america's top diplomat lands in israel, as hamas responds to a temporary ceasefire proposal for gaza. on this vote, the yays are 214 and the nays are 216. the resolution is not adopted. us house republicans fail to impeach the nation's homeland security chief, over his handling of border security. one congressman tells me he suspects they'll try again. and "citizen trump". that's how an appeals court has described the former president, in deciding he isn't immune from prosecution. hello i'm caitriona perry. you are very welcome. we begin in the middle east. israel says it's informed the families of 31 hostages held in gaza that their loved ones are dead. this, as talks continue to get the remaining

hostages released. hamas is believed to have given a "positive" response — to a framework proposal for a new ceasefire in gaza. the details of the deal — set out by israel, the us, qatar and egypt — have not been released. but it's reported to include a six—week truce, when more israeli hostages would be exchanged for palestinian prisoners. israel and the us have both said they are reviewing hamas�* response. meanwhile, us secretary of state antony blinken arrived in tel aviv in the past few hours — where he's set to meet israel's leaders. before departing from qatar earlier, mr blinken showed optimism that a deal was in sight. we put forward a proposal that was aimed at not simply repeating the previous agreement but expanding it. as the prime ministerjust said, hamas responded tonight. we are reviewing that response now and i'll be discussing it with the government of israel tomorrow. there is still a lot of work

to be done but we continue to believe that an agreement is possible and indeed essential. and we will continue to work relentlessly to achieve it. following this, a senior hamas official told the bbc that the group had asked for amendments to the proposal. our middle east correspondent barbara plett—usher is injerusalem and sent us this update. this is an important development because hamas received the proposal for the truce about a week ago and now it has responded as secretary of state antony blinken is in the region and mr blinken will be discussing it on his next stop in israel. before he got on the plane, in doha, he said there was still a lot of work to be done and he didn't give any detail about the hamas reply but a senior hamas official spoke to the bbc and he said that the group had us for a number of things, including a clear timetable for the reconstruction of gaza and also the transfer of the wounded to hospitals abroad. hamas released a statement which made it pretty clear that it wants this to lead

to an end to the war. the israelis have also made it clear that they do not see a temporary truce becoming a permanent ceasefire so no doubt that will be part of the continuing negotiations but those who drafted this proposal, the egyptians, qataris, americans, they do have that it leads to a lengthy ceasefire which will allow for the release of the rest of the israeli hostages, a dramatic increase and aid to gaza and will also lay the groundwork for our postwar arrangements are all eyes are going to be on mr blinken during his talks in israel. turning now to a dramatic night of political developments on capitol hill. us secretary of homeland security alejandro mayorkas has survived an impeachment attempt by house republicans. republicans suffered a stunning defeat, falling short of the simple majority voted needed to charge mr mayorkas with high crimes and misdemeanours forfailing to secure the us—mexico border. he is the first cabinet member in more than 150 years to face the prospect

of impeachment by the house. it comes as a bipartisan senate bill on us—mexico border security and immigration is now on the verge of collapsing. republican senators say they will kill the deal only 48 hours after it was released. the deal would have included major changes to the us asylum process, and granted the department of homeland security the authority to shut down the us—mexico border if crossings rose above 5,000 on average in a day. in return for stepped up border security, it would have provided fresh aid to ukraine and biden blamed former president donald trump for influencing members of his party. republicans set aside, who do they serve? donald trump? or the american people? are they here to solve problems? or just weaponise those problems for political purposes? i know my answer. i serve the american people. i'm here to solve problems.

i spoke about all this with republican congressman from tennessee, tim burchett. the house republicans�* effort to impeach secretary mayokas has failed today, not all of your colleagues waiting for it, do you intend to hold the vote again? i suspect we will. i think this was just an effort to put the votes on the board to see where we are at, folks will go home and they will hear from the constituents and i suspect someone will be unhappy about this outcome and i suspect there might be one or two clamouring to get that vote back up again so i suspect it will come back again. secretary mayokas has told us at the border is fine, it is functioning, we are keeping people out yet in the last three years, we've had anywhere from eight — 10 million people come over the border illegally, i don't know any shape, form or fashion where that's a success and the new bill, that's coming from the senate will allow up to 5000 a day for it triggers them stopping

the border so, a999 a day can come over the border and there will be no—one stopping them... but your own republican senate, your fellow party person james lankford who drafted that bill has actually taken a point of exception with how some of your colleagues are describing that, that it's not allowing 5000 people to cross the border before the threshold, that security measure is triggered, its 5000 encounters before it must be triggered and actually the homeland security secretary will have the power to shut the border after 4000 encounters not necessarily people crossing but talking about what happened... let me correct on one thing. we already have the power, we already sent hr to over to the senate and they have tried for the last six months chosen to do anything with it.

