, more more about that. , more about that. the will speak more about that. the content will speak more about that. the co nte nt of will speak more about that. the content of the july 25 corps was will speak more about that. the content of thejuly 25 corps was in line with the trump administration ‘s legitimate concerns about corruption and reflected the hope that president zelensky, who campaigned ona that president zelensky, who campaigned on a platform of reform, would finally clean up ukraine. what wasn't discussed on thejuly 25 call? there was no discussion of the paused security assistance on the july 25 call. house democrats keep pointing to the statement that i would like to thank you for your great support in the area of defence. but he wasn't talking there, about the paused security assistance. he tells news the next sentence what he was talking about. javelin missiles. we already he

continues, to continue to co—operate for the next step specifically we are ready to buy more javelins from the us for defence purposes. javelins are the anti—tank missiles only made available to the ukrainians by president trump. president obama refused to give them them for year, javelin sales were not part, were not part of the security assistance paused at the time of the call. jaif lynn sales. is studio: that is live coverage coming from the senate in washington dc. this is part of president trump's impeach. defence that is currently taking place. lawyers for the president have begun presenting their defence in his impeachment trial. hoping of course to show he is innocent of the two articles of impeachment that have been put before him. let us get the latest from our correspondent chris buckler in washington for us. so, chris, just, give us the main take aways

from what we have heard so far from the senate floor? yes, a reminder we have had three days of prosecution, in which the democrats have set their case out against donald trump, that he abused his power and that he tried to obstruct the work of congress as they investigated that. now what we have had now, is the defence, stand up to the plate, and donald trump's own legal team set out for a start why they believe he did absolutely nothing wrong. now, it is just the beginning, did absolutely nothing wrong. now, it isjust the beginning, and did absolutely nothing wrong. now, it is just the beginning, and they have up to 2a hours to make their case, although they have indicated that they are not going to need all of that time. they believe this is pretty straightforward, and already we are getting a sense that actually, the best form of defence in donald trump's case seems to be an attack on the democrats, there are suggesting from those opening words and his lawyers are suggesting this could be something like a coming attraction, a trailer for what is to come. they will suggest the democrats have just been out on

a political witch hunt against the president, and of course that echoes some of what he has tweeted throughout this whole process, but what they will say is that although the democrats suggest that he was in a position, where as president he tried to withhold military aid to ukraine, and that was hundreds of the president, and of course that echoes some of what he has tweeted throughout this whole process, but what they will say is that although the democrats suggest that he was in a position, where as president he tried to withhold military aid to ukraine, and that was hundreds of millions of $s to ukraine that was vital for the country's security, while they will suggest he tried to withhold that aid, to try to force the country into launching investigations into his political opponents, that first of all, that aid was eventually paid and secondly he was only interested in investigating corruption, and that may be an indication they intend to focus on joe biden may be an indication they intend to focus onjoe biden and his son hunter who had been business dealings in the country and start to make suggestions to debt the democrats, we are at early stages be but you get a sense that donald trump's legal team will come out fighting. i don't know if you have been keeping an eye of course on the

time line, the all—important donald trump time line, what has his reaction been today? yes, i haven't seen any tweets from him, yet, today, but certainly, he has been tweeting about what has been going on and furiously retweeting, all of those republicans who have been critical of the democrats. and actually he has been talking in recent days about this suggestion, that there could be what's known as a witness swap. so there is this real frustration with the democrats up real frustration with the democrats up to this point, they have not been able to subpoena evidence from the white house and the state department and other arms of the administration, they also want to try to get witnesses into the senate, in order to question them, about what happened. and there are some potentially interesting people there, for example the former national security adviserjohn bolton who left the white house under a bit of a cloud and subsequently has been suggested he had real concerns about what was happening between the trump administration, and ukraine. now,

