this is bbc news, broadcasting in the uk and around the world. i'm samantha simmonds. our top stories... the us senate reconvenes for the fifth and potentially final day of donald trump's second impeachment trial. republicans are expected to acquit the former president on the charge of inciting insurrection. iam gary i am gary o'donoghue, live on capitol hill, where the republican leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, has made it clear he will vote to acquit dahlstrom. —— donald trump. this is the scene live outside the senate chamber, where the trial is set to resume shortly. we'll take you to it here on bbc world news, as soon as it gets underway.

hello and welcome to bbc news. senators in the united states are expected to vote later in the second impeachment trial of donald trump. both republicans and democrats have indicated the whole trial could wrap up tonight or monday by the latest. lawyers representing the former president have said the charge of "incitement of insurrection" is a "monstrous lie." our north america correspondent barbara plett usher has the details of events so far. that is the scene in the chamber. let's listen and now.— let's listen and now. yesterday, this chamber _ let's listen and now. yesterday, this chamber reverberated - let's listen and now. yesterday, this chamber reverberated to i let's listen and now. yesterday, this chamber reverberated to a l this chamber reverberated to a standing ovation for the courage of officer eugene goodman in defending

this building and human life. may our legislative jurors strive to emulate his courage in their defence of the united states constitution. lord, touch and move them to believe that the end does notjustify the means. help them to remember that the end is inherent and built into the end is inherent and built into the means. fill our senators with a spirit that combines common sense with commitment, conscience and courage. we pray, in your merciful

name, amen. courage. we pray, in your merciful name. amen-— name, amen. please 'oin me in recitin: name, amen. please 'oin me in reciting the h name, amen. please 'oin me in reciting the pledge _ name, amen. please 'oin me in reciting the pledge of]— name, amen. please join me in. reciting the pledge of allegiance. name, amen. please join me in i reciting the pledge of allegiance. i reciting the pledge of allegiance. pledge reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the united states— pledge allegiance to the united states of— pledge allegiance to the united states of america, _ pledge allegiance to the united states of america, and - pledge allegiance to the united states of america, and to - pledge allegiance to the united states of america, and to the l states of america, and to the republic— states of america, and to the republic for— states of america, and to the republic for which _ states of america, and to the republic for which it - states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, i states of america, and to the i republic for which it stands, one nation, _ republic for which it stands, one nation, under_ republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, _ republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, . nation, under god, indivisible, liberty— nation, under god, indivisible, liberty and _ nation, under god, indivisible, liberty and justice _ nation, under god, indivisible, liberty and justice for- nation, under god, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. - senators, please be seated. if there is no objection, the proceedings of the trial are approved today. i would ask the sergeant at arms to make the proclamation.— sergeant at arms to make the roclamation. ., , ., , , proclamation. hear ye, all persons are commanded _ proclamation. hear ye, all persons are commanded to _ proclamation. hear ye, all persons

are commanded to keep _ proclamation. hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silence i proclamation. hear ye, all personsj are commanded to keep silence on pain of— are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment, while the senate — pain of imprisonment, while the senate of— pain of imprisonment, while the senate of the united states is sitting — senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment, from the house of representatives, against donald john trump, _ representatives, against donald john trump, former president of the united — trump, former president of the united states. the trump, former president of the united states.— trump, former president of the united states. the provisions of senate resolution _ united states. the provisions of senate resolution 47, _ united states. the provisions of senate resolution 47, the - united states. the provisions of| senate resolution 47, the senate united states. the provisions of. senate resolution 47, the senate is provided two hours of argument for the parties, divided, on the question of whether or not it should be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. both parties ready to proceed this point? they may proceed.

thank you, mr president. good morning. — thank you, mr president. good morning, senators. overthe last morning, senators. 0verthe last severat— morning, senators. overthe last several days we have presented overwhelming evidence that establishes the charges in the article — establishes the charges in the article of— establishes the charges in the article of impeachment. we have shown— article of impeachment. we have shown you — article of impeachment. we have shown you how president trump created — shown you how president trump created a — shown you how president trump created a powder keg, lit a match and then — created a powder keg, lit a match and then continued his incitement even _ and then continued his incitement even as— and then continued his incitement even as he — and then continued his incitement even as he failed to defend us from the ensuing violence. we have supported our position with images, videos, _ supported our position with images, videos, affidavits, documents, tweets — videos, affidavits, documents, tweets and other evidence, leaving no doubt _ tweets and other evidence, leaving no doubt that the senator should convict~ — no doubt that the senator should convict. we believe we have proven our case _ convict. we believe we have proven our case. but last night, congresswomanjamie herrera butler congresswoman jamie herrera butler of congresswomanjamie herrera butler of washington state issued a statement confirming that, in the middle _ statement confirming that, in the middle of— statement confirming that, in the middle of the insurrection, when house _ middle of the insurrection, when house minority leader kevin mccarthy catted _ house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the _ house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president to beg for help. — called the president to beg for help, president trump responded, and i help, president trump responded, and iquote, _ help, president trump responded, and i quote, well, kevin, i guess these people _ i quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are — i quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election— people are more upset about the election than you are. needless to

say, this— election than you are. needless to say, this is— election than you are. needless to say, this is an additional critical piece _ say, this is an additional critical piece of— say, this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence, further— piece of corroborating evidence, further confirming the charges before — further confirming the charges before you, as well as the president's will ferrell dereliction of duty— president's will ferrell dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander —— wilful dereliction of duty and _ commander —— wilful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander in chief of the united states _ commander in chief of the united states. because this is the proper time _ states. because this is the proper time to— states. because this is the proper time to do— states. because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution adopted. — time to do so under the resolution adopted, we would like to subpoena the congresswoman regarding her communications with house minority leader— communications with house minority leader kevin mccarthy and to subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she _ subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she made regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the _ president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection. we would — in the middle of the insurrection. we would be prepared to proceed by zoom _ we would be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less, 'ust zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as _ zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as soon — zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as soon as congresswoman herrera _ just as soon as congresswoman herrera butler is available. we

