特朗普政府有所隐瞒
The Trump administration is hiding something
1477字
2019-12-27 09:46
77阅读
火星译客

In this weekly column "Cross Exam," Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor, gives his take on the latest legal news. Post your questions below. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN. Watch Honig answer reader questions on "CNN Newsroom with Ana Cabrera" at 5:40 p.m. ET Sundays.

美国有线电视新闻网 (CNN) 法律分析师、前联邦和州检察官埃利·霍尼格 (Elie Honig) 在周播节目 “Cross Exam” 中,讲述了他对这桩 “成为头条” 法律案件的看法。请将提问发布在下面。这篇评论所表达的观点代表霍尼格本人的立场。敬请关注CNN的更多资讯。美国东部时间周日下午5点40分,准时收看霍尼格在 “ CNN主新闻编辑室与安娜·卡布瑞拉有约 ” 中答读者问的节目播出。

(CNN)During the House Intelligence Committee's investigation of President Donald Trump's effort to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation of the Bidens, the committee issued 71 subpoenas and requests for information. The Trump administration, in response, produced nothing -- not a single piece of paper.

(美国有线电视新闻网报道) 在特朗普涉嫌向乌克兰总统施压,要求其调查拜登及其次子的弹劾案中,美国众议院情报委员会总计发出了71张传票,并要求特朗普提供证明材料。特朗普政府未作任何回应,哪怕是一张纸。

So, it's only fair to ask: What are they hiding?

所以,我们只能问:他们在隐藏什么?

We just got our first small hint, and the answer is alarming. A federal judge ordered the administration to turn over documents subject to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Center for Public Integrity. And just one of those documents -- an e-mail from Michael Duffey, a Trump appointee who served in the Office of Management and Budget, to other OMB and Pentagon officials -- gives us a tantalizing look at the administration's efforts to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine, and to cover up its own conduct.

从我们刚刚得到的首个小提示来看,答案是惊人的。在公共诚信中心提出诉讼的情况下,一名联邦法官得以强制行政机关按照《信息自由法》规定上交并公开文件。由特朗普任命的行政管理和预算局前局长迈克尔·达菲其他发送给该局以及国防部其他官员的一封电子邮件也在这类文件之中,

并让我们得以一窥奥巴马政府拒绝向乌克兰提供外部援助以及掩盖自己行为的种种做法。

(Pentagon,五角大楼,美国国防部的代称)

Duffey -- one of four witnesses requested by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in Trump's upcoming Senate impeachment trial -- sent the e-mail roughly 90 minutes after Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Duffey e-mail is a prosecutor's dream, opening up various lines of potentially fruitful questioning.

参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默 (Chuck Schumer) 传唤了杜菲在内的四名证人出席特朗普即将面临的弹劾审判案。在特朗普7月25日与乌克兰总统沃洛迪米尔·泽伦斯基(Volodymyr Zelensky) 通话后大约90分钟,杜菲发出了这封电子邮件。达菲的电子邮件帮助检察官们达成了获取存在潜在成效的多方问话渠道的愿望。

Duffey writes, "Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration's plan to review assistance to Ukraine... please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds."

达菲在邮件中写道:“ 根据我所收到的指令,并考虑到政府审议向乌克兰施援的计划……请国防部推迟履行提供这些资金的之外的任何义务。”

First question: Who gave you the referenced guidance? Second question: What was the guidance? Clearly, somebody in the White House who was senior to Duffey told him to make sure to hold back foreign aid to Ukraine -- and did it right after Trump's call with Zelensky. The answer to these questions could provide information vital to understand Trump's actions and motives toward Ukraine.

第一个问题:是谁指示你这样做的?第二个问题,指示的内容是?显然是某位职位高于达菲的政府高级官员告知他,一定要停止对乌克兰的对外援助——就在特朗普与泽伦斯基通话后,他立即这么做了。解答这些问题向我们提供了关键信息,有助于理解特朗普针对乌克兰的行动及其动机。

Duffey later instructs in the e-mail, "Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held."

达菲后来在邮件中表示,“ 鉴于这一请求的敏感性,我希望您能严格保密这些信息。”

Ok, Duffey: explain the "sensitive nature" of the request to hold back funding from Ukraine? Why was it sensitive? Who told you it was sensitive? The answers to these questions could prove damning to Trump and his most senior officials.

好了,达菲:请解释一下暂停向乌克兰提供资金的这一请求的 “ 敏感性 ” ? 其敏感性何在?谁告诉你一点的?这些问题的答案可能会对特朗普和其政府的高级官员造成致命打击。

Remember: the Duffey e-mail is just one piece of paper out of likely thousands, or more, that the administration has but refuses to turn over. If this one e-mail raises so many important questions, just imagine what we don't yet know.

