our top story: china is to suspend public transport in the city of wuhan, as it tries to control a new virus that has killed 17 people and infected 500. the who welcomed what it called china's very strong measure, but said the outbreak didn't amount to an international public health emergency yet. the democrats have begun presenting their arguments at the trump impeachment trial. their team leader said the president had clearly abused his powers and obstructed justice in his dealings with ukraine. and this video is trending on bbc.com. this isn't snow. this is sea foam flooding the streets of the town of tossa de mar in spain. it is caused by storm gloria, which is hitting the mediterranean coast. that's all, stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. perhaps it is misleading to describe the unfolding events in the us senate as the impeachment trial of donald trump. after all, this is a process which may well avoid witness testimony, exclude key documents, and it involves jurors who drew their conclusions long ago. nonetheless, it remains an historic moment, likely to have a major impact on us politics. my guest is republican congressman don bacon. will republicans come to regret their unwavering loyalty to donald j trump?

congressman don bacon, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, sir. it's a pleasure to be with you today. let me begin with a simple prime position. if donald trump violated american values, and more specifically violated the us constitution, he should be held to account, shouldn't he? any president that violates the constitution and does high crimes and misdemeanours as it stated in the constitution should be impeached. but i do not think the president has broke— has done the high crimes and misdemeanours, and i think this has

been a totally part is an impeachment. but yes, any president who violates our constitution should be held responsible. so, given the importance of due process, and given the fact that the house of representatives has approved articles of impeachment, how do you feel about a president who calls this the greatest con job in the history of america, a total hoax? well, we have to remember that not a single republican in the house supported it. the evidence wasn't there for an impeachment. we actually had up to four emigrants, depending on which article, that actually voted against their own party on this. my view is that the president should not have said— mentionjoe biden president should not have said— mention joe biden or the president should not have said— mentionjoe biden or the biden ‘s to the president of ukraine, i don't think it was the wise, prudent thing to do. but in the end aid went to the ukrainians a week before the law required. there was no investigation

of the bidens that the president asked for and the ukrainian president said he felt no pressure to do so. and i think if you put those two those three things together, this is not an impeachable offence. i think we can critique and maybe criticise it, but there wasn't a law broken, and in the end, the law was followed by the president. well, you've already peaked my interest by admitting that you think that some of the things donald trump did work, to say the least, unwise. why is it that so many fellow republicans, not least those in the senate who now act as jurors in this trial, are refusing to countenance the idea that donald trump did anything wrong? well, i do find too often, and it happens in other countries as well, and it is part is in debates, that these issues become black or white, 100 or a zero. in my view of it is that i would rather have had the president trump talking to president zelensky about what russia is doing in the donetsk region, what they did in crimea, how

their nefarious actions are undermining ukraine, how we can help them, and what other aid does ukraine need ? them, and what other aid does ukraine need? i would have preferred that kind of level of communication with the president. however, we have to be also candid at the bidens are vulnerable on this. they were not... they are not above the law either. but i don't think this is something for the president to bring up to president zelensky. i don't think it is appropriate to bring up your opponents to other foreign leaders, would be my thing. yes, well, i'm listening carefully to what you're saying, and you say that what trump did was not appropriate. the fact is, the prima facie case suggests it was far worse than not appropriate. there was a quid pro quo at work here. the message from donald trump in thatjuly phone call with president zelensky was quite clear. we need you to do us a favour. do us a favour. those are words directly from the transcript, and the favour was that you have to investigate the

bidens' activities in ukraine, and you have to give us whatever debt you have to give us whatever debt you can on the democratic party's activities in ukraine, before will countenance a meeting from you, mr zelensky, in the white house, or before will release the $400 million of military aid. that is a quid pro quo. well, i think you can make a case for quid, but you can't make a case for quid, but you can't make a case for quid, but you can't make a case for pro quo, because in the end there was no investigation of biden, and the military aid, by the way, aid that president 0bama refused to give, so we are impeaching a president about delaying aid, but the previous president refused to give, but that aid was given a week before the law required. and i would say that the quote you gave, that was right before he asked the ukrainian president to investigate that computer... 0r ukrainian president to investigate that computer... or the firm who may have had data on the e—mails. it was later in the conversation that biden

