【世事關心】穆勒調查到底所為何來?

國會上演調查「通俄門」第二幕

【新唐人2019年04月09日訊】【世事關心】穆勒調查到底所為何來?

羅伯特·穆勒完成了他的調查,沒有發現任何有關川普競選團隊犯罪和通俄的證據。
Robert Mueller closed shop finding no crimes and no collusion with the Russians, What has the 25 million dollar probe produced?

路易·戈莫特(共和黨-德克薩斯州/第一區):「所有的起訴都可以由司法部提出。」
Louie Gohmert : “There is not one single indictment that could not have been done by the current justice department.  ”

這些調查是如何進行的?
And how were these investigations carried out?

Sydney Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「FBI在淩晨搜查了麥納福的家,撬開了門鎖,把還在床上,剛被驚醒的麥納福夫妻二人,置於槍口之下,對身著睡衣的麥納福的妻子進行了搜身。我一聽就知道這是Andrew Weissman的一貫作風, 我認為這是檢察機關的恐怖行徑。」
Sydney Powell :  “As soon as I heard that they raided Manafort’s home in the wee hours of the morning and picked the lock and had Manafort and his wife wake up in their bed with guns in their faces and search Manafort’s wife in the bed in her nightgown. That’s textbook Andrew Weissman. I call it prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”

民主黨控制的眾議院司法委員會發出傳票,要求獲得穆勒報告的完整原文。在穆勒調查結束之後,難道眾議院還想上演第二幕?
The Democrats controlled House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena the unredacted Report. After the Mueller act is over, is it Congress’ turn to carry out Act II?

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察調查研究主任):「這些政治人物將把『迫使司法部公開報告原文』,作為籌款活動的主軸。」
Christopher Farrell : “All these politicians are going to go out and try to do fundraising off of, ‘They are fighting to get the report’. ”

從2016年大選以來,國內幾股最大的政治勢力,國家安全機構和媒體之間的互相勾結究竟有多緊密?
And just how deep is the interlocking of top political powers, national security agencies and the media during the 2016 campaign and afterwards?

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察調查研究主任):「她在短信裏寫道:『POTUS要了解我們的全部工作。』,這裏的『POTUS』顯然是指奧巴馬總統。」
Christopher Farrell : “and she wrote in this text message quote: ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’ close quote. Of course ‘POTUS’ means Mr. Obama.”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察調查研究主任):「我想知道奧巴馬總統是否知情?何時知情?知情後做了哪些指示?他都批準了些什麼?」
Christopher Farrell : “So my question is for Mr. Obama. What did he know, when did he know it? What did he direct? What did he approve? ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):歡迎來到《世事關心》,我是蕭茗。特別檢察官羅伯特·穆勒最終判定,川普總統與俄國沒有勾結。有很多事可以仔細思考,我們要問,穆勒調查到底是針對俄國插手美國政治,還是國家安全機構反對美國總統?更重要的是,我們要知道,

所謂勾結俄國的騙局背後的這群人,從總統競選、到FBI、到司法部,以及這些人在媒體的同盟,這群把來自俄國荒誕不經的故事,注入了美國的血脈的這群人是誰?這期《世事關心》,我們關注穆勒調查之後的新世界,我們能學到什麼。
Welcome to Zooming In, I am Simone Gao. There are many things to reflect on after Robert Mueller finally concluded there was no collusion between president Trump and Russia. We need to ask if the Mueller investigation was a sincere probe into Russian meddling in American politics or an extension of the national security agencies opposition to the president? More importantly, we need to know what exactly was the syndicate behind the Russian Collusion Hoax that included a presidential campaign, the FBI, the Justice Department and their allies in the media who injected tall-tales from the Russians into the country’s bloodstream. In this edition of “Zooming In,” we look for lessons learned for our new, post-Mueller world.

國會上演調查「通俄門」第二幕
Part 1: Act II is Article I

3月24日,特別檢察官羅伯特·穆勒向司法部遞交了他對通俄門事件調查的最終報告。這項為期兩年的調查,沒能證明川普競選團隊的成員,在大選中串通或勾結俄羅斯政府。該報告還得出結論,指出這些證據「不足以」證實川普阻礙了司法公正,並委任司法部長來決定「報告中描述的行為是否構成犯罪」。司法部的結論是:川普競選團隊不存在妨礙司法的情況。
On March 24, Special Counsel Robert Mueller handed the final conclusion of his Russia probe to the Justice Department. The two-year investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. The report also concluded the evidence was “not sufficient" to establish that Trump had obstructed justice and leaves the attorney general with the task of determining “whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." The Justice department concluded “There is no obstruction of justice.”

