♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: a successful business owner sells his company and

restores his father's historic jazz club with his son. a raymond james financial advisor get to know you, your passions, and the way you bring people together. life well planned. george: actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i think that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo. man: cunard is a proud supporter of public television. on a voyage with cunard, the world awaits. a world of flavor. diverse destinations. and immersive experiences. a world of leisure... and british style. all with cunard's "white-star" service. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation.

and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news" ♪ caitriona: i'm caitriona perry in washington and this is bbc "world news america." new york's highest court overturns the conviction of disgraced hollywood producer harvey weinstein. the u.s. supreme court considers whether donald trump is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president. and elsewhere, mr. trump's hush money trial continues in new york, with testimony detailing alleged payments to adult -- to an adult film star. ♪ caitriona: hello and welcome to "world news america."

i'm caitriona perry. in a stunning reversal, the new york court of appeals overturned a 2020 rape conviction against hollywood producer harvey weinstein, paving the way for a new trial. in a 4-3 ruling the court found he did not get a fair trial, saying the judge had shown prejudice by allowing women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case. the accusation started in 2017, sparking the #metoo movement that exposed sexual abuse at the highest levels of the entertainment industry and far beyond. the 72-year-old will remain in prison, serving a 16 year term after be convicted of rape in a separate case in los angeles. that conviction is not directly affected by this ruling. mr. weinstein's lawyer hailed as a victory. >> today's legal ruling is a great day for america because it instills in us the faith that

there is a justice system. even though there's 100 cameras around, that a judge will sit in her chambers and look at the law and look at the president -- precedent without fear of favor and say i don't care if it is the defendant. if it is the former president of the united states or the most storied hollywood producer of our generation. the law applies to everyone. caitriona: weinstein's lawyer celebrate the ruling. others have come out against it. a spokesperson for the manhattan district attorney's office said we will do everything in our power to retry this case and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault. in a stinging dissent of the majority ruling by the appeals court, one judge wrote that it continues a disturbing trend of overturning jury's guilty verdict in cases involving sexual violence. our l.a. correspondent brings us

up-to-date. reporter: when one of the most powerful men in hollywood is charged with rape, it led to an outpouring over a culture of sexual assault and misogyny experienced by women around the world. and number of actresses came forward, accusing harvey weinstein of forcing them into sex, saying they had been afraid to speak out because of his ability to make or break careers. but now the rape conviction against harvey weinstein that sparked the so-called me too movement has been overturned in new york. the court of appeal said prosecutors had called witnesses whose accusations were not part of the charges against him. that meant it said that he was unfairly trialed -- tried. harvey weinstein was also convicted of rape in a separate case in l.a. last year he was sentenced to 16 years for raping a woman in a beverly hills hotel.

he will remain in prison while the decision is made in new york over whether to retry him. harvey weinstein's lawyer has committed the appeals court and said he upheld the possible say criminal defendant should have any trial. harvey weinstein's accusers have called the decision a major step back and holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence. caitriona: let's speak now to harvey weinstein's former assistant provided evidence against him for both his new york and los angeles trials. thank you for being with us. when you heard this morning the conviction had been overturned, what was your first reaction? >> it was immensely shocking and really heartbreaking for those women who had been brave enough and went through the harrowing experience of coming forward. i think it highlights the weaknesses of the legal system. it is so tipped against women who have already been reluctant to come forward with their stories, in the sense society

does not believe them and then the legal system does not back them up. caitriona: talk about that bravery, the courage, the strength it took for you and so many others to speak out about your experiences. >> yes, i was one of the original in the investigation in the investigation and 2017. there is the horrible scene in the movie where a new york times journalist comes to our doorstep and breaks my story to my husband, who didn't know of my working with harvey weinstein and what happened. for me it's very personal in the sense that back then it was very difficult for me to come forward. i participated only anonymously in the british investigation. i was terrified for many, many reasons. my parents did not know what happened to me, my own husband did not know. it took me two years to build up the courage to speak about this publicly. when i see a miscarriage of justice like this, where women

