the 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 kyiv into investigating joe biden, the president's possible opponent in the november election. the other charge is obstruction of congress. democrats say the president has stonewalled their investigators, refusing to provide documents. adam schiff, the chair of the house intelligence committee, has been making the opening arguments. we are here today in this hallowed chamber undertaking this solemn accident with a full time in history because donaldj accident with a full time in history because donald j trump, accident with a full time in history because donald] trump, the 45th president of the united states, has acted precisely as hamilton and his contemporaries feared. president trump solicited for an interference in our democratic elections, abusing the power of his office to seek help from abroad to improve his reelection prospects at home.

this is to see in the senate and it is still adam schiff. this man has enormous senate —— stamina. he began the day laying out the nuts and bolts of their case. the president isa bolts of their case. the president is a defendant in this trial. president trump was putting on a tour de force today at the world economic forum in davos today, suggesting he would love to sit in on his impeachment trial, maybe even on the front row. though he acknowledged his legal team might have a problem with his appearance. the president blasted the democrats for using the trial to divert attention away from the success of the us economy. it's a total hoax. it's a disgrace. they talked about their tremendous case and it's all done, their tremendous case. they had no case, it's all a hoax. it's a conjob, like schiff. he's a corrupt politician. now, i'll leave that to the senate. the senate's going to

have to answer that. i have great respect for the senate as a body and many of the individuals. let's get the thoughts of former federal prosecutorjoe moreno. the argument seems to still be being made and debated about whether you have to have a federal crime in order to impeach a president and remove him from office. have we settled that argument? it is clearly a hook that the president's defence team is looking to grab republicans with. it is an easy way to dismiss the abuse of power charge without even having to get to the underlying facts by basically saying this is a defective charge because there is no crime alleged. i think if you want to take an objective, fair, realistic look at 200 years of constitutional interpretation, caselaw, president and the text of

the framers of our constitution, a fair reading is that you do not need a crime to impeach a president. there are plenty of examples, even seen there are plenty of examples, even seenin there are plenty of examples, even seen in the case of richard nixon, which obviously did not go to impeachment because he resigned first. but he was charged in part with the kinds of abuse of office that only a president can commit and while there might not be the text of specific federal crime, everyone would agree that certain abuses of that office cannot be tolerated and are the basis for legitimate impeachment. in the middle still of a tussle over witnesses and whether there should be witnesses appearing with democrats saying we need some of these witnesses in order to find out first—hand what happened, especiallyjohn bolton the former national security adviser, who had direct knowledge of the conversation is the president had with ukrainians. but here was president trump today throwing cold water on that prospect. let's have a listen.

the problem withjohn is that it's a national security problem. you know, you can't have somebody who's of national security and if you think about it, john, he knows some of my thoughts, he knows what i think about leaders. what happens if he reveals what i think about a certain leader and it's not very positive? he knows other things. and i don't know if we left on the best of terms. i would say probably not. if the president throwing cold water on the notion that even if they vote to allow witnesses, that we will not let him because of national security. what happens there? this isa security. what happens there? this is a pinnacle fight that will continue. the admission of witnesses is central to the democrats case here. even if for publicans tojump

ship with democrats and say let's tolerate john bolton or mick mulvaney or one of other executive branch employees that the democrats have asked for, the president will assert executive privilege and so basically what does that mean? this will go to court which is exactly why the house democrats did not do it in the first place because they did not want to loose months of fighting in court. that is a clear signal that basically this trial would most likely have to stop in its tracks and there would be a side parallel fight about whether or not it is susceptible to basically insist on the testimony ofjohn bolton and these others. and so that would delay this and i think democrats have to be careful what they wish for. it gives them a moral high ground right now to basically say how can we have a fair trial without witnesses but if they get those witnesses, that is only the beginning of a separate fight.|j those witnesses, that is only the beginning of a separate fight. i was going to ask you about that because we are told the white house is preparing for the possibility that

witnesses will be excepted. so what sort of contingencies will they be trying to work on? the democrats i think having prepared with a plan b because if we don't get witnesses or if it becomes a situation where we get them but it is going to put such a delay on this process that we lose momentum, can we prove the case without new evidence and basically without new evidence and basically with only the evidence that is already on the record which is basically e—mails, documents, text messages and the transcripts from all the witnesses that already testified either in close the door or public testimonies before last few months during the impeachment investigation. democrats have said it isa investigation. democrats have said it is a solid case even without new witnesses. the question will be if it comes down to having to put on that case withoutjohn it comes down to having to put on that case without john bolton, without mick mulvaney, can they prove their case without it? democrats should have that back—up plan ready to saint you know what?

