Donald Trump is the 3rd president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives,

唐納德-特朗普是美國曆史上第3位被眾議院彈劾的總統。

joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

加入安德魯-約翰遜和比爾-克林頓的行列。

Now, Richard Nixon, remember, resigned before theHouse voted on the articles of impeachment.

現在，理查德・尼克松，記得，辭職前 眾議院投票彈劾的條款。

But this is the middle, not the end, of the impeachment process.

但這是彈劾過程的中間環節，而不是終點。

This basically means Trump is officially charged with the abuses of power laid out in the

這基本意味著特朗普正式被指控濫用權力，在規定的。

House's articles of impeachment.

眾議院的彈劾條款。

But now the process moves onto the Senate, where Trump will actually be tried.

但現在，這個過程轉移到了參議院，在那裡，特朗普將真正受到審判。

If two-thirds of the Senate vote for conviction, he'll be removed from office.

如果參議院三分之二的票數支持定罪，他就會被免職。

But Donald Trump is not going to be removed from office by the senate.

但唐納德-特朗普是不會被參議院罷免的。

Mitch McConnell is the majority leader there and he more than anyone else,

米奇-麥康奈爾是那裡的多數派領袖，他比任何人都更。

will control that process, and on December 12th, he went on Fox News to assure Sean Hannity

將控制這個過程，12月12日，他上了福克斯新聞，向Sean Hannity保證

that he saw his role not as conducting a fair trial, but as protecting

他認為自己的作用不是進行公平的審判，而是保護自己的利益。

Trump's presidency – as carrying out Donald Trump's will.

特朗普的總統任期--作為執行唐納德-特朗普的意志。

“Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel.

"這期間我所做的一切，都在和白宮法律顧問協調。

There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."

對於如何處理這件事，總統的立場和我們的立場不會有任何差別。"

The famous line about the Nixon impeachment was that it came down to

關於尼克松彈劾案的名言是，歸根結底是：。

"what did the president know, and when did he know it?"

"總統知道什麼，他什麼時候知道的？"

But that's not the case with Donald Trump's impeachment.

但唐納德-特朗普的彈劾案並非如此。

We know that the president knew. He knew from the beginning, because he released the call record

我們知道，總統知道。他從一開始就知道，因為他公佈了通話記錄。

In which he personally asked Ukraine's president to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden

其中，他親自要求烏克蘭總統調查亨特和喬-拜登。

in return for military aid promised to Ukraine.

以換取對烏克蘭承諾的軍事援助。

And a slew of witnesses testifying before congress have backed that up.

而在國會作證的眾多證人也支持了這一點。

"What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told Mr. Yermak?"

"桑德蘭大使是怎麼跟你說的，他跟葉爾馬克先生說的？"

"That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect

"烏克蘭人必須讓總檢察長就以下問題發表聲明：

to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted."

到調查，作為解除援助的條件"。

No, the question here is what will congressional Republicans accept, and what will they even defend?

不，這裡的問題是國會共和黨人會接受什麼，他們甚至會捍衛什麼？

The facts of the case here are very simple.

這裡的案件事實非常簡單。

I spoke recently with Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman.

我最近與哈佛大學法學教授諾亞-費爾德曼進行了交流。

He was one of the four constitutional scholars

他是四位憲法學者之一。

invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee as part of their hearings.

應邀在眾議院司法委員會的聽證會上作證。

The striking fact about this impeachment process, he said to me, is that it's not an edge case.

他對我說，這個彈劾過程中引人注目的事實是，這不是一個邊緣案例。

It's not a complex question of constitutional interpretation.

這不是一個複雜的憲法解釋問題。

The framers had this one conversation on July 20th, 1787

1787年7月20日，制憲者們進行了這樣一次對話

where they laid out in really clear terms what they were worried about.

在那裡，他們非常清楚地闡述了他們所擔心的事情。

They worried about the abuse of power by a president for his personal gain to corrupt

他們擔心總統濫用權力謀取私利，貪汙腐敗。

the electoral process and to subvert national security.

破壞選舉進程和破壞國家安全；

That's why they put impeachment in there.

這就是為什麼他們把彈劾放在那裡。

The first article of impeachment lays it out clearly:

彈劾的第一條就把它說得很清楚。

“Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a

"特朗普總統利用他的高級職位的權力，徵求了一個人的干涉。

foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 presidential election.

