Name: 柯林頓夫婦拒絕在國會愛潑斯坦案調查中作證！ (Clintons refuse to testify in Congressional Epstein probe)
Uploaded: 2026-01-14T03:25:13.000Z
Duration: 10 min 38 s

Now, Hillary Clinton supposed to show up tomorrow.

But with respect to the former president, he did not show up today.

不過，關於前總統，他今天沒有出現。

We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress.

下週，我們將在眾議院監督委員會的審議中，對前總統柯林頓提出藐視國會的訴訟。

Contempt proceedings against a former president.

Now, Bill Clinton was scheduled to sit down with the House Oversight Committee today as part of its new Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

現在，Bill Clinton 原定今天要與眾議院監督委員會會面，這是他們調查 Jeffrey Epstein 的一部分。

That's certainly what the committee wanted.

Annie, this is an extraordinary moment that I'm sure will lead to several more extraordinary moments in the coming week or two.

Annie，這是一個非比尋常的時刻，我相信接下來一兩週還會有更多非比尋常的發展。

But what we just saw from the chairman is precisely what was predicted in a very lengthy, very hot statement that the former president and his wife, the former secretary of state and first lady, just released a letter to James Colmer.

但我們剛才從主席那裡看到的，正是前總統和他的妻子，也就是前國務卿兼第一夫人，剛剛發給 James Colmer 的一封信中，所預測到的。

So, Dana, what we're headed towards next is potentially lengthy and even unprecedented precedented legal battle now that Colmer has announced that he's going to move forward with contempt proceedings against both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

所以 Dana，現在 Bill 和 Hillary Clinton 宣佈要對他們啟動藐視訴訟，這意味著我們接下來可能會面臨一場漫長，甚至前所未有的法律戰。

Now, Hillary has one more option for for her deposition date tomorrow.

Hillary 明天還有一個選擇，關於她的宣誓作證日期。

But from the letter that Bill and Hillary Clinton sent to Colmer directly this morning, they lay out exactly why they are not planning to appear for their depositions.

但從 Bill 和 Hillary Clinton 今天早上直接發給 Colmer 的信中，他們清楚說明瞭為什麼不打算出庭作證。

And this is after months of back and forth, Anna, between the Clinton's legal attorneys and the Oversight Committee where the Clintons have maintained that these subpoenas are not valid, that they are willing to provide written testimony, and

這是在克林頓夫婦的律師和監督委員會之間，經過幾個月的來回交涉之後，克林頓夫婦一直堅稱這些傳票無效，他們願意提供書面證詞，而且

that the committee has even granted this option of written testimony to at least seven of the other witnesses that they've subpoenaed in this investigation.

委員會甚至已經給了至少七位他們在這次調查中傳喚的其他證人這個書面證詞的選項。

So why not grant them to the Clintons here?

那為什麼不給克林頓夫婦這個選項呢？

And in this letter that you mentioned that Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote to Comer, I want to read for you a piece of it that just shows the stakes that both the former president and first lady and secretary of State understand here.

在你提到的 Bill 和 Hillary Clinton 寫給 Comer 的這封信裡，我想為你唸一段，這段話就顯示了這位前總統、前第一夫人兼前國務卿所理解的這件事的嚴重性。

They say, quote, every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country.

他們說，引述：每個人都必須決定何時看夠了、受夠了，並準備好為這個國家奮鬥。

It's Princess principles and its people, no matter the consequences for us.

這是原則和人民，不管對我們有什麼後果。

Now, Comer maintains he still has a lot of questions for the Clintons.

現在，Comer 聲稱他對克林頓夫婦仍有許多問題。

He wants to know about Epstein's relationship with them.

他想知道 Epstein 和他們的關係。

But Bill has, Bill Clinton has never been accused of any wrongdoing.

但是 Bill，Bill Clinton 從未被指控有任何不當行為。

And we are now going to see how far House Republicans are going to take this.

而我們現在就要看看眾議院共和黨人會把這件事推到多遠。

And back here at the table, Bill Clinton, the former president and the former first lady and secretary of State, also, in addition to that letter sent declarations of what they do and do not know to the chairman so much in this letter, because it's pretty long.

回到桌邊，Bill Clinton，這位前總統、前第一夫人兼前國務卿，除了這封信之外，還向主席提交了他們知道或不知道的聲明，這封信內容很多，因為它相當長。

You accepted the least from those who know the most, but

你們接受了最少來自最瞭解的人，

demand the most from those who know the least to stay.

You can't complete your work without speaking to us is simply bizarre.

你們不跟我們談就無法完成工作，這實在太奇怪了。

And then, just as Annie was saying, the rallying cry that they have written in this to Democrats and to Americans who they know want to see their leaders fight.