have mustered up the courage to speak about some thing that happening -- that happened to them, relying on the legal system to support their story, to believe in them, to come behind them and have the legal system fail them in this way is a signal to those i think who haven't yet been able to come forward that this world is not one that believes survivors and the legal system is not one that is going to bring about any modicum of justice for the sexual assault. caitriona: the court found it was a mistake by the trial judge that harvey weinstein had not received a fair trial. the manhattan das office said it will do everything in its power to retry the case and remain steadfast in its commitment to survivors of sexual assault. would a retrial at ease some of that shock and upset you have been describing you another survivors feel to? >> i do of course feel adamantly there should be a retrial, but the fact we are even talking about a retrial, i tend to say,

do you know what you asking of the women to have to testify again? the first experience was already incredibly re-triggering and traumatizing. conscious of the signal i suppose it gives to women who are already reluctant to come forward in their cases because they fear not being believed, they fear miscarriages of justice. this sends a signal that our world is greatly in need of reform, societal reform and legal reform. it is clear this is not a safe space for women to come forward with their stories of what have happened to them. caitriona: given the re-traumatization you are describing, will you come forward again, would you testify and tell your story? if you think others will? >> i have been very public the last five years telling my story in many forums. yes, i certainly would be willing to come forward if called upon. i'm thinking of the many

survivors out there who have not been able to come forward with their stories and who, frankly, neither law nor media are interested in their stories simply because their perpetrator is not a famous person. is there justice for them? caitriona: a separate sentence was handed down in california come not affected by this. harvey weinstein will not be freed. does that bring you any sense of justice? >> it is of course one of my first thoughts, will this cause the l.a. verdict to be overturned? i'm very much hoping that won't be the case. but you can imagine today is not a day i have a lot of faith in the legal system. caitriona: arby weinstein's lawyer says everyone has the right to justice, even people who are very unpopular in society, no one is above the law or below the law either. you accept that point that he is mickey? >> i do accept that point he is making.

we as a civil and just society have to abide by the rule of law. i'm not suggesting we try him of the court of public opinion, but what i am suggesting is i think the legal system needs a lot of reform. i'm hoping the shock of today's overturning will cause us to look back on the system and campaign harder than ever for reform of the way survivors are treated in the way these cases are tried. caitriona: harvey weinstein's former assistant. think you so much for speaking to us on bbc news today. >> thank you. caitriona: lawyers for former president trump have laid out their case before the u.s. up in court as to why he should be immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took while president. those proceedings are underway in washington. donald trump was in court in manhattan, new york, the first ever criminal trial of a former president. donald trump is facing dozens of criminal charges across four

separate federal cases, including that he conspired to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss to joe biden. trial is on hold but will move forward if the supreme court justices decide he can be prosecuted. in further legal development, the attorney general of arizona indicted 18 people wednesday over an alleged scheme to flip donald trump's defeat in that state in 2020. the former president is not facing charges, but he is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. those indicted include former lawyer rudy giuliani in the white house chief of staff mark meadows. donald trump spoke to the media at the end of his day in manhattan court to criticize joe biden's economy, calling the 2017 rally in charlottesville a peanut compared to the gaza protests on u.s. university campuses, it appeared more focused while the supreme court hearing dan on his trial in manhattan. >> the u.s. supreme court had a

monumental hearing. immunity. immunity having to do with presidential immunity. i thick it was made clear -- i hope it was made clear the president has to have immunity. a president or a ceremonial president, that is not with the founders had in mind. we want presidents who can get things done and bring people together. i heard the meeting was quite amazing. quite amazing. the justices were on their game. caitriona: we have correspondence across both cases. one is outside of the courtroom in manhattan and one is outside of the supreme court in washington, d.c. donald trump in new york not appearing before the supreme court, what happened in today's proceedings? reporter: katrina --caitriona,

we are still on the first witness of the case, the publisher of the national enquirer. he gave more details into these payments he said he made on behalf of donald trump through his lawyer michael cohen, the first to a former playboy model karen mcdougal who said she had an affair with donald trump which donald trump denies. he said he paid one hunt $50,000 to her because -- $150,000 to her. but then his legal advisor advised against it and he knew the payments phyletic campaign-finance laws. then when he detailed the hearing about stormy daniels selling her story, he says he urged michael cohen to make the payment himself. he was just unwilling to make the payment in that case, he said, and that is kind of where we saw this go, caitriona. david packer for the prosecution

