hello, i'm lewis vaughnjones, welcome to verified live — let welcome to verified live — me show you the live fe new let me show you the live feed now in new york, the court has just taken a very short ten minute recess, but what we've heard so far, we've outlined the opening statement from the prosecution basically saying donald trump is accused of trying to cover up hush money payments to stormy daniels just before he won the 2016 election, and since then we've just started hearing from his defence

lawyer i should explain this is not the courtroom itself, no cameras allowed inside the courtroom when proceedings are active. this is on a different floor and you can see there the barrier is where donald trump will often come at the beginning of the day to speak to the media. we are in the short recess which is why cameras can pick him up at this life moment. let's try and bring you that brief statement he gave before proceedings got under wayjust gave before proceedings got under way just a little gave before proceedings got under wayjust a little earlier. ijust want to say before we begin, these are all biden trials. - this is done as election interference. _ everybody knows it. i'm here, instead of being able to be in pennsylvania - and georgia, and lots- of other places campaigning. and it's very unfair. fortunately, the poll. numbers are very good. they've been going up because people understand what's going on. _ this is a witch hunt - and it's a shame, and it comes out of washington.

it's in coordination _ with washington, everything, including the da's office. it's in coordination with washington. i ijust want people to understand that this is done for purposes i of hurting the opponent of the worst president in the history _ of our country. let's go back to the live feed from new york, let's listen in. the? new york, let's listen in. they have no idea what _ new york, let's listen in. they have no idea what they _ new york, let's listen in. they have no idea what they were _ new york, let's listen in. they have no idea what they were talking - no idea what they were talking about, — no idea what they were talking about, we came to an agreement that everything _ about, we came to an agreement that everything would be the same, we would _ everything would be the same, we would modify terms... this is where your taxpaying dollars are going, america. — your taxpaying dollars are going, america, right here, witchhunt after witchhunt. _ america, right here, witchhunt after witchhunt, president trump's company was worth_ witchhunt, president trump's company was worth more than that case then it is now _ was worth more than that case then it is now we — was worth more than that case then it is now. we are now here because of something that happened when he was in _ of something that happened when he was in the _ of something that happened when he was in the white house which wasn't even wrong, — was in the white house which wasn't even wrong, it was not wrong. you hire lawyers _ even wrong, it was not wrong. you hire lawyers to solve those problems, they solve them, you pay them, _ problems, they solve them, you pay them, this— problems, they solve them, you pay them, this is— problems, they solve them, you pay them, this is it. this is an affront to the _ them, this is it. this is an affront to the american constitution and our judicial— to the american constitution and our judicial system, it's an affront to

every— judicial system, it's an affront to every lawyer that cares about their licence _ every lawyer that cares about their licence and — every lawyer that cares about their licence and what's right and wrong. i'm licence and what's right and wrong. i'm sick— licence and what's right and wrong. i'm sick of— licence and what's right and wrong. i'm sick of coming in front of the president— i'm sick of coming in front of the president saying this, but people need _ president saying this, but people need to— president saying this, but people need to understand what's going on -- in _ need to understand what's going on -- in front— need to understand what's going on -- in front of— need to understand what's going on —— in front of the press. god forbid you out— —— in front of the press. god forbid you put an — —— in front of the press. god forbid you put an accounting thing and for legal— you put an accounting thing and for legal council, and now our tax payer dollars. _ legal council, and now our tax payer dollars. our— legal council, and now our tax payer dollars, ourtime, legal council, and now our tax payer dollars, our time, attorneys fees are all— dollars, our time, attorneys fees are all here — dollars, our time, attorneys fees are all here because they are afraid of 2024 _ are all here because they are afraid of 2024. and they should be because the american people are not stupid, they see _ the american people are not stupid, they see what's going on. thank you. ithink— they see what's going on. thank you. i think you _ they see what's going on. thank you. i think you got the gist there were those comments there in the courtroom —— courthouse — new york, obviously not inside the courtroom as i was explaining, so there's been very bullish denials from donald trump himself a little earlier that we heard, the legal team and indeed crucially in the courtroom itself where there are no cameras allowed,