was brought up. but again, i am not here to defend bringing up the biden family in this phone call. i prefer having conversations at a higher level with foreign leaders. but there was not a law broken. that aid got to ukraine a week before the law required. if i may got to ukraine a week before the law required. ifi may say got to ukraine a week before the law required. if i may say so, congressmen, you know as well as i do, that is irrelevant. as senator richard blumenthal has said just the other day, this case is clear. president trump tried to trade away oui’ president trump tried to trade away our national security for a personal political favour. merely soliciting a bribe is bribery, and ineffective criminals are still criminals. so president zelensky didn't even know that the aid was being withheld during that phone call, and he said himself that he felt no pressure. and so... and there was no investigation. so yes, can we critique the president bringing this 7 critique the president bringing this up? ithink critique the president bringing this up? i think so. i think this is what we have committee hearings for, oversight hearings. but when the

president of ukraine say he felt zero pressure, i didn't even know about... to be honest, congressmen, what mr zelensky. .. it about... to be honest, congressmen, what mr zelensky... it is not releva nt what what mr zelensky... it is not relevant what mr zelensky thought about what was going on. what is clear, from not just about what was going on. what is clear, from notjust the transcript but from all the corroborating evidence we've got from senior diplomats, gordon sunderland, william taylor and many others, is that there was a quid pro quo planned —— sondland. it may not have worked, it may not have been effective, but it was there, and it represents a standard which is high crimes and misdemeanours, certainly according to the house of representatives, and surely what is 110w representatives, and surely what is now needed is a proper, meaningful trial in the senate. well, i think most people disagree with you there, because... well, first the witnesses who were brought in, one, they were very partisan. i mean, one of the witnesses said she couldn't even walk on the same sidewalk with the trump hotel. but the fact is, as you

dug into these committee hearings, almost everyone said it was hearsay, there was assumption, there was presumption. no—one actually had a direct evidence that the president insisted on it. but again, i'm not here to defend the fact that he brought up biden. i do think that we should roll back, though, and part of this discussion in america should be about what the bidens were doing. why was it that hunter biden was getting $15,000 a monthjob to why was it that hunter biden was getting $15,000 a month job to work for the ukrainian company, and anotherjob for the ukrainian company, and another job that for the ukrainian company, and anotherjob that paid even more in china. you earlier on, if i may say so, congressmen... earlier on you said, look, we shouldn't be playing partisan politics with this. you are 110w partisan politics with this. you are now wanting to focus only on the bidens, which seems to me and extremely partisan way of looking at this. i'm asking you a much more fundamental, constitutional point. a constitutional point for you, congressmen. 100 senators stood there the other day in the senate, ifi there the other day in the senate, if i may, congressmen, 100 senators stood up, they took the oath, and they said they would administer impartialjustice. when you have republican senators like james inhofe saying this is going to go

nowhere, period, before a single witness has been called, before any testimony has been heard, what kind ofa testimony has been heard, what kind of a trial is that? it isn't any kind of trial. well, there are certainly senators on both sides who stated their position. senator sanders, who is running for president, has called for his impeachment. senator warren has. president, has called for his impeachment. senatorwarren has. i believe also senator klobuchar. so you have people on both sides of the aisle that have stated their assumptions, whether guilty or not guilty, but you also have some senators who are saying we will listen to the evidence. so by and large the senate... those senators can each be their own jurors large the senate... those senators can each be their ownjurors in this. they can have assumptions or not, they can have... they can listen to this case, what each individual senator thinks is appropriate, and in the end the democrats in the house, who had zero republican votes... by the way, nancy pelosi said she would not do an impeachment if it was not bipartisan, so she was not being

truthful there. she did not do that. but they are going to make their case, they need 67 senators to vote yes if they want impeachment, and it is not going to happen. they do not have their case made. that's why they are on a fishing expedition to bring in more witnesses. because they did not make there case in the house. you say with great confidence it's not going to happen because republicans aren't going to break ranks. does it give you pause for thought when you listen to some... hang on, hang on. if i may, does it give you pause when you hear some very respected conservatives and republicans saying things like this, for example. former 0hio senator, former ohio senatorjohn kasich saying he considers what he has said in the zelensky case inappropriate, it makes me sick to my —— to my stomach and it makes me worry for the white house. do you wonder whether this republican lockstep loyalty to president trump is wise?