outlining the scheme and the cover-up, sing donald trump spoke to him many times afterward, asking about why the women for example had given interviews when there was an agreement with them not to. then the defense was able to start questioning of david packer. he testified this checkbook journalism, paying to suppress stories, was standard operating procedure and he had done it with several celebrities including tiger woods and arnold schwarzenegger. caitriona: thank you. gary, this a big moment for donald trump at the supreme court, also u.s. presidency potentially protected into the future. talk to us about how the day unfolded. gary: around three hours or so of arguments before the justices, quite a long session. the essential question, does a president, does donald trump have immunity from criminal

prosecution, ask he committed while he was in the white house? the previous courts have said no to that question. donald trump's lawyers say yes and as a constitutional basis. jack smith, the special counsel prosecuting donald trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the events around january 6, the attack on the capital, he said no one is above the law. that is what the justices have been working with. they i think were skeptical of the idea of total immunity from prosecution. that may be bad news for donald trump. they also made a distention between acts done as a private citizen for private reasons and acts done as official, as a part of the official job. that may mean they will push this back down to the lower courts, which could delay the case even further. we are already looking at a very tight timetable for jack smith

the special counsel to bring this case before the election. of course, we also know, don't we, if donald trump were to win november's election, in this case still hanging over him, he could simply ask the justice department to drop it. caitriona: gary at the u.s. supreme court and manhattan, thank you both for joining us. with me now and studio is marcus childress, the former investigative council for the congressional committee that investigated the january 6 the capitol riot's. you have been sitting in the oral arguments on the u.s. supreme court today. did you get a sense from the line of questioning there is a view that some level of presidential immunity might be required? >> the first thing i noticed was the gravity of the day. it felt a lot like the january 6 hearings where you just had to get it right. we knew on the committee we had to get the facts right. you could feel from the justices today they really wanted to not just create a rule for today but create a rule for future misconduct as well.

there is competing interests going on. you can see it from the justices. one of a ruling that would have a chilling effect on the president being able to act in practice. on the other side, whether a president really should think about not violent criminal statutes. that is really what's going on here today. it will be interesting to see what the court comes down within its ruling. caitriona: given the gravity you are talking about, there seem to be a suggestion the whole issue needs a deeper examination and perhaps needs to go back to the lower court to do a deeper dive. what would that involve? >> i think there are certain justices asking questions about whether there will be further questioning. the question before the court really is, is a president subjected to criminal prosecution for ask that he or she did, official action office? the justices are trying to figure out official acts and private acts, but that is not

the question before the courts. that is what justice roberts was getting to come if a president appointed in the best in the passenger and receives a bribe, are they subject to criminal prosecution? the reason why that hypothetical is so well done is because an investor is a power that the president solely has in the u.s., but a bribe is a criminal offense, an official act. the question is, should the president be subjected to come in a prosecution in the case? if the hypothetical is any guidance where the court may go, there are official acts that should be subjected to prosecution. caitriona: if that is an indicator, would we expect them to maybe produce a list of what constitutes acts of a president and what constitutes acts of a private individual? >> i think are three buckets. one is they say the president does enjoy absolute immunity for official acts. i didn't see that. the court doesn't seem to be going that way from the questions today. a second one might be they might

say, hey, for official ask you can be criminally prosecuted, just leave it at that, though the trial proceeds. the third bucket, which you are alluding to, is maybe they create a rule where you have to have some type of line of an official act you could be officially prosecuted for. in that case it would be remanded back to the lower court. they would have to do an analysis consistent with that role. i don't think it was consistent across the board with all the justices liking it should be remanded for this type of test, but there were just us who were alluding to this type of process. caitriona: if it's going to be a couple months before they come back with a ruling, which ever one they go with, what impact will that have on the trial at the center of all this case, whether that will start before election day or not? >> the timing has always been one of the core issues. i think if we get a ruling at the end of june, beginning of july, i will say it is in the first bucket of official acts can be prosecuted. we are not looking at starting