there is a stills photographer and they're capturing moments but no they�* re ca pturingrmoments butane footage they�*re capturingrmoments butane footage allowed, and we've video footage allowed, and we've just been told that the lawyer for donald trump there is finishing his opening statements with basically an appeal tojurors, asking them to listen to their evidence and use "common—sense" rather than be taken by prosecutors assertions. that's why we're here, he said before the break. they were picked to jurors because they were asked of put aside their views of trump's persona and "we trust you to do that." opening from the prosecution and defence, getting a much clearer picture now of what their arguments will be, the context will be effectively the framing for this trial in the days and weeks ahead. we will get plenty more reaction to what we've heard so far ahead of hearing from any actual

witnesses in the trial potentially this afternoon or into tomorrow. plenty more reaction in a moment. mps have finished debating the government's rwanda bill, which aimns to send some asylum seekers to rwands. rishi sunak said today he wants the first plaves to take off within "10—12 weeks". the bill has been going back and forth between the commons and lords forth between the commons and lords forfour forth between the commons and lords for four months. pm says he wants that to happen today. let's take a closer look at the controversial rwanda asylum policy. so far this year, more than 6,000 migrants have made the journey across the channel from continental europe to england. under the policy, anyone "entering the uk illegally", could be sent to rwanda, with no limit on numbers. the government hopes the policy will stop people trying to make the dangerous crossing in small boats.

the plan has been strongly criticised by human rights groups, and the uk supreme court ruled the policy was unlawful. here is rishi sunak setting out a timeline for his plan. the first flight will leave in 10—12 weeks. now, of course that is later than we wanted, but we have always been clear that processing will take time and if labour peers had not spent weeks holding up the bill in the house of lords to try to block these flights altogether, we would have begun this process weeks ago. let's speak to our political correspondent in westminster, peter saull. so things are under way? they are, it feels like — so things are under way? they are, it feels like groundhog _ so things are under way? they are, it feels like groundhog day - so things are under way? they are, it feels like groundhog day here - so things are under way? they are, it feels like groundhog day here in | it feels like groundhog day here in the house of parliament, the commons has once again started debating this legislation. god knows they've debated it enough already, i'll shortly moved a couple of votes on the amendments that were passed by the amendments that were passed by the house of lords last week, one effectively means that people who

served alongside uk armed forces, overseas in places like afghanistan would be exempt from the policy, the other says that an independent committee of experts would have to declare that rolando was safe before flights could actually take off —— rwanda. but you heard the pm adamant that this is it tonight. one of the press conference takeaways is that he's broken his promise that flights will take off at the end of spring, 10—12 week takes us to the end of june, beginning ofjuly. so he's broken that promise, the question is, who's to blame for that delay? he says it's labour, continually blocking this legislation, labour points out it's the government who controls the schedule here in parliament and there's been ample opportunity in recent weeks to do with the prime minister plans to do tonight — go late into the evening and ultimately get it over the line. at the house of lords is in no mood quite yet to back down, the thinking is go from the commons back to the

lords later on this evening, the house of lords will put forward two more amendments, slightly narrower they say in scope than the ones passed last week, then it'll presumably go back to the house of commons, but we'll have to wait and see whether the numbers are there on the opposition benches and across benches in the house of lords to send it back the house of commons one more time. but ultimately the thinking is the lords will back down, it'll make it onto the statute book at some point, the expectation is anyway this week, and ultimately the plans are in place to get flights off the ground to rolando. peter, thanks very much for that. let's speak to our africa correspondent barbara plett usher. just remind us of the role that rhonda will play here? rwanda will exce -t the rhonda will play here? rwanda will except the refugees, _ rhonda will play here? rwanda will except the refugees, it'll _ rhonda will play here? rwanda will except the refugees, it'll give - rhonda will play here? rwanda willj except the refugees, it'll give them a shelter and food, then basically provide them with support for the first couple of years that they are here. it'll process their

applications for asylum, and if those applications are rejected for whatever reason, it'll still allow them to stay — that was one of the key things the supreme court had mentioned as a concern if these migrants could be deported back to the countries from which they'd fled. that's been adjusted in a treaty between rwanda and uk, and it is preparing to accept the migrants once they come and it's been ready to do so for nearly two years now. although it's had to make changes to its asylum process because it's expecting the arrangements they have right now it will be adequate to deal with all the people they anticipate will be coming. barbara, thanks very — anticipate will be coming. barbara, thanks very much _ anticipate will be coming. barbara, thanks very much for _ anticipate will be coming. barbara, thanks very much for that. -