republicans have blocked that so far, but there have been the suggestion that democrats and republicans could have a trade and republicans could have a trade and republicans could have a trade and republicans could get a witness if democrats go one of there, who republicans want to speak to among others is isjoe biden whose son did have business dealings in ukraine and was being paid a huge amount of money as his father was vice president and looking after the country. now, they will want to throw a lot of mud against the bidens and have suggested if you we re bidens and have suggested if you were to speak tojohn bolten we could speak to hunter biden but the president has been mocking that idea, suggesting that the democrats don't want any of that inside the senate, that rather they would want this to all go away, and i suspect the president is watching from the white house very closely indeed, although he is said to be concerned all of his defence is beginning on ard is a. he calls that a death valley for tv ratings and ultimately

he wants many people watching this, and that is partly because he doesn't just have his and that is partly because he doesn'tjust have his eye on this impeachment trial, he also has his eye on that presidential election thatis eye on that presidential election that is coming in november. eye on that presidential election that is coming in novemberlj eye on that presidential election that is coming in november. i will let you return your eye on proceedings chris, at the senate for now, thank you very much for that. thank you very much. michael gold fab is with me here in the studio. what did you make of what you have heard so far. there is not a lot that surprising but there are some things, they are questionables in the approach. what i found interesting is talking about burden sharing, that if you look at the full va ns sharing, that if you look at the full vans crypt of what the president was doing he was talking about sharing the burden, which is what he does, his entire foreign policy as it comes to europe and american security is to get the europeans to pay up, that is why he has made such, ruffled so many feathers at nato by saying you

aren't paying your 2% annual dues to be part of the security umbrella, you have to share the burden. the problem here is that this was, this, it muddies the waters i think, because, you know, the congress appropriate rated this close to $400 million for ukrainian defence, and one thing has nothing to do with the other. nor can you look at that transcript and not think that the burden sharing was the main reason form the call, that is what he wa nted form the call, that is what he wanted to discuss, and you know, he didn't mention that the whole situation arose because a whistle—blower, working on the national security council who overheard the conversation, said this is not, this is not right. and so this is not, this is not right. and so there were those concerns so he ignored those. but as i said at the start of the hour, and i think it

bears repeating again, this is not the case is not being prevented to persuade, you know, the 60% of the american population that probably won't want to volt for him in november, this is a —— vote. that play for an audience primarily of one, donald trump in the white house who will be watching, but it is also to provide lines of conversation in the network of i don't like to use the network of i don't like to use the word information because it doesn't seem to me to be accurate, but in those sources of news, and information, that trump supporters go to like fox news, like christian broadcast network news one of his lawyers we will probably hear from today, does a show on christian broadcast network news. these, that is who they are playing to. those are to be, you know, digested and turned into sound bites for those

people so when they go out and meet someone people so when they go out and meet someone who say trump should be impeached they can say what about this? this was a call about burden sharing, trying to clarify for them, thatis sharing, trying to clarify for them, that is very much the strategy as well as what any defence team does, obfuscate and try and make the evidence which the prosecution say is less loo clear. what about this line of attack, that the democrats are trying to undo an election, they are trying to undo an election, they are trying to get rid of democratic choice, is this going to strike a chord? i don't think so, i mean, the constitution provides for impeachment, for high crimes and my demeanour, doesn't undo and election, anybody who maintains an open mind, and thinks about it, knows that in 2018, when the democrats took over the house of representatives, nancy pelosi became speaker of the house and she did everything in her power not to have this. she didn't want an peachment,

but when the facts of this call to the ukraine and what was happening with this appropriate rated money by congress —— impeachment. so ukraine would dig up dirt onjoe biden, i think that at that point her hand was forced. so, no, it doesn't. you know, remember, he lost by three million vote, if you are throwing thelet bahs million vote, if you are throwing thelet ba hs out, million vote, if you are throwing thelet bahs out, whose votes are you throwing out, right? who are we watching here, this is michael poporo. by claiming to be mind readers, they know what is in president zelensky‘s mind better than president zelensky does. president zelensky said he felt no pressure, the house managers tell you they know better. this is really a theme of the house case. i want you to remember this. every time the

