PBS高端访谈:弹劾审判是否会有证人出席（在线收听）

Hari Sreenivasan: For more on the coming impeachment trial, Ryan Goodman, co-editor in chief of the national security website, Just Security.org, and a professor at New York University School of Law joins us now. So, the timeline. Still not set in stone?

Ryan Goodman: That's right. So it's still unclear what the Senate will settle on. It looks like that might be a situation of two days per either side to present their arguments. And then the big event, which is will they then vote to have witnesses.

Hari Sreenivasan: And if there are witnesses, how does that play out?

Ryan Goodman: So that witnesses can play out in one of two directions. If there are witnesses, we really hear from some star players like John Bolton, who has not yet testified, and some others. So, really important new information for the American public. Or, it could turn into a bit of a circus-like atmosphere. Maybe the president gets his people in who he wants, are people like Hunter Biden, who aren't directly relevant to the case. And I think that's part of it, is to trying to, like flip the narrative into being about something else.

Hari Sreenivasan: If that happens, I mean, right now, Senator McConnell has said, well, he's not in favor of witnesses, but in the past he has been using the Clinton impeachment as precedent.

Ryan Goodman: That's right. So I think he is actually in a difficult position because the Clinton impeachment precedent is one in which there were three witnesses brought before the Senate trial. Apparently, every single trial that has been held in the Senate has had witnesses. And public sentiment seems to be strongly in favor of having witnesses. This week the Quinnipiac poll had 66, around 66 percent. Two thirds of a majority wanted to see John Bolton testify and even a plurality of Republicans wanted to see, want to see John Bolton testify.

Hari Sreenivasan: And that could influence how many senators vote for having witnesses?

Ryan Goodman: That's right. If we were to focus on one thing, it would be, are there going to be three or four Republican senators, can kind of think of who they might be, who would break in favor of having witnesses. And a few of them have already begun to speak out in favor of having witnesses at a certain point.

Hari Sreenivasan: OK. And in what is presented here, is it only what has come up in testimony in the House? Because we still see new pieces of information being released that should influence somebody's decision.

Ryan Goodman: Apparently, that's what's happened with the Giuliani associate Lev Parnas in the sense that he gave his documents basically at the 11th hour when the court finally allowed him to send them to the house. And the house was able to include some of that in the package that they then brought over to the Senate. And then there was a new release yesterday from the House Judiciary Committee. So I think that they'll be able to send supplemental documents like that. But at the same time, there is also documents in the public square that have not been formally presented. And, but they're now known and understood to be available. And I don't think there's any way in which that wouldn't influence the thinking on the part of the senators. They'll be informed about, for example, the unredacted e-mails between the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget that are, you know, for lack of a better term, highly incriminating.

Hari Sreenivasan: Or the General Accounting Office's findings, or the most recent encrypted text.

Ryan Goodman: That's right. And that is a good part of it. So some of it is like, how much would be called, it's hard evidence or very strong evidence? But the General Accounting Office on Thursday issues this judgment. They're nonpartisan executive agency, and in the judgment, they actually say, that this is a violation of the president's faithful execution of the law of held the aid. It's squarely on the topic of the impeachment articles. And so that can't be taken out of the equation. And I'm sure that the House managers will invoke that report.

Hari Sreenivasan: Ryan Goodman from the Just Security Blog and the NYU School of Law. Thanks so much.

Ryan Goodman: Thank you.

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：今天我们将了解更多有关弹劾审判的咨询，我们请来了瑞安·古德曼，他是国家安全网站Just Security.org的主编，也是纽约大学法学院的教授。所以，时间线是怎样的呢？是否还是一成不变呢？

瑞安·古德曼：没错。所以目前暂不确定参议院会走到哪一步。目前来看，情况可能是：每方有2天时间来辩证。然后是大事件——他们是否会投票来邀请证人出席呢？

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：如果有证人的话，要如何发挥作用呢？

瑞安·古德曼：总体来说，证人可以在2个方向发挥作用。如果有证人出席的话，我们就会听到一些家喻户晓的相关人士提供证词，比如约翰·博尔顿等人。约翰他尚未提供过证词。所以，对美国公众来说是很重要的新信息。另一个方向就是：会变成像马戏团一样的氛围。或许特朗普关注的是自己关心的人，像亨特·拜登这种跟此案不直接相关的人。我觉得其中一部分是试图带故事的节奏。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：如果按这个方向发生的话，那么参议员麦康奈尔表示自己不是很希望证人能出席。但以前他一直是用克林顿被弹劾的事情做先例的。

瑞安·古德曼：没错。所以我觉得他现在的处境挺难的，因为克林顿被弹劾的先例里，有3个证人参加了参议院的庭审。显然，参议院举行每一次审判都有证人。公众的意见似乎是强烈支持让证人出席。本周，昆尼别克大学民调支持证人出席的比例在66%左右。这66%的人中有2/3的人想看约翰·博尔顿出庭，甚至有多数共和党还想看约翰·博尔顿提供证词。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：这会影响到有多少参议员会为支持证人出席而投票。

瑞安·古德曼：没错。如果我们要关注一件事的话，那就会是：会有三四个共和党的参议员想着他们可能成为谁，他们可能会因为支持让证人出席而伤害谁。其中有一些人已经开始发声，说自己支持证人在某个时间点出席。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：好，那现在在这里呈现的只是众议院里出现的证词吗？因为我们依然看到一些信息发布出来了，这些信息会影响某人的决定。

瑞安·古德曼：显然，朱利亚尼的通货帕纳斯就遭遇了这种情况——在法院最终允许他将资料交给众议院后的第11个小时，他就交了资料。众议院将部分资料放入最终提交给参议院的资料中。然后，众议院司法委员会昨天也有了新内容的发布。所以，我想他们能发送类似的补充文件。不过，与此同时，公共范畴也有一些文件没有正式提交。但这些文件据人们所知也是可用的。我想，无论从任何方面来讲，这都会影响参议员们的思考。比如，他们会得知国防部和管理与预算办公室之间经过再次编辑的邮件往来，可以说，他们的往来证明他们是有罪的。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：或者总审计署的发现，以及最近加密的文本。

瑞安·古德曼：没错，这个点抓得好。这是硬性证据还是强有力的证据呢？但总审计署周四发布了判决。他们是非党派的行政机关。在判决中写道，这违背了总统应该忠诚的要求。现在是符合弹劾条款的主题的。所以这一点是不能从天平中拿出来的。我相信众议院的管理人员也会引用报告的这部分内容。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：感谢Just Security.org主编、纽约大学法学院教授瑞安·古德曼。

瑞安·古德曼：谢谢大家。