请记住:达菲的电子邮件只是特朗普政府拒绝公开的成千上万封邮件的其中之一。如果这封电子邮件都能引发众多重大问题,想象一下还有什么是不为我们所知的。

I believe we will see many or perhaps all of the documents that the administration is withholding -- somehow, someday. The documents might come out, like the Duffey e-mail did, through Freedom of Information Act requests. Or they might become public through other lawsuits, subpoenas by Congress or prosecutors, disclosure by future administrations, or leaks. But, one way or another, we will eventually learn what this administration may be hiding.

我相信我们将会看到很多或者可能是政府试图隐瞒的所有文件---不管怎样,总有一天会公开的。这些文件可能会像达菲的电子邮件一样,在《信息自由法》(Freedom of Information Act) 的要求下,又或者可能通过诉讼手段、接到国会或检察官的传票、未来政府的信息披露或泄密等其他方式而公之于众。但是,不管怎样,我们最终会知道特朗普政府所隐藏的真相。

The problem, of course, is that we may not know what the Trump administration is covering up until it is too late -- until this administration is long gone, or until it is too late to fix the damage.

当然,问题在于,我们可能直到特朗普政府下台或酿成难以修复的损害也无法获知其所掩盖的事实,一切都为时已晚。

Now, your questions

现在,你的问题是?

Scott (Tennessee): If the Senate acquits Trump, but then he does something else later in his term that merits impeachment, can the House impeach him again? Or, is there a double jeopardy rule against impeaching a person twice?

斯科特 (田纳西州):如果参议院宣布特朗普无罪,但随后他在其任期后期重蹈旧则以至于遭到弹劾,众议院能再次弹劾他吗?或者,是否存在双重危险原则,保护被告人难以遭受两次弹劾?

No, the double jeopardy rule does not apply to impeachment. Double jeopardy is a concept unique to criminal law. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

不,双重危险规则不适用于弹劾。双重危险是刑法的特有概念。《宪法》第五修正案规定,“ 任何人不得因同一犯罪行为而两次遭受生命或身体的危害。”

The "in jeopardy of life or limb" language refers to criminal penalties -- including imprisonment or execution -- and not to impeachment, where the only penalty is removal from office.

“ 生命或身体的危害 ” 的描述指的是监禁或处决在内的刑事处罚,而不包括弹劾,因为弹劾的唯一惩罚是罢免。

While the double jeopardy rule means that a person cannot be charged twice for the same criminal offense, the Constitution provides no such legal protection against a second impeachment. No federal official, however, has ever been impeached twice in the United States.

尽管禁止双重危险原则意味着一个人不能因同一罪名受到两次审判或处罚。但宪法并未提供这类法律保护能够避免二次弹劾。然而,没有哪个美国联邦官员遭受两次弹劾的。

Although second impeachment is legally possible, practical obstacles certainly would arise. It seems exceedingly unlikely as a political matter that the House would impeach a President, see that President acquitted in the Senate and then impeach him again for the same conduct.

虽然在法律上不排除出现二次弹劾的可能性,但确实存在多重障碍会阻止这种现象。从政治层面考虑,向总统发起弹劾总统的众议院最终在参议院审判时宣布其无罪,然后再以同样的方式二次弹劾总统,这似乎是极不可能的。

If, however, a President was impeached, acquitted, and then committed new impeachable acts, the House could be more willing to impeach again.

然而,如果在位总统遭受弹劾并被无罪释放,之后再次做出足以引起弹劾的失当行为,众议院或许更乐意二次弹劾总统。

Turtley (New York): House Republicans claim that all the evidence against Trump is indirect. Are criminal cases ever decided solely on indirect evidence?

特利 (纽约):众议院共和党人声称并不存在任何针对特朗普的直接证据。刑事案件是否曾经仅仅依靠间接证据来判决?

Yes, a jury can convict in a criminal case based solely on indirect (also called "circumstantial") evidence, if it finds that indirect evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

是的,在刑事案件中,如果陪审团发现间接证据(也被称为“间接证据”)足以在合理怀疑之外证明有罪,那么他们可以仅根据这些间接证据定罪。

Here's how judges explain the concept of direct versus indirect evidence to juries. Let's say you looked out the window of the courtroom and saw raindrops falling down and hitting the window. That would be direct evidence that it is raining outside. Now let's say the window shades were drawn, but you saw three people walk into the courtroom, all wearing raincoats, holding umbrellas and dripping wet. That would be indirect -- but still relevant and potentially decisive -- evidence that it is raining outside.

以下是法官如何向陪审团解释直接证据和间接证据的概念。假设你从法庭的窗户往外看,看到雨滴落下来打在窗户上。那将是外面在下雨的直接证据。现在我们假设窗帘拉上了,但你看到三个人走进法庭,都穿着雨衣,拿着雨伞,浑身湿淋淋的。这将是间接的、但仍然相关、且可能具有决定性的证据,表明外面在下雨。

House Republicans' claim that the case against Trump consists of "no direct evidence" is not true, in any event. The July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, for example, is direct evidence: you can look at it and see Trump's own words to Zelensky, much as you could look out the courtroom window and see raindrops.

