Also on the programme. Borisjohnson sticks with his pledge for a British Digital tax risking the ire of donald trump and possible tariffs. Showing big budget retail brands how its done one hardware shop in wales is proving a christmas advert doesnt have to cost the earth. Hello and welcome im Michelle Fleury in new york, Christian Fraser is in london. The nato chiefs had agonised over the celebrations for their 70th anniversary. Normally, as was the case with the 50th, it would have been held in washington, where the founding treaty was signed. But given Donald Trumps unpredictability and the obvious doubts he has shared about the alliance they decided to hold the summit in the uk. The actual anniversary was in april, attended only by Foreign Ministers nato worried what might happen if the leaders were brought together. And with some reason, the tensions were on full public display. There were the perennial disagreements over defence spending, Emmanuel Macron accused turkey of colluding with Islamic State proxies, president erdogan threatened to block natos defence plan for the baltics. In the end of summit press conference, borisjohnson tried to paper over the cracks reminding everyone of what nato had achieved in its 70 years. It is he said a shield of solidarity. It is absolutely true to say that nato is the most successful alliance in history. And it now guarantees the peace and prosperity of a billion people around the world. In 29 countries. It will shortly be 30, of course, now that North Macedonia is joining. And everybody also attested to the fundamental reason for the success of that alliance, and it is based on the idea of solidarity, in defence of our values of freedom and democracy. The basic idea of all for one, and one for all. But in truth there was precious little solidarity on show this week. At the evening reception nato leaders were caught mocking the president for the length of some of his press conferences. Mr trump was asked about that video and Justin Trudeaus comments. The response was typically blunt. He later cancelled his planned press conference well, he is two faced. And honestly with trudeau, hes a nice guy, i find him to be a very nice guy. But the truth is that i called him out on the fact that he is not paying 2 , andi on the fact that he is not paying 2 , and i guess he is not very happy about it. A couple of you were there, and hes not paying 2 and he should be paying 2 . But then the american president himself was caught in an off mic moment, talking about Justin Trudeaus comments. Just before we came on air we spoke to our chief international correspondent, lyse doucet. Its been an odd a few days, what do you think we got at the end of it all . A very interesting expression ofan odd all . A very interesting expression of an odd a few days when you go into what is the 70th Birthday Party of the alliance described as the most successful in history, and all of the headlines are about president macron describing it as strategically brain dead, and then we finished it with a video recorded in Buckingham Palace with a bunch of leaders sitting around, or standing around gossiping, its picked up and thatis around gossiping, its picked up and that is the headline of Prime Minister justin that is the headline of Prime Ministerjustin trudeau been described as two faced. While that has been the headline the reality is that nato believes this is been a very successful summit because despite the perception of unity, and theres tensions, 29 l in a world where everything is on social media, of course theyre going to be things that come to the surface as they have, but the core fundamentals of nato, the agreement of the threats even though they dont agree on what order they should go on but the agreement of the threats now and in the future is clear. One of the things i did pick up, and its this business of wall way and there involvement of the sg infrastructure and ii involvement of the sg infrastructure and 11 countries have told them they will not buy the equipment, that we get ina will not buy the equipment, that we get in a proper answer from will not buy the equipment, that we get in a proper answerfrom Boris Johnson as to whether the uk is one of those 11 . No. Its one of the many questions he backed away and said they had not made that decision yet, and impeded the course but they are in an election campaign. Very interesting listen to the nato secretary general. He mentioned the fa ct secretary general. He mentioned the fact that modernising nato including a5g fact that modernising nato including a 5g mobile network is crucial, and he said we agreed that it had to be with trusted and secure networks. No china, but behind the headlines and luxury hotel behind mate that would have been discussing and its on the agenda the first time at a nato meeting, which countries are buying, canada, britain and many others . The United States has made it clear. Stop it. I wanted to talk to you about president of turkey. He was seen as about president of turkey. He was seen as one about president of turkey. He was seen as one of the awkward members of the table. How did that work out in the end. Awkward indeed. President erdogan of turkey announce before this meeting that turkey would block what is a signature success would block what is a signature success of the Nato Alliance which is the expansion in the Baltic States, its crucial to the Baltic States, its crucial to the Baltic States and very much feel threatened by russia. If nato did not agree that the kurdish groups in syria are not terrorists. In the end that is one of the issues that nato was able to resolve. Turkey took it off the agenda and it will find a form of words, a way of dealing with that does notjeopardise what it regards as its most important missions. Thank you so much forjoining us. Joining us now from washington is danielle pletka, Senior Vice President of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise institute. Thank you forjoining us today. Picking up where she left off there, talking about the turkish president , one of the other concerns of courses here you have a nato member thats buying defence equipment from russia. Was that an issue that people were keen to kind of not get to into in order to try and paper over the cracks that were clearly on evidence at this meeting . over the cracks that were clearly on evidence at this meeting . I think youre absolutely right. The problem for all of nato is that no one really knows what to do about turkey. 