4999 is ok? i don't know, that doesn't sound right, if people of tennessee that i represent were overrun, overrun with fentanyl, crime, it's just not that... it's costing this country $400 million a year to keep these people out. that bipartisan, those measures would have been triggered in december with those ragged numbers that you're talking about because the seven—day average, there was 9743 so more than twice the point at which this measure would kick in but going back... so, 5000 is ok? i'm quoting from the act, i don't have an opinion myself but going back to what happened today, three past homeland security secretaries, republicans and democrats and other critics have said that your charges of the secretary don't meet the constitutional threshold of high crimes and misdemeanours, that it's more about policy and perhaps the person that you need

to have in the dock on that is the president, not the secretary. the president is absent as you well known. he claims today, as a matter of fact, there is a problem at the border. his press secretary was asked about and she was in a little bit confusion over that answer. this president is an abject failure, the last three years, we've had 10 million people over the border, costing us $400 billion a year to keep these people out. we close schools down to house these people. the people of new york, they put $53 million into credit cards to allow these folks to live for free while americans are going without. it's right is wrong and wrong is right and the blame, i think, needs to be, we call it the unity party, you can call it whatever but it's about bringing cheap labour into this country. somebody works on your roof and falls off, they will not

sue you or go after you, they will go to the emergency room and be taken care of, as they should, but you and i, well, you won't but i will, i will pick up the tab for that and that's what the folks that are pushing this that our national chambers of commerce, that's the one about the fingers in this powerfor a long time, they stopped any meaningful legislation that could do something about this. on that point, you are talking about meaningful legislation, a bipartisan bill was agreed in the senate, republicans in the senate and democrats were happy with that bill and everything was fine a few days ago so, why now is everything not ok with that bill? well, the republican leader in the senate has pulled his support as did the republicans, it was not agreed, the only republican for it i know was the sponsor and it was created in a, you know,

in a room, in a room withjust the lobbyist and if you power ranking people and that generally is never a good idea. i think you ought to have everybody there and it's really just a case of portfolios over people and that's what this is all about, it's about money, as it always is, is not about doing what's right, it's about the big boys are going to have free and cheap labour and shame on us for allowing that and also, one of the things that hurts me most as a human is the hundred thousand children that are being sold into who knows what, nobody knows where they are, these cartels are selling these children for the sex traffics and other things. there is a discussion to be had about the cartels indeed in south america. unfortunately, we are out of time at this point and i do want to thank you congressman forjoining us on bbc news, thank you very much for your time. it's been my pleasure, thank you so much.

former president donald trump does not have presidential immunity — and can be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. that's what a us court unanimously ruled on tuesday after mr trump claimed he was immune from criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president. it's a setback for mr trump — but a win for special counsel jack smith, who charged the former president with conspiring to overturn president biden�*s victory in the 2020 election, and committing fraud to stay in office. the three—judge appeals court panel wrote: "for the purpose of this criminal case, "former president trump has become citizen trump." adding that he has the same defences that any other defendant would have. mr trump says that without the immunity, the presidency would lose its power and prestige. 0ur washington correspondent gary 0'donoghue has more. of all the cases donald trump is facing, this is the most serious one. it deals with those accusations that he tried to overturn the 2020 election. now, he argued that he had immunity from prosecution

because these were acts he took as president. the court said that wasn't true and that he was now citizen trump, not president trump, and did not enjoy those kinds of immunities. now, donald trump's strategy has always been to try and delay these cases for as much as possible, and he will appeal to the supreme court. if he can delay things long enough so the trial doesn't take place until after november's election and he wins that election, he can make all of this just go away. the problem for him is if the trial goes ahead before the election and he is convicted, there are large numbers of voters in key marginal states who are telling the pollsters they will not vote for a convicted felon. the timing and the outcome of this case is crucial not just to this election, but to the future of american politics. earlier i was joined by temidayo aganga—williams, who is a partner at selendy gay legal firm,