would — herrera butler is available. we would then continue to the next phase _ would then continue to the next phase of— would then continue to the next phase of the trial, with that testimony shortly afterwards. the converse — testimony shortly afterwards. the converse woman further states that she says _ converse woman further states that she says of — converse woman further states that she says of the patriots would come forward _ she says of the patriots would come forward if _ she says of the patriots would come forward. if that happens, we would seek the _ forward. if that happens, we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions through zoom, also for less than— depositions through zoom, also for less than an hour, or to subpoena relevant _ less than an hour, or to subpoena relevant documents as well. senators, good morning. and good morning to the american people. the first thing i want to say on the issue of witnesses is that the house managerjust got up here and described the articles of impeachment and the charges. there is no plural here. that is wrong. there is one article of impeachment, and there is one charge. and that is

incitement of violence and insurrection. what you all need to know and people need to know, as of late yesterday afternoon there was a stipulation going around that there were not going to be any witnesses. but after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managers realised they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment. they did not give the proper consideration and work, they did not put the word came that was necessary to impeach the former president. but, if they want to have witnesses, i'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, notjust one. the real issueis depositions, notjust one. the real issue is incitement. they put into

the case over 100 witnesses, people, who have been charged with crimes by the federal government. and each one of those, they said that mr trump was a co—conspirator with. that's not true! but i have the right to defend that. the only thing that i ask, if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that i can have. i need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. i need to do the 911 style investigation that nancy pelosi called for. it should have been done already. it's a dereliction of the house manager's duty. and now, the

last minute, after a stipulation had apparently been worked out, they want to go back or not. i think that's inappropriate and improper. we should close this case out today. we should close this case out today. we have each repaired our closing arguments. i mean, i had eight days to get ready for this thing. but we each had those eight days equally together to prepare ourselves. and the house managers need to live with the house managers need to live with the case that they brought. but if they don't, please, in all fairness and in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham. that is the

president's my position. thank you, mr president. first of all, thank you, mr president. first of all. this— thank you, mr president. first of all. this is— thank you, mr president. first of all, this is the proper time that we were _ all, this is the proper time that we were assigned to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course _ witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the course of the rules set forth by the senate — the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there is nothing remotely— the senate. there is nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we have _ remotely unusual about this. i think we have done an exceedingly thorough and comprehensive job with all the evidence _ and comprehensive job with all the evidence that was available. last night, _ evidence that was available. last night, this— evidence that was available. last night, this was breaking news and it responded _ night, this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question that was— responded directly to a question that was being raised by the president's defence counsel, saying that we _ president's defence counsel, saying that we had not sufficiently proven, to their _ that we had not sufficiently proven, to their satisfaction, although i think— to their satisfaction, although i think we — to their satisfaction, although i think we have proven to the satisfaction of the american people, certainly. _ satisfaction of the american people, certainly, that the president, after the breach— certainly, that the president, after the breach and invasion took place, was not _ the breach and invasion took place,

was not working on the side of defending the capital, but rather was continuing to pursue his political— was continuing to pursue his political goals. add the information that came — political goals. add the information that came out last night by congresswoman beutler, backed up by contemporaneous notes she had taken, will but _ contemporaneous notes she had taken, will but to— contemporaneous notes she had taken, will put to rest any lingering doubts— will put to rest any lingering doubts raised by the present's council. — doubts raised by the present's council, who now says he wants to interview _ council, who now says he wants to interview hundreds of people. there is only— interview hundreds of people. there is only one — interview hundreds of people. there is only one person the president's council— is only one person the president's council needs to interview, and that is their— council needs to interview, and that is their own — council needs to interview, and that is their own client. bring him forward, _ is their own client. bring him forward, as we suggested last week. because _ forward, as we suggested last week. because a _ forward, as we suggested last week. because a lot of this is matters that are — because a lot of this is matters that are in _ because a lot of this is matters that are in his head. why did he not act to— that are in his head. why did he not act to defend the country after he learned _ act to defend the country after he learned of — act to defend the country after he learned of the attack? why was he continuing — learned of the attack? why was he continuing to press the political case? _ continuing to press the political case? this piece of evidence is relevant — case? this piece of evidence is relevant to— case? this piece of evidence is relevant to that. finally, i was a little _ relevant to that. finally, i was a little bit — relevant to that. finally, i was a little bit mystified by the point about— little bit mystified by the point about the article of impeachment, which _ about the article of impeachment, which i _

about the article of impeachment, which i referred to. the dereliction of duty. _ which i referred to. the dereliction of duty. the — which i referred to. the dereliction of duty, the desertion of duty, is built— of duty, the desertion of duty, is built into — of duty, the desertion of duty, is built into the incitement charge, obviouslv — built into the incitement charge, obviously. if the president of the united _ obviously. if the president of the united states is out inciting a violent— united states is out inciting a violent insurrection, he is obviously not doing hisjob violent insurrection, he is obviously not doing his job at the same _ obviously not doing his job at the same time, just like if a police officer— same time, just like if a police officer is— same time, just like if a police officer is bugging you, yeah, he's guilty— officer is bugging you, yeah, he's guilty of— officer is bugging you, yeah, he's guilty of theft, and armed robbery, -- mugging — guilty of theft, and armed robbery, —— mugging you, but he is also not doing _ —— mugging you, but he is also not doing his _ —— mugging you, but he is also not doing hisjob— —— mugging you, but he is also not doing hisjob as —— mugging you, but he is also not doing his job as a —— mugging you, but he is also not doing hisjob as a police officer. so it— doing hisjob as a police officer. so it is— doing hisjob as a police officer. so it is further evidence of intent. first _ so it is further evidence of intent. first of— so it is further evidence of intent. first of all. — so it is further evidence of intent. first of all, it is my understanding, it has been reported, that mr mccarthy disclaims the rumours that has been the basis of this morning's antics. it really there are rumours that have been the basis of the entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumour, report, innuendo. there is nothing to it, and they did not do

their work. just like what happened with mr lee, some supposed conversation happened, they have to withdraw that, they have to back off that because it was false. it was a false narrative. but it is one article of impeachment. yeah, they threw a lot of stuff in it. in violation of rule 23! rule 23 says you cannot combine counts. it's a defect in their entire case. it's one of the form of the reasons why you can devote to acquit in this case. jurisdiction, rule 23, due process and the first amendment. they all apply in this case. let me take my own advice and cool the temperature in the room a little

bit. it's about the incitement. it's not about what happened afterwards. that's actually the irrelevant stuff. that's the irrelevant stuff. it's not the things that were said from the election to january to six. it's not relevant to the legal analysis of the issues that are before this body. it doesn't matter what happened after the insurgents entered the capital building, because that does not have to do with incitement. incitement, it's a point in time, folks. it's a point in time where the words are spoken and the words say, implicitly say, explicitly say, commit acts of violence or lawlessness. and we