然後，就像 Annie 剛才說的，他們在信中寫給民主黨人和他們知道想看領導人奮鬥的美國人的一句口號。

They're clearly providing a roadmap and a place to rally behind.

他們顯然提供了一個藍圖和一個可以團結奮鬥的目標。

Yeah, I mean, it's a really interesting decision.

是啊，這真是一個非常有趣的決定。

We obviously saw when we did get some Epstein files last month, the White House, the Justice Department made very clear they want to focus on Clintons.

我們很明顯看到上個月我們拿到一些 Epstein 的檔案時，白宮和司法部都非常清楚他們想聚焦在柯林頓夫婦身上。

That was a big part of the first initial release.

那是最初釋出檔案的一大部分。

I can expect, we can expect now the House to try and continue this moving forward.

我可以預期，我們現在可以預期眾議院會試圖繼續推進這件事。

I think that was really the point of all of this.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee point out that last year's vote to subpoena Clinton and his wife Hillary, the former Secretary of State, was bipartisan.

眾議院監督委員會的共和黨人指出，去年傳喚柯林頓夫婦（前國務卿 Hillary Clinton）的投票是兩黨一致的。

So no one's accusing Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing.

所以沒有人指控 Bill Clinton 有任何不當行為。

And that's why the Democrats voted along with Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton.

這也是為什麼民主黨人會和共和黨人一起投票傳喚 Bill Clinton。

This is the amount of preparation that went into this deposition today.

這就是今天這次宣誓作證所做的準備工作。

These were the questions that we were prepared to ask.

We've communicated with President Clinton's legal team for months now, giving them opportunity after opportunity.

我們已經和 Clinton 總統的法律團隊溝通了好幾個月，給了他們一次又一次的機會。

Hillary Clinton's deposition is set for tomorrow, but she won't be appearing either.

Hillary Clinton 的宣誓作證定在明天，但她也不會出現。

In a letter to committee chair Comer explaining their no shows, the Clinton's lawyer says, quote, subpoenas themselves are nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals as President Trump has directed.

在一封給委員會主席 Comer 的信中，Clinton 夫婦的律師解釋他們缺席的原因，信中引述說，傳票本身不過是為了試圖讓政治對手難堪的手段，正如 Trump 總統所訓示的。

Let's turn now to CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig, a former federal prosecutor.

接下來我們請到 CNN 資深法律分析師、前聯邦檢察官 Ellie Honig。

All right, Ellie, the Clintons argument here that the subpoenas are not related to a valid legislative purpose, what do you make of that?

Ellie，Clinton 夫婦認為傳票與合法的立法目的無關，你怎麼看？

The Clintons have taken a risk in the way they've gone about this.

克林頓夫婦這次的處理方式有點冒險。

They could have gone to court weeks ago when they received these subpoenas and, and

他們其實幾週前收到傳票時就可以上法院，

And maybe they will go to court in the future and maybe they will win.

也許他們之後會上法院，也許他們會贏。

But as we sit here right now, what we have is a valid subpoena from Congress that says you are to appear on today's date.

但就我們現在來看，國會發出的傳票是有效的，要求你今天必須出席。

we do not have a court order saying this subpoena is invalid.

而且我們也沒有法院命令說這張傳票無效。

Now, it seems what's going to happen from here, if Congress does pursue contempt is Bill Clinton will then go into courts and challenge the the subpoena.

現在看來，如果國會真的要進行藐視訴訟，比爾·克林頓接下來會上法院挑戰這張傳票。

But by waiting to do that, he's taking the risk of being held in contempt first.

但他拖到現在才這麼做，就冒著可能先被判藐視國會的風險。

So they also say they're willing to certify their draft declarations.

所以他們也說，他們願意認證他們的聲明草稿。

That is what the statement from the lawyer says.

They say that there are other subpoenaed witnesses who have not had to appear in person.

他們說，有其他被傳喚的證人也不需要親自出庭。

I mean, are those witnesses facing different circumstances than the Clintons?

我的意思是，那些證人面臨的情況跟柯林頓夫婦不一樣嗎？

是的，這些都是很合理的說法。

And the Clintons core argument is that this subpoena does not have a valid legislative purpose.

而柯林頓夫婦的核心論點是，這張傳票沒有合法的立法目的。

Congress is saying, well, we need to hear from the Clintons because we're considering new legislation having to do with sex trafficking.

國會則說，我們需要聽聽柯林頓夫婦的說法，因為我們正在考慮制定與人口販賣有關的新法案。

And the Clintons are arguing that that's not a valid purpose.