然而,故事還沒結束。
This chapter did not end here.

三天後,眾議院司法委員會主席傑瑞·納德勒,致電司法部長威廉·巴爾,要求他在4月2日前提交完整的、未經修改的報告,但巴爾並未提交報告。4月3日,眾議院司法委員會投票通過了一份傳票,要求司法部長提交完整的、未經刪節的報告。
Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called the Attorney General William Bar to request the full unredacted report by April 2 which the Attorney General did not commit. On April 3, The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize a subpoena for the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.

該委員會還授權傳喚川普身邊的成員,包括前白宮法律顧問唐·麥格恩;麥克恩的前幕僚長安·唐納森;川普總統的前顧問史蒂夫·班農;前發言人霍普·希克斯;以及前幕僚長雷恩斯·普里巴斯。
The committee also authorized subpoenas for members in the Trump orbit, including former White House counsel Don McGahn; McGahn’s former chief of staff Ann Donaldson; former adviser Steve Bannon; former spokesperson Hope Hicks; and former chief of staff Reince Priebus.

與此同時,眾議院籌款委員會主席理查德·尼爾向財政部提交了一份正式請求,要求提供川普總統過去6年的納稅申報表。
Meanwhile, The House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal filed a formal request with the Treasury Department for the tax returns of President Trump for the past six years.

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):美國根據《憲法》第一條,設立了聯邦政府的立法部門,即美國國會。今天,這個政府機構似乎更像是政客的“武器”。在這部永不落幕的劇本中,穆勒出演的第一幕結束後,是不是該輪到國會上演第二幕了?我訪問了前陸軍反間諜官員、司法觀察調查研究主管克裏斯托弗·法雷爾,請問他對通俄門調查的第二幕將如何展開。
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Today, this body of government seems to be weaponized by politicians more than ever.  In this never ending play, after Mueller’s Act I is over, is it Congress’ turn to carry out Act II? I asked Christopher Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer and the director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch, how Act II of the Russian Probe will play out.

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「您認為在眾議院司法委員會發出傳票後,司法部長並且請願在眾議院司法委員會發出傳票後,把穆勒的完整報告交給他們嗎?」
“Do you think the Attorney General should and would hand over the full mueller report to the house judiciary committee after they subpoena it. ”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察調查研究主任):「司法部長處理穆勒報告的要遵循一定的程序,這一過程也是受法律管轄的。而且這一過程還要受來自法律法規的約束,司法部長必須滿足這些非常具體的要求。因此,我們要明白,這只是一種政治雜耍,就在眾議院司法委員會的政治舞臺上上演,與管轄司法部長行為的法律幾乎沒有關系,或者根本沒有任何關系。司法部長目前正在審查穆勒的報告,他已經承諾公開這份報告,但他具體公開的內容是受限的。法律要求司法部長保護所謂的『大陪審團材料』,這是提交給大陪審團的信息,永遠不會被公之於眾,大陪審團被要求保密,這是我們法理學體系的基礎,機密信息、與隱私相關的信必須保密。作為一個清白的人,為什麼非要捲入到你碰巧看到、聽到的事情裏去呢?」
Christopher Farrell: “Well there’s a process for the attorney general to handle the Mueller report and that process is governed by law. It’s also governed by regulations that come from the law itself and it’s very specific and it has a number of requirements that the attorney general must fulfill. And so in doing that, you know there’s sort of this political sideshow, this political theater that’s taking place in the House Judiciary Committee which has little or nothing to do with the law that governs the attorney general’s conduct. And so the attorney general is currently reviewing Mueller’s report. He has already pledged to make it public. But there are constraints on what he can make public. And so the law requires that the attorney general protect what’s referred to as “‘grand jury material" and that’s information that’s presented to a grand jury but it is not intended to ever be made public. Grand jury secrecy is a tenant. you know a foundation of our system of jurisprudence. There’s also classified information that has to be withheld and then there’s privacy related information. You’re an innocent person. So why should your name be dragged into something that you just happened to see, hear, etc. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「您的意思是說他們要求提供完整的報告原文是違法的。」
Simone: “ So you are specifically saying they are violating the law by asking for an unredacted version.”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察調查研究主任):「他們想要什麼就可以要求對方提供什麼。政治和法律是有區別的。在當下這種情況下,二者存在了共通點,所以有些政治家,他們有自己的政治意圖,試圖使用法律工具,迫使司法部長違反法律。這是一個令人難以置信的矛盾,是無稽之談。也沒有什麼實際意義。其目的是作為宣傳工具、作為一個籌款工具。所有這些政客都要自己籌備資金,試圖用『我們在爭取得到這份報告』的理由來為自己籌款。實際情況並非如此,這是他們的政治噱頭,以吸引人們對他們的政治主張的興趣。」
Christopher Farrell: “Well they can ask for whatever they want. There’s a difference between politics and law. In this case they sort of intersect and so you have politicians with their own political agenda trying to use a legal tool to force the attorney general to violate the law. There’s an incredible contradiction in this and it’s nonsensical. But it’s not intended to make sense. It’s intended as a propaganda tool. It’s intended as a fundraising tool. All these politicians are going to go out and try to do fundraising off of, ‘They are fighting to get the report’. No they’re not. They’re doing a political stunt to generate and to energize interest in their political base.  ”