don't have that here. so, for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after, it's just not true. but, if he does, there are a lot of depositions that need to be happening. nancy pelosi's depositions needs to be taken. vice president harris�*s deposition absolutely needs to be taken. and not by zoom. none of these depositions should be done by zoom. we didn't do this hearing by zoom. these depositions should be done in person, in my office, in philadelphia. that's where they should be done. laughter i don't know how many civil lawyers are here, but that is the way it

works, folks. when you want somebody�*s deposition, you send a notice of that deposition and they are appearing where it is said. at a civil process. i don't know why you are laughing! that is the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition. i lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition-— lawyers do it. we send notices of deosition. ., , , deposition. i would remind everybody that we will have _ deposition. i would remind everybody that we will have order. _ deposition. ! would remind everybody that we will have order. order- deposition. i would remind everybody that we will have order. order in - that we will have order. order in the chamber. during these proceedings. | the chamber. during these proceedings.— the chamber. during these ”roceedins. ., �* ., ., proceedings. i haven't laughed that an of proceedings. i haven't laughed that any of yom — proceedings. i haven't laughed that any of yom and _ proceedings. i haven't laughed that any of you. and there's _ proceedings. i haven't laughed that any of you. and there's nothing - any of you. and there's nothing laughable here. he mentioned my client coming in to testify. that is not the way it's done. if he wanted to talk to donald trump, he should have put a subpoena down, like i am going to slap subpoenas on a good number of people. if witnesses are what is required here for them to

try to get their case back in order. which has failed miserably for four reasons. there is nojurisdiction here. there has been no due process here. there has been no due process here. they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united states. they have trampled on it, like people who have no respect for it. and if this is about nothing else, it has to be about the respect for our country, our constitution, and all of the people that make it up. and so i ask, when considering or voting on this witness matter, and to be clear, this may be the time to do it, but everybody needs to know, i'm not so into the backroom politics, and i am not so adept at

it, either. but there was a stipulation where they felt pretty comfortable after des two. until their case was tested on day three. now is the time to end this. now is the time to hear the closing arguments. now is the time to vote your conscience. thank you. we we re involved we were involved in no discussions about— we were involved in no discussions about the _ we were involved in no discussions about the stipulation, and i have no further— about the stipulation, and i have no further comment. i require irequirea i require a position on that.

i would remind everybody, as chief justice _ i would remind everybody, as chief justice roberts noted onjanuary the let, 2020, justice roberts noted onjanuary the 21st, 2020, citing the trial of charles— 21st, 2020, citing the trial of charles swain, 1905, all parties in this chamber must refrain from using language _ this chamber must refrain from using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. i listened to chief justice _ civil discourse. i listened to chief justice roberts to say that. i agreed — justice roberts to say that. i agreed with him, and i thought for our colleagues i would repeat it as i did our colleagues i would repeat it as i did last _ our colleagues i would repeat it as i did last night.

so, the question we have before us is whether— so, the question we have before us is whether there should be in order to consider— is whether there should be in order to consider and debate under the rules— to consider and debate under the rules of— to consider and debate under the rules of impeachment, any motion to subpoena _ rules of impeachment, any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. the case has been made. the cloak will call— the case has been made. the cloak will call the — the case has been made. the cloak will call the role. the case has been made. the cloak will callthe role. —— the case has been made. the cloak will call the role. —— clerk. mr will call the role. -- clerk. mr bennett? _ will call the role. -- clerk. mr bennett? mrs _ will callthe role. —— clerk. mr bennett? mrs blackburn? mr blumenthal? _ bennett? mrs blackburn? mr blumenthal? mr— bennett? mrs blackburn? mr blumenthal? mr blunt? - bennett? mrs blackburn? mr blumenthal? mr blunt? mr. bennett? mrs blackburn? mr- blumenthal? mr blunt? mr book? mr boseman? _ blumenthal? mr blunt? mr book? mr boseman? mr— blumenthal? mr blunt? mr book? mr boseman? mr braun? _ blumenthal? mr blunt? mr book? mr boseman? mr braun? mr— blumenthal? mr blunt? mr book? mr

boseman? mr braun? mr brown? - blumenthal? mr blunt? mr book? mrl boseman? mr braun? mr brown? miss cantwell? — boseman? mr braun? mr brown? miss cantwell? mr— boseman? mr braun? mr brown? miss cantwell? mr 0rton? _ boseman? mr braun? mr brown? miss cantwell? mr 0rton? esther— boseman? mr braun? mr brown? miss cantwell? mr 0rton? esther carper? . cantwell? mr 0rton? esther carper? mr casey? _ cantwell? mr 0rton? esther carper? mr casey? mr— cantwell? mr 0rton? esther carper? mr casey? mr cassidy? _ cantwell? mr 0rton? esther carper? mr casey? mr cassidy? miss- cantwell? mr 0rton? esther carper?| mr casey? mr cassidy? miss collins? mr casey? mr cassidy? miss collins? mr kearns? _ mr casey? mr cassidy? miss collins? mr kearns? mr— mr casey? mr cassidy? miss collins? mr kearns? mr cornyn? _ mr casey? mr cassidy? miss collins? mr kearns? mr cornyn? miss- mr casey? mr cassidy? miss collins? j mr kearns? mr cornyn? miss cortez? let'sjust— mr kearns? mr cornyn? miss cortez? let's just move — mr kearns? mr cornyn? miss cortez? let's just move away _ mr kearns? mr cornyn? miss cortez? let's just move away from _ let's just move away from proceedings inside the senate for a moment as they take a roll call of all of the senators there, and check in with our correspondent in washington, gary 0'donoghue. take us through what we have been watching over the past 20 minutes or so, as there is some debate about whether or not a witness can be called by the lead impeachment manager? yes. the lead impeachment manager? yes, this is a huge —

the lead impeachment manager? yes, this is a huge turnout _ the lead impeachment manager? is: this is a huge turnout to look the lead impeachment manager? j23 this is a huge turnout to look at our events. we didn't expect this to happen. it is the events of the last 24 hours that has created the turn in the trial. what the democrat members of the management team, prosecuting the case are saying is, look, there has been new evidence around a phone call between donald trump and the republican leader in the house of representatives, kevin mccarthy, around the time the attack was happening. they want to call a republican house member, who has reported that conversation. they want to call her and subpoena her for a deposition, for evidence and for a deposition, for evidence and for documents. that is provided for under the terms of this trial. right now they are voting on whether or not to have a two—hour debate on the question of calling witnesses. if this vote is approved, they will have a period of debate on the nature of the witnesses that can be