we've heard the opening statements from the defence, we are now heading into hearing from the first witness into hearing from the first witness in donald trump's trial in new york, a crucial moment in the trial. let's speak to ankush khardori, in washington — a senior staff writer and columnist for politico magazine and a former federal prosecutor. thanks very much for coming on the programme. thanks very much for coming on the programme-— programme. thanks for having me. we've heard _ programme. thanks for having me. we've heard the _ programme. thanks for having me. we've heard the opening _ programme. thanks for having me. we've heard the opening from - programme. thanks for having me. we've heard the opening from both sides, what have you made of it? i thought it was a fairly conventional opening from both sides, not much of a surprise to those of us who've been following this closely. the prosecution has framed this as an election interference case, an effort by trump to bury a story that could have influenced the 2016 election, and the defence is basically saying, "look, this case is all about the prosecution's key witness, michael cohen, a serial liar and convicted felon," and trump is like lawyers got up and said it keys the key witness who is a liar,

you shouldn't believe him and you'll have to acquit trump after all is said and done. we have to acquit trump after all is said and done.— have to acquit trump after all is said and done. we are hearing 'ust before all the fi said and done. we are hearing 'ust before all the arguments �* said and done. we are hearing 'ust before all the arguments from h before all the arguments from various different legal experts saying how crucial the framing is of the opening statements. we had someone giving frighteningly high statistics frankly about the amount of jurors that statistics frankly about the amount ofjurors that make up their mind after the opening statements, then don't really change their mind when it comes to the end. are you a little bit more judicious than that, a bit more sceptical than that because back what do you make of it? i'm a bit more sceptical in this case. this is a complex case, all the jurors understand that the implications for the country and political system are serious, and it'll be a long trial, at least if the government estimates how long it'll take, it could be 5—6 more weeks of this. i doubt they'll even remember much of what's in the opening — the functioning of the opening — the functioning of the opening from the government's perspective is to give jurors a road

map for how to follow the evidence that they'll here. it's not to tell them what the verdict will be, that'll come at the closing. what the government did today was layout for them the story that they'll here over the course of this trial, and trump's lawyers had the opportunity to respond and basically said it's all a bunch of nonsense based on michael cohen's lies. interesting, we will hear _ michael cohen's lies. interesting, we will hear from _ michael cohen's lies. interesting, we will hear from the _ michael cohen's lies. interesting, we will hear from the first - michael cohen's lies. interesting, | we will hear from the first witness in a moment, david packer — this phrase" catch and kill" is something we will all be repeating at nausea and i'm sure afterwards, just talk us through the rule of him and why he's being called first.— he's being called first. david packer was _ he's being called first. david packer was at _ he's being called first. david packer was at the _ he's being called first. david packer was at the centre - he's being called first. david packer was at the centre ofl he's being called first. david i packer was at the centre of this catch and kill scheme, he worked with the national enquirer, a tabloid in the us, and he was essentially buying stories in coordination with trunk, negative

stories that would've hurt trump from a playboy playmate and at one point potentially stormy daniels to buy those stories and not publish them, so to catch them and kill them. they prosecution has said that david pecker had at least one discussion with trump about this effort, and i suspect they'll put him on to talk a lot about that conversation and exactly what was said to trump and what trump said in response, and exactly how much knowledge — we can infer from that knowledge — we can infer from that knowledge based on what trump said. great to have your thoughts, things are coming on the programme. thanks for havin: are coming on the programme. thanks for having me- — nada tawfik because there. will come onto the witnesses — but first, bring us right up to speed with what we've heard there this morning. we've now had opening statements from both sides, withjurors listening intently. essentially prosecutors are really laying out

the big picture here for thejurors, saying that this is about a criminal conspiracy and cover—up. the criminal conspiracy they said was election fraud, pure and simple. they really set the scene for jurors, saying that it all came about after the release of the access hollywood tape. now that's the infamous tape that, just ahead of the 2016 presidential election, donald trump was caught on camera basically bragging about the fact that, because he was famous, he could grab women by their genitals. and they say that sent donald trump ultimate campaign panic mode, and just a day later when stormy daniels and the fact that she was trying to sell her story of alleged sexual encounter with donald trump from 2006, the campaign felt another sexual sex scandal, especially with the pawn star, would've been

damaging to his campaign, especially with female voters, they say that's when this whole catch—and—kill scheme was hatched. and they say that donald trump lied over and over again when he was trying to cover up that scheme in business records. now the defence essentially said, "look, there is no crime here, donald trump is innocent, he wasn't involved in any part of the accounting for that payment, michael cohen did that on his own, and he said that essentially, there is no crime of trying to interfere in an election, it's called democracy," todd blanch said. what's really interesting was at the end of the closing argument, both sides appealed to jurors, asking them to use their common sense in this case.— asking them to use their common sense in this case. thank you very much for that, _ sense in this case. thank you very much for that, nada _ sense in this case. thank you very much for that, nada tawfik, - sense in this case. thank you very. much for that, nada tawfik, hugely significant moments in court in new york. we'll have all the developments coming up.