even without this is, we're ready to go. 0k, thank you very much, joe for joining us. our political correspondent gary is at capitol hill monitoring all of this. in the craft of making their case and what have they decided to kick off withmet in a while to get the country's attention back on the meat in the case? because adam schiff really began his presentation by putting front and centre of the whole argument about the fairness of the trial, but the question of documentation and witnesses really saying to the senate there is a risk that you will be seen is covering up this process if you don't ask for these things. is it if you will hear from witnesses, you can, you just have to choose to also if you want to get documents, you can convey to set the cheese too. he also went on to talk about what constitutes impeachment and said if this is not impeachable, then nothing is. of course that speaks to the argument

that the defence will be making later on that it has to be a crime in orderto be later on that it has to be a crime in order to be an impeachable offe nce. in order to be an impeachable offence. summing a lot of scholars disagree with and some of the prosecution disagrees with in this particular case. he has told us they are going to go through that narrative of ukraine saga over the next day or so, the details that we heard before christmas about the text messages, the e—mails, the meeting some of to and from europe and ukraine and all those things will be revisited in a way that we heard them first in the impeachment inquiry. and i think later on, then you will hear the winding up arguments about the nature of the president's betrayals as they see of the american people. when we start hearing specifics of ukraine, the september 25 phone call, what mike pompeo say, what all the ambassador said? we will hear all of that do you think was meant you will hear that today. after his opening

statement, they will get straight into the narrative of what happened and that will be the replay, the tape will be on replay from before christmas and we will hear about all those various texts and e—mails come of the kurt volker's of this will come of the gordon sondland some of the rick perry, the amigos in all those kind of things will come up once again. all of that fabulous cast of curators will be hearing from all again. gary monitoring it all for us up on capitol hill, thank you very much. it has been an incredibly cold week on the east coast of the uk —— us this week. it's been pretty cold here on the east coast this week, here in dc and indeed all the way down to florida. everyone is feeling the chill, including the iguanas. the national weather service in miami has issued a warning telling people not to be surprised if they see iguanas falling from the trees as the temperatures dip to freezing. i have spent a disproportionate amount of time today getting to know iguanas.

they are ectothermic, they take their warmth from the sun. and when that heat and energy is not provided, they stop a bit like my electric car. they go into a torpor, a bit like this... in fairness, is my demeanour when winter comes around. although apparently iguanas are ok and most of them then get revived except they has been an uptick in the sale of iguana meet in florida on facebook marketplace. because a p pa re ntly on facebook marketplace. because apparently i go on at me is full of protein. that is really sad. agronomy on the futures market is diving, there is a glut. this is beyond 100 days from the bbc. coming up for viewers on the bbc news channel and bbc world news, the latest from the senate's impeachment trial of president donald trump. an opening argument

began in harvey weinstein's new york trial where he stands accused of five traps of rape and sexual assault. that is still to come. hello there. weather—wise this week has been fairly quiet. the start of the week did bring some beautiful blue sky and sunshine. this glorious photo sent in by a weather watcher in hastings yesterday. the reason for this calm weather, this area of high pressure sat across the uk for much of this week. we have seen a slight shift in the weather today and that comes in the form of more cloud. because of that here on the satellite picture, generally cloudy skies and some breaks to be had especially to the east of high ground. but while it is going to be cloudierfor ground. but while it is going to be cloudier for the next few days, it is looking dry which a welcome for parts of hampshire which have already exceeded their average january rainfall totals. as we go