called, how many can be called and whether that would happen. there would be another bout at the end of that. interestingly, of course, the defence really, really ratcheting up the odds here, saying if you want to call this one witness and do it on zoom just for an hour, you know what, we are going to slap 100 depositions down, we are going to subpoena a bunch of people and they can come to my office in philadelphia to make their depositions. he even mentioned people like nancy pelosi having to do that. so there is a real high—stakes gamble going on here between both sides over the extent to which they want to go down this road. we will see what happens at the end of this vote. that won't necessarily mean there will be witnesses, because there will be this extra debate on whether to call them, and then another vote. but you can see that, really, we thought this trial may be over today, but it may well not now be.—

may well not now be. clearly, the democrats _ may well not now be. clearly, the democrats believe _ may well not now be. clearly, the democrats believe this _ may well not now be. clearly, the democrats believe this testimony| democrats believe this testimony could be very important, this is about a phone call betweenjaime herrera beutler and, as you mentioned, kevin mccarthy, the republican house representative. just tell us a bit more about what was said? it just tell us a bit more about what was said? , :, just tell us a bit more about what was said? , ., ., , ., was said? it is not a phone call between those _ was said? it is not a phone call between those two, _ was said? it is not a phone call between those two, it - was said? it is not a phone call between those two, it is - was said? it is not a phone call between those two, it is her. between those two, it is her reporting of what happened in a phone call between kevin mccarthy and the former president, donald trump. essentially what she is saying is that kevin mccarthy told her and others about a call between the former president and mr mccarthy, while protesters were supposedly trying to break into mr mccarthy's office. apparently, the president said to mr mccarthy during that telephone call, according to miss herrera, well, they obviously

more upset about the election than you are. apparently there was an expletive in reply from kevin mccarthy. this is somebody else reporting some body else's conversation, which is problematic for the prosecution. that is why they want to depose her and get a statement on oath from her about that. so, that could lead to an unravelling of this whole thing in terms of other witnesses, other depositions. as i mentioned just a moment ago, the defence threatening to depose100 different people if the prosecution goes down this route. ., the prosecution goes down this route. :, :, the prosecution goes down this route. ., ., , the prosecution goes down this route. :, ., , ., route. you have said they will now be a debate _ route. you have said they will now be a debate about _ route. you have said they will now be a debate about whether - route. you have said they will now be a debate about whether or - route. you have said they will now be a debate about whether or not| be a debate about whether or not this is to be allowed, and that will presumably have both sides putting the case as to why or why not it should be, and then there will be a vote. and that could take some time? it will depend on the outcome of this vote we are having now. whether that takes place. if it does, you will see motions put down for witness statements and subpoenas, and they would have to be approved

after another debate. this is getting complicated. but essentially this is potentially going a lot longer than we thought, depending on what happens at the end of this roll call. : :, , :, ~' what happens at the end of this roll call. : ., i. ,, ., ,., call. and what you think about the fact that the _ call. and what you think about the fact that the democrats _ call. and what you think about the fact that the democrats are - call. and what you think about the fact that the democrats are doing | fact that the democrats are doing this, when it does, to all intents and purposes, seem a foregone conclusion that donald trump will be found not guilty? it’s conclusion that donald trump will be found not guilty?— conclusion that donald trump will be found rrot guilty?— found not guilty? it's a good question- — found not guilty? it's a good question. in _ found not guilty? it's a good question. in a _ found not guilty? it's a good question. in a sense, - found not guilty? it's a good question. in a sense, will. found not guilty? it's a good. question. in a sense, will this change minds? clearly there has been a debate amongst the democrats in the house managers as to whether this is worth doing. they feel they have set out a strong case, as things stand. what else would change minds? if nothing else will change minds, what is the point of it. but i think they sense that, perhaps with the senate continuing work with other things, this doesn't necessarily have to clog up the timetable, but it is going to drag

things out in a way that perhaps the white house would be very happy about. �* , :, white house would be very happy about. �*, ., . ~ white house would be very happy about._ bloom - white house would be very happy about._ bloom in i white house would be very happy l about._ bloom in full, about. let's go back. bloom in full, booker, brown, _ about. let's go back. bloom in full, booker, brown, cantwell, - about. let's go back. bloom in full, booker, brown, cantwell, casey, . booker, brown, cantwell, casey, collins, _ booker, brown, cantwell, casey, collins, cortez, duckworth, weinstein, jill brand, heinrich, hick— weinstein, jill brand, heinrich, hici

warren, _ schumer, smith, warner, warnock, warren, white house. senators voting in the _ warren, white house. senators voting in the negative, but raso, blackburn, blunt, boseman, braun, cassidy, _ blackburn, blunt, boseman, braun, cassidy, cotton, kramer, fisher, graham, — cassidy, cotton, kramer, fisher, graham, haggarty, johnson, kennedy, marshall. _ graham, haggarty, johnson, kennedy, marshall, mcconnell, paul, portman, rubioj _ marshall, mcconnell, paul, portman, rubio, scott— marshall, mcconnell, paul, portman, rubio, scott of florida, scott of south _ rubio, scott of florida, scott of south carolina, shelvey, sullivan, whicker. — south carolina, shelvey, sullivan, whicker, young. i'd like to change my vote.

change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inuui , change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inquiry. was _ change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inquiry, was that _ change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inquiry, was that a _ change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inquiry, was that a vote - change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inquiry, was that a vote on - change to aye. mr sullivan? a point of inquiry, was that a vote on one . of inquiry, was that a vote on one witness? , ., ., ., witness? the debate is not allowed durin: the witness? the debate is not allowed during the vote. _ witness? the debate is not allowed during the vote. this _ witness? the debate is not allowed during the vote. this is _ witness? the debate is not allowed during the vote. this is not - witness? the debate is not allowed during the vote. this is not a - during the vote. this is not a debate. during the vote. this is not a debate- it — during the vote. this is not a debate. it is _ during the vote. this is not a debate. it is a _ during the vote. this is not a debate. it is a point - during the vote. this is not a debate. it is a point of- during the vote. this is not a | debate. it is a point of inquiry during the vote. this is not a - debate. it is a point of inquiry on what wejust voted debate. it is a point of inquiry on what we just voted on. i debate. it is a point of inquiry on what we just voted on.— what we 'ust voted on. i would advise what we just voted on. i would advise that _ what we just voted on. i would advise that is _ what we just voted on. i would advise that is not _ what we just voted on. i would advise that is not allowed - what we just voted on. i would i advise that is not allowed during the vote —

