-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Rep. Adam Schiff on what the Jan. 6 committee wants to achieve before the year ends
NPR's Steve Inskeep talks to Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the House Jan. 6 committee about the panel's priorities before the end of the year and the legacy2 it will leave.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Congressman3 Adam Schiff joins us once again. He made the case against then-President Donald Trump4 in his first impeachment5, and he is part of the January 6 committee now examining those potential criminal referrals. Congressman, welcome back.
ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you. Great to be with you.
INSKEEP: OK, we just heard about possible criminal referrals for people who refused to cooperate. So I understand that. Could you possibly also refer people for specific crimes on or about January 6?
SCHIFF: We certainly could, and this is what we're discussing as we go into the last days of our work on this important investigation6. And that is, what would the impact of our referrals be if we make referrals, against whom and for what offenses8? How much should we detail the evidence, knowing that the Justice Department has sources of evidence that we don't, that it was able to enforce certain subpoenas9 and compel testimony10 that we have not been able to? So in some ways, I think the information we provide will exceed that of the department. In other areas, they have more evidence than we do.
INSKEEP: Isn't this ultimately a political as well as a legal decision, by which I mean, you have to decide, not only do we think that this is a criminal act, but also does it benefit the country in some way to call for this prosecution11?
SCHIFF: That's exactly right. There's no requirement that Congress need one to find evidence for criminality, make referrals, but there is a long practice of Congress doing that. Now, generally, those referrals involve crimes against the institution of the Congress, so people who are refusing to testify or people who commit perjury12 when they testify. But here you have the ultimate crime against Congress. And that was a violent attack on a Congress doing its work to certify13 a presidential election. So it's consistent with what we've done in the past if we go forward. At the same time, it's a whole new level of seriousness in terms of what we'd be referring.
INSKEEP: What is an example of something that you learned that looks like it might be a crime, that could be a subject of one of these referrals, but has not already been prosecuted14 by the Justice Department? What's something that's out there?
SCHIFF: Well, you know, I can't go into the particulars of what we may refer, but just looking, for example, at what Judge Carter in California had to say - he was looking at a small sample of the overall body of evidence. And he concluded in his review - and again, his review was to determine whether John Eastman, one of the lawyers working with President Trump, had to turn over material or whether it was covered by the attorney-client privilege and, in this case in particular, whether the crime-fraud exception applied15 - and he concluded that President Trump and others were likely engaged in a criminal conspiracy16 to obstruct17 the Congress in its work. So there you have a federal jurist who's making that determination. And obviously, those are facts that we weigh, along with a body of evidence that was not available to the judge.
INSKEEP: Granting that you haven't decided18 what referrals to make, granting that this is a political as well as a strictly19 legal decision - you have to decide what makes sense for the country - when you look at the evidence as a former prosecutor20, do you believe that Donald Trump committed specific prosecutable21 crimes on January 6 and beforehand, a criminal conspiracy or something else?
SCHIFF: Yes, I do. And, you know, I think that illustration I gave, that example I gave is just one instance, one particular offense7 that I think the facts support a potential charge against the former president. And, you know, the Justice Department, in my view, needs to hold, you know, everyone equally responsible before the law, and that includes former presidents when they engage in criminality.
INSKEEP: What happens to your body of evidence when Republicans become the majority, Republicans are in control, and it seems this committee will go out of business?
SCHIFF: Well, we intend to make our evidence public and in that way make sure that is accessible to everyone, to the Justice Department, so that when the Republicans take over, they can't cherry-pick certain evidence and mislead the country with some false narrative22. So we want to put the evidence out there, and that's what we intend to do.
INSKEEP: Adam Schiff of California, it's a pleasure talking with you. Thank you so much.
SCHIFF: Great to talk with you.
1 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 legacy | |
n.遗产,遗赠;先人(或过去)留下的东西 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 Congressman | |
n.(美)国会议员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 impeachment | |
n.弹劾;控告;怀疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 offense | |
n.犯规,违法行为;冒犯,得罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 offenses | |
n.进攻( offense的名词复数 );(球队的)前锋;进攻方法;攻势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 subpoenas | |
n.(传唤出庭的)传票( subpoena的名词复数 )v.(用传票)传唤(某人)( subpoena的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 prosecution | |
n.起诉,告发,检举,执行,经营 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 perjury | |
n.伪证;伪证罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 certify | |
vt.证明,证实;发证书(或执照)给 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 prosecuted | |
a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 conspiracy | |
n.阴谋,密谋,共谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 obstruct | |
v.阻隔,阻塞(道路、通道等);n.阻碍物,障碍物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 prosecutor | |
n.起诉人;检察官,公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 prosecutable | |
[法] 可提起公诉的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|