well, i'm just being honest. loyalty to president trump is wise? well, i'mjust being honest. i'm loyalty to president trump is wise? well, i'm just being honest. i'm not doing it out of loyalty. i personally do not think that it reached the level of impeachment. my honest view. but i will tell you, though, you have people on the other side, a guy like senator lieberman, a democrat who has been supportive on the other end, or you have dershowitz, who is a democrat who is going to be on the presidential support team. so i think you see people on both sides of the aisle. but i will admit to you this, that it has been largely a part of some. . . it has been largely a part of some... it was clearly partisan in the house. not a single republican voted. there were four democrats who voted. there were four democrats who voted against the party on this, so you have to say if anything the bipartisan vote was a vote no, and not a vote yes. there is a very respected conservative thinker, commentator, called brett stevens, he used to work for the wall street journal. he's gone to the new york times, but nonetheless he still very much a conservative, and he says this. what republicans are now doing with their lockstep opposition to impeachment, and with their indifference to the behaviour that

brought impeachment about, is not actually conservative. it is the abdication of principle to power. and i would think differently about it if trump had shown any contrition, or if republicans had shown any inclination to censor him. but trump hasn't, and they haven't. you may live to regret that —— censure. well, i know that house democrats had the opportunity to do a censure, refused. they have been talking impeachment before the president even gave his oath, back in 2017. this has been a foregone conclusion by the house leadership, where they wanted to go. but i will return fire on this and say this. this impeachment is now lowering the barfor this impeachment is now lowering the bar for the future. if you are going to bea bar for the future. if you are going to be a majority party in the house and you don't like the president, i think impeachments are going to become more likely, and i think this degrades our constitution, and it degrades our constitution, and it degrades the stability of our country. you are going to have to make that case in the forthcoming november election, because you are up november election, because you are upfor november election, because you are up for re—election. i think you won bya up for re—election. i think you won by a couple of percentage points

last time. you sit in... your district is 0maha, which has a lot of sort of floating voters. the polls suggest, the latest one, 501% of americans believe that trump should be removed from office. this could be a problem for you. well, there were several polls. 0nepoll, i agree with you, had that. another poll showed also a little over 50% disagreed with impeachment. but i would say, in a purple district, we are sitting at about 60% opposing. we got to remember that 51% includes san francisco, new york, city, in general the independent voters have turned against impeachment. because the democrats really did not make their case. this was a part as an impeachment, frankly, and the independent voters were leaning towards impeachment two months ago are now about 60—40 against impeachment. and in a purple district like mine, that makes a big difference. are you proud of this president? you have expressed to me some quite honest reservations about the way he conducted himself in

honest, toughest. you are a former military guy. you ended your career in the air force as a general. can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the last three years have made you proud of your president? there are some areas that i am very proud of, but there's also some areas i critiqued. i'm not 100% or 0%, of, but there's also some areas i critiqued. i'm not100% or 0%, a total black or a total white, and these kinds of issues. i'm proud of these kinds of issues. i'm proud of the military, that we've stood up and made stronger. i'm proud of the jerusalem embassy move. i'm proud of the best economy that we had in 50 yea rs. the best economy that we had in 50 years. but i am not proud of the name—calling and the lowering of the dialogue that we have. it's notjust the president, but i want the president to do better. but we see it on both sides. i have an opponent here in nebraska that says arrest him for treason. i would just say that we are seeing both sides get too polarised, and we are treating fellow americans are on opposite sides of the aisle as not being american, and i don't think that's healthy. so there is something so very proud of, some other things i am not, and i'd like to do... and i

think we should be doing better. un—pick a little bit of president trump's impact on the world. you, as isaid, trump's impact on the world. you, as i said, were a serving air force men and were involved in military operations in iraq a few years ago and you have watched very carefully what president trump has done in the middle east in particular, and recently we saw the assassination of qasem soleimani, the most prominent general running the quds force of the revolutionary guard in iran. i'm confused, is president trump a guy who wants to end the forever was, as he put it, that us forces have been fighting in the middle east and elsewhere, or is he a guy that sowing the seeds for a more violent confrontation with americans in the middle east? i think his heart is he wa nts to middle east? i think his heart is he wants to get out of these wars, but i think the facts on the ground are forcing him to have to rethink through that and i stand a little differently than the president's gut feeling. i think we need a minimal presence in iraq and afghanistan