silence. lets bring gary n, who wasjust listening to the voting taking place. some confusion on the floor about what they were voting for. yes, they are probably trying to explain sad confusion as i talk to you. but, essentially, my understanding is that was a vote on whether or not a debate about witnesses should take place. and that was on my calculation is a 55-45 that was on my calculation is a 55—45 yes, which should open up the way for a couple of hours debate. senators are not clear on what they voted as you just heard so we will wait for some clarification from the chair but i don't think that is a vote on the house manager's request to subpoena one witness. i think this is about opening the trial up to the possibility of witnesses and

documents but we need to get some clarification from the chair. b5 documents but we need to get some clarification from the chair.— clarification from the chair. as we were 'ust clarification from the chair. as we were just talking _ clarification from the chair. as we were just talking about _ clarification from the chair. as we were just talking about a - clarification from the chair. as we were just talking about a few- were just talking about a few minutes ago we were expecting a speedy resolution to this trial possibly even a vote on it today which now looks increasingly unlikely, would you say? yes, it is but we will — unlikely, would you say? yes, it is but we will have _ unlikely, would you say? yes, it is but we will have to _ unlikely, would you say? yes, it is but we will have to wait _ unlikely, would you say? yes, it is but we will have to wait to - unlikely, would you say? yes, it is but we will have to wait to see - but we will have to wait to see exactly what they've decided to do and then what the result of that debate on witnesses would be, to that extent... it would depend on the motion, these things depend on the motion, these things depend on the words of the emotion, what does allow for? does it allow the prosecution to bring just one witness? does it allow the defence to say, all right, if you're having one, i'm having 100. we will have to see what it is they exactly ratify in terms of any vote.— in terms of any vote. gary, 'ust remind fl in terms of any vote. gary, 'ust renninei esi in terms of any vote. gary, 'ust remind us, as we i in terms of any vote. gary, 'ust remind us, as we have i in terms of any vote. gary, 'ust remind us, as we have this h in terms of any vote. gary, just i remind us, as we have this break while they try and clarify what it is they're doing on the floor of the senate, just remind us of the key

points made by the prosecution here. well, obviously, the single article of impeachment is incitement to insurrection, they believe the present's words and actions led to the storming of the capital on january six and the death of those five people here, including one police officer. they believe the president knew that was going to happen and wanted that attack on the capital to take place. and they believe when it took place and he knew it was taking place he did nothing to try to stop it. the defence team says his words when he talked about fighting like hell otherwise you won't have a country any more were purely figurative. they say those were the kinds of words people tend to use when they are talking in political terms in any case. and this could not... i think we are about to get some clarification if you want to listen to what they are saying?- clarification if you want to listen to what they are saying? yes, we will listen back _ to what they are saying? yes, we

will listen back in. _ will listen back in. on the question of whether this 0n the question of whether this shall— 0n the question of whether this shall be — 0n the question of whether this shall be an order, under the rules of impeachment, any motion to subpoena — of impeachment, any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents, the emotion— subpoena witnesses or documents, the emotion is— subpoena witnesses or documents, the emotion is agreed to by vote of 55-45 — emotion is agreed to by vote of 55-45. ' emotion is agreed to by vote of 55-45. ~ , , , 55-45. mr president, i suggest the absence of a _ 55-45. mr president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. _ silence. so, gary, you're calculations were correct. 55—45. just to explain what it is they have decided. correct. 55-45. just to explain what it is they have decided.— it is they have decided. well, we are still waiting _ it is they have decided. well, we are still waiting for _ it is they have decided. well, we are still waiting for a _ it is they have decided. well, we are still waiting for a bit - it is they have decided. well, we are still waiting for a bit of - are still waiting for a bit of clarification on what it is but what is happening is they are conducting another vote called a quorum vote,

and that is essentially a way of causing things to give themselves some time to work out what they will do next. so, it is a kind of procedural thing, do next. so, it is a kind of proceduralthing, do do next. so, it is a kind of procedural thing, do we have enough people to continue our session. they do, the place is full but it is a way of buying a little bit of time and clearly what the democrat managers, the house managers and their colleagues are trying to decide is what nature of witness motion they will put down, and the defence will also be thinking about that, too. ithink defence will also be thinking about that, too. i think hopefully at the end of this we will hear some clarity from patrick leahy in the chair, who is the president of the senate, the longest serving senator and he will say what happens next. my and he will say what happens next. my understanding is we are slightly in the dark here as are some of these senators by the looks of it but that will probably lead to a

period of two hours of debate, and then there will be perhaps a series of votes after that. speaking of the top of my head here slightly because it is unclear exactly what they've decided but possibly a series of votes approving or disapproving certain options for calling witnesses, numbers of witnesses, length of time, how they will be deposed, all that kind of thing. i think we have to wait to see what they are planning going forward and hopefully the chair will give us some clarity on that shortly. ides hopefully the chair will give us some clarity on that shortly. as we wait for that. _ some clarity on that shortly. as we wait for that, let's _ some clarity on that shortly. as we wait for that, let's talk _ some clarity on that shortly. as we wait for that, let's talk about - some clarity on that shortly. as we wait for that, let's talk about a - wait for that, let's talk about a point you raised in the headlines 35 minutes ago which is about senior republican mitch mcconnell, it was unclear how he might vote in the vote but he has made that clear now, hasn't he, and that is significant. yes, he has. he sent an e—mail out to colleagues saying he would vote to colleagues saying he would vote to acquit donald trump. he still seems to be of the view this is not a constitutional trial in that

sense, that trials of impeachment are about removal from office and donald trump has already been removed from office. his inner indicates he believes presidents who have committed crimes while in office can be prosecuted after, which is an interesting dangle he didn't need to make in their e—mail. there was a lot of interest which way he would go because he had the potential to take a whole bunch of republicans with him. and that seems unlikely now. whether this gamble on the part of the house managers, the democrats, will change any of that calculation, we will have to wait and see. it depends on the nature of the evidence we get as a result of this if they get their wish to call these witnesses. but it throws everything right up into the air all over again. everything right up into the air all overagain. i everything right up into the air all over again. i think there calculation has to be that they think this could be of sufficiently game changing nature to warrant the

