-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Judge is expected to rule Vice1 President Pence must testify in Jan. 6 attack probe
NPR's Michel Martin talks to former federal prosecutor3 Elie Honig about reports that former VP Mike Pence must testify before a grand jury about his conversations with Donald Trump4 ahead of Jan. 6.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Former Vice President Mike Pence will have to testify to a grand jury in the Justice Department's ongoing5 probe of the January 6 attack. That's the ruling of a federal judge, according to multiple media reports. Pence must testify about conversations he had with former President Trump leading up to the attack on the Capitol. But in the ruling, which remained sealed, the judge reportedly also said Pence can decline questions related to January 6 itself. So what does this mean for the DOJ's investigation6? Joining us now to help us understand this is former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig.
Mr. Honig, welcome. Good morning. Thanks for joining us.
ELIE HONIG: Good to be with you. This is a fascinating story, a first in some ways. So happy to talk to you about it.
MARTIN: Well, thanks. So can you help me understand something? Without knowing the exact wording of the ruling, which remains7 sealed, as we said, can you clear this up? What is the judge saying Pence must talk about? And what is he saying he can refuse to talk about?
HONIG: So it may help understand that if we look at the legal arguments that were made here. So the Justice Department special counsel, Jack8 Smith, subpoenaed10 Mike Pence for his testimony11. There were actually two objections that were raised. Donald Trump objected sort of from the outside. He's not a party to this subpoena9. But he came in and said, no, I don't want my former vice president testifying, on the basis of executive privilege, meaning this was a conversation between me and him in office. It shouldn't come out. The court rejected that. And courts will almost always reject that in the context of a criminal grand jury subpoena, which this is.
Separately, Mike Pence himself argued this sort of obscure constitutional provision called the Speech or Debate Clause, and that says that members of Congress cannot be subpoenaed by an outside entity12 about anything to do with their legislative13 work. Mike Pence said, well, as vice president, I was the president of the Senate. You know, the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote, presides over things like counting the electoral ballots14. And the court actually said, yes, you count under the Speech and Debate Clause, and as a result of that, you don't have to answer questions about what you did in your job as Senate president - so standing15 up there on that dais, counting up the vote.
So the way I read it, the way I understand it is Pence can be questioned about essentially16 everything leading up to the actual day of January 6 and perhaps even some of the activities on January 6, but not, what did you do when you were standing up there on the dais and it came down time for you to count up the electoral votes? But all the lead-up, all the meetings with Trump leading up, I think, are in play here.
MARTIN: How big of a deal is this reported ruling?
HONIG: Well, it's a huge deal for prosecutors17 because now they get to sit there and bring Mike Pence in under oath in front of a grand jury, in front of 23 civilians18, and ask him questions. And he has to answer under penalty of perjury19, again, with that one limitation. But if I'm a prosecutor here, I would want to know all the meetings that he had with Donald Trump. And we know - Mike Pence has spoken about and written about several crucial meetings that he had with Trump in the days leading up to January 6.
I would want more depth and more detail than he said in his book or he said publicly. But I would want to know specifically, did Donald Trump pressure you? What exactly did Trump say to you? Did Trump acknowledge that he knew he lost the election? Did he say something else? Did he threaten you in any way? I would want to go through all of that. What advice were you getting from your people? I think that's crucial to Jack Smith, the special counsel's, investigation of January 6.
MARTIN: Realistically, though, how much more do prosecutors expect to learn? I mean, the man wrote a 500-plus-page memoir20, as you just alluded21 to. Is there really more to find out? Is it possible that there isn't more to find out?
HONIG: It's a great question because not only did Mike Pence write his book and not only has he spoken about some of this stuff publicly, but many of his aides have testified, including his chief of staff, Marc Short. But the answer is twofold. First of all, as a prosecutor, you need Mike Pence's testimony on record, in front of the grand jury, under oath. You need to - if you're going to indict22 or use that information in any way, you can't just read his book; you have to hear it from the actual witness.
You also want to know what he might say defensively, as a prosecutor. What if he says something harmful to your case, helpful to Donald Trump? You want to know that in advance. The other thing is, as a prosecutor, you want to probe. You don't want to just take his book, as he's fashioned it, at face value. You want to be able to follow up and dig in and perhaps challenge that testimony. So there may not be any shocking new revelations. There may be. But as a prosecutor, you absolutely want him under oath, in front of a grand jury.
MARTIN: And forgive me if I'm asking you to speculate, but is it possible that he might plead the Fifth?
HONIG: It is legally and constitutionally possible Mike Pence, like any person, can claim that his testimony might be used to incriminate him. I'm not sure Mike Pence has any actual basis for that, unlike some of the other players. I don't know that Mike Pence did anything that we know about publicly that might be criminal. But if he did do that, then prosecutors actually have a countermove available where they can immunize somebody who takes the Fifth - meaning, OK, you've taken the Fifth; we're not going to use your testimony against you, but now you have to testify, and we get to use your testimony in the trial of somebody else. If that happens, he has to testify. You don't have an option. Even if you don't want immunity23, if you get immunized, you have to testify.
MARTIN: That is former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. Elie, thanks so much for talking to us today.
HONIG: Thanks so much.
1 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
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 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 ongoing | |
adj.进行中的,前进的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 jack | |
n.插座,千斤顶,男人;v.抬起,提醒,扛举;n.(Jake)杰克 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 subpoena | |
n.(法律)传票;v.传讯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 subpoenaed | |
v.(用传票)传唤(某人)( subpoena的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 entity | |
n.实体,独立存在体,实际存在物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 ballots | |
n.投票表决( ballot的名词复数 );选举;选票;投票总数v.(使)投票表决( ballot的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 prosecutors | |
检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 ); 告发人; 起诉人; 公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 civilians | |
平民,百姓( civilian的名词复数 ); 老百姓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 perjury | |
n.伪证;伪证罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 memoir | |
n.[pl.]回忆录,自传;记事录 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 indict | |
v.起诉,控告,指控 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 immunity | |
n.优惠;免除;豁免,豁免权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|