through the night, it looks like more of the same. plenty of cloud and perhaps thick enough that you will spot some drizzle and temperatures not falling too far if the cloud acts as a bit of a blanket so it looks like it will be frost free. we have breaks in the cloud, you could wake up to some fog. england and some of the potential for some dense patches of fog which could cause some disruption but thursday and friday look mostly quiet and plenty of cloud around and largely dry. again the best of any brea ks to largely dry. again the best of any breaks to be found to the east of high ground. as we move towards the weekend, we are going to see a shift. we start to see windier conditions and this weather front towards the north and west will introduce some rain. so here we are on saturday, a fairly cloudy picture still some rain pushes to the far northwest of scotland and it generally breezy day and some bright and sunny spells can be through with and sunny spells can be through with a few showers for western areas. temperatures generally around 7-11dc. that

temperatures generally around 7—11dc. that rain slips its way further south and east as we move into sunday so will bring a spell of rainfora time. into sunday so will bring a spell of rain for a time. and it through sunday, the southeast and behind it we see a mixture of sunny spells and showers. the shower for scotland could fall as snow especially over high ground and looks like a generally breezy day on sunday as well. temperatures across southern half of the uk between 8—11dc and more like 6—8dc across the north. as we move into next week and it looks like we will see a real gear change away from that set of whether to something more changeable and spells wet windy weather to come.

you're watching beyond 100 days with me, katty kay, in washington. christian fraser is in london. our top stories: suspect the crown prince of saudi arabia was involved in hacking the phone ofjeff arabia was involved in hacking the phone of jeff beto's, arabia was involved in hacking the phone ofjeff beto's, the head of amazon and the owner of the washington post. the aircraft the lack democrats begin present in their argument —— the democrats present the argument for peach mint. coming up in the next hour, while all news channels are fixated on the historic impeachment trial, america's working classes, there are bigger issues for why they elected president trump. we'll find out why they are talking about. 17 develin

died from a virus in china. we are expecting an update from the who in this hour —— 17 people confirmed died. we are into day 2 in washington of president trump's impeachment trial — accused of abuse of power and obstruction of congress, which he denies. today, democrats are presenting their case to support the charges. they have 2a hours to do this over three days. the defence lawyers will then get to respond to the democratic case, also 2a hours over three days. then there will be a question—and—answer period, where senators can question the prosecution or defence through chiefjusticejohn roberts — for up to 16 hours. then the full senate will take a vote on whether to allow those additional witnesses or evidence. if the senate votes yes, additional witnesses such former national security adviser john bolton or white house acting chief of staff

mick mulvaney could be called. but if they vote no, the trial will go straight to closing arguments and discussions. once we get there, there will be a final vote on whether to impeach the president — a yes/no vote to decide president trump's fate. two thirds of the senate would need to vote to remove him. the publicans have 53 seats, the mcats a7. highly unlikely, —— the republicans have 53 seats, the democrats a7. the president put his own interests above the national interests. president trump undermine the integrity of our free and fair elections by pressing a foreign power to influence our most sacred right as citizens, our right to freely choose our leaders. in yesterday's proceedings, donald trump is my personal lawyer outlined their questions. what are we dealing with here? their questions. what are we dealing with here ? why their questions. what are we dealing with here? why are we here? are we

here because of a phone call? or are we here before this great body because, since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see them removed? we can bring in our north america editorjon sopel. while all of this has been going on, the president has been off in switzerland kind of weighing in at a distance. i am switzerland kind of weighing in at a distance. iam not switzerland kind of weighing in at a distance. i am not completely convinced that his defence team is sitting there thinking this is very helpful, mr president, because some of things he has said from davos might actually the democrats. there was one thing in particular, katty, that he said that was a red drag to abel that he said that was a red drag to abel. his when he said things are going very well. we've got all the information, they've got none of it. if you're wanting a fair trial, may