无论如何,众议院共和党人声称针对特朗普的案件“没有直接证据”都是不正确的。例如,7月25日特朗普和泽伦斯基之间的通话就是直接证据:你可以看到它,看到特朗普自己对泽伦斯基说的话,就像你可以从法庭窗户看到雨滴一样。

There also is plenty of indirect evidence. For example, Ambassador Bill Taylor testified that it was unusual and unexplained that military aid to Ukraine was held back. A reasonable juror could -- but need not necessarily -- infer from this indirect evidence, all with the other indirect evidence, that the aid was held back in order to pressure Ukraine.

还有大量的间接证据。例如,比尔·泰勒大使作证说,推迟向乌克兰的军事援助这件事很不寻常,其中的原因也难以解释。尽管一位理性的陪审员可以从这些间接证据以及其他间接证据中推断出,停止援助是为了向乌克兰施压,但他并不一定需要这么做。

Marty (Texas): Now that Trump has been impeached, does he lose the ability to issue pardons?

马蒂 (德克萨斯):特朗普在遭到弹劾后,现在还能发布赦免令?

No, but the confusion here is understandable. Article II of the Constitution provides that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

不,但这其中的混乱是可以理解的。宪法第二条规定:“ 除弹劾案外,总统有权对危害合众国的犯罪行为发布缓刑令和赦免令。”

On this point, the Constitution -- venerable document that it is -- loses points for ambiguity. Read one way, it could appear to say that after the President is impeached by the House, he loses the power to issue pardons. But read another way, it says that the President can issue pardons for criminal offenses but not for impeachment.

在这一点上,《宪法》这样一部神圣庄严的古老法律却因规定较为含糊不清而大打折扣。从某种角度来看,它似乎可以解释为,在总统遭到众议院弹劾后,他失去了发布赦免令的权力。但从另一个角度来看,它又指称总统有权赦免刑事犯罪,但不适用于弹劾。

The latter reading is correct. There is no provision anywhere in the Constitution, statutes or case law that strips a president of any power upon impeachment by the House (though of course, if convicted in the Senate, the President loses office and all of its powers). It would be anomalous for the President to lose only one power -- the power to pardon -- upon impeachment alone, and no serious legal authority has argued for this interpretation.

后者的解读是正确的。宪法、成文法或判例法中没有任何条款规定,总统在遭到众议院弹劾后,即被剥夺任何权力(当然,如果总统在参议院被定罪,他将失去所有权力)。如果总统因为面临弹劾而仅仅失去赦免权,这显然不合常理,并且没有任何重大法律权威对这种解释提出过异议。

Rather, the clause in Article II means that while a President can pardon an official (or any person) for a crime, he cannot pardon an official out of impeachment. In other words, the President does not have power to un-impeach. For example, if a federal judge committed bribery, the President could pardon the judge from a criminal bribery charge, but the President could not rescue the judge from impeachment. Indeed, no president has ever pardoned or even attempted to pardon an official from impeachment.

相反,《宪法》第二条中的条款意味着,虽然总统有权赦免官员 (或任何人) 的罪行,但他无权赦免遭到弹劾的官员。换句话说,总统没有撤销弹劾的权力。例如,如果一名联邦法官犯了贿赂罪,总统可以免除对他的刑事贿赂指控,但总统却不能免除对他的弹劾。事实上,从未出现哪位总统曾赦免甚至试图赦免官员免遭弹劾的情况。

This makes sense in our broader system of checks and balances. The Constitution grants Congress the "sole power" to impeach, as one of its most powerful checks on the President and the executive branch. If the President could simply issue pardons to undo an impeachment, he could unilaterally deprive Congress of one of its vital tools, effectively rendering it moot.

就更广泛的制衡体系来看,这件事是完全说得通的。宪法规定只有国会拥有弹劾权,从而国会可对总统及其行政部门实施最有力的检查。如果总统能够发布一条简简单单的赦免令撤销弹劾,他就可以单方面剥夺国会得以诉诸的重要手段之一,而使其变得毫无意义。

Three questions to watch

三个值得关注的问题

1) How long will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wait before formally sending Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?

1) 众议院议长佩洛西 (Nancy Pelosi) 要等多久才能正式向参议院提交针对特朗普的弹劾条款?

2) Will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer make any progress toward a negotiated deal for Trump's Senate impeachment trial?

2) 参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔和少数党领袖查克·舒默会就参议院针对特朗普的弹劾审判达成协议吗?

3) Will Trump and McConnell pursue an aggressive trial strategy, or will they go with a minimalist approach to get it over with quickly?

3) 特朗普和麦康奈尔会采取激进的法庭策略,还是会采取极简主义法以尽快结束这桩案件?

0 条评论
评论不能为空