risks of stretching this out for longer than it needed to be. fiend longer than it needed to be. and 'ust five longer than it needed to be. and just five days _ longer than it needed to be. and just five days this _ longer than it needed to be. and just five days this impeachment trial, significant shorter than his first impeachment trial, donald trump, so how much attention are the american public at large giving this? are ordinary people paying it much attention? i this? are ordinary people paying it much attention?— this? are ordinary people paying it much attention? i think they are, i think they know _ much attention? i think they are, i think they know this _ much attention? i think they are, i think they know this is _ much attention? i think they are, i think they know this is a _ much attention? i think they are, i think they know this is a historic i think they know this is a historic moment, even though this is the second impeachment trial that donald trump has faced. certainly, it is, as you say, wall—to—wall on the media so difficult to escape if you are an ordinary citizen in this country. donald trump supporters are very interested on how this plays out. they believe this will be part of the conspiracy against their more generally, they believe the election was taken away from them so there is a lot of interest. this will have a bearing on politics going forward in this country. does donald trump remain the centre of the republican

universe? does he fade away? a conviction would make it difficult for him to run again, impossible to run againfor for him to run again, impossible to run again for president which changes the whole calculation of the republican party. if he is acquitted, that possibility is wide open again for 2024. there are consequences over and above the details of this trial, and the individual outcome for donald trump. and donald trump, meanwhile, many, many miles away from washington at his home connemara largo, in florida. has he said anything, reacted to the events of the past week? he isn't on twitter so it is hard to follow his thought process tweet by tweet. he hard to follow his thought process tweet by tweet-— tweet by tweet. he hasn't said an hini tweet by tweet. he hasn't said anything in — tweet by tweet. he hasn't said anything in person _ tweet by tweet. he hasn't said anything in person at - tweet by tweet. he hasn't said anything in person at all. - tweet by tweet. he hasn't said anything in person at all. as . tweet by tweet. he hasn't said i anything in person at all. as you say, he has been removed from most of these social media platforms so he doesn't have the ability any more but he will be able make his views

do if we put a camera at the front gate, i dare say he'd say something if you wanted to. through various sources, people have reported about his feelings on the trial and the nature of his defence. he was very unhappy with his defence team certainly at the start of the week. there were some ructions inside that team we understand. but as things stand right now, he took a great deal of interest in his first impeachment trial, watched it pretty much all the time. i would be amazed if he wasn't glued to this. what much all the time. i would be amazed if he wasn't glued to this.— if he wasn't glued to this. what we think now for _ if he wasn't glued to this. what we think now for the _ if he wasn't glued to this. what we think now for the future _ if he wasn't glued to this. what we think now for the future of - if he wasn't glued to this. what we think now for the future of the - think now for the future of the republican party, given, we don't want to pre—empt an outcome, but it looks very unlikely donald trump will be found guilty. is there a lot of conversations going on about which way the party will go? absolutely. bear in mind it is a very peculiar system in america, there isn't a party leadership, in

that kind of traditional sense you'd expect in britain or in other western european countries. they don't elect a leader of the party, per se. don't elect a leader of the party, perse. donald don't elect a leader of the party, per se. donald trump was the de facto leader because he was the president of the party. the republicans don't control the house and they don't control the senate so their leaders on both of those houses are kind of leaders of the party but not in the sense we would traditionally understand it. there is likely to be a tug—of—war. the difficulties that many people and many republican legislators believe donald trump still runs this party, still has the ear of most republican voters and that going against him or his views are direction would be political suicide for them amongst their own supporters. that is a risk they have so their others in the centre who will never completely wedded to the trump idea or plainly against it who want the republican party to move back more towards the centre ground of american politics.

so, there is a huge battle going on there at the moment but, at the moment, the trump wing of that party, certainly is in the ascendancy.— party, certainly is in the ascendan . . , , ascendancy. and if this impeachment trial is extended _ ascendancy. and if this impeachment trial is extended now _ ascendancy. and if this impeachment trial is extended now beyond - ascendancy. and if this impeachment trial is extended now beyond the - trial is extended now beyond the next day or so, what will that mean for the important work the senate needs to be getting on with, in terms of dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and the economic situation, the package they are trying to get through and implement to help the people of the usa? ~ , , ., implement to help the people of the usa? . , , ., , implement to help the people of the usa? . , , ., y ., usa? well, it depends how they do it. it usa? well, it depends how they do it- it depends _ usa? well, it depends how they do it. it depends to _ usa? well, it depends how they do it. it depends to the _ usa? well, it depends how they do it. it depends to the extent - usa? well, it depends how they do it. it depends to the extent these i it. it depends to the extent these deposition and evidence is gathered outside of the normal process of the trial, it depends how long they are locked to it but it isn't impossible for the senate to walk and chew gum at the same time. some other business could take place but it is likely to come up to some degree not least for the confirmation hearings that have to take place for various members ofjoe biden's administration so they will be

watching this anxiously inside the white house as well. jae watching this anxiously inside the white house as well.— watching this anxiously inside the white house as well. joe biden at nains not white house as well. joe biden at pains not comment _ white house as well. joe biden at pains not comment on _ white house as well. joe biden at pains not comment on this - white house as well. joe biden at pains not comment on this at - white house as well. joe biden at pains not comment on this at all. white house as well. joe biden at| pains not comment on this at all in the past few days.— pains not comment on this at all in the past few days. they are keeping him a lone the past few days. they are keeping him a long way _ the past few days. they are keeping him a long way away _ the past few days. they are keeping him a long way away from _ the past few days. they are keeping him a long way away from this. - the past few days. they are keeping him a long way away from this. i'ml him a long way away from this. i'm trying to see if we can tell what is going on. they are keeping him a long, long way from this, they don't want him to be associated with it. he hasn't expressed any view. he takes his responsibility seriously, not the most earth—shattering comment on the planet, but they will be deeply interested in what is going on but they will make surejoe biden doesn't get involved. we will just dip back in and see if we can gather what is going on in there. silence. not much. i'm sure there is stuff going on but it's hard for us to see