democrats say that president trump made demands or issued a quid pro quo to president zelensky on the july 25 call, they are saying that president zelensky and his top advisers are being untruthful. and they acknowledge that is what they are saying, they have said it over the past few days. tell me how that helps us foreign policy, and national security, to say that about ourfriends? we national security, to say that about our friends? we know national security, to say that about ourfriends? we know there national security, to say that about our friends? we know there was national security, to say that about ourfriends? we know there was no quid pro quo on the call, we know that from the transcript. but the call was not the only evidence showing that there was no quid pro quo. there couldn't possibly have been a quid pro quo because the ukrainians did not even know that the security assistance was on hold, until it was reported in the media, by politico at the end of august, more than a month after thejuly 25

call. think about this. the democrats accused the president of leveraging security assistance, to supposedly force president zelensky to announce investigations, but how can that possibly be, when the ukrainians were not even aware that the security assistance was paused? there can't be a threat without the person knowing he has been threatened. there can't be a quid pro quo without the quo. empass score voker said the ukrainians did not know about it. ambassador taylor agreed. deputy assistant secretary of stategeorge kent testified that new ukrainian official contacted him about the paused security assistance until september. september. let us hear from the four of them. them. that date is the first time any of

them asked me about the hold, by forwarding an article published in politico. it was after august 29th i got calls from several of the ukrainian officials. you mentioned the august 28th politico article, was that the first time you believed the ukrainians may have had a real sense that the aid was on hold? yes. had you had any ukrainian official contacting you, when was the first time a ukrainian official contacted you concerned about potential withholding of aid? after the article s in politico company came out in september. it wasn't until the politico article? that is correct. i received a text message on august 29th forwarding that article 50 and that is the first they raised with with me. the house manager didn't show this testimony

from any of these witnesses, why not? why didn't they give you the context of this testimony? think about this as well. if the ukrainians had been wear of the review on security assistance, they of course would have said something. there were numerous high level diplomatic meetings between senior ukrainian and us officials during the summer, after the review on the security assistance, began, but before president zelensky learned of the hold through the politico article 50. if they had known about the hold they would have raised it ina the hold they would have raised it in a meeting yet the ukrainians didn't say anything about the hold ata didn't say anything about the hold at a single one of those meet, not onjuly 9, 10 at a single one of those meet, not onjuly 9,10 orjuly 25, not on july 26, not on august 27th. at none of those meetings, none of those meetings did the ukrainians mention

the pause on security assistance. ambassador voker testified he was regularly in touch with the senior highest level officials in the ukrainian government and ukrainian officials would confide things and would have asked if they had any questions about the aid. nobody said a word to ambassador volker until the end of august. within hours of the end of august. within hours of the article being posted the ambassador was texted with a link to the article. in other words, as soon as the ukrainians learned about the hold, they asked about it. now, mr schiff said something during the 21 hours he and his team spoke, that i actually agree with. which is when he talked about common sense. many of us at the tables and in the room

are former prosecutors. at the state federal or military level. prosecutors talk a lot about common—sense. common—sense comes into place right here. the top ukrainian official said nothing, nothing at all to their us cou nterpa rts nothing at all to their us counterparts during all of these meetings about the pause on security assistance but then, boom, soon as the politico article comes out, suddenly, in that first intense week of september, in george kent's words, security assistance was all they wanted to talk about. what must we conclude if we are using our common—sense? that they didn't know about the pause until the politico article on august 28. 0 article comes out. flurry of activity. that is common—sense. and it fate toll the house manager's case. the house managers are aware that the ukrainians lack of knowledge on the hold is fatal to their case. so they

have desperately tried to muddy the water. the managers told you that kept any secretary of defence presented two e—mails, two that people on her staff received from people on her staff received from people at the state department, regarding conversations with people at the ukraine embassy, that could have been about us security assistance to ukraine. what they did not tell you, is that miss cooper testified she could not say for certain whether the e—mails were about the pause on security assistance. she couldn't say one way or the other. she also testified that she didn't want to speculate about the meaning of the words in the e—mails. the house managers didn't tell you miss cooper testified that i reviewed my calendar and the only meeting where ican calendar and the only meeting where i can recall a ukrainian official raising the issue of security assistance with me is on september