0n the one hand you want to keep turkey inside the alliance because it is the most important alliance, and turkey is a hugely important country. On the other hand turkey seems to be doing Everything Possible to alienate its nato allies including going to one of their biggest adversaries, russia and buying defence equipment that is antithetical to our own interest. What was striking to me was that going into this meaning a lot was made of donald trump is not criticism of nato and the concerns about the object ability of what he might do and say when he was in london. For all that he seems to have done rather well in the sense that nato, long been focused on russia is now saying it will focus on china, one of americas top priorities. I hope that after 70 years nato is capable of chewing gum and walking. The most powerful, venerable and successful alliance in Human History and if we cant look at russia for china, or china for russia we really got a bit of a problem on our hands. What i found ironic was not the geostrategic question, it was that everybody complains about donald trump or his childish behaviour or inability to control himself and what happened was that was well on display from oui was that was well on display from our nato allies. I dont get what they set themselves up that way. I dont understand why that was appropriate. We all have come to expect this from donald trump s which is we regret it. But i dont appreciate you seeing the rest of them behaving exactly the same way. Its a good point particularly when some of them, as in canada as donald trump made clear they are not paying the 2 that he asked them to make. The programme last night we talked about the success he has had of getting nato members to cough up this 2 but theres no getting away from the fact that his comments on nato have started a new conversation in europe. Is very problematic. Theres always been a quiet behind closed doors conversation about the effectiveness of nato in the post cold war era, its the stuff that nerds like me talk about. But even in the halls of power theres lots and lots of lamenting about the efficacy of nato and their inability to act in what is frankly disinvestment in nato that most of oui disinvestment in nato that most of our european allies. That being said, donald trump is the first person who kind of suggested frankly and openly that the emperor is not perhaps as well dressed as we would like him to be. Not properly covered as it were. And i think that that was good and effective in the sense that it started a conversation, that it cost our allies to begin to consider spending more on defence, although they are not there yet. On the other hand was fodder for nato public enemies. For the isolationists on the left and right in america and in europe who think that nato is a relic of the past era and we need tojust do nothing. That nato is a relic of the past era and we need to just do nothing. Good to get your thoughts. Thank you for coming on the programme tonight. The huawei issue, its a big thing. And donald trump is quite adamant if they go down the huawei route its a risk. We look at Telecoms Companies here in the us, planning ahead especially when youre talking about the role of 56 which takes years of planning American Companies have relied on multiple different suppliers, so they will be less affected by what donald trump is pushing for. Thats not necessarily true if you look at whats going on in parts of europe. Bt in the uk for example has been, has helped create the success of huawei, lets break at the first foothold and trying to untangle that is very expensive. I suspect that may be why you see that hedging from borisjohnson understanding the business pressure as well as the political pressure. Its a hot potato because he tried to get the door open for china and of course trying to keep in alliance with the americans as well. Thats going to be one for after the election. On of the atlantic for fans of legal history and procedural roll call votes, todays impeachment hearing had plenty of both. The Housejudiciary Committee is debating whether or not there are grounds to draft and approve articles of impeachment. And viewers were quickly reminded of what a partisan affair this is with republicans at several points seeking to slow down the proceedings with a series of motions. Four law professors were called to testify. The first expert, noah feldman who was invited by democrats, argued trump did commit offenses that warranted his removalfrom office. But jonathan tu rley, the only witness called by republicans and a familiar face to viewers of this programme cautioned against the rush to impeach. President trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. By corru ptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by corruptly soliciting president zelinsky of ukraine to announced investigations of his political rivals in order to gain political advantage including in the 2020 president ial election. Im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. The bbcs nada tawfik has been following the testimony on