what is taking place. all the senators standing around talking to each other and i'm not sure if it looks like they are counting something. looks like they are counting something-— looks like they are counting something. looks like they are counting somethini. �* :, , ., ., something. i'm not sure, we are not there. something. i'm not sure, we are not there- we — something. i'm not sure, we are not there- we are _ something. i'm not sure, we are not there. we are some _ something. i'm not sure, we are not there. we are some way _ something. i'm not sure, we are not there. we are some way away - something. i'm not sure, we are not there. we are some way away from | something. i'm not sure, we are not. there. we are some way away from the chamber so it is difficult to know what is going on. i think we'll have to wait until we get some guidance from the chair, patrick leahy. they will make it clear at some point what happens next. but at the moment, we are in the dark in the same way some of these senators are, i'm afraid. ids, same way some of these senators are, i'm afraid. : j same way some of these senators are, i'm afraid. : , ., j, i'm afraid. a few minutes ago we were talking _ i'm afraid. a few minutes ago we were talking about _ i'm afraid. a few minutes ago we were talking about the _ i'm afraid. a few minutes ago we i were talking about the prosecution was my case. take us through the defence that was extremely speedy yesterday. they were allotted 12 hours and they took less than four. take us through what they outlined in terms of defending donald trump. they had up to 16 hours open to them to defend the case. they took three orfour to defend the case. they took three or four hours. to defend the case. they took three orfour hours. essentially, they to defend the case. they took three or four hours. essentially, they had about four separate arguments. they

argued donald trump hadn't been given any due process in this trial because there hadn't been much investigation, that he had been impeached just one week after the attack on the capitol. 0ne impeached just one week after the attack on the capitol. one of his lawyers said you'd get more due process if you are fighting a parking ticket than donald trump has had. they defended him on the basis of the first amendment, which guarantees free speech and the constitution. whatever he said was protected speech and that it could not be, sort of, criticised or impeached for exercising that right. they also said that even with the things that he did say, they were figurative when he talked about fighting like hell, otherwise you wouldn't have a country any more. use figurative in the way that all sorts of politicians are figurative in their warlike speech when they are talking about policy and the battles with the other parties. and

they also produced some examples of democrats doing that, too. of course, the general point was this was planned, the attack on the capitol was planned before january the 6th so how could his words have incited something they say was already going to happen? the big gaps in their defence was of course refusing, really, to engage in anything around the president's actions once he knew the attack on the capitol was going on. that is pertinent now, particularly when we are talking about this potential witness the democrats want to call because those phone calls, and not just that one but another one that is alleged to have taken place, with a republican senator, while the attack was going on, those phone calls are pertinent to what the president knew, the former president knew, and when he knew it about what was happening in the capitol and democrats say he failed to intervene to protect any of them, including

the vice president, failed to call in the national guard, failed to ask his supporters to leave the capitol, failed to call for calm. they believe their accusation is that you wanted this to happen and wanted to allow it to run its course. for wanted this to happen and wanted to allow it to run its course.— allow it to run its course. for any viewers tuning — allow it to run its course. for any viewers tuning in, _ allow it to run its course. for any viewers tuning in, remind - allow it to run its course. for any viewers tuning in, remind us - allow it to run its course. for any | viewers tuning in, remind us what this delay is right now, as far as we know. ,., ., this delay is right now, as far as we know— this delay is right now, as far as we know. ,., ., j, ., , we know. ok, so, what the senate is doini at we know. ok, so, what the senate is doing at the — we know. ok, so, what the senate is doing at the moment _ we know. ok, so, what the senate is doing at the moment is _ we know. ok, so, what the senate is doing at the moment is that - we know. ok, so, what the senate is doing at the moment is that we - we know. ok, so, what the senate is doing at the moment is that we were expecting them to go to final arguments in this trial, potentially up arguments in this trial, potentially up to about four hours of debate between the two sides. the prosecution and defence, and then into a vote whether or not to equip donald trump but what has happened as the democrats have they want to call certainly one witness and oppose one witness, that is a republican member of the house of representatives, who they say has some information about an important

phone call between donald trump and the republican leader kevin mccarthy in the house during the attack on january senate seems seems to have voted to allow a discussion of whether or not to call witnesses but there is uncertainty among senators about what they've just voted for. the trial rules indicated it could be a two hour debate on whether or not to call witnesses. we didn't have two hours of debate on witnesses so i am assuming this vote means, yes, let's have two hours worth of debate. but let's wait for some clarity from patrick leahy, the democratic senator in the chair for this trial is the most senior member of the governing party. he is the referee and juror as well. referee and 'uror as well. donald trum . 's referee and juror as well. donald trump's lawyer— referee and juror as well. donald trump's lawyer pretty _ referee and juror as well. donald trump's lawyer pretty furious - referee and juror as well. donald i trump's lawyer pretty furious about this, wasn't he? he trump's lawyer pretty furious about this, wasn't he?— this, wasn't he? he was really am . this, wasn't he? he was really angry- you're _ this, wasn't he? he was really angry. you're saying _ this, wasn't he? he was really angry. you're saying that - this, wasn't he? he was really angry. you're saying that if i this, wasn't he? he was really i angry. you're saying that if you're going to depose this person, i'm going to depose this person, i'm

going to depose100 different people! you says i'm going to ask for all sorts of documents. and i'm gonna make sure that we don't do it on zoom because the prosecution said you can do it on a zoom call but i want them all to come to my office in philadelphia, he said. including the speaker of the house nancy pelosi. i think that is pretty unlikely but that is what he was suggesting, essentially challenging senators to say do you want this to drag on for months and months and months? do you really want that? and urging them to bypass this stage and vote on the merits as things stand today. you can clearly tell the defence team really want this over. the democrats probably wanted it over but they've clearly come to the conclusion after some debate internally that it is worthwhile calling this witness at least in terms of potentially being able to persuade more republicans tojoin

them. whether or not that is the reality has been made harder by the fact the republican leader mitch mcconnell has made it clear he would vote to acquit donald trump. he had the potential because of his influence to take a bunch of republicans with him if he'd gone the other way but i think the democrats still believe they could pick off some more. they could still lose in straightforward numerical terms in this trial but they could do some damage. and that might sound like a pretty cynical point of view but this is a political process. this is a quasi judicial process. it is politics as well. and it is one of the calculations all sides will be making. of the calculations all sides will be making-— of the calculations all sides will be makini. , j, j, j, ,, be making. 0k, gary, for now, thank ou ve be making. 0k, gary, for now, thank you very much- _ be making. 0k, gary, for now, thank you very much. donald _ be making. 0k, gary, for now, thank you very much. donald trump's i you very much. donald trump's attorney accused the democrats of violating due process. he mentioned