5th at the ukrainian independence day celebration, the house managers didn't tell you that. the house managers also mentioned one of ambassador voker‘s adviser claimed the embassy officials learned about the embassy officials learned about the pause earlier, but asked when she heard from the officials she admitted she can't remember those specifics and did not think she took notes, miss croft did not remember when news of the hold became public. remember, though, that the ambassador, her boss, who was in regular contact with president zele ns ky regular contact with president zelensky and the top ukrainian aides was clear that i believe the ukrainians became aware of the hold on august 29 and not before. this is all the house managers have. in contrast, to testimony of volker, taylor, morrison, and kent. the text from, the words of the high ranking

ukrainians themselves and the flurry of activity on august 28th and that is the evidence that they want you to consider as a basis to remove the duly elected president of the united states. the bottom line is it is not possible for the breitscheidplatz security assistance review to have been used as rev alan when president zele ns ky been used as rev alan when president zelensky and other top ukrainian officials did not know about it. that is what you need to o know. that is what you need to o know. that is what the house managers didn't tell you. when we mentioned ita didn't tell you. when we mentioned it a few days ago they told us we needed to check our facts. we did. we are right. president zelensky and his top aides did not know about the, it and did his top aides did not know about the, itand did not his top aides did not know about the, it and did not know until august 28 when the article was published. we know there was no quid pro quo on july published. we know there was no quid pro quo onjuly 25 call, we know the

ukrainians did not know security assistance had not been paused, there was no evidence anywhere, that president trump ever linked security assistance to any investigations, most of the democrats witnesses have never spoken to the president at all. let alone about ukraine security assistance. the two people in the house record who asked president trump about whether there was any linkage between security assistance and investigations were told in no uncertain terms there is no connection between the two. when ambassador of the european union two people in the house record who asked president trump about whether there was any linkage between security assistance and investigations were told in no uncertain terms there is no connection between the two. when ambassador of the european union asked, the president told him "i wa nt asked, the president told him "i want nothing, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo." even earlier, on august 31, the president was asked if there was any detection between security six nations and investigation, the president said no way, i would investigation, the president said no way, iwould never do

investigation, the president said no way, i would never do that, who told you that? two witnesses, ambassador taylor and tim morrison said they came to believe security assistance was linked to investigations, but, both witnesses based this belief entirely on what they heard from ambassador sonland before he spoke to the president. neither taylor nor morrison ever spoke to the president about the matter. how did the ambassador come to believe that there was any connection between security assistance and investigations? again, the house managers didn't tell you. why not? in his public testimony ambassador sonland used the word, presume, assume, guess, speculate over 30 times. here are some examples that was my presumption. that was my belief. that was my presumption. i

presume that might have to be done in orderto presume that might have to be done in order to get the aid released. it was a presumption. i have been clear as to when i was presuming, and i was presuming on the aide aid. it would be pure, you know, guesswork on my part, i don't know. that was the problem mr goldman, no—one told me to that the aid was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. didn't show you any of this testimony. not once during their 21 hour presentation, 21 hours, more than 21 hours. and they couldn't give you the context to evaluate ambassador sondland. they have the support, the alleged link between security assistance and investigations, is the ambassadors presumptions and assumption, we remember this ex kieng change.“ presumptions and assumption, we remember this ex kieng change. is it correct no—one on this planet told

you that donald trump was trying this aid to the investigations, because if you answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong and the headline is wrong. no—one on this planet told you that president trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no? yes. so so you really have no testimony today that tied president trump toa testimony today that tied president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for investigations? other than my own presumption. when he was done presuming, assuming is and guessing, the ambassador decided to ask president trump directly, what does the president want from ukraine? here is the answer president trump when i asked him the open ended question as i testified previously, what do you want from ukraine? his answer was i want no, i want no quid pi’o answer was i want no, i want no quid pro quo, tell zelensky to do the right thing. that is all i got from president trump. the president trump

was unequivocal. ambassador sondland stated that was the final word he heard from the president. he texted the ambassador, the president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any been crystal clear, no quid pro quos ofany kind. been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. if you are sceptical of ambassador sondland's testimony, it was corroborated by the statement of one of your colleagues senator johnson. senatorjohnson had heard from ambassador sondland that the security assistance might be linked to the investigations, so on august 31 senatorjohnson asked the president directly whether there was some kind of arrangement where ukraine would take action and the hold would be lifted. again president trump's answer was crystal clear, no way. i would never president trump's answer was crystal clear, no way. iwould never do that. who told you that? as senator johnson wrote i have characterised his reaction as adamant, vehement and angry.

