The days are 44 a clear decision in a divided chamber.

日子是44個分庭抗禮的明確決定。

Donald Trump will face a second impeachment trial.

唐納德-特朗普將面臨第二次彈劾審判。

The Senate shall proceed with the trial.

元老院應進行審判。

The Senate vote affirmed that the trial waas constitutional.

參議院的投票確認了審判是符合憲法的。

We will stop the steal to make their case.

我們將停止偷竊，使他們的情況。

The Democratic prosecutors showed a video as evidence of Trump firing up his supporters ahead of the storming of the capital on January 6th.

民主黨檢方展示了一段視頻，作為特朗普在1月6日衝進首都前向支持者開火的證據。

And you can't vote on fraud and fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it?

而且你也不能投詐騙票，詐騙就會破壞一切，不是嗎？

When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.

當你抓到一個詐騙犯的時候，你可以按照非常不同的規則去做。

You ask what a high crime and misdemeanor is under our Constitution, That's, Ah, high crime and misdemeanor.

你問什麼是我國憲法規定的重罪輕罰，那就是，啊，重罪輕罰。

Ahead of the vote, Republicans had argued that Trump could not be convicted.

在投票前，共和黨人曾認為，不能給特朗普定罪。

Once out of office.

一旦卸任。

This was dismissed by the prosecution.

這一點被檢方駁回。

Their argument is that if you commit an impeachable offenses in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity.

他們的論點是，如果你在任職的最後幾周內犯了可彈劾的罪行，你就可以在憲法上不受懲罰。

You get away with it and Page 45.

你逍遙自在，第45頁。

Trump's lawyers also resorted to video, arguing that the trial was politically motivated and divisive on the impeachment.

特朗普的律師也藉助視頻，認為這次審判是出於政治動機，在彈劾問題上存在分歧。

Donald Trump, would you vote yesterday?

唐納德-特朗普，你昨天會投票嗎？

I would vote.

我會投票。

Yes, I would vote.

是的，我會投票。

I would vote.

我會投票。

With this trial, you will open up new and bigger wounds across the nation for a great many Americans see this process for exactly what it is.

通過這次審判，你將在全國範圍內打開新的和更大的傷口，因為許多美國人看到了這個過程正是如此。

A chance by a group of partisan politicians seeking to eliminate Donald Trump from the American political scene In a Congress still reeling from last month's events, it is partisan politics that makes it very unlikely the prosecution will get the two thirds majority required in the Senate to convict Trump.

一群黨派政治家尋求將唐納德-特朗普從美國政治舞臺上消除的機會在一個仍然從上個月的事件中恢復過來的國會中，這是黨派政治，這使得檢方不太可能在參議院獲得定罪特朗普所需的三分之二多數。

Mhm.

嗯

Well, what does it all mean?

那麼，這一切意味著什麼？

So let's bring in D.

所以，讓我們請來D。

W s U S analyst William Glue Croft.

W s U S分析師威廉-格洛夫特。

William.

威廉

How did this first session of Trump's a second impeachment trial go?

特朗普第二次彈劾審判的第一次會議進行得如何？

Well, we got a good preview of what the trial itself is gonna be.

我們對審判本身的內容有了一個很好的預演 Well, we got a good preview of what the trial itself is gonna be.

Both sides arguing whether the trial itself is even constitutional to hold in the Senate.

雙方都在爭論，在參議院舉行審判本身是否合憲。

Eso arguing rather technical grounds.

埃索論證相當技術性的理由。

We saw four hours of arguments in total from both sides.

我們看了雙方總共四個小時的辯論。

The House managers who which is they act as the prosecution.

眾管理人員是誰他們作為檢。

These are Democrats from the House who are leaving the prosecution case on the lawyers from Donald Trump's side.

這些都是來自眾議院的民主黨人，他們將起訴案件留給了唐納德-特朗普一方的律師。

Now the Trump defense is that it's unconstitutional as we heard in the report, because Donald Trump is not in office anymore, that is politically motivated.

現在特朗普的辯解是，正如我們在報告中聽到的那樣，這是違憲的，因為唐納德-特朗普已經不在辦公室了，這是出於政治動機。

But of course, Democrats made both a constitutional case, and there's also historical precedent for exactly this situation that we're seeing trying a former government official once they're already out of office.

但當然，民主黨人既提出了憲法上的理由，也有歷史上的先例，正是我們看到的這種情況，一旦前政府官員已經卸任，就對其進行審判。

They made that technical constitutional legal case, but also a very emotional case showing video from that day of January 6th, trying to a stoke in the minds of the senators, especially Republican senators who are much more skeptical, much more on the side of Donald Trump to remind them of that anger and fear from that.

