B1 中級 10 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
OF THE POINTS THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MADE.
HAVE MADE. FIRST IS THE ARGUMENT THAT
FIRST IS THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE, AND I HAVE
YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU'LL HEAR AGAIN, THAT
NO DOUBT YOU'LL HEAR AGAIN, THAT THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE
THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE ARE INVALID.
HOUSE ARE INVALID. WELL, THAT'S REALLY WONDERFUL.
WELL, THAT'S REALLY WONDERFUL. I IMAGINE WHEN YOU ISSUE
I IMAGINE WHEN YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS, THEY WILL DECLARE
SUBPOENAS, THEY WILL DECLARE YOURS INVALID AS WELL.
YOURS INVALID AS WELL. WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM
WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM THEY'RE INVALID?
THEY'RE INVALID? WELL, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T
WELL, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ISSUED THE WAY THE PRESIDENT
ISSUED THE WAY THE PRESIDENT WANTS.
WANTS. PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS YOU HAVE
PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS YOU HAVE TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA THE WAY WE
TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA THE WAY WE SAY, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE
SAY, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE AFTER THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT
AFTER THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT WE APPROVE OF ADOPTED BY THE
WE APPROVE OF ADOPTED BY THE FULL HOUSE.
FULL HOUSE. FIRST THEY COMPLAIN THERE IS NO
FIRST THEY COMPLAIN THERE IS NO RESOLUTION, NO FORMAL RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION, NO FORMAL RESOLUTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND
OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND THEN WHEN WE PASSED A FORMAL
THEN WHEN WE PASSED A FORMAL RESOLUTION, THEY COMPLAINED
RESOLUTION, THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT.
ABOUT THAT. THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DIDN'T
THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE.
HAVE ONE. THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DID HAVE
THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DID HAVE ONE.
ONE. WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE THAT
WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE THAT ARGUMENT ALREADY IN COURT AND
ARGUMENT ALREADY IN COURT AND THEY LOST.
THEY LOST. IN THE McGAHN CASE, THEY
IN THE McGAHN CASE, THEY SIMILARLY ARGUED THIS SUBPOENA
SIMILARLY ARGUED THIS SUBPOENA FOR MR. McGAHN IS INVALID, AND
FOR MR. McGAHN IS INVALID, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAID?
YOU KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAID? ESSENTIALLY THAT'S NONSENSE.
ESSENTIALLY THAT'S NONSENSE. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GEPHARDT
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GEPHARDT TO DECIDE HOW THE HOUSE CONDUCTS
TO DECIDE HOW THE HOUSE CONDUCTS AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET TO
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER A SUBPOENA IT
DECIDE WHETHER A SUBPOENA IT ISSUES IS VALID OR INVALID.
ISSUES IS VALID OR INVALID. NO.
NO. THE HOUSE GETS TO DECIDE,
THE HOUSE GETS TO DECIDE, BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS GIVEN THE
BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS GIVEN THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, NOT
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
STATES. NOW COUNSEL SAYS WHY ARE WE
NOW COUNSEL SAYS WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE
GOING THROUGH ALL THESE DOCUMENTS?
DOCUMENTS? AREN'T ALL THESE MOTIONS THE
AREN'T ALL THESE MOTIONS THE SAME?
SAME? AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DOCUMENTS HERE.
DOCUMENTS HERE. THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER
THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN FOR YOU TO KNOW NOTHING
THAN FOR YOU TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS WE SEEK.
ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS WE SEEK. THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT
THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS THEY'RE WITHHOLDING.
THEY'RE WITHHOLDING. OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT TO
OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.
HEAR THAT. THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, WANT
THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT STATE
YOU TO KNOW WHAT STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ARE,
DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ARE, BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST ABSTRACT,
BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST ABSTRACT, IF IT'S JUST WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING
IF IT'S JUST WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING FOR DOCUMENTS, WELL, THEY CAN
FOR DOCUMENTS, WELL, THEY CAN SAY WELL, THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT
SAY WELL, THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT IMPORTANT, RIGHT?
IMPORTANT, RIGHT? IT'S JUST SOME GENERIC THING.
IT'S JUST SOME GENERIC THING. BUT WHEN YOU REALIZE YOU LEARN
BUT WHEN YOU REALIZE YOU LEARN TODAY AND TONIGHT WHAT THOSE
TODAY AND TONIGHT WHAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE, WHEN YOU SEE THE
DOCUMENTS ARE, WHEN YOU SEE THE EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THOSE FREEDOM
EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THOSE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT EMAILS MY
OF INFORMATION ACT EMAILS MY COLLEAGUE MR. CROW REFERRED TO
COLLEAGUE MR. CROW REFERRED TO AND YOU SEE IT RELEASED TO THE
AND YOU SEE IT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AND IT'S ALL REDACTED AND
PUBLIC AND IT'S ALL REDACTED AND WE FIND OUT WHAT'S UNDER THOSE
WE FIND OUT WHAT'S UNDER THOSE REDACTIONS, AND WOW, SURPRISE.
REDACTIONS, AND WOW, SURPRISE. IT'S INCRIMINATING INFORMATION
IT'S INCRIMINATING INFORMATION THEY HAVE REDACTED OUT.
THEY HAVE REDACTED OUT. THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE
THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE BASIS FOR REDACTION UNDER
BASIS FOR REDACTION UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A COVER-UP.
THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A COVER-UP. THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THAT
THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THAT TODAY.
TODAY. THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THE
THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THE BEFORE AND THE AFTER, THE
BEFORE AND THE AFTER, THE REDACTED AND THE NONREDACTED.
REDACTED AND THE NONREDACTED. THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR
THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR FROM THESE WITNESSES ABOUT THE
FROM THESE WITNESSES ABOUT THE DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES THAT
DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES THAT THEY TOOK.
THEY TOOK. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES.
PERSONAL NOTES. NOW THEY WANT TO TRY TO CONTEST
NOW THEY WANT TO TRY TO CONTEST WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID
WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. BECAUSE SONDLAND, AFTER HE
BECAUSE SONDLAND, AFTER HE TALKED WITH THE PRESIDENT,
TALKED WITH THE PRESIDENT, TALKED DIRECTLY WITH AMBASSADOR
TALKED DIRECTLY WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TALKED DIRECTLY WITH
TAYLOR AND TALKED DIRECTLY WITH MR. MORRISON, AND EXPLAINED THAT
MR. MORRISON, AND EXPLAINED THAT HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE
HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. WELL, GUESS WHAT?
WELL, GUESS WHAT? MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR
MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED NOTES.
TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED NOTES. THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT
THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. SONDLAND.
THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. SONDLAND. WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE THE
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE THE NOTE?
NOTE? THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE
THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE NOTES EXIST.
NOTES EXIST. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS
THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS DEBATE.
DEBATE. THEY'D RATHER JUST ARGUE IT'S
THEY'D RATHER JUST ARGUE IT'S JUST ABOUT DOCUMENTS.
JUST ABOUT DOCUMENTS. IT'S JUST ABOUT WHEN.
IT'S JUST ABOUT WHEN. WE WANT THE SENATORS TO ASK
WE WANT THE SENATORS TO ASK THEIR 16 HOURS OF QUESTION
THEIR 16 HOURS OF QUESTION BEFORE THEY CAN SEE ANY OF THIS
BEFORE THEY CAN SEE ANY OF THIS STUFF.
STUFF. AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT?
AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE CASE.
THE CASE. THE WHEN, AS I SAID EARLIER,
THE WHEN, AS I SAID EARLIER, MEANS NEVER.
MEANS NEVER. AND FINALLY, THE CLINTON
AND FINALLY, THE CLINTON PRECEDENT.
PRECEDENT. CLINTON TURNED OVER 90,000 PAGES
CLINTON TURNED OVER 90,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL.
OF DOCUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL. I AGREE.
I AGREE. LET'S FOLLOW THE CLINTON
LET'S FOLLOW THE CLINTON PRECEDENT.
PRECEDENT. IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO TAKE
IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO TAKE 90,000 DOCUMENTS.
90,000 DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY
THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY COLLECTED.
COLLECTED. YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY ON
YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY ON THE SCREEN OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
THE SCREEN OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYING OH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
SAYING OH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE TURNED OVER SHORTLY.
TURNED OVER SHORTLY. WELL, WE'RE STILL WAITING, BUT
WELL, WE'RE STILL WAITING, BUT THEY'RE STILL SITTING THERE AT
THEY'RE STILL SITTING THERE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT. WE CAN PLAY A VIDEO FOR YOU OF
WE CAN PLAY A VIDEO FOR YOU OF SECRETARY ESPER ON ONE OF THE
SECRETARY ESPER ON ONE OF THE SUNDAY SHOWS SAYING WE'RE GOING
SUNDAY SHOWS SAYING WE'RE GOING COMPLY WITH THESE SUBPOENAS.
COMPLY WITH THESE SUBPOENAS. WELL, THAT WAS ONE WEEK.
WELL, THAT WAS ONE WEEK. AND THEN SOMEBODY GOT TO HIM,
AND THEN SOMEBODY GOT TO HIM, AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE WAS
AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE WAS SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE.
SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE. YEAH, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO
YEAH, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS HOLD.
KNOW WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS HOLD. AND YES, WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT
AND YES, WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT THESE WITNESSES CAN TELL YOU.
THESE WITNESSES CAN TELL YOU. WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT MICK
WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT MICK MULVANEY COULD TELL YOU.
MULVANEY COULD TELL YOU. AND YEAH, WE'RE MAKING IT HARD
AND YEAH, WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU.
FOR YOU. WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO
WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY NO.
SAY NO. WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO
WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM
SAY I DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THESE PEOPLE, I DON'T WANT TO
THESE PEOPLE, I DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS.
SEE THESE DOCUMENTS. WE'RE MAKING IT HARD.
WE'RE MAKING IT HARD. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE IT EASY
IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU.
FOR YOU. OUR JOB TO MAKE IT HARD, TO
OUR JOB TO MAKE IT HARD, TO DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF A
提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

Adam Schiff: 'We're Not Here To Make This Easy' | NBC News

10 分類 收藏
林宜悉 發佈於 2020 年 2 月 21 日
看更多推薦影片
  1. 1. 單字查詢

    在字幕上選取單字即可即時查詢單字喔!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