-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Congressman1 Adam Schiff has a question. The California Democrat2 is on the House Intelligence Committee. It examined links between President Trump3's campaign and Russia. In 2016, Schiff says Donald Trump Jr. met a Russian lawyer and spoke4 on the phone with someone using a blocked number.
ADAM SCHIFF: The obvious question was, was this call from Dad? And the response from the Republicans was, no, we don't want to know.
INSKEEP: Republican Devin Nunes controlled the committee. But that was then; this is now. Schiff now chairs the committee, and he does want to know.
SCHIFF: We do have the ability to find out. And we will find out.
INSKEEP: Democrats5 now have subpoena6 power - one of the more significant changes brought by last year's election. We met Chairman Schiff in his Capitol office, which is decorated by black and white photos of past presidents. In past generations, his committee operated quietly, overseeing U.S. intelligence agencies. Schiff sees a more public role, including a deeper look at Russia.
SCHIFF: So we're already reaching out to witnesses that we wanted to come in, but we couldn't get the then-majority to either request or subpoena. We're going to get documents that we need to get to do our investigative work.
INSKEEP: Why would you begin the Russia investigation7 again, granting you didn't like the way that Devin Nunes did it or that his colleagues did it? There's been a Senate investigation that was seen as credible8 and bipartisan. There's the Mueller investigation. What could you add?
SCHIFF: Well, first of all, we never shut down the Russia investigation. The Republicans walked away from it, but we continued to bring in witnesses. But we didn't have the power to subpoena them or compel their testimony9, and that didn't allow us to do a thorough job.
And we see in the testimony of Bill Barr just how important it is that the congressional investigations10 go on. Barr testified that he is not committing to sharing the Mueller report with the Congress or the country.
INSKEEP: This is the attorney general nominee11, right?
SCHIFF: Exactly. And we can expect he's going to give us a Cliffs Notes version that he will write himself. This means that the country may never learn about information that does not go into an indictment13. And that just is completely unsatisfactory. The country deserves to know what the Russians did in our elections, what role the president played or his campaign associates played.
And to have a situation where the nominee for attorney general says, you can't indict12 a sitting president; you can only impeach14 one if it's warranted, but we're not going to give you the evidence to determine whether impeachment15 is in order means we're not going to have a rule of law. We're going to have immunity16, and that just cannot persist.
INSKEEP: You think it is worth, then, going over the very same ground Mueller has gone over, perhaps, because you can do it in a way that you would develop public information?
SCHIFF: I think there are areas that Mueller may not be investigating that need to be investigated because he may or may not be given the charter by the deputy attorney general or acting17 attorney general.
INSKEEP: What's an example?
SCHIFF: Money laundering18 - were the Russians laundering money through the Trump businesses? Does this compromise the Russians' hold over the president of the United States? We don't know the answer to that question, but we also don't know whether Bob Mueller has been allowed to investigate that issue. The president has tried to draw a red line around it. In my view, the president has no business drawing red lines. But nonetheless, we don't know whether that has been investigated, but we do know it needs to be.
INSKEEP: Is that why you are hiring, among other staff members, a former prosecutor19 and an expert in money laundering?
SCHIFF: We are adding to the investigative capabilities20 of our committee in our staffing. And so we are interviewing candidates with an eye towards doing that.
INSKEEP: And what I said is correct - money laundering expert will be on that staff? Former prosecutor will be on that staff?
SCHIFF: You know, I - we are going to be hiring people with investigative experience.
INSKEEP: If you are going into all the president's finances, and perhaps an extensive look at his business career, at what point would that become a witch hunt?
SCHIFF: Well, we're certainly not going to go into all the president's finances. You know, whether the president was engaged in shady business transactions with people - that's not my job to find out. It is my job to find out whether a foreign power holds leverage21 over the president.
Even when Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president and was denying any business dealings with Russia, he was, in fact, pursuing a multi-multimillion-dollar project in Moscow and seeking the Kremlin's help to make it happen. Now, the Russians knew this even as the President was denying it because the Russians were on the other end of that transaction, which means that at any point in time of the Russians' choosing, they could expose the president's falsehoods about this. And that is compromise.