they didn't tell you about that letter. why not? the democrats entire quid pro quo theory is based on nothing more than the initial speculation of one person, ambassador sondland. that speculation is wrong. despite the democrats's hopes the ambassador‘s mistaken belief does not become true merely because he reepeted it. many times —— repeated it. many times and a p pa re ntly times —— repeated it. many times and apparently to many people. under secretary of state david hale, george kent and ambassador volker testified there was i know connection twine security assistance and investigation, here is ambassador volker. you believe the policy issues were valid, correct. yes. did the president ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid to the united states to go to

the ukraine unless there were investigations into the bidens or the 26 elections? 50 investigations into the bidens or the 26 elections? so no he did not. did the ukrainians tell you they understand they would not get a meeting with the president a phone call with the president, military aid or foreign call with the president, military aid orforeign aid call with the president, military aid or foreign aid from the us unless they undertook investigations of the bidens or the 26th elections? no, they did not. studio: you are watching us here on bbc news as we follow the impeachment trial. this is donald trump's defence, presentation, that we are currently witnesses on a saturday sitting of the opening of the senate house. white house council at the —— counsel, lining out president trump's defence, and essentially six key facts they will argue over a 24 hours period. today, is three hours, and the rest of that

period will be spread out over the week, we are going to be coming back to this, live, here on bbc news, i have my guest with me in the studio, you can carry on watching this on bbc parliament but also online via the bbc news website. in the meantime to get us to the top of the hour, we are going to catch up of the hour, we are going to catch up with the weather, here is ben. we have more cloudy gloomy weather, having said that the cloud did break up having said that the cloud did break upforafew having said that the cloud did break up for a few places, to reveal a little bit of sunshine, generally speaking we have been under this haze of grey, this layer of low cloud with drizzle. things are about to change because this stripe of bright white cloud on the earlier picture is a frontal system, which will bring some outbreaks of rain, you can see that weather front starting to move in this evening and tonight, getting into western scotla nd tonight, getting into western scotland and northern ireland, ahead of that still large areas of cloud,

mist and murk, the odd drizzly shower here and there. it will become increasingly breezy so not especially cold, most places between three and seven degrees. so, for tomorrow it is all about this frontal system. it is a cold front, it is going to bring rain but as the name suggests behind it, it will introduce some colder air, so here comes the band of rain staggering eastwards through tomorrow. 0f comes the band of rain staggering eastwards through tomorrow. of that, a bit of brightn't and east anglia and the south—east will stay dry until the mid afternoon, behind our rain band the skies become significantly brighter, we see sunshine but we will see showers, wintry over modest hills in scotland, because it is going to be, yes, windy but an increasingly cold day, temperatures coming down through the day, across parts of western scotland and northern ireland. still holding on to double dingities to the south and east. sunday night we are keeping a close eye on this. these showers could

give some snow to relatively low levels, not necessarily anything too widespread but in some places snow and ice could cause problems for the monday moving commute. through the day on monday, it is the sunshine and showers day, most plentiful in the west. wintry up to the north, persistent rain through the english channel it will be windy. a windy day generally on monday, and those temperatures a bit lower, four degrees in aberdeen, maybe up to eight or nine in cardiff and in london. as we look o further ahead we stick with that chilly sunshine and showers theme. a drier day for wednesday, it turns milderfor the end of the

this is bbc news. the headlines: lawyers representing president donald trump set out their defence of the us leader in his impeachment trial. they are asking you to do something that no senate has ever done. they are asking you to do it with no evidence. and that is wrong, and i ask you to keep that in mind. the death toll from the coronavirus rises to 41, with authorities in china struggling to contain the outbreak, as millions travel for the lunar new year. there are now known cases of the virus in france and australia, and a state of emergency has been declared in hong kong. a charity offering mental health support to military veterans, says it can't take on new cases because of a funding crisis.