capitol hill for us and we speak to her now. Michelle is right, there will roll calls and all sorts of procedural interventions, it seemed at one point the republican strategy was to make this so unbearable to watch that everyone would turn off. And you know, this committee is known for this. They are often taking on these really cultural issues that get a lot of heated debate. They are used to calling and legal scholars to help them go through the constitution, but when you add an impeachment to all of this which is so impeachment to all of this which is so divided the nation that is clearly a recipe for even more quote unquote bickering. Ithought clearly a recipe for even more quote unquote bickering. I thought it was really interesting that some of that pushback came from one of the witnesses themselves. Professor Pamela Carlin criticised the ranking republican on the committee and saying that she was insulted by his suggestion that there was not enough evidence and it was all rushed. She said she read through every page of the depositions and but it struck at the depositions and but it struck at the heart of what the hearing was about. During a given that this is a political process and then starting with this legal arguments, im curious what American Voters will make of that. You know, its really interesting, michelle, because americans can look at this and say here again democrats and republicans putting witnesses and able to select arguments that support that position. At the end of the day this isa position. At the end of the day this is a political process and americans do have to remember that. This will essentially go to likely the house drawing up articles of impeachment and it seems like democrats based on what we are here for witnesses feel comfortable they could bring articles of impeachment notjust on abuse of power and obstruction but potentially bribery and trying to push that through the vote as early as christmas, but its important remember that even if the president is impeached by the house of course if the senate they get to try that and they will likely, unless anything major changes has republican allies in the senate will likely equip President Trump. Acquit. Underscoring the political nature of all of this. For more on the legal arguments made today were joined from washington by former federal prosecutor, joe moreno. Joe, i wanted to start with the comments from the witness called by the republicans, a regular on this show. He said that the case was not quite there, that more time was needed. But he did not dismiss outright the basis for the investigation. Thats right. I think we had a very different tone from the three witnesses called by the democrats. Professor charlie, the sole republican witness came out of very objectively. He said look, there could be a case maybe there is, maybe theres not. There are factual questions here, there are process questions here and his big ta ke process questions here and his big take away was dont rush this because if you ran this through on a pure power exercise youre going to leave the American Public behind. That was very different than what we heard from the democrat experts who are wholeheartedly in support of impeachment. Personally i think the professor was much more effective is coming across as a sober, objective expert in these areas, and answering the kinds of questions that many of us the kinds of questions that many of us who are still on the fence here really wa nt us who are still on the fence here really want to know. You mentioned that the three witnesses of three legal scholars called by democrats all supported it so there was enough grounds for impeachment, were they making the same argument or have Different Reasons for that . They seem Different Reasons for that . They seem like they were in complete lockstep with the democrat majority who was asking them the questions as well as with each other. Again, i can call 100 legal scholars and get 100 different opinions. I dont think it necessarily helps if the purpose of this hearing was to possibly change minds and educate members of congress and the American Public to get people who simply tow the line with what the democrat majority asked them. Again, these are respected scholars, certainly entitled to their opinions and i may be interested in those opinions in some form, but ijust dont know if they do anything in this particular case other thanjust they do anything in this particular case other than just to add to the noise and the partisanship that both sides are already engaged in. |j think whatjonathan sides are already engaged in. |j think what jonathan was sides are already engaged in. |j think whatjonathan was pointing to it was the timeline. Its not that the record does not contain direct evidence of the president stating quid pro quo, its that, and im quoting him, the committee did not subpoena the key witnesses who had direct knowledge. Hes talking about Nick Mulvaney the chief of staff or mike pompeo the secretary of state. The energy secretary. These are the people that had day to day involvement with the president who would know whether there was that quid pro quo. Correct. Thats a key point here. The evidence in this case is largely incomplete. Theres a way to complete it and thats to subpoena these witnesses, work through the courts and ultimately compel their testimony and hear from them. Thats possible, that is doable. It takes time and will require some patients but in that in my opinion and it sounds like in this professor Public Opinion thats the right way to go about this. By simply saying we invited them to testify, they said no thank you and now we are moving forward. Not just with the impeachment case but also alleging obstruction ofjustice. Its way too far and again that may appeal t