m client violating due process. he mentioned my client coming _ violating due process. he mentioned my client coming in _ violating due process. he mentioned my client coming in to _ violating due process. he mentioned my client coming in to testify. i violating due process. he mentioned my client coming in to testify. that i my client coming in to testify. that is not _ my client coming in to testify. that is not the _ my client coming in to testify. that is not the way it's done, if you want _ is not the way it's done, if you want to— is not the way it's done, if you want to talk to donald trump you should _ want to talk to donald trump you should have subpoenaed. i'm going to slap a _ should have subpoenaed. i'm going to slap a good _ should have subpoenaed. i'm going to slap a good number of people if witnesses are required to try to get their case _ witnesses are required to try to get their case back in order. which has failed _ their case back in order. which has failed miserably for four reasons. there _ failed miserably for four reasons. there is— failed miserably for four reasons. there is no— failed miserably for four reasons. there is nojurisdiction here, there has been _ there is nojurisdiction here, there has been no — there is nojurisdiction here, there has been no due process here, they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united states! they have trampled on it, like people who have no respect _ trampled on it, like people who have no respect for it! and if this is about— no respect for it! and if this is about nothing else, it has to be about— about nothing else, it has to be about the — about nothing else, it has to be about the respect of our country, our constitution, and all of the people — our constitution, and all of the people that make it up.

and, so, i ask when considering voting _ and, so, i ask when considering voting on— and, so, i ask when considering voting on this witness matter and to be clear. _ voting on this witness matter and to be clear, this may be the time to do it but. _ be clear, this may be the time to do it but. again. — be clear, this may be the time to do it but, again, and everybody needs to know. _ it but, again, and everybody needs to know. i'm — it but, again, and everybody needs to know, i'm not so much into politics. — to know, i'm not so much into politics, and i am not too adept at it, politics, and i am not too adept at it. neither — politics, and i am not too adept at it, neither. but there was a stipulation, they felt pretty comfortable after des two. until their— comfortable after des two. until their case — comfortable after des two. until their case was tested on day three. now is the time to end this, now is the time _ now is the time to end this, now is the time to— now is the time to end this, now is the time to hear the closing arguments, now is the time to vote your conscience. donald trump is my career. the senate has voted to allow witnesses to testify in donald trump's impeachment trial after the house prosecutors said they'd seek the testimony of republicanjaime testimony of republican jaime herrera testimony of republicanjaime herrera beutler about her knowledge of a call between the former president and house republican leader kevin mccarthy as violence

escalated on january the 6th. leader kevin mccarthy as violence escalated onjanuary the 6th. here are some of what we heard earlier. 0n the question of whether there shall be in order to consider a debate under the rules of impeachment in a motion to subpoena witnesses and documents, the emotion is agreed to by vote of 55—45. mr president, i suggest the absence of a quorum — a quorum. let'sjust take you a quorum. let's just take you back life a quorum. — let's just take you back life to the scene of the floor of the senate where there is still some debate going on and we are not sure about what it is because there was a vote sometime ago and it was 55—45 which we believe was in favour of allowing a witness, a debate on a witness to be called. and there was always the chance of house impeachment manager

vote to call witnesses although few in the senate, democrats included, were interested in continuing this trial passed this weekend, and it was anticipated that at the final closing arguments we would have them now. and a vote if not today then sunday but that has certainly been delayed. and this is after reports yesterday of an angry frankel between donald trump and house minority leader kevin mccarthy as the january the 6th rights were unfolding. this evidence came to light in yesterday's proceedings and democrats want to delve deeper into the content of that call which they believe could shed light on the former president's attitude towards the violence and whether or not he sympathised with the mob. the call democrats believe might be the key here although the question remains about whether or not that could sway any republicans to vote to convict donald trump. it seems apparent that senior republican mitch mcconnell,

whose vote was undecided until then, now seems to be going the way in favour of donald trump, that he will vote not to convict donald trump which will be significant because it was thought if you voted to convict, it would lead other republicans to follow suit. that will not be the case now. so the democrats perhaps gambling here as to how significant a further witness evidence might be and we saw some heated exchanges back and forth on the floor between jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager and donald trump's lawyer, michael van der veen, who is extremely angry, telling himself to calm down. he threatened that if the democrats call witnesses the republicans could do as well. there remains to be seen what happens in the coming hours but it seems as though there will be a debate and a further vote about calling another

witness or a first witness so stay tuned here on bbc news, we'll bring you every twist and turn as it unfolds and we will be back shortly. hello there. now weather is set to turn mild into next week but before we get there we could see a few problems developing overnight with a widespread frost around and a risk of some ice, particularly into scotland and northern england. today we have seen quite a bit of snow around across western areas at its heaviest in northern ireland but since has been also affecting parts of scotland, western parts of england and wales as well. this is where the front will continue to lose its umph so the snow turns lighter, accumulations becoming increasingly limited and patchy. what happens later on in the night is we will start to see some of the snow turned to rain across scotland and northern england and notjust normal rain, potentially something we call freezing rain. certainly for

the first part of the night it'll be a widespread frost in places but it is this freezing rain but that could cause some problems later in the night and heading cause some problems later in the nightand heading in cause some problems later in the night and heading in to the first part of sunday. what is freezing rain? it is liquid rain that has a temperature below 0 celsius and as soon as it touches any surface, it turns to ice so you can imagine the road becoming dangerous in places as well as that with ice building up on branches, they can be brought down by the weight of the ice and the same is true of power lines. we could see some localised power disruption and power cuts. it could be quite dangerous not topped the day on sunday but through the day bouts of rain pushed eastwards, it will be wind in the north—west particularly with gusts of 60—70 miles an hour and stronger in the hebrides. turning milderfrom the west with temperatures up to 12 in belfast, e scotland, centraland eastern parts of england still on the cool side with temperatures

about 4—6. we will see rain clearing eastwards through sunday night and into monday quite a bit of cloud around but also some showers particularly across western areas, some bright or sunny spells but it is very mild compared with the weather we have seen over recent days with temperatures in northern ireland, england and wales 11—13, scotland around 8—9. if anything in the week ahead it gets even milder. indeed, this time next weekend in london, we could see temperatures as high as 16 and it'll feel like spring has sprung.

this is bbc news. the headlines at 4:00... senators in the us are expected to vote later in the second impeachment trial of the former president, donald trump. borisjohnson says he is optimistic about the easing of coronavirus restrictions in england next month — but warned he will have to be cautious. meanwhile, leading british scientists warn vaccines must be made available to poorer countries in order to bring the pandemic under control. also, we'll be looking at the reason behind the disappearance of south africa's great white sharks.