而柯林頓夫婦認為那不是一個合法的目的。

There's no connection between what the Clintons might know about Jeffrey Epstein and some sort of future legislation.

柯林頓夫婦可能知道的關於 Jeffrey Epstein 的事情，跟未來的某種立法之間，並沒有關聯。

The point though is in the end, it's all up to Congress how they want to treat witnesses.

不過重點是，最終如何對待證人，全由國會決定。

Sometimes if you're a member of Congress, you accept written declarations, sometimes you accept behind closed doors depositions, and

有時候，如果你是國會議員，你會接受書面聲明，有時候你會接受閉門的宣誓作證，

sometimes you insist on public testimony.

So if Clinton's legal team is able to get together with Congress and work out some sort of mid ground, some sort of agreement and arrangement, then they can go with that.

所以，如果柯林頓的法律團隊能和國會協商，達成某種妥協、協議和安排，那麼他們就可以照辦。

But ultimately the Clintons are not the ones in the power position here.

但最終，在這裡擁有權力地位的不是柯林頓夫婦。

Congress is the ones with the subpoena power and Republicans control Congress.

國會擁有發出傳票的權力，而共和黨控制著國會。

And as you noted earlier, this was a unanimous, not just bipartisan, but

而且正如你先前指出的，這是一致通過的，不只是跨黨派，

而是全體一致通過發出傳票給柯林頓夫婦。

If Congress can pursue a contempt of Congress proceeding here, what happens?

如果國會在這裡可以啟動藐視國會的訴訟，會發生什麼事？

So Congress now has an important strategic decision to make.

所以國會現在要做一個重要的戰略決定。

If they choose to go to contempt for first, which seems like they're going to do, they do run the risk that the Clintons then go to court and get a ruling that the subpoenas were invalid.

如果他們選擇先走藐視國會這條路，看起來他們就是要這麼做，他們確實冒著柯林頓夫婦可以去法院要求裁定傳票無效的風險。

If that happens, it undercuts, probably ends any contempt.

如果真的發生這種情況，這會削弱，甚至可能終結任何藐視訴訟。

The other alternative is Congress can wait till this plays out in the court.

另一種選擇是國會可以等到這件事在法院裡塵埃落定。

And if Congress wins, if the subpoena is deemed to be valid and the Clintons still do not comply, then they can go seek contempt.

如果國會贏了，如果傳票被認為有效，而柯林頓夫婦仍然不遵守，那麼他們就可以尋求藐視訴訟。

But important to know if and when Congress does issue contempt, the next step is the case then goes over to the Justice Department, which has the ability at that point to bring criminal contempt charges.

但要知道的是，如果國會發起藐視訴訟，下一步就是案件會移交給司法部，司法部屆時有權提出刑事藐視指控。

That's been done in the last administration.

We saw criminal contempt charges against Roger Stone and others.

我們看到羅傑·史東等人被提起刑事藐視指控。

Peter Navarro went to jail because of that.

我知道這是一個極端的選項，但

the way this works is Congress finds in contempt first, then it gets referred over to doj, and

整個流程是國會先判定藐視，然後再移交給司法部，

it'll ultimately be Pam Bondi's call whether she wants to pursue criminal contempt.

最終將由 Pam Bondi 決定是否要提起刑事藐視訴訟。

如果我們真的走到那一步的話。

It's important, Ellie, to note that authorities have not accused Bill Clinton of wrongdoing at this point.

Ellie，很重要的一點是，目前當局並沒有指控 Bill Clinton 有任何不當行為。

But as we saw the release of a lot of Epstein documents, we also saw photos, a lot of photos that included Bill Clinton, including some where he is in photos with a woman in at least two cases where their face is redacted, raising questions if he's in a photo with a woman who is a known or possible victim.

但我們在看到大量 Epstein 文件被公開時，也看到了一些照片，很多照片裡有 Bill Clinton，其中有些照片裡他跟一位女性合照，至少有兩種情況下，那位女性的臉部被塗黑了，這讓人質疑他是否跟一位已知或可能是受害者的女性合照。

And that sort of challenges, I think, what we knew, at least publicly, coming from his spokesperson.

我認為，這有點挑戰了我們，至少是公開層面，從他發言人那裡聽到的說法。

So what kind of information would members of Congress want to know from Bill Clinton with that in mind?

考量到這一點，國會議員們會想從 Bill Clinton 那裡知道什麼樣的資訊呢？

字幕列表影片播放

柯林頓夫婦拒絕在國會愛潑斯坦案調查中作證！ (Clintons refuse to testify in Congressional Epstein probe)

ultimately

sort

relevant

extraordinary