他們做了那個技術性的憲法法律案例，但也是一個非常情緒化的案例，展示了1月6日那天的視頻，試圖在參議員們的頭腦中激起，尤其是共和黨參議員，他們對唐納德-特朗普更加懷疑，更加站在唐納德-特朗普這一邊，提醒他們從中感受到那種憤怒和恐懼。

Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland who is leading this prosecution, whose son died just a week before the those events on January 6.

傑米-拉斯金，來自馬里蘭州的民主黨人，他是這次起訴的牽頭人，他的兒子在1月6日這些事件發生前一週去世。

He had a very emotional statement to make, and I think we can have a listen to it here.

他有一個非常感性的發言，我想我們可以在這裡聽一聽。

I told her how sorry I was, and I promised her that it would not be like this again.

我告訴她，我很抱歉，我答應她，以後不會再這樣了。

The next time she came back to the capital with me and you know what she said?

下次她跟我回京，你知道她說了什麼嗎？

She said, Dad, I don't want to come back to the capital of all the terrible, brutal things I saw and I heard on that day and since then that one hit me the hardest.

她說，爸爸，我不想回到京城，那天我看到的、聽到的所有可怕的、殘忍的事情，從那以後，那個對我的打擊最大。

Mhm.

嗯

But how much of an impact did this speech and the video indeed at that Raskin showed have on the lawmakers?

但這篇演講和視頻確實在拉斯金播放的那段視頻對立法者的影響有多大？

Well, it was a very emotional moment.

嗯，這是一個非常情緒化的時刻。

There's no denying that we just heard Jamie Raskin, referring to his daughter, who was with her with him on the day of the attack.

不可否認的是，我們剛剛聽到傑米-拉斯金，提到了他的女兒，她在襲擊當天和他一起。

Again, the family being together, still mourning the loss of their son off her brother, um, just a week before those attacks.

再次，家人在一起，還在哀悼他們的兒子的損失 關閉她的兄弟，嗯，只是一個星期前，這些攻擊。

And then, on that very day, the attack happening.

然後，就在那一天，襲擊發生了。

The Trump team, the Trump defense.

特朗普團隊，特朗普的防守。

He was very being very careful not to play down the events of January 6th, in fact admitting and acknowledging that it was a horrible day for everyone.

他非常小心地不淡化1月6日的事件，事實上承認並承認這對大家來說是可怕的一天。

They're questioning who's to blame for this, that, yes, it was a terrible event on people need to be held accountable.

他們質疑誰的責任，是的，這是一個可怕的事件的人需要承擔責任。

But Donald Trump is not the one responsible on as we solved by the vote just yesterday on whether this trial is even constitutional, with just six Republicans breaking ranks and siding with Democrats, saying that it.

但唐納德-特朗普並不是一個負責任的上，因為我們在昨天剛剛通過投票解決了這個審判是否甚至是合憲的，只有六名共和黨人打破隊伍，站在民主黨人一邊，說它。

Waas gives us a good preview off what the outcome of the trial overall is probably going to be talking about previous our votes likely to fall along party lines in the end, which makes impeachment unlikely.

華斯給了我們一個很好的預覽關什麼結果的審判整體可能會談論以前我們的選票可能會沿著黨的路線在最後，這使得彈劾不太可能。

Yeah, you're exactly conviction they need.

是啊，你正是他們需要的信念。

They need 17.

他們需要17個。

Democrats need 17 Republican senators to join them, to make that 67 out of 100 Senator Mark to convict president.

民主黨人需要17名共和黨參議員加入，才能使100名參議員中的67名馬克定罪總統。

And that is just unlikely goingto happen.

而這只是不太可能會發生。

You might have some Republicans, as we saw in the vote yesterday on constitutionality ah, crossing lines.

你可能有一些共和黨人，就像我們昨天看到的關於合憲性的投票啊，越界。

But generally, Republicans are very much still in Trump's camp.

但一般來說，共和黨人還是非常支持特朗普的陣營。

And what was very interesting about yesterday's vote because it because it was about constitutionality, whether this trial was constitutional, which so many Republicans all but six, saying that it wasn't constitutional and Democrats saying that it waas.

昨天的投票非常有趣，因為它... ...因為它是關於合憲性的，這個審判是否符合憲法，許多共和黨人都說，但六人說，這是不符合憲法的，民主黨人說，它是waas。

That could only mean one of two things.

這隻能說明兩種情況之一。

Either There's two very divergent opinions in America right now about what the Constitution even is and what America's constitutional democracy is, or it says that Republicans were putting party above the country, and I think that vote yesterday is quite an interesting reflection on the state of American politics today.

要麼說美國現在對憲法到底是什麼，美國的憲政民主是什麼，有兩種非常不同的意見，要麼說共和黨人是把黨凌駕於國家之上，我覺得昨天的那場投票是對今天美國政治狀況的一個相當有趣的反映。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝你。