A hugely consequential day for donald trump. The criminal trial resumes in manhattan, a decision is pending on the gag order which he continues to flout. And a hearing in the Supreme Court on whether he is entitled to president ial immunity. All that within hours of trump being named as a Co Conspirator in a new set of indictments in arizona. We have got top legal analysis for you tonight on a whole string of legal problems facing the former president. Also tonight the case that sparked the metoo movement. A top court in new yorks today overturned the 2020 conviction of the hollywood mogul harvey weinstein, on grounds he did not receive a fair trial. The Scottish First minister scraps the snps Power Sharing Agreement with the greens. Opposition parties are threatening a vote of no confidence. And we will look at labours proposal to renationalise the uks railways. But is it full fat nationalisation we will get you an expert view. Good evening. The Declaration Of Independence held certain truths to be self evident. That all men, and women, are created equal. Is that equal before the law, neither above it nor below it . Or should former president s be immune from prosecution. Notjust lawsuits while in office but consequences for crimes even afterward. That was the question before the Supreme Court in washington today. In new york the former president , currently on trial for conspiracy and corruption said that if the 9 justices failed to grant him immunity for official acts he had taken in office, then future president s would be inundated with prosecutions that would hamstring their ability to serve in the white house. Argument of immunity is very important. The president has to have immunity. This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with a president in the future, 400 years from now. If you dont have immunity, youre not going to do anything. Youre going to become a ceremonial president whos just going to be doing nothing. Youre not going to take any of the risks, both good and bad. Youre going to make some great decisions and save the country. And youre going to make some decisions which are unfortunate. But thats the way it is. But the justices in the Supreme Court, were sceptical. The Chiefjusticejohn Roberts questioned the scope of trumps argument when it comes to official acts would a president really have immunity if they appointed an ambassador, roberts asked, in exchange for a bribe . How would you determine if a president s actions are part of his official conduct. Justice thomas asked whether they should differentiate between a president , acting as president , and the president acting as a candidate . And then this from Justice Sonia sotomayor. We would be creating a situation in which we would be saying is, this is what youre asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. Thats what youre trying to get us to hold without facing criminal liability. The attorney for special counsel jack smith, who is prosecuting the attempts to overturn the election, pushed back against claims that Donald Trumps efforts amounted to official acts as president , but the chiefjustice did push back, reminding the special counsel how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment. Relying on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases, he said. We will talk about events in new york shortly. Our correspondent nada tawfik will bring us up to date on the hush money case and the evidence we have been hearing today, but lets focus on the Supreme Court. Gary odonoghue has been carrying that angle for us. Gary, as we have set out, the justices appeared sceptical of his claim of absolute immunity, but there is a question that needs to be answered, do the allegations in the indictment fall under official acts of the presidency or not . Why is that relevant . Of the presidency or not . Why is that relevant . Because there is a distinction being that relevant . Because there is a distinction being drawn that relevant . Because there is a distinction being drawn here that relevant . Because there is a distinction being drawn here and| distinction being drawn here and interestingly it is a distinction that one of the conservative members of of the court was very interested in, whether or not any of the things that donald trump is accused of fall into the private realm, because Donald Trumps lawyers acknowledge that private acts were subject or can be subject to prosecution. She went through some things that are part of the indictment and Donald Trumps lawyer acknowledge they were potentially in the private realm. What you are starting to see here is a way forward where perhaps the Supreme Court says, look there is a bunch of stuff in this case that may be subject to prosecution, there may be subject to prosecution, there may be some areas of the regional indictment that may be more problematic original indictment. Go back to the courts and sort out the distinction between original and private and sort out what you think you can actually prosecute given that distinction, restart the case. I dont think you are going to get from the Supreme Court a blanket total immunity, i think that its very clearfrom total immunity, i think that its very clear from what we saw this morning. But you are also not going to get, all is fine, carry on with this prosecution. It is going to be a more grey area than that and that is going to introduce even more delays than we have had up until now for this january the six case. The other cases for this january the six case. The other cases are for thisjanuary the six case. The other cases are delayed. The one in new york continues. The witness, the former publisher of the National Enquirer was