trial until september, october. if there is a remand for further proceedings, motion hearings take time come a month or two just for that one issue on remand. doing the math, that pushes back into november or december. it could have a significant influence. but it is a point to remember that the judge has said she is not considering the political calendar as part of her calculus for timing. if that is the case, it will proceed like the manhattan trial, without think about the political calendar of the former president. caitriona: if we do consider the political calendar, as we are off to do in the news media, and this issue is not resolved by a lection day and if donald trump is elected to a second term as president, what happens 12 these proceedings? >> if donald trump or to win the presidency, we expect all the federal proceedings would likely go away. but i can tell you as a former prosecutor, we are not looking at the political dynamic.

i think what that leads to is a situation where maybe the former president wins the election, that is found guilty after the election and before inauguration, which will be another test of the constitutional system. caitriona: a good few years to be a lawyer in this country. we will leave it there for now, marcus childress, former investigative counsel. like you so much for joining us. -- thank you so much for joining us. u.s. top diplomat says washington and beijing should to their differences responsibly. they called for direct engagement as they arrived in beijing on the second day of his visit to china. he said the two countries must resolve their differences together before talks with senior chinese officials on issues such as russia and taiwan. all the tensions have eased between the nation since last year, disagreements on trade and security remain. our state department correspondent tom bateman is

traveling with secretary blinken and file this report. tom: one of the main messages from sec. blinken will be about the war in ukraine. it is a warning really from the americans to the chinese, urging them to curb what the u.s. as is the export of machine tools, of microchips that they say russia is using to build weapons for its war in ukraine. they want the chinese to stop exporting those components. secretary blinken has called china the primary contributor to russia's military industrial base when it comes to the war in ukraine. so a warning there. the chinese have already countered this, hit back, calling it a groundless accusation first of all, also saying the americans are being hypocritical. it was only days before mr. blinken flew to china that

congress passed the multibillion-dollar package of relief and lethal assistance for the ukrainians. that is why china says this is effectively american hypocrisy. what's going on with the chinese here i think is they are pushing back at the americans. they say that washington is trying to contain them commercially, trying to encircle them geopolitically. the american say, well, they would lift sanctions or tariffs if beijing changes its behavior. there is still a lot of friction, a lot of distrust about this relationship. we also heard more about the desire i think by both sides to try to stabilize this relationship, keep it on an even keel. the first part is in shanghai mr. blinken said they have a responsibility to the whole world to manage the relationship. the most senior chinese

communist official in shanghai said the u.s. and china can choose come in his words, between cooperation or confrontation, and he said the whole of humanity had its fate resting on how they manage that relationship. caitriona: tom bateman, traveling with the secretary of state antony blinken. some other stories making news around the world, haitian prime minister officially resigned and a transitional council has been sworn in to take over powerful stop thursday ceremony was caught up in the gang violence sweeping the country. gunfire near the national palace forced a change of venue to the prime minister's office. the council will try to restore water to the country of 11.5 million people as gang leaders demand a seat at the table. the pentagon says u.s. military vessels have started building a temporary pier and causeway just off the coast of gaza. that will be operational in early may. u.s. troops will not be on the

ground in gaza but will come close to the shore. until now the u.s. has largely relied on airdropped, as seen in this video, to deliver aid to gaza. it is hoped this pier when constructed will allow eta asks us to come in by c -- aide access to come in by sea. it attracts vast numbers of tourists come and now venice has become the first ever city to charge visitors in a bid to control those numbers. taurus will need to pay five dollars for a day trip between now and mid july as the scheme is tested out. those who refuse to pay a face a fine of between 50 and 300 euro. that is it for today. remember that you can always find more on the days news at our website, bbc.com/news. you can see what we are working on anytime by checking us out on

the life page or your favorite social media site. that is it for now. i'm caitriona perry. iq for watching "world news america." announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... financial services firm, raymond james. bdo. accountants and advisors. cunard is a proud supporter of public television. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

amna: good evening. i'm amna nawaz. geoff bennett is away. on the “newshour” tonight, the supreme court weighs possible immunity for donald trump while the former president's hush money trial continues. a new york appeals court overturns the rape conviction of former film producer harvey weinstein.