because we don't want the taliban to come. . . because we don't want the taliban to come... they will take over kabul, they will harbour terrorists again like they did in 2001. if we pull out of iraq we will see isis take over west iraq and eastern syria again and export terrorism to europe and america. the facts on the ground have forced the president to go against what his instincts are, and thatis against what his instincts are, and that is to pull out some of those countries. if we pull out it will give a bigger problem down the road and we will have to come back. give a bigger problem down the road and we will have to come backm give a bigger problem down the road and we will have to come back. if i may, congressman, sorry to interrupt, congressmen, there is a little delay on the line but if i may, by your own analysis the assassination of soleimani was a disastrous mistake because it's put enormous pressure on the iraqi government to tell us forces to get the heck out of iraq as soon as possible. even if they don't, we know they are now hamstrung. they are so busy protecting themselves from potential attack in iraq they aren't able to work with iraqi forces on the counter isis operation. by any measure, president

trump's decision—making was a disaster. not by my measure, sir. general soleimani was a terrible killer. if i was president, i would have ordered the same targeting of this guy who killed 609 americans in iraq. 0ne this guy who killed 609 americans in iraq. one was to many, 609... justice was served. by the way, i must add, he killed a higher percentage... 70% of our fatalities in iraq were from general soleimani and his iranian militias operating in iraq. a higher percentage of british were killed by the quds force operatives in iraq than al-qaeda than our forces stop general soleimani killed westerners, our fellow general soleimani killed westerners, ourfellow americans, general soleimani killed westerners, our fellow americans, our allies, for a long time and i served in iraq in 2007 and i was studying general money at that and what he was doing to our forces money at that and what he was doing to ourforces there... money at that and what he was doing to our forces there... justice was served. we have do restore deterrence because he didn't think

we we re deterrence because he didn't think we were going to fight back. are not discussing whether soleimani was a goodbye or bad guy, i'm talking about wisdom and long—term strategic interest and i'm struggling to how america is assassinating soleimani a few days backisin assassinating soleimani a few days back is in america's long—term strategic interest. i would note the word assassination is the exact words iranians are using and i don't think that's the appropriate term. this guy is a terrorist and we identified him as a terrorist under president 0bama. he killed 609 americans. if we didn't show we were resolved to fight back after killing the 690 american then he would feel entitled to do it again and again and he's been doing that for 20 yea rs. we and he's been doing that for 20 years. we had to restore deterrence and that's what we've done. i stand by this operation. we can't take punches to the face and not return fire. one other question on trump's foreign policy, is very interesting that trump seems to find it easier

to get along with authoritarians and dictators than he does, for example, democratic allies in europe. to quote william burns, one of america's most experienced, 35 years and counting, so much for the power of america's example, so much for our credibility. that is a very damning indictment of what trump's america has done to america's reputation on the world stage. america has done to america's reputation on the world stagelj america has done to america's reputation on the world stage. i do think that president donald trump should be more careful. if he has a critique of france or great britain or whoever it may be, i think it should be done in private. i have not supported some of the comments made but also note that there have been many countries who feel that our policy has been much better in nato. i would say like in poland, for example, or the baltic states. it's not every country feeling the same way. i do not defend some of

the president's comments towards some of our best allies and i don't think of the president's statement or comments towards putin or kim jong—un, they would not be the comments i would make, but i would point out his policies have been right. i would separate the policy, which i think has been good towards russia, good towards korea, there's a sum of the statements that i would not have supported either and would not have supported either and would not have supported either and would not have made myself. let's talk one specific policy before we end that has huge resonance around the world, president trump's attitude towards climate change and the paris agreement and america doing its bit to cut emissions. he went to davos just the other day. he hit out at the "prophets of doom with their predictions of the apocalypse. " he said there nothing more than the heirs of yesterday's fortune tellers. this is the world scientific community he's talking about, do you think that's wise?|j

agree again with some of the policies of president donald trump but i think we should have stayed in the paris accords or paris agreement there because we had the chance to renegotiate. there were volatile own targets there and we could have modified that i think we would have been better at the table working with the rest of the world on this stop eic his comments directed towards the far left in our country who want to pursue a socialist agenda with climate change. they wa nt to agenda with climate change. they want to do a government run top down approach and really change the way we work stop me they want to carbon taxes, they want to make it harder to fly from new york. there are better ways to a better environmental... congress, for a man who said he didn't like toxic parties and politics again you seem to be resorting to partisan pointscoring. the fact is 97% of the world's scientific community agrees