back on the stand. He was outlining the agreement with donald trump to buy and kill damaging stories before the election, what more did we hear today . Election, what more did we hear toda . ,. , today . Yes, he went into further detail about two today . Yes, he went into further detail about two of today . Yes, he went into further detail about two of those today . Yes, he went into further. Detail about two of those instances, first with detail about two of those instances, first with the playboy model, Karen Mcdougall. On the stand he said that he had mcdougall. On the stand he said that he had agreed with Michael Cohen to pay a he had agreed with Michael Cohen to pay a Karen Mcdougall at the direction of donald trump hundred and 50,000 to buy her story about and 50,000 to buy her story about an alleged and 50,000 to buy her story about an alleged affair. Michael cohen assured an alleged affair. Michael cohen assured him that the boss will take care of assured him that the boss will take care of it assured him that the boss will take care of it. David becker said after Speaking Care of it. David becker said after speaking to his General Council about speaking to his General Council about being reimbursed he told michaei about being reimbursed he told Michael Cohen, dont reimburse me, its a Michael Cohen, dont reimburse me, its a had Michael Cohen, dont reimburse me, its a bad idea. The prosecution has used its a bad idea. The prosecution has used that its a bad idea. The prosecution has used that to its a bad idea. The prosecution has used that to bridge to the Stormy Daniets used that to bridge to the Stormy Daniels payment and explain why, as they allege, Michael Cohen made the payment they allege, Michael Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels at Donald Trumps payment to Stormy Daniels at Donald Trumps direction. But again, back to the trumps direction. But again, back to the issue trumps direction. But again, back to the issue of intent. David packer places to the issue of intent. David packer places Donald Trumps concerns about the election places Donald Trumps concerns about the election at the forefront of all of their the election at the forefront of all of their conversations. He says after of their conversations. He says after a of their conversations. He says Aftera Dinnerat the of their conversations. He says after a dinner at the white house donald after a dinner at the white house donald trump asked david packer, how is karen donald trump asked david packer, how is karen. When her and Stormy Danieis is karen. When her and Stormy Daniels did an interview, donald trump daniels did an interview, donald trump complained, he says, that they were breaking their agreement. At one point were breaking their agreement. At one point david packer even said that Stormy Daniels owed him 400,000 for every time she mentioned him against their agreement. Mentioned him against their agreement mentioned him against their aareement. � ,. , agreement. Lets bring in someone else. Im joined now by the former us federal prosecutor sarah krissoff. Where does this leave jack smith and the january six case which is before lower courts in washington . It the january six case which is before lower courts in washington . It does not a ear lower courts in washington . It does not appear that lower courts in washington . It does not appear that that lower courts in washington . It does not appear that that case lower courts in washington . It does not appear that that case is lower courts in washington . It does not appear that that case is going i not appear that that case is going to be proceeding quickly, certainly not on the timeframe that jack smith once. There is a lot, really interesting questions raised by the court here on both sides of the aisle. They have a lot to sort through and muddle through. Especially given the lack of case law that they have to rely on. It is very likely that they send this back down for some clarification. Some of these points regarding the prosecution as well. The these points regarding the prosecution as well. The issue of whether acts prosecution as well. The issue of whether acts were prosecution as well. The issue of whether acts were committed i prosecution as well. The issue of. Whether acts were committed under official duties, it is an important point and you can see why this you can bring it back Supreme Court wants to get this right. Full stop george bush at the time of the Iraq Invasion went into iraq without a un resolution. It would be limiting for a president if there were no immunity for some acts carried out during official duties. Immunity for some acts carried out during official duties. Trumps team reasons legitimate during official duties. Trumps team reasons legitimate arguments during official duties. Trumps team | reasons legitimate arguments about stunting the ability of the president to do theirjob. The thing is that trump came in guns a blazing asking for this overreaching, full, absolute immunity, which the court shut down very quickly and trunk� s team backed off a bit. We have more nuanced legal arguments that took place. Nuanced legal arguments that took lace. �. , nuanced legal arguments that took lace. ,. , nuanced legal arguments that took lace,. ,. ,. , nuanced legal arguments that took lace. ,. ,. ,. ,. , place. Another quick word on another case that we place. Another quick word on another case that we have place. Another quick word on another case that we have not place. Another quick word on another case that we have not introduced place. Another quick word on another case that we have not introduced to l case that we have not introduced to our viewers. A federaljudge