and former counsel for the house january 6 committee. what is the principle of immunity that president trump was trying to clean here? what was trying to clean here? what he was trying _ was trying to clean here? what he was trying to _ was trying to clean here? what he was trying to claim - was trying to clean here? what he was trying to claim was - he was trying to claim was while any actions he engaged in that were within the outer limits of presidential power, that he should be immune for prosecution, criminal prosecution, criminal prosecution for ever. when he leaves office his entire tenure as the us president is not subject to any further review by any prosecutors and frankly by any prosecutors and frankly by anyone else. he saying that is complete immunity. mb? by anyone else. he saying that is complete immunity. why has the court ruled _ is complete immunity. why has the court ruled that _ is complete immunity. why has the court ruled that is - is complete immunity. why has the court ruled that is not - is complete immunity. why has the court ruled that is not the l the court ruled that is not the case after the fact?— case after the fact? what the court ruled — case after the fact? what the court ruled today _ case after the fact? what the court ruled today was, - case after the fact? what the | court ruled today was, frankly a complete loss for the former president. what the court looked at and methodologically went through all of his argument and said why they were wrong, they looked first at historically what people thought about immunity when the founding fathers wrote the constitution and they said was they did not, looking up the

text, expect to be providing immunity to the former president. frankly, the founders were worried about a country in the us of not kings but of men. the idea is of a former president had full immunity than anything he did he could answer to no—one and that looks a lot more like a king than a president. the court went through his first argument, another one had to do with his former pietzsch men. he was impeached as related to january 6, he argued the only way he can be prosecuted as if he was impeached which meant the house charged him and he was found to be convicted which means to those of the senate would have to can victim stop here there were 53 out of 60 senators who voted but three short of conviction. the court said that is not what the text says. what's important here is the court looked up conservative principles of interpretation, meaning contextualism, what are the words actually meaning in the

constitution? regionalism, what are the founding fathers who wrote the words intended to mean? is it all conservative principles and that's what the opinion relies on which will make it more comfortable for those on the republican side. president trump's legal team had argued that sometimes presidents have to do things while in office and may have to order the assassination of someone, send troops to war, people can be killed etc. they were concerned these things could come back on a president when there were no longer president? he when there were no longer president?— when there were no longer resident? ., , ., , president? he was arguing they ma be a president? he was arguing they may be a chilling _ president? he was arguing they may be a chilling effect. - president? he was arguing they may be a chilling effect. the - may be a chilling effect. the president should be free to act without concern but what the court says is that is not what people have been doing, people have thought about the legality of their actions. for example, president nixon when he left office after watergate got a pardon and because everyone thought he could be prosecuted which meant throughout american history people have been

operating under the expectation that i go too far, i could be prosecuted. they brought up other examples like members of congress, who have been prosecuted in the us for actions that relate to their duties. they brought up federal judges for example, they even prosecuted book doing illegal actions and all these important jobs, legislating the judiciary, they operate without concern of a chilling effect. they know there are limitations to their power but that's required limitation because we are a country of laws. you described _ are a country of laws. you described this _ are a country of laws. you described this as - are a country of laws. you described this as a - are a country of laws. you described this as a big - are a country of laws. you | described this as a big loss for the former president. what happens next? does he have any options open to him? his options _ options open to him? his options right _ options open to him? h 3 options right now whether options open to him? h1 options right now whether he appeals further which i think he suspected he will do. frankly he is likely to go directly to the supreme court. it was a 3—judge panel here, the broader court has more judges. he could go and seek further review of the entire court, the reason why he is unlikely to do that is because