around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news.

this is bbc news, the house of commons is getting busier, proceedings are under way, they are discussing the prime minister's rwanda policy. from the prime minister's point of view is to pass this legislation today, which he says will then mean the planes will start taking off within three months, taking people from the uk to rwanda to have their asylum claimed. largely coming across into the uk. the house of lords have some amendments and have

held up proceedings, they are entitled to overturn with the lower chamber but they can't frustrate and delay. we are keeping an eye on what could potentially be a pretty long session there in the house of commons and house of lords into the evening. live now to westminster where we can speak to baroness angela smith, shadow leader of the house of lords. what are your thoughts when you consider this legislation? looking at the detailed _ consider this legislation? looking at the detailed legislation - consider this legislation? looking at the detailed legislation for - consider this legislation? looking i at the detailed legislation for some time, there are seven issues we picked out — they wouldn't have killed off the bill, but they would've introduced some sensible amendments to it, and the government rejected them all and we are down to the last two, including support for our allies, afghanistan, who worked alongside our soldiers. what surprises me is rishi sunak poncelet comment saying we'll have to go

through the night. normally prime ministers — he described this as emergency legislation — would do this on the second round of ping—pong. he's waited until the fourth in the fifth, and it may surprise him to know this by the government chooses when both houses vote on ping—pong, and it's the government who have chosen to delay this. i've been in parliament now for 25 years — i've never known the government to extend a ping—pong time into the weeks and weeks at this one has, and we wondered why, and i suppose he's let the cat out the back tonight when he says that evenif the back tonight when he says that even if coaster tonight, it'll still be 10-12 even if coaster tonight, it'll still be 10—12 weeks before they can think of taking the plane off the air. so i think the government has itself delayed this bill, and we understand why. it's a bad bill generally. 50 why. it's a bad bill generally. so let's get to the substance, what's your objections? the

let's get to the substance, what's your objections?— your objections? the two points cominu your objections? the two points coming out _ your objections? the two points coming out tonight, _ your objections? the two points coming out tonight, one - your objections? the two points coming out tonight, one is - your objections? the two points | coming out tonight, one is those afghans who worked alongside our military in afghanistan that, under the arab scheme that the government brought in, they should be exempt from this. now if we can't protect those who worked with us in conflict, that sends a very bad message across the world about the kind of people we are. the second one is in this bill, saying rwanda is safe and will always be safe, come what may. the government has set up a monitoring committee, and almost saying in the other amendment that ministers should be able to use that ministers should be able to use that information to decide whether rwanda is safe or if it is still safe in the future. so the very moderate technical amendments, i think any sensible government that wanted workable legislation would just accept them— but this is the third bill we've seen in the last few years that says it'll just stop the boats and tackle the boats. i don't have any more faith in this

one then i've had in the other two. there is a much better way of dealing with this, it won't be a slogan type bill, but a complex issue that needs to have a proper solution to it, notjust slogans and bills like this that cost, what, half £1 billion so far? and we've seen nobody go to rwanda aside from foreign secretaries and journalists. thanks for coming on the programme. the former news anchor huw edwards has resigned from the bbc. the decision was reportedly made on medical advice, and comes nine months after a string of allegations appeared in the sun newspaper, accusing him of misconduct. huw edwards has not appeared on bbc news since then. the bbc has confirmed that he has not been paid off, and hope his decision will "allow all parties to move forward". we got this statement through earlier this afternoon, saying that huw edwards has today