接下來,在任總統會被起訴嗎?
Coming up, can a sitting president be indicted?

在任總統會被起訴嗎?
Part 2: Can a Sitting President be Indicted?

幾十年來,美國司法部一直執行著一項政策:不得起訴現任總統。這是1973年尼克松總統水門事件醜聞期間,司法部法律諮詢辦公室採納的一項政策。在面臨眾議院彈劾的壓力下,尼克松於1974年辭職。這就是為什麼眾議院司法委員會將尼克森稱之為「未被起訴的同謀者」。這也是福特總統為何要特赦尼克森,保護他日後免予被起訴的部分原因,因為他已經不再具有總統這一身份保護了。
The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This policy was adopted by the DOJ’s office of Legal Counsel In 1973 during President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned in 1974, under the impeachment pressure from the House of Representatives.  This is why the House Judiciary Committee named Nixon as a quote “unindicted co-spirator”. It was also part of President Gerald Ford’s motivation to pardon Nixon to shield him from future indictments, since he no longer had the protection of being president.

美國司法部在2000年的一份備忘錄中重申了這一政策,並認定:美國政府實施行政、立法、司法三權分立,對總統進行刑事指控將「違背憲法三權分立的規定」。
DOJ reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo and concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

在實踐中,對現任總統進行起訴要受到程式衝突的限制。就羅伯特·穆勒調查而言,特別檢察官及其員工並未獨立於美國司法部或其行政管理系統之外。副總檢察長羅德·羅森斯坦任命了穆勒,發起了本次調查。在整個活躍期間,穆勒向羅森斯坦做出彙報,他的決定須經過羅森斯坦予以批準。由於羅森斯坦、穆勒等司法部內其他任何員工均效力於總統,如果穆勒起訴總統阻礙司法,則他可以命令穆勒撤回指控,否則會解雇穆勒,另換一人撤回指控。
In practice, indicting a sitting president is subject to procedure conflict. In the case of the Mueller Probe, the special counsel and his staff were not independent of the Justice Department or its chain of command. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller and launched the investigation and throughout its active phase, Mueller reported to Rosenstein and his decisions were subject to Rosenstein’s approval. Because Rosenstein and Mueller and everyone else in the Justice Department works for the president, if Mueller indicted Trump for obstructing justice, he could order Mueller to withdrawn the charge or fire Mueller and hire someone else to withdraw the charge.

這就是為何不能起訴總統的原因所在。從憲法上來講,你不能讓最高統治者自己跟自己打架。從實踐上講,沒有哪一位總統會容許下屬舉報自己,更別說起訴了。
This is why the president cannot be indicted. Constitutionally, you cannot have the sovereign working against himself. As a practical matter, no president would allow one of his subordinates to prosecute him, let alone indict him.

基於上述原因,體制的設計者把彈劾(從憲法上講相當於起訴)權交給了眾議院。一旦總統被彈劾,實際上等於總統在參議院受審,而審判長是最高法院首席大法官。
For these reasons, the Framers placed the power to impeach, which is the constitutional equivalent of an indictment, with the House of Representatives. Once impeached, the president is literally put on trial in the Senate presided over by the chief justice.