the 3—judge panel has made it harderfor him to have the 3—judge panel has made it harder for him to have what is called a stay. meeting the lower the trial court right now is not allowed to proceed and they said in a matter of six days that they are going to send this case back to the trialjudge and thejudge send this case back to the trialjudge and the judge can have the trial, the actual criminal trial. the only way to stop that is to go to the supreme court and take the case on or to stay the case in interim. babbel require for the state of the five justices of the supreme court to stay. it only requires for justices the supreme court to stay. it only requires forjustices to accept the case for further review. the question now is what do they do? do they take it for a public review or do they do what is called deny certain. this is the supreme court could with the opinion that they got correct and will not hear the case and send it back to the trial court. this is not the _ back to the trial court. this is not the last _ back to the trial court. this is not the last we - back to the trial court. this is not the last we have - back to the trial court. this is not the last we have heard of this by any stretch it

sounds based on that, thank you sounds based on that, thank you so much for filling sounds based on that, thank you so much forfilling us in there. thank you forjoining us on bbc news. around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news. let's look at an interesting story out of the uk. scientists discovered a unique species of flying reptile that lived i68—million years ago on the isle of skye. it's called a pterosaur, and its wings, shoulders, legs and backbone were found in a rock on a beach. it's the second time a pterosaur has been found on skye. liz martin—silverstone from the university of bristol was involved in identifying the creature. today, we havejust named a new pterosaur which is a new flying reptiles was at the same time as a dinosaur and we've named a new species which we are really excited about. from the isle of skye. we've never it seen before. we didn't expect to necessarily find on skye. this group was mostly

limited to china. this is roughly what the pterosaur is thought to have looked like. it likely had a wing—span of up to one and a half meters. that's nearly five feet. you're live with bbc news. a mother in the us state of michigan has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, after her teenage son carried out a deadly mass shooting at a school. ethan crumbley, who was 15 at the time, killed four of his classmates and injured seven others, using a gun his parents had bought for him. 0ur north america correspondent john sudworth reports. i do. amid an epidemic of us school shootings, this is a legal first — a criminal trial not of a perpetrator, but a parent. jennifer crumbley didn't pull the trigger that day, but she is responsible for those deaths. 15—year—old ethan crumbley had already been convicted for the shooting at an earlier

trial, but prosecutors argued that his mother, 45—year—old jennifer crumbley, had been grossly negligent. despite her son's deteriorating mental health and his disturbing drawings of shootings, she had failed to stop him accessing the gun he had been bought for christmas. that was the hardest thing i had to stomach, is that my child harmed and killed other people. her defence lawyers argued she had done all she could and that the trial set a dangerous precedent for struggling parents who shouldn't be held responsible for every action of their children. but the michigan jury disagreed. we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. delivering a landmark guilty verdict on four counts of involuntary manslaughter — one for each of the students her son shot dead. she could face a decade or more in prison and she'll be sentenced at a later date. john sudworth,

bbc news, new york. for more on this, i spoke with charlie langton. he's a legal analyst for fox 2 detroit. he's also an attorney and was in the courtroom for today's verdict. this is first time a parent has been convicted in relation to a school shooting carried out by their trials. talk to us about how the mother was held up and culpable for this charge of involuntary manslaughter? the prosecutor had basically two theories, one, they had to show that the mother was grossly negligent in doing certain acts and grossly negligent in not doing certain acts. i think what the jury was hung on was the mother was the last person to actually have a gun that was purchased for a 15—year—old, a 15—year—old that had obviously some mental illness that was not recognised by the mother. and the mother, although the father purchased the gun at the gun store, it was a mother took the kid

to the gun range, it was the mother that bragged about the christmas present of this gun and really the mother was lackadaisical about getting any kind of counselling or treatment for his son. also, there was a meeting on the day of the shooting at the school, the school saw that the kid draw a picture of a gun on a maths assignment with blood everywhere and basically, the school said, we see a problem here, they call the parents in, the parents never told the school that they had just, three days before, but this kid a gun. and to come to the gun range to use it. the jury really focused on that, the big picture is that for the first time that i know of this country anyway, we are holding parents responsible for criminal acts committed by their son. and that's a sending shockwaves about the responsibility. parents will have a look