be into two —— that should be available. we keep using the words evidence and witnesses. we must not lose sight this is a political process. and we saw that last night when he first boats started coming in —— the first boats. they split along absolute party lines. donald trump kind of coding and saying, i've got the information, we know it happened, but we are not going to tell you, i think will inflame that sense of public opinion which already shows a clear majority believing that the evidence should believing that the evidence should be handed over and witnesses should be handed over and witnesses should be called. here on the bbc, we are running some of the trial, running some of it. we are not running it's wall—to—wall, which is what is happening on american cable at the moment. it's an historic event. do

you think the american public, american voters, are as focused on this as people on capitol hill might think that they are? i think that politicians always overestimate the extent to which the general public are paying attention to their words. it isa are paying attention to their words. it is a condition not unique to the united states of america, i would say. it is a global phenomenon that politicians think that what they say is incredibly important and fa nta stically is incredibly important and fantastically interesting, and amazingly, members of the public seem amazingly, members of the public seem to be getting all their lives and taking the job, the kids education, health bills, that this, the that, the holidays the way i'm going to go frederick this evening, are more important than that. that is an important thing to bear in mind. some of us, obsessive, sad, full on people, you and me, are watching in immense detail, and some

mayjust be getting on with it. there will be some people watching it and actually i have thought that some of this seriousness of the discussion that took place yesterday and is being sent out today by adam schiff is worthy and is historically important, but i think the overwhelming majority of americans will be... they will be a fleeting limbs of it, fleeting bits of attention paid to it but otherwise i don't think it is changing the life of the american people or the minds of the american people or the minds of the american people or the minds of the american people that much. and we should just remind people that commit down in that fourth box, you can see adam schiff presenting that evidence to the senate. do we overstate the extent to which the senate engages in this? a marathon 13 hours where they are not allowed to speak to my not allowed any coffee, not allowed any mobile phone. i cannot last 13 minutes without speaking! how are they going

to do this for six days? have described the mythology of the presenter there, you cannot go 13 minutes without speaking... laughter lam not minutes without speaking... laughter i am not coming between the two of you. i think there is a serious point there. they are not listening to the evidence like 12 good men and women true listening to a criminal case where they are thinking, there is that or there is that point. these people are pretty predecided about where they are going to go. the only question left is are they going to allow witnesses to be called? given the votes taken last night, i will be surprised. there is a fascinating bit about mitch mcconnell, the brilliance of mitch mcconnell. he says, there is going

to be done in four days. that is going to be tight! those people will going to be tight! those people will go back to their states and say look at this famous picture a one from this mcconnell, something he was going to give anyway. mitch mcconnell broadly speaking out what he wants. i'm starting to think that it's incredibly unlikely witnesses will be called. jon sopel, think you very much. do you know how they get through the long hours in the senate? pat toomey, the sweet drawer, that he controls. they come over and dive in there. aside from iguanas, i have been looking at the drawer today, there is all sorts in there. you can get things called three musketeers.

are they milky ways? someone has done a graphic! years from pennsylvania and so these are all mostly chocolates made in pennsylvania, which is the state he comes from. it is on the republican side but, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, any of the senators are allowed to cross the aisle and go to the other side and... with the move swiftly along. do carry on. they needed right now. the news channels here collude to the trials. but there's a large segment of the population whose priorities are elsewhere. and it's america's working class and their problems that president trump has promised to fix. in davos today, the president said

he was lifting every class of america. we're an economic powerhouse like, actually, we've never been. jobs, factories, companies are pouring back into the united states. it's one of the reasons i've been in davos is, we've had conversations with leaders of other countries where we've traditionally had tremendous deficits, have to move factories and plants back here. they took a lot of them. they actually took a lot of them and now they're going to move them back. it's that very topic — hope — which is the focus of our next guest's new book. nicholas kristof. .. wa nted wanted to find out what he learned from the people he grew up with writing on the bus. what he learned to shock him. a quarter of the kids he was ready with on that bus are now dead.