穆勒調查如今已塵埃落定,但是從憲法的角度上來講,真正的行動在眾議院從未停止過,隨著民主黨在2018年中期選舉中獲勝,重掌眾議院,眾議院中民主黨人已經佔據了中央舞臺。
The Mueller Probe is over, but constitutionally, the real action has always been in the House–and with Democrats winning control of the chamber in the 2018 midterms, House Democrats are taking center stage.

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):德克薩斯州共和黨議員路易·戈莫特是前州法院法官,同時也是眾議院司法委員會最資深的共和黨人之一。任何彈劾川普總統的動議必須經過他的司法委員會。他告訴《世事關心》節目組,民主黨人不會善罷甘休,停止與總統作對。但是,目前議會中的氛圍也不贊成彈劾總統。
Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert is a former state judge and one of the most senior Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. Any move to impeach President Donald Trump must go through his committee. He told “Zooming In” that Democrats are not moving on from their efforts to undermine the president. But the mood in congress is not for impeachment either at this moment.

路易·戈莫特(德克薩斯州共和黨議員): 「至於彈劾,我認為已經不再具有任何實際意義。從特別檢察官辦公室內部人員中傳出一些流言,說報告的實際內容比綜述中提出的還要多。但是,不論特別檢察官辦公室內部的什麼人傳出的這些流言,你得這樣理解,他們散佈這些流言,他們本人很可能就是罪犯。所以,如果你願意相信特別檢察官辦公室那些可能是罪犯的人說的話,那你去相信好了。不過,我認為我們需要對罪犯散佈的所有傳言進行調查,因為那些罪犯本身負有嚴查深究,匡扶正義的責任, 實際上真正的作惡者是他們自己。」
Louie Gohmert:“ Well as far as impeachment I don’t think that’s at all practical anymore. There are rumors from people within the special counsel’s office that are leaking out that there’s more than the summary indicated. But you also have to understand anybody in the special counsel’s office that’s leaking that information may well be criminals themselves for leaking that information. So if you want to take the word of potential criminals who were working in the special counsel’s office then that’s fine. But I think we need an investigation into all the leaking that’s going on by criminals that are supposed to be ferreting out and punishing (in)justice when actually they’re the perpetrators. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「對於司法部長巴爾處置納德勒的作法以及穆勒的調查報告,你有何看法?」
“what is your take on how Attorney General Barr is handling himself with Nadler and the Mueller Report?”

路易·戈莫特(德克薩斯州共和黨議員):「我知道有很多共和黨人,甚至當巴爾剛獲得司法部長提名的時候,大家對他有很多想法。我根本不認識這個人,以前我對他的瞭解也很不夠。我的意思是,我可以讀一些有關他的東西,但那不是真正的瞭解,不像穆勒。穆勒我是瞭解的,有幾年我向穆勒提問過問題,對他也做了幾年的研究,我對他很瞭解,這是當他被任命為特別檢察官時我感到很不安的原因之一。但是,自從巴爾獲得確認,被任命為司法部長後,就這一段期間的行為而言,當初我是有點懷疑的,因為我知道他以前在那裡待過,而且和一些我認為存在深層政府問題的人還是朋友。不過,現在來看,我認為他表現得非常好,作為司法部長,實際上他為特別檢察官辦公室重新贏回了一些尊嚴。」
Louie Gohmert: “ I know there were a lot of Republicans that, that thought a lot of Attorney General Barr even when he was nominated. I just don’t know the man and I didn’t know the man well enough. I mean I could read about him but that’s not really knowing him like I know Mueller after years of asking him questions and years of research on him so, I know him well and that’s one of the reasons I was very upset when he was appointed as special counsel. But as far as attorney general Barr’s conduct since being confirmed and made attorney general. I was a bit skeptical because I knew he had been there before and was friends with some of the people that I considered deep state problems. But I think he’s comported himself extremely well and, and is actually restoring some of the dignity to the office as head of the Department of Justice.”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「他提出將於5月2日到您的委員會作證。您會向他提什麼樣的問題?」
Simone: “He offered to testify before your committee May 2, what are your questions that you are going to ask him?”

