-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
What's at stake for Trump1 in multiple court cases that are unfolding this week?
NPR's Steve Inskeep talks to ex-federal prosecutor3 Elie Honig about cases against Trump and his allies — including a court hearing that will consider unsealing the affidavit4 in the Mar-a-Lago search.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Today, a federal judge in Florida hears arguments for unsealing an affidavit. It's the document supporting the FBI's search at Mar-a-Lago, the residence of former President Trump. A judge read that affidavit and authorized5 the search. Documents already unsealed show the search revealed many boxes of documents marked classified or top secret. But Republican officials and news organizations want to see the underlying6 justification7. We've called on former state and federal prosecutor Elie Honig. Good morning.
ELIE HONIG: Hey, Steve. Good morning. Glad to be with you.
INSKEEP: What kinds of information would be in an affidavit like this?
HONIG: So essentially8 the prosecution's entire playbook would be in this affidavit. It's important that people understand this is different in kind than the documents we've already seen unsealed by the court. The documents that got unsealed last week - they total six pages. They're mostly logistical checklists. Here are the items that we seized in some general description. Here are the items that we searched. That is already out there. That is drafted by prosecutors9 with it becoming public in mind, because you turn that over to the defendant10 on the day of the search. He's free to make it public.
This affidavit, though - this is top secret. I don't mean that in the classified sense, but this is the prosecution's investigation11 laid out in narrative12 fashion. Often these things run to 50, 80, 100 pages. I've written many of them myself. So if this comes out, Steve, Donald Trump and the public will essentially see the prosecution's case laid bare. And I think that's exactly why DOJ has opposed the unsealing of this document.
INSKEEP: Well, there are two demands from Trump's side of the argument here. The first is why search the president's residence at all when a former president has never been treated this way? I think answered because there was information marked classified. But there's a second question, which is why do this dramatic thing instead of continuing to negotiate with Trump, as they seem to be doing? What is a conceivable answer they could find in an affidavit?
HONIG: Well, so first of all, I think that's a valid13 question to ask. Was a search warrant necessary? And I think if we look at the timeline of what we know, I think DOJ's answer would be we tried it the easy way. First, the National Archives demanded records back from Donald Trump, and they got 15 boxes. But that turned out to be not everything. Then DOJ tried a subpoena14, which is the easy way. It's just a single piece of paper, basically, that says, please hand us over these documents. And still, DOJ did not get all the documents back.
So I imagine DOJ's argument would be we tried it those two ways. We still didn't get all of these highly classified documents back. That's what necessitated15 the search. That's what caused us to have to use the search warrant. And I think if we see this search warrant, this is the document where prosecutors establish probable cause that federal crimes were committed, including destruction of documents, this Espionage16 Act violation17, having to do with mishandling of defense18 information and obstruction19. It could lay out witnesses. You wouldn't see witness names in there, but references to witnesses and informants that sometimes you can figure out who they are. It might reference other documents that the FBI has seized. So this affidavit would really give sort of chapter and verse on how the FBI and DOJ got permission to do that search warrant.
INSKEEP: I believe that one of Trump's lawyers on TV has demanded to know the names of sources who work for the former president who may have given information. Basically, tell me who betrayed me, in essence. Would an affidavit likely give that?
HONIG: It wouldn't say the name. It wouldn't say Steve Inskeep, but it would say something like informant 1 or witness 1 or witness 2. And a lot of times you can put together the context - who is this person? What did this person know? - and figure out who it is. But that demand by Trump's lawyers is outrageous20. There's no legal basis for that. You have to wonder why they want the names. I mean, eventually, if there were to be charges, yes, the defendant, whoever that may be, would know who the witnesses are, would have all their statements, because you do have a right to confront and cross-examine that person. But at this point, there's zero legal basis for that.
INSKEEP: Now, the Justice Department has resisted, saying that unsealing this affidavit would interfere21 with an ongoing22 criminal investigation. Now, as a layman23, I was really interested in that word ongoing. They've already got the documents. Does ongoing tell you they're trying to uncover more?
HONIG: It does. And it tells me there was some speculation24 of, well, maybe this isn't really about a criminal investigation. Maybe this is just about let's get the documents back. This confirms that, yes, this is a criminal investigation. Yes, it is ongoing. And DOJ makes the point that to unseal this affidavit now would be so unusual - essentially unprecedented25 - that it really could deter26 people who might cooperate in future investigations27, whether they're related to this one or not, because if witnesses and informants think, well, gee28, my identity - maybe not my name, but certain qualities and features that might allow someone to identify me are going to come out immediately, that'd make them less likely to cooperate with the FBI, with prosecutors.
INSKEEP: Should the FBI not have done this search three months before an election, a period when they generally avoid political interference, anything that can be perceived as political interference? I grant they did it privately29, and Trump publicized it. But still, should they have done it at that time?
HONIG: Well, it may not be a coincidence, Steve, that this search was done, I think, precisely30 91 or 92 days before the midterm election. There's a long-standing DOJ policy that you don't do things like this. You don't do politically sensitive indictments31 or searches 90 days before an election - it's called the blackout period - because the idea is you don't want to do something precipitous that may influence an election. So that may not be a coincidence that they did this 91 or 92 days. But, yes, it's a - look, I think DOJ understands this was a big step, and there will be political implications.
INSKEEP: In a few seconds, Rudy Giuliani turned up to testify in Georgia. The president, of course, there asked the secretary of state to, quote, "find exactly enough votes for Trump to win Georgia by one" in 2020. How much legal jeopardy32 does the president - the ex-president face?
HONIG: Well, we know Rudy Giuliani is a target, meaning he is somebody prosecutors believe they are likely to charge. And I think there are clear connections between what Rudy Giuliani did in Atlanta and what Donald Trump did.
INSKEEP: Former state and federal prosecutor Elie Honig, also an analyst33 for CNN, thanks so much.
HONIG: Thanks, Steve. Glad to be with you.
1 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 prosecutor | |
n.起诉人;检察官,公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 affidavit | |
n.宣誓书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 underlying | |
adj.在下面的,含蓄的,潜在的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 prosecutors | |
检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 ); 告发人; 起诉人; 公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 defendant | |
n.被告;adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 subpoena | |
n.(法律)传票;v.传讯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 necessitated | |
使…成为必要,需要( necessitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 espionage | |
n.间谍行为,谍报活动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 obstruction | |
n.阻塞,堵塞;障碍物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 outrageous | |
adj.无理的,令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 ongoing | |
adj.进行中的,前进的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 layman | |
n.俗人,门外汉,凡人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 speculation | |
n.思索,沉思;猜测;投机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 unprecedented | |
adj.无前例的,新奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 deter | |
vt.阻止,使不敢,吓住 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 investigations | |
(正式的)调查( investigation的名词复数 ); 侦查; 科学研究; 学术研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 gee | |
n.马;int.向右!前进!,惊讶时所发声音;v.向右转 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 privately | |
adv.以私人的身份,悄悄地,私下地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 indictments | |
n.(制度、社会等的)衰败迹象( indictment的名词复数 );刑事起诉书;公诉书;控告 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 jeopardy | |
n.危险;危难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 analyst | |
n.分析家,化验员;心理分析学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|