tightrope: americans reaching for hope examines how americans in rural and urban areas across the us are going through tough times. unemployment, depression and addiction are all central themes, depicting a nation of fundamentally similar people shaped by vastly different circumstances. joining us now to explain more is nicholas and his wife and co—author, sheryl wudunn. welcome to you both. great you have gone the programme. tell me about your bus. you go back to oregon. you research these people you've travelled with every morning. what happened to them? for example, the family of five that got on the bus right after than me every day, one in my class, the others a little bit younger. fa rland in my class, the others a little bit younger. farland died of consequent as of alcohol and drugs. his brother died, passed out in a house fire, when he was passed out drunk. his sister died of hepatitis links to needle use of drugs, and brother

nathan blew himself up making meth. the only survival is the youngest brother who survived because he spent 13 years in a state penitentiary. and there was another family with five kids and that family with five kids and that family has also lost four out of five. there was one family of four kids. three of the four of them are dead from alcohol, drugs or suicide, or reckless accidents, and this was the story of my small town but it was also the story of a lot of america. these are deaths of despair and they are why america's life expectancy has now fallen rather than risen. your country and my country and struggled for years to adapt to a sort of postindustrial future, and i've pictured dominic this amazing amazing statistic from an interview you did last week. and every of

lessen auto plant —— in areas that lost a n lessen auto plant —— in areas that lost an auto plant over the last five years, there's a reason 85% more deaths from the opiate of the edenic than other areas. do you think that is specific to america or western economies? it is certainly more specific to the us than to other countries. globalisation is certainly affected all of these countries but in the us in particular, it's been bad. if you compare candidate to the us, we have a particular example where after the financial crisis, we had auto workers laid off in both detroit and in windsor ontario i , ontario, canada, wejust left them to try and find jobs. in canada, what happened, first of all, they had their health care coverage already said they did not have to worry about that. in the us, you

lost your health care as well. the government has these retraining centres which kick into action when there were lay—offs and they scoured there were lay—offs and they scoured the region and they said, where are theirjobs? and the region and they said, where are their jobs? and he the region and they said, where are theirjobs? and he discovered that nursing was an area where there were more jobs, and so auto workers interested in getting retraining to go into nursing were able tojoin the nursing retraining programme and they were ushered back into the workday world in a much more integrated fashion and also years later, there were much less entangled in drugs, self—medication that we saw in the us. some of this is policy and some of it is personal. 0ne is policy and some of it is personal. one of the people you feature some buddy actually who you are in class with who used to value within class elections to be class president and she actually ended up making it and could you extrapolate from the portrait that you have done of your hometown? what is the determining factor between people

who survive and not necessarily thrive but managed to make it through and those who don't? so i would say that the biggest single difference is the parents that you had. it wasn't how intelligent you are, it wasn't how hard—working you were, it wasn't how honest you are. it was the accident of birth, and the parenting you had. iwould it was the accident of birth, and the parenting you had. i would say there were probably a better correlation with how many children's books there were in a house and long—term outcomes, then with a child's intelligence. more about correlation to how often you were hugged, how often you are read to, and long—term outcomes. if you look at, it might old yearbook, the national honour society yearbook photo, and those kids basically did just fine. the kids who dropped out

of school, often because their parents did not particular value education, those kids were cooked. even in america today, one in seven high school students still does not graduate from high school. that's unconscionable. policies matter. hugs due to. the book is tight rope. sheryll and nick, thank you for joining us. let's return to the impeachment trial under way. let's adam schiff. .. let's adam schiff... let's bring injenna. shejoins us now adam schiff... let's bring injenna. she joins us now from adam schiff... let's bring injenna. shejoins us now from new adam schiff... let's bring injenna. she joins us now from new york. jenna, this discussion that we have just been having both with nick and sheryll but also with jon just been having both with nick and sheryll but also withjon sopel earlier much of the degree to which americans are actually focused on what is happening in capitol hill

