public transport has been closed down in the chinese city of wuhan as the virus astronomy can taint. millions have already travelled for the lunar new year holiday. in washington, democrats are presenting their arguments at the impeachment trial of donald trump, accusing him of in each shipment were the abuse of in each shipment were the abuse of powers. his defence team will soon present their arguments. these describe the proceedings as a sherrard. authorities in spain are searching for four people since storm gloria caused destruction across the east of the country. powerful storm front is so far killed nine people and is causing flooding in southern france.

now on bbc news, hardtalk — stephen sackur talks to republican congressman don bacon. 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, in omaha, nebraska, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, sir.

congressman don bacon, in omaha, nebraska, 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's 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 partisan 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 democrats, depending on which article, that actually voted against their own party on this. my view is that the president should not have said —

mentioned joe biden or the bidens to president zelensky. 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 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 piqued my interest by admitting that you think that some of the things donald trump did were, 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, in these partisan debates, that these issues become black or white, 100 or a zero. and my view of it is that i would rather have had 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. i would have preferred that kind of level of communication with the president. however, we have to be also candid that 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's 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

dirt you can on the democratic party's activities in ukraine, before we'll countenance a meeting from you, mr zelensky, in the white house, or before we'll 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 pro quo, because in the end there was no investigation of biden, and the military aid — by the way, aid that president obama refused to give, so we're 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 — 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 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 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 up? i think so. i think this is what we have committee hearings for, oversight hearings. but when the president of ukraine says he felt zero pressure,

i didn't even know about... to be honest, congressmen, what mr zelensky — it's not relevant what mr zelensky thought 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 sondland, william taylor and many others, is that there was a quid pro quo planned. 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 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 a trump hotel. but the fact is, as you dug into these committee hearings, almost everything said was hearsay. there was assumption, there was presumption. no—one actually had 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 a $15,000—a—monthjob to work for the ukrainian company, and anotherjob that paid even more in china. earlier on, if i may say so, congressman, earlier on you said look, we shouldn't be playing 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... if i may, congressmen, 100 senators stood up, they took the oath,

and they said they would administer impartial justice. 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 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, 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 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 if they're going to make their case, they need 67 senators to vote yes if they want impeachment, and it's not

going to happen. they do not have their case made. that's why they're on a fishing expedition to bring in more witnesses, because they did not make their 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 said in the zelensky case inappropriate. it makes me sick to my stomach, it was completely inappropriate, 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. 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 partisan — it was clearly partisan in the house. not a single republican 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 bret stephens. he used to work for the wall streetjournal. he's gone to the new york times, but nonetheless he's 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 censure him. but trump hasn't, and they haven't. you may live to regret that. 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 bar for the future. if you're 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 the stability of our country. you are going to have to make that case in the forthcoming november election, because you

are 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, 51% of americans believe that trump should be removed from office. this could be a problem for you. well, there were several polls. 0ne poll, 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're sitting at about 60% opposing. we've 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 partisan impeachment, frankly, and the independent voters who were leaning towards impeachment two months ago are now about 60—110 against impeachment. and, in a purple district like mine, that makes a big difference. well are you proud of this president? you have expressed to me some quite honest reservations about the way he conducted himself. 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%, a total black or a total white, in these kinds of issues. i'm proud of the military, that we've stood up and made stronger. i'm proud of thejerusalem embassy move. i'm proud of 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 who are on opposite sides of the aisle as not being american, and i don't think that's healthy. so there are some things i'm very proud of, some other things i am not, and i'd like to do... and i think we should be doing better.

let's un—pick a little bit of donald trump's impact on the world. you, as i said, were a serving air forcemnn and were involved in military operations in iraq a few years ago, you've 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 wars, 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 involving the americans in the mid 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 if we don't, we'll have the taliban come — they'll take over kabul, they'll harbour terrorists again like they did in 2001. if we pull out of iraq we will see isis take over western iraq and eastern syria again and export terrorism to europe and america. so i think the facts on the ground have forced the president to go against what his instincts are, and that's to pull out. he doesn't want us in those countries. if we pull out it will give a bigger problem down the road and we will have to come back. i think he's found a spot where i'm more comfortable. 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 what it's done is 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're so busy protecting themselves from potential attack in iraq, they're not able to work with iraqi forces on the counter—isis operation. so, by any measure, donald trump's decision—making was a disaster.

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

i'm not discussing whether soleimani was a good guy or a bad guy, i'm talking about wisdom and i'm talking about long—term strategic interest, and i'm struggling to how america 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. we identified him as a terrorist under president obama. he killed 609 americans. if we didn't show we had resolved to fight back after killing the 609th american, then he would feel entitled to do it again and again and again and that's what he's been doing 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 with, for example, democratic allies in europe.

to quote william burns, one of america's most experienced diplomats of 35 years standing, "for dictators, trump is the gift that keeps on giving. 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. 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 will 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 our best allies, and i also don't think of the president's statements or comments towards putin or kim jong—un, for example, 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, or would not have made myself. alright, let's talk one specific policy before we end that has huge resonance around the world, that's donald 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 they're "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?

i 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 voluntary targets there and we could have modified that, so i would have thought we would have been better at the table working with the rest of the world on this. i see his comments directed towards the far left in our country who want to use climate change to pursue a very a socialist agenda. they want to do a government—run, top—down approach and really change the way we work. they want to carbon taxes, they want to make it harder to fly from 0maha to new york. there are better ways to a better environmental... congressman, for a man who said he didn't like toxic partisan 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 to, 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 natural gas and in our city of omaha, 40% of our energy is from wind and most people don't know that. we've made tremendous improvements in our own country and i support carbon capture where you capture that carbon before goes into the atmosphere and you can use that carbon for other uses,

such as plastics and so forth. there are smarter ways to go about this. 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 fink, 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 it's been because of technology and really because of the free markets. 0ur 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 here 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 with 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 scotland 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 those temperatures around 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. we could see a deep low bringing gales and a spell of wet weather early in the week.

hello. this is the briefing. 0ur hello. this is the briefing. our top story: shutting down a city. as they struggled to contain a deadly virus, chinese officials say the 11 million people of wuhan must not travel. democrats set out the details of their case against president trump, on the second day of his impeachment trial. the devastation of storm gloria. four people still missing after severe weather batters spain. in business, trading threats. tensions rise in davos as the us warns it could hit written‘s carmakers with tariffs over its plans for attack tax on the lake of facebook. —— on the likes of