路易·戈莫特(德克薩斯州共和黨議員):「這個我不知道。我想問穆勒的問題多,問巴爾的問題少。我真的很希望穆勒再次回到我們的委員會。自從他就任特別檢察官後,還一直沒有來過我們委員會作證。如果他確實是一個心系正義的有德之士的話,當初他是有各種各樣的條件,各種各樣的理由,可以迴避自己不應該接受這份工作的,但是他接受了。另外,我們還絕對的清楚:一個名叫斯蒂爾的外國代理人與在俄羅斯的外國代理人之間有一個陰謀,而斯蒂爾曾與他們一起與克林頓競選團隊及司法部、聯邦調查局的高級官員們共過事。要調查就應該調查這樣的犯罪陰謀,這才是真正的問題所在。希望我們現在就著手此事。」
Louie Gohmert:  “Well I don’t know. I have more questions for Mueller than I do Barr. I would really like to have Mueller back in front of our committee. He hasn’t been here to testify before our committee since he became special counsel. He had all kinds of bases for recusal himself, all kinds of reasons he should never have accepted the job, if he were an ethical, moral person concerned about justice. But he did. We do also know absolutely that there was a conspiracy between a foreign agent named Steele and the people who were foreign agents in Russia with whom he worked with the Clinton campaign and with high level officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI. That’s where the criminal conspiracy needs to be investigated. That’s where the real problem is. And I hope now we’ll get around to doing that. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「這個有多大的可能會發生? 這個調查有多大的可能會發生?」
Simone:  “How likely is that going to happen? That investigation.”

路易·戈莫特(德克薩斯州共和黨議員):「它不會像我希望的那樣由司法委員會下達命令進行調查,因為我們的主席已經作出了明確表示,對調查一事,他採取了一種非常黨派式的做法,所以司法部,這種調查很適合克林頓,因為當年克林頓做了偽證。就像當初他對待克林頓總統的那樣,他想不惜一切代價保護總統和那屆政府。但就川普總統而言,做為一名共和黨人,任何人都沒有發現他有過任何犯罪行為,他也從未被人起訴,從未對任何人有過犯罪行為,包括總統,或與俄羅斯有過任何形式的陰謀。他仍然想堅持,並阻止對發生的真正的犯罪進行真正的調查。但事實是,你看看所有的指控都是由特別檢察官提出的,現任司法部連一項指控都沒有提出來過。」
Louie Gohmert: “ It will not be as a result of a demand from the Judiciary Committee as I would have hoped, because our chairman has made clear…He takes a very very partisan approach to the investigation and the Department of Justice so… It fits an investigation into Clinton who is found to have perjured himself. He wants to protect the president and his administration at all costs as he did with President Clinton. But when it’s in the case of President Trump, a Republican where no criminality is found by anyone, no indictments, no criminality regarding anyone, including the president, with any type of conspiracy with Russia…He still wants to persist and prevent a true investigation into the real crimes that occurred. But the truth is you look at all the indictments that came as a result of the special counsel. There is not one single indictment that could not have been done by the current justice department.  ”

接下來,深層政府是新的第四權嗎?
Coming up, Is the Deep State the new Fourth Estate?

深層政府是新的第四權嗎?
Part 3: Is the Deep State the new Fourth Estate?

法國國王路易十六呼籲召開王國三階級會議,以解決導致政府癱瘓的金融危機。這三階層分別是貴族、神職人員和平民。20世紀60年代,美國記者開始把媒體稱作 「第四階級」,又稱「第四權」。它是憲法的一個補充機構,可以跟政府和社會唱反調。在這次通俄門事件中,另一個勢力強大的機構出現了——國家安全機構。
France’s Louis XVI called for the assembly of the kingdom’s three estates to resolve the financial crisis that crippled his government. The three estates were the nobility, the clergy and the commoners. In the 1960s, American reporters began referring to the media as the so-called Fourth Estate, an extra-constitutional body with a veto over the government and society. During the Russia Probe, yet another powerful estate surfaced, namely, the national security agencies.

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao): Sydney Powell,《特許撒謊》一書的作者。她曾在德克薩斯州和弗吉尼亞州的司法部工作了10年,在第五巡迴上訴法院擔任500多起上訴案件的首席律師。Powell告訴我,在過去兩年裡這種勾結論是毫無根據的。
Sydney Powell is the author of Licensed to Lie. She served in the Department of Justice for ten