this week, the senate this week, when you speak to supporters of the president in the context of his reelection bid, what are you hearing abut impeachment? the impeachment is actually so much in favour of president trump and we are seeing the campaign is actually seeing an increase in donations and an increase in donations and an increase in donations and an increase in support and so many people canjust increase in support and so many people can just see increase in support and so many people canjust see through increase in support and so many people can just see through this as political theatre and a circus from the democrats that basically, they're trying to run their campaign through this impeachment circus rather than actually running their motivation find any of their 2020 candidates. and so for president trump, there is a lot of motivation all across america and we hear from people everyday who see have any people everyday who see have any people are lining up and just so much in support of this president that i think actually impeachment is helping him rather than in any way hurting his reelection prospects. and yet, as they're doing right now, from democrats, laying out the case the president abused his power in

trying to it out political favours from a foreign country in a way that perhaps her american national security. the very fact he was impeached, he will always be an impeached, he will always be an impeached president. i cannot believe that is good news for donald trump. let's talk about what that is in context. impeachment is no more than filing charges. we know from any process all over the world, and particular in america, simply filing charges don't mean you're actually guilty of anything. the two articles the democrats filed, they don't actually allege a crime. there is not bribery here, there is not extortion, there not any of these fa ncy extortion, there not any of these fancy terms or any crimes they are actually alleging. their abuse of power arguments and plea comes down toa power arguments and plea comes down to a policy decision don't act as agreement. in our constitution —— policy disagreement. invests all power in the second of brands to the president of united states. it is not for congress to second—guess the will of the american people. abuse of power is simply a fancy term for

the democrats to try convince the american people and everyone abroad that there is actually some substance or substance or merit or illegal activity here when there is really not. obstruction of congress is the same thing. that's not actually a crime. to exert your constitutional rights, that is not obstruction of congress much less a crime, and so the impeachment articles on face fail because they are not actually alleging anything whatsoever that fits within the definition of an impeachable offe nce. definition of an impeachable offence. besides winning back the white house, the otherjob is to keep hold of the senate. there are some senators who are up for reelection, some of them in swing states. the likes of susan collins in maine. people want a fair trial. it isa in maine. people want a fair trial. it is a cable from and to mcconnell to shut that down. we also see there are democrats on the other side,

doug jones and steve mention and a few others that are certainly running their own reelection campaigns and they are not very popular within their states and those are a significant portion of conservatives. we are seeing that on the margins of both sides, and so really what this comes down to is, will senators actually look at the constitution and will they actually follow the law or will they be more concerned about their own reelection campaigns in the context of this impeachment trial headed into 2020? when we get to the president's council's case next week, what do you think we are going to get? yesterday, having not talked about process —— i know there was talk about process. the house democrats, all are they going to focus on the central allegation, whether he did or did not holdback this money for his own personal

benefit? because yesterday was about process and that we did not get to the merits of the case whatsoever. that was entirely appropriate. while the democrats were just continue with their political theatre, trump's attorneys were acting like attorneys and fitting that into the context. i wrote a piece this morning expanding that. i also wrote a piece and fox news on monday right after the legal brief was filed. that was the trump team speaking to the merits of this case. they lay out for individual valid legal reasons why these articles need to be dismissed on face. in context, while the clinton impeachment trial did have witnesses, there was no new evidence. there were no new witnesses that had not been released opposed, had depositions in the context of that impeachment inquiry. that was actually a robust process. they weren'tjust that was actually a robust process. they weren't just pushing this through. that is just they weren't just pushing this through. that isjust a democrat been to say, clinton had witnesses so now we need witnesses. no new

evidence has ever coming in the context of an impeachment trial. they are trying to cure the defective... jenna, thank you very much forjoining us. clearly a lot of debate on both sides about this. there was the ken starr report and so they had a lot more information and there was a big debate about whether abuse of power constitutes an impeachable offence. most constitutional lawyers to come down to the view that, yes, there is no... we have sort of run out of time with her but the central argument the democrats would put to that was that president trump denied 12 high—ranking officials in his ministration the chance to give evidence... they were not illogical the witnesses. that was the whole point. and they could have gone to corbyn that would've taken up to a year to get it. —— they could've

gone to court. britain will not back down from introducing a new tax on tech firms. chancellor sajid javid has told a meeting in davos. iran will attempt to download and analyse data from flight recorders retrieved from the ukrainian plane that was shot down near tehran earlier this month. this is despite the country not being equipped to access and analyse the black boxes. an air defence operator in the islamic revolution guards corps mistook the plane for a cruise missile and shot it down, killing all 176 people on board. the monty python star terryjones has died at the age of 77. the actor and comedian, who had dementia, appeared in some of their best—loved sketches, and went on to direct films including life of brian. fellow python sir michael palin described jones as "one of the funniest writer—performers of his generation".