at text messages, what kind of video games they are watching and certainly, if they have some sense of mental illness, you don't buy them a gun which they did. on that broader point about parental responsibility, has the president been said here that they will now be other charges brought against parents or individuals who own a gun and that is given to a child? i do, i do. i think as a president, i think the father of this shooter will go on trial in about three weeks, first week or so in march so we will have another trial on the father or after the conviction of the mother, the father may want to take a plea. i think the bigger picture is, yes, when kids and i say teenagers, under18, certainly, they go and commit criminal acts, i think the police and prosecutors are going to look, where is the parents here? and do they have enough evidence to show that these parents could have prevented,

by doing simple things, these criminal acts, there was a charge of that jury in this case and it didn't take them long, only a day and a half of liberation which is not a long time so the jury was pretty unanimous and they came back rather quickly. let's turn to some other news around the world. chile's president has declared three days of national mourning to honour the late former president sebastian pinera. the 74—year old died in a helicopter crash on tuesday. three other people on board survived. pinera served two terms as president, with the second term ending in 2022. he received international attention during the spectacular rescue of 33 trapped miners in 2010. a state funeral is scheduled for friday. in senegal, three opposition politicians have been arrested following parliament's decision to postpone the country's presidential election until december. most opposition mps had been forcibly removed from the chamber in the lead—up to the vote, after heated debates.

the us state department has expressed concern over the detention of the politicians, and the delay in the presidential election — which has sparked widespread protests. king charles has begun his treatment for cancer. tuesday marked the first time the king and queen consort camilla were seen out in public together — since buckingham palace confirmed his cancer diagnosis a day earlier. meanwhile, prince harry is in london to visit his father. he arrived tuesday morning at heathrow — from his home in california. the king has now withdrawn from all public facing duties for the time being. the british prime minister says the king's cancer has been "caught early" — though it hasn't been revealed which type of cancer he is being treated for. that is it for the moment, you can keep up—to—date on bbc .com/ news. thank you for watching, to stay with us on bbc news. hello there.

the weather is changing, it's getting colder and that's going to bring the risk of some snow to some parts of the country. now, on tuesday, the temperatures were 14 degrees in surrey ahead of that weather front, which is taking rain down into the english channel. and following on from that, we've got the colder air moving down from the north. and we've seen some wintry showers falling in scotland. could well be a covering of snow in many places here, particularly in the northwest. but there's a danger there may well be some snow falling in the central belt of scotland early in the morning, too. now, increasingly, those wintry showers will become confined to northern scotland. the rest of scotland seeing sunny spells developing. so too northern ireland, and for much of england and wales, although in the south it still could be quite cloudy, still a bit of rain through the english channel not far away from the south coast of england. here, it's going to be colder than it was on tuesday, but it's going to be much less windy. typical temperatures are going to be six or seven degrees. so a chillier day. and into that colder air, that weather front that's in the channel is going to get swept northwards by this big area of low pressure that's

moving into the colder air. and that's going to give us the risk of some snow. and these are the temperatures we've got first thing on thursday morning. so, frosty start, particularly in scotland and northern parts of england. in the south, it's a little milder. we're going to have rain across southern parts of england and wales heading into the midlands, but as that weather moves northwards into that colder block of air, so we're going to find some sleet and snow falling as well. now, we still have this yellow warning out from the met 0ffice. the area has changed a bit, so we're seeing snow less likely in the midlands. there's snow extending into northern ireland. while there be some snow to low levels, it's mainly over the hills with significant falls over the higher hills, which will bring some disruption. we've still got that snow continuing into the evening across northern england, northern ireland and heading into southern most parts of scotland. another band of wet weather coming into the south of england before midnight. and low pressure is going to spin its way across the uk to end the week, and that's going to bring this mixture of rain, sleet and snow. but we never remove that block

of colder air in scotland. so we're going to find snow developing more widely away from the east coast. there'll be some more snow in the northern pennines for a while as well. cold easterly wind in scotland will keep temperatures four or five degrees at best. further south, it will be milder. we're more likely to have some rain, which could be on the heavy side.

voice—0ver: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur and today i'm in new york city at the headquarters of the united nations. and this building is supposed to symbolise a shared global commitment to peace, security and international cooperation. but right now, all of that sounds pretty hollow. at this time of spiralling global tension, the un is hamstrung by the mutual hostility of the great powers. my guest today is russia's un ambassador, vassily nebenzia. now, does deadlock and dysfunction here suit russia?