resigned and left the bbc after 40 years of service. hugh was explained that his decision was made on the basis of medical advice from his doctors. the bbc has accepted his resignation, which it believes will allow all parties to move forward. "we don't believe it appropriate to comment further." so, this series of events that have been going on since last summer, when allegations were first made in a national newspaper about huw edwards, has finally seemed to come to a resolution as far as his relationship with the bbc is confirmed. people will remember that a newspaper accused him of paying a young person for explicit images — something that was disputed later on by the young person involved. the bbc, once these allegations were made, did speak to the metropolitan police — the metropolitan police said there was no evidence of any criminality, and since then, huw edwards has been off our screens. of course, one of the best—known presenters and newsreaders in the country, one of the bbc�*s

highest—paid stars, with a bbc salary of over £400,000. yeah, you just started alluding to it there, such a huge figure for the bbc, of course, and bbc news — but also, wider than that, part of the national fabric, because he was the face of so many high—profile major events here in the uk. absolutely, he was the person that the public really associated with big national events — whether it was presenting general election coverage, whether it was great state events. people will, of course, remember he was the person who, on television, delivered the sad news that queen elizabeth ii had passed away. so, for so many members of the audience, millions of people watching, he really was the face of the bbc for so many big, important national events that really had resonance with people at home watching.

so, as i say, the statement this afternoon that, after 40 years at the bbc, he has resigned — probably not an unexpected turn of events, but one which people have been waiting to see how all these events would resolve themselves since the allegations were first made last summer. back to new york, these are the live pictures from inside the courthouse, we've already heard from the prosecution and defence's opening statements, and we will have plenty of analysis of what exactly they mean for donald trump and for the future of the trial. we've also got pictures from outside the court, plenty of security around and plenty

of journalists there too, plenty of security around and plenty ofjournalists there too, bringing all the analysis to you in just a couple of minutes' time, to stay with us. i'm lewis vaughanjones, this is bbc news, bye—bye. where it did feel really chilly once again. that shall feel will continue for the rest of the week, with the best of the sunshine towards western areas, always more cloud toward the north and east. the arctic air lingering across the uk over the next few days, pretty much until we reach the weekend where things may turn a bit milder in the south. that cloud across england and wales, could see these weather fronts which have brought outbreaks of light and patchy rain. that patchy rain will continue across eastern england spreading southwards into the midlands, southern southeast england through the night. for the north and

west, clear skies here, so quite a chilly night to come, a touch of frost here and there further south and east, less cold because we will have the cloud cover and outbreaks of rain. for tuesday we hold onto our pressure system bringing us these northerly winds, that chilly air, that weather fronts still lingering across the south and east of england, so a cloudy start, for the patches of rain here. doesn't really... so rather cool and gray, chilli along north sea coast with the odd shower, but sunshine further west. where we have plenty of sunshine and showers, like glasgow, 16-17 c, sunshine and showers, like glasgow, 16—17 c, single digits across the north sea coast, others highs at 10 celsius. add the breeze and it'll be chillier than that. it'd tuesday night and wednesday, greater amounts of clear sky, colder nights for most, temperatures freezing to around 4— —— for self he is. more

cloud northern and eastern areas, and onshore breeze and north sea coast feeling quite raw there. but a generally dry day for wednesday, the chance of the odd north sea coast shower were temperatures will be in single digits, low teens. towards the end of the week we could see this area of low pressure skirting past southern and western areas, that could throw up a few more showers inside our direction. the details of this could change but i think it's looking a bit more settled as we head into the weekend, may be turning milder across the south.

this is bbc news, the headlines... prime minister rishi sunak says the first flight carrying asylum seekers to rwanda will leave within the next three months. opening statements get under way at donald trump's historic criminal trial in new york. the former president denies falsifying accounts to hide hush—money payments to porn star stormy daniels. and in the uk, two men have been charged with spying for china after an investigation by counter—terrorism police. sport and for a full round—up, from the bbc sport centre, here's paul. hello from the bbc sport centre.

nottingham forest say they've submitted a formal request to the pgmol, asking them to make public the audio recordings between match officials during yesterday's defeat at everton. forest say they'd �*warned' the pgmol that the video assistant referee was a fan of their relegation rivals luton and asked for him to be removed as an official for the match. but the referees' governing body says that's not true. our senior football news reporter simon stone has more. the implication was that nottingham forest had asked for stuart atwell to be removed from the game but i had been told that whilst there was a conversation between nottingham forest consultant and a former premier league referee and the head of refereeing and this issue ever stuart atwell at his suitability to be referee issue over stuart atwell at his suitability to be referee for the game as mentioned, and no point was requested that he be removed from the game, and i don't think given the lateness of the call on friday and given how

many officials they have