in new york, the hollywood film producer harvey weinstein, is in court for the start of his trial. he has been described by his accusers as if sexual predators. he's accused of rape and sexual assault. since 2017, more than 80 women, including several famous actresses, have accused weinstein of sexual misconduct dating back decades. 0ur correspondent nada tawfik is in new york for us. what are we likely to get in today's opening? we have already been hearing from both the prosecution and the defence here on this really critical day. this is the opening arguments where they get too laid the foundation of their entire case to the jurors come of the seven men and five women who ultimately decide harvey weinstein's fate. and in the beginning, prosecutors laid out photos to the jury of the two women in this case who have accused harvey weinstein of rain and forcible sexual acts and for other women who they will have testified —— accused harvey weinstein of rape. they had

gone to harvey one steam with the promise of professional help. instead, he assaulted, abused, raped them and silenced them from going forward. we heard on the women remained —— from one of the women who remained unidentified, a little more about her story. the defence said these are all consensual relationships and they have e—mails to prove it. nada tawfikjoining us therefrom new york. watching that trial. at the same time, a church attorney in los angeles is in us they have a case against harvey weinstein as well —— a district attorney. it's not the same case but it does fit this idea that there is a pattern of behaviour which is what they are trying to point to, the prosecution up in new york. just a very quick line of breaking news.

the world health organisation say they will make a decision tomorrow on the coronavirus, whether to declare a global emergency. hello there. weather—wise this week has been fairly quiet. the start of the week did bring some beautiful blue sky and sunshine. this glorious photo sent in by a weather watcher in hastings yesterday. the reason for this calm weather, this area of high pressure sat across the uk for much of this week. we have seen a slight shift in the weather today and that comes in the form of more cloud. you can see that here on the satellite picture, generally cloudy skies and some breaks to be had especially to the east of high ground. but while it is going to be cloudier for the next few days, it is looking dry, which is welcome for parts of hampshire which have already exceeded their average january rainfall totals. as we go through tonight,

it looks like more of the same. plenty of cloud, perhaps thick enough for the odd spot of drizzle, and temperatures not falling too far if the cloud acts as a bit of a blanket so it looks like it will be frost free. we have breaks in the cloud. you could wake up to some fog. england and some of the potential for some dense patches of fog which could cause some disruption, but thursday and friday look mostly quiet and plenty of cloud around and largely dry. again, the best of any breaks to be found to the east of high ground. as we move towards the weekend, we are going to see a shift. we start to see windier conditions and this weather front towards the north and west will introduce some rain. so here we are on saturday, a fairly cloudy picture still. some rain pushing to the far northwest of scotland and a generally breezy day. some bright and sunny spells can be through with a few showers for western areas.

temperatures generally around 7—11dc. that rain slips its way further south and east as we move into sunday, so it will bring a spell of rain for a time. and through sunday, the rain clears the southeast. behind it, we see a mixture of sunny spells and showers. the showers for scotland could fall as snow especially over high ground and it looks like a generally breezy day on sunday as well. temperatures across southern half of the uk between 8—11 c, more like 6—8 c across the north. as we move into next week, it looks like we will see a real gear change away from that settled weather to something more changeable, with spells of wet windy and weather to come.

this is bbc news, i'm rachel schofield. the headlines at 8pm. the chinese city of wuhan closes public transport over the virus outbreak that's killed seventeen. airports around the world step up screening of travellers from the region. this is a new virus, we do not know what he can do. it's day two of president trump's impeachment trial and democrats are setting out the evidence against him. un human rights experts demand an investigation into claims saudi arabia's crown prince hacked amazon bossjeff bezos's phone. tributes have been paid to the monty python star terryjones