today made a decision on the Defamation Case in the 80 million or so that he has been ordered to pay. What happened there . The he has been ordered to pay. What happened there . Happened there . The udge essentially happened there . The udge essentially declined h happened there . The judge essentially declined to happened there . The judge l essentially declined to throw happened there . The judge essentially declined to throw out the jury decision. Essentially declined to throw out thejury decision. Its no essentially declined to throw out the jury decision. Its no surprise. Its normal for the losing the jury decision. Its no surprise. Its normalfor the losing party the jury decision. Its no surprise. Its normal for the losing party to challenge that. The judge said no so the bed expands. I challenge that. The udge said no so the bed expands. The bed expands. I want to get your thou~hts the bed expands. I want to get your thoughts on the bed expands. I want to get your thoughts on another case in new york today, the decision to overturn the 2020 conviction in new york of the disgraced hollywood Film Producer harvey weinstein. One of the most prominent figures exposed by the metoo movement, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison, but a 4 3 majority of the Appeals Court has ruled today the conviction was unsafe. They have ordered a retrial. He will remain in prison for a separate rape conviction. So, sarah, why was this conviction overturned . The court said improper evidence was offered by the state. Offered by the state. Individuals who said they offered by the state. Individuals who said they were offered by the state. Individuals who said they were assaulted i offered by the state. Individuals| who said they were assaulted by offered by the state. Individuals who said they were assaulted by when seen but who were victims who testified but for whom there were no particular criminal charges related to those victims. The state presented this as a pattern of conduct, a course of conduct in the highest court of new york said that was improper to introduce this evidence that was essentially out side of the charges that were in the case and before the jury. Haifa side of the charges that were in the case and before the jury. Case and before the my. How common is that . As i case and before the jury. How common is that . As i understand case and before the jury. How common is that . As i understand it, is that . As i understand it, this has been more typical of late that prosecutions have brought in witnesses that speak to a defendants character. Does it set a dangerous precedent in relation to other cases where there have been convictions . Other cases where there have been convictions . ,. , convictions . There is extensive case law on this, convictions . There is extensive case law on this. How convictions . There is extensive case law on this, how much convictions . There is extensive case law on this, how much information | law on this, how much information beyond the four corners of the allegations you can admit in a case. In each one of those cases the prosecutors have to make decisions. Are they going to seek to introduce the information and risk what happened here . Risk an appeal being rejected is later, or are they going to limit the information they provide to the four corners of the complaint. The prosecutors went pretty broadly here beyond what was in the complaint and unfortunately this is the result, we are almost four years later, which is hard to believe. ,. ,. ,. ,. , believe. They have called for a retrial and believe. They have called for a retrial and that believe. They have called for a retrial and that rests believe. They have called for a retrial and that rests with believe. They have called for a retrial and that rests with the l retrial and that rests with the manhattan district attorney, who has to consider a couple of things, obviously, whether he can get a conviction with a limited number of witnesses. But also putting some of these witnesses, who would allege they have suffered sexual abuse back on the stand . Yes they have suffered sexual abuse back on the stand . They have suffered sexual abuse back on the stand . Yes he has a number of thins to on the stand . Yes he has a number of things to weigh on the stand . Yes he has a number of things to weigh in on the stand . Yes he has a number of things to weigh in deciding on the stand . Yes he has a number of things to weigh in deciding whether. Things to weigh in deciding whether to proceed again with this case. I suspect he probably well, but it is incredibly traumatic for these victims to have to testify again. To tell their story publicly, to have the nations attention on it. It was incredibly dramatic the first time, it will be so again. There are a lot of things that the da has to consider and whether to proceed with the case, but i expect they will, given, after balancing those issues. Thank you for coming on. Around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. Lets take a look at some stories making news across the uk. A 13 Year Old Girl is due to appear before magistrates tomorrow, after being charged with attempting to murder three people at a school in wales. Two teachers and a pupil were taken to hospital with stab wounds after the incident in ammanford; theyve all since been discharged. A former Senior Executive at the post office has told the inquiry into the horizon it scandal that shes truly sorry for the devastation caused to branch managers. Angela van den bogerd dealt with many of the legal cases against sub postmasters. She said she never knowingly did anything wrong. The army has said its too early to know whether tw