climate change is man—made, it is urgent, it is now an emergency. the us it seems to me is fundamentally isolated in having a president and a substantial number of its senior politicians who still deny man—made climate change. some do, i don't. i know there is man—made influences, plus there are cyclical things that occur, however i would say and point out that america has had the biggest reduction in carbon output than any country in the world. i would ask you, if you're going to report, show a complete picture here because america has made a huge impact. we see our carbon footprint... mainly because of national gas and in our city of omaha, 40% of our energy is from wind and most people don't know that. weave maitre mendis improvements in our own country and i support carbon —— we've made tremendous. carbon goes into the atmosphere and you can use that

carbon for other uses, such as plastics and sulphur. if i may end with this thought, because we're almost out of time, one more thought, some of america's most important business voices, larry think, chief executive of blackrock, have taken aim at the trump administration and said unless we get to grips with the reality of climate change, we are going to be overseeing an economic crisis. do you think corporate america is going to force the trump administration to change tack on climate change? we've already seen the reality on the ground. america has had the biggest reduction in carbon and its been because of technology and really because of technology and really because of technology and really because of the free markets. our citizens are demanding a cleaner environment and the business community is meeting that, but we cannot fall... i'm going to say it again, it's not partisan, it is the truth, the far left ear want to double your airfares, they want to add huge taxes to people's heating

and air—conditioning and want to change our quality—of—life. there's a better way of going about this and we are pursuing that now with great impact. don bacon, congressman, i thank you very much indeed forjoining me from 0maha. thank you. hello there. wednesday was a rather grey and gloomy day for most of us — misty and murky with some spots of drizzle. there were a few brighter spells, particularly eastern scotland and north—east england, and i think today's looking pretty similar — most places cloudy and limited spells of brightness. we've still got our area of high pressure, it's getting squeezed out as lower pressure's pushing in from the north and from the south.

this weather front will be pushing to the north—west of scotland to bring outbreaks of rain. but it's going to be another very grey day. there could be some dense fog patches in places, particularly england and wales, and some of the cloud might be thick enough for the odd spot of light rain or drizzle. much like wednesday, it's probably eastern scotland and north—east england where we'll see the best of any brightness. we could see a little bit as well across the south—west of england. for most of us, the winds will be winds but stronger in north—west scotla nd as that weather front moves in. there will be a stronger easterly blowing through the english channel. those temperatures, hovering around eight or nine for most, could see 10 or 11 in the brighter spots of north—east scotland. this weather front pushes further south with rain heavy on it as it continues to go south, but it tends to weaken and elsewhere a rather cloudy night with spots of drizzle and a bit of mist and murk and again a largely frost—free one because of the cloud cover. a few sheltered spots in north—east england and north—east scotland, could turn chilly.

friday will be similar sort of day. with our low of high pressure with us, it's going to be a rather grey and gloomy one with temperatures eight or nine degrees. that is how we are looking on friday but out of friday and into the weekend, we start to see some changes. low pressure starts to push into the north—west of the country. for england and wales, you'll still notice not many isobars around so another day of light winds here and quite a bit of cloud. further north—west, for scotland and northern ireland, it will be a breezier day and we'll start to that weather front pushing into the north—west of scotland. could be as well because of the breeze mixing up the air, we could see some brightness for scotland and northern ireland but a rather cloudy day for most. those temperatures, 7—10. as you move through saturday night into sunday, that weather front begins to push eastwards, slowly sliding across the country and you'll notice more isobars on the chart for sunday. so it's going to be a breezeier day, or windier day, for us all, particularly in the north—west. this weather front moving eastwards will bring outbreaks of patchy rain, the odd heavier burst on it as it moves across england and wales. brighter skies in scotland and northern

ireland but here there will have blustery showers and they will be wintry and quite cool over high ground, nine or 11 in the south—east. then as we head into following week could be unsettled, a deep low bringing gales and a spell of wet weather earlier in the week.

welcome to newsday on the bbc. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: a city in lockdown — chinese officials say the people of wuhan cannot travel, as they try to contain the spread of a deadly virus. at the trump impeachment trial the us senate hears the opening arguments as the prosecution makes the case against the president. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme. judges at the international court are to rule on whether six hundred thousand rohingya muslims living in myanmar still face the threat of genocide. and the pakistani prime minister defends comparing the indian government to the nazis, in a wide—ranging interview.