外國政府，烏克蘭，在2020年總統選舉中。

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of

他是通過一項計劃或一連串的行為來做到這一點的，其中包括拉攏政府。

Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the

烏克蘭公開宣佈調查，這將有利於他的連任，損害烏克蘭的

election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States

政敵的選情，並影響2020年美國

presidential election to his advantage.”

總統選舉對他有利。"

That Donalrd Trump did all this is not in doubt.

唐納德-特朗普所做的這一切是毋庸置疑的。

And he did his by leveraging aid that Ukraine, an ally,

而他的做法是利用烏克蘭這個盟友的援助。

needed to protect itself against Russian invasion.

需要保護自己免受俄羅斯入侵。

And this was just one of those cases where it's just not that complicated.

而這只是其中一個案例，它只是沒有那麼複雜。

Because Republicans can't argue that Trump is innocent of what he's alleged to have done

因為共和黨人無法辯解，特朗普被指控的行為是無辜的。

– Innocent of what his own call record shows him doing

- 他自己的通話記錄顯示他的所作所為是無辜的。

– some Republicans embraced an argument

- 一些共和黨人接受了一種說法

that is actually a lot scarier.

這實際上是一個更可怕的。

It's much more dangerous to our system of government – much more in violation of what the founders wanted.

這對我們的政府系統更危險--更違背了創始人的意願。

That what Trump did

這就是特朗普的做法

is fine.

是罰款。

"This president did nothing wrong."

"這位總統沒有做錯什麼。"

"The President of the United States and Mr Zelinski both said nothing is wrong and Mr.

"美國總統和澤林斯基先生都說沒什麼問題，先生。

Zelinski has said many times over, 'We felt no pressure.'"

澤林斯基曾多次表示，'我們沒有感到壓力'。"

"I have news for everybody.

"我有個消息要告訴大家。

Get over it.

擺脫它。

There's going to be political influence in foreign policy."

外交政策中會有政治影響。"

The problem here isn't just the 2020 election.

這裡的問題不僅僅是2020年的選舉。

It's the precedent it sets for every other election.

這是它為每一次其他選舉開的先例。

Congress is meant to use the impeachment power to set boundaries on executive behavior.

國會的目的是利用彈劾權為行政行為設定界限。

If Republicans erase this one, then as Feldman says:

如果共和黨人抹去了這一條，那麼正如費爾德曼所說。

They're saying to Donald Trump, go ahead and do it in the future, and that's

他們對唐納德-特朗普說，你去吧，以後再做吧，這就是。

bad enough.

足夠糟糕。

But they're also saying it to every future president.

但他們也在對每一位未來的總統說。

"Go ahead and use the office of the presidency to gain personal political advantage in upcoming

"去吧，利用總統職務在即將到來的時候謀取個人的政治利益。

elections."

選舉。"

That is not, to be fair, Republicans only argument.

平心而論，這並不是共和黨人唯一的論據。

Some Republicans have focused on process –

一些共和黨人注重過程--。

That the House impeachment process was too fast,

眾議院的彈劾程序太快了。

that it didn't call all the witnesses.

它沒有傳喚所有的證人。

"The fact our colleagues are already desperate to sign up the Senate for new fact finding,

"事實上，我們的同事已經急不可耐地要簽下參議院新的事實調查。

which house democrats themselves were too impatient to see through ..."

眾議院民主黨人自己也太急躁了，看不透......"

The circularity of this argument is a bit maddening.

這種論調的循環性讓人有些抓狂。

House Democrats wanted to call more witnesses. They wanted to subpoena more documents

眾議院民主黨人想傳喚更多的證人。他們想傳喚更多的文件

and Trump blocked them, claiming executive privilege.

而特朗普以行政特權為由阻止了他們。

That's why article 2 of the two articles of impeachment is "Obstruction of Congress."

所以彈劾的兩條第二條是 "妨礙國會"。

Specifically, the article says that Trump obstructed Congress in doing it's constitutional duty by:

文章稱，具體來說，特朗普通過以下方式阻撓國會履行憲法職責。

One

一

Directing the White House to defy subpoenas to produce documents relevant to the investigation.

訓示白宮無視傳票，出示與調查有關的文件。

Two

兩個

Directing agencies to defy subpoenas, such that the Department of Energy, the Department

訓示各機構無視傳票，例如，能源部、財政部、財政部等。

of Management and Budget, the State Department, and the Department of Defense refused to produce

管理和預算部、國務院和國防部拒絕提供。

a single document or record for this investigation.

(a) 本次調查的單一文件或記錄；

And directing nine key administration officials to refuse to testify.

並訓示9名關鍵的政府官員拒絕作證。

Look, Republicans who actually care about congress and the constitution and their duty to conduct oversight

聽著 共和黨人真正關心的是國會和憲法 以及他們進行監督的職責。

and who truly were undecided on the facts of the case – who really felt they just didn't know what happened

和誰真正是不確定的案件事實 - 誰真的覺得他們只是不知道發生了什麼事。

between Donald Trump and Ukraine –

唐納德-特朗普和烏克蘭之間的 -

They could threaten Donald Trump. They could make him produce these documents.

他們可以威脅唐納德・特朗普他們可以讓他出示這些文件。

Make him produce these witnesses by saying they'd vote for the "Obstruction of Congress" article

讓他拿出這些證人，說他們會投票支持 "妨礙國會 "這一條。

if he refused to honor the subpoenas and send the witnesses.

如果他拒絕履行傳票和送證人。

They could just demand the House is able to complete its investigation to their satisfaction.

他們可以直接要求眾議院能夠完成令他們滿意的調查。

That no congressional Republicans hold this position makes their true position all too clear.

國會共和黨人都不持這一立場，這讓他們的真實立場變得非常清楚。

"This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything

"這個東西到了元老院，會很快死掉的，我會盡一切努力

I can to make it die quickly,"

我可以讓它快點死"。

This isn't how the system the Founders constructed is meant to work.

這不是建國者所構建的體系的工作方式。

Ambition was supposed to check ambition.

野心本來就是為了制衡野心。

Instead, the ambition of congressional Republicans has become an enabler for the ambitions of

相反，國會共和黨人的雄心壯志卻成了助紂為虐的工具。

President Donald Trump.

唐納德-特朗普總統。

There is a particular line, on page 5 of the articles of impeachment, that I keep thinking about.

在彈劾條款的第五頁，有一句話我一直在想。

It is, in my view, the most important line in the entire document,

在我看來，這是整個文件中最重要的一行。

It reads,

它的內容是：

“President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security

"特朗普總統的這種行為表明，他將繼續對國家安全構成威脅。

and the constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

和憲法，如果讓他繼續任職的話"。

Everything Trump did with Ukraine came after the Mueller investigation, after his presidency

特朗普對烏克蘭的一切行為都是在穆勒調查之後，在他擔任總統之後才開始的。

was put at risk over allegations of collusion with a foreign power in 2016.

因2016年被指與外國勢力勾結而陷入危險。

And then – after all of that – Donald Trump, having escaped that inquiry unscathed –

然後--在所有這些之後--唐納德-特朗普，逃脫了調查，毫髮無損--。

He turned around and tried to enlist

他轉過身來，想籠絡

Ukraine's help in the next election.

烏克蘭在下次選舉中的幫助。

If congressional Republicans let him off the hook for this, why does anyone think he won't

如果國會的共和黨人放過他，為什麼有人認為他不會呢？

do it again, and again, and again?

再來一次，再來一次，再來一次？

And why, then, don't they think this will just become a normal tactic for incumbent

那麼，為什麼他們不認為這將成為 現任總統的正常策略呢？

presidents worried about their own reelection?

總統們擔心自己的連任？

This is, of course, the exact scenario the Founders most feared.

當然，這正是創始人最擔心的情況。

Republicans are abandoning their constitutional role to provide oversight and to curb the

共和黨人正在放棄他們提供監督和遏制憲法作用。

executive's abuse of power.

行政部門濫用權力。

Every Senate Republican I interview

我採訪的每個參議院共和黨人

tell me they see themselves as a constitutional conservative.

告訴我，他們認為自己是一個憲法保守派。

That their goal in congress is to protect the constitution.

他們在國會的目標是保護憲法。

But that's not what they have become.

但這並不是他們已經變成的樣子。

They've become anti-constitutional Trumpists.

他們已經成為反憲政的特朗普主義者。

They are putting our system of government at risk.

他們讓我們的政府系統處於危險之中。

One more thing before you go –

在你走之前，還有一件事

If you want to hear the full interview with Noah Feldman and quite a bit more like that,

如果你想聽諾亞-費爾德曼的完整採訪，還有不少類似的內容。

you can subscribe to my podcast "Impeachment, explained."

你可以訂閱我的播客 "彈劾，解釋。"

We release every week. We have a lot more where that came from and we'll put a link in the description.

我們每週都會發布。我們有很多更多的地方，這是從哪裡來的，我們會在描述中放一個鏈接。