Now, it's come to the public's attention recently that the president may have tried to acquire or destroy the records of his private conversations with Putin over the last couple years. Why is that? Why does he demand to meet alone with Putin? Why does he demand that there be no record of his discussions with Putin? This is extraordinarily22 worrying behavior by the president of the United States.
INSKEEP: Last year, when you did not have the power - you had to ask Republicans - you called for the interpreter from the president's private meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, to be subpoenaed23 to testify. Now that you do have the power, do you intend to subpoena that interpreter?
SCHIFF: We intend to do everything we can to find out what took place in these private meetings. And we are examining the legal issues around either bringing in the interpreter or getting the interpreter's notes or finding out through others in the administration what took place.
INSKEEP: What are the legal issues?
SCHIFF: Well, they may make a superficial claim of executive privilege. That privilege applies when the president is talking to his advisers24, seeking their counsel. And the policy reason behind it is that he should be able to get the unfettered advice of his counselors25 to make decisions. But we're not interested in what he was talking to his counselors about. We're interested in what he was talking to Vladimir Putin about. And it doesn't seem to me that any privilege applies there. But that doesn't mean they won't claim one.
And so we are investigating the legal issues around it. At the end of the day, though, we need to find out whether the president, behind closed doors, is sacrificing U.S. interests because of some personal motivation. That, to me, is the overriding26 and compelling interest here.
INSKEEP: If the White House disagrees with you about executive privilege on a matter like the president's interpreter, are you prepared to go to court?
SCHIFF: Well, this is a decision that we will have to make in discussion with our leadership. And I'm already coordinating27 with Eliot Engel, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, because what we are going to have to do as an overarching matter is prioritize what fights we're going to have with this administration. We know they're going to stonewall us on whatever legitimate28 oversight29 we do, and it means we're going to have to put our most important fights first and make sure that we are prepared for them.
INSKEEP: Mr. Chairman, thanks for the time.
SCHIFF: It's my pleasure. Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
INSKEEP: Adam Schiff is the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
By the way, a defender30 of the president is revising a key talking point. President Trump often says there was no collusion with Russia. Now his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has narrowed that claim. Giuliani told CNN, quote, "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign." He says the denial applies only to the president personally.
1 Congressman | |
n.(美)国会议员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 democrat | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士;民主党党员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 subpoena | |
n.(法律)传票;v.传讯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 credible | |
adj.可信任的,可靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 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: |
|
|
11 nominee | |
n.被提名者;被任命者;被推荐者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 indict | |
v.起诉,控告,指控 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 indictment | |
n.起诉;诉状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 impeach | |
v.弹劾;检举 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 impeachment | |
n.弹劾;控告;怀疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 immunity | |
n.优惠;免除;豁免,豁免权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 laundering | |
n.洗涤(衣等),洗烫(衣等);洗(钱)v.洗(衣服等),洗烫(衣服等)( launder的现在分词 );洗(黑钱)(把非法收入改头换面,变为貌似合法的收入) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 prosecutor | |
n.起诉人;检察官,公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 capabilities | |
n.能力( capability的名词复数 );可能;容量;[复数]潜在能力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 leverage | |
n.力量,影响;杠杆作用,杠杆的力量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 extraordinarily | |
adv.格外地;极端地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 subpoenaed | |
v.(用传票)传唤(某人)( subpoena的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 advisers | |
顾问,劝告者( adviser的名词复数 ); (指导大学新生学科问题等的)指导教授 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 counselors | |
n.顾问( counselor的名词复数 );律师;(使馆等的)参赞;(协助学生解决问题的)指导老师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 overriding | |
a.最主要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 coordinating | |
v.使协调,使调和( coordinate的现在分词 );协调;协同;成为同等 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 oversight | |
n.勘漏,失察,疏忽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 defender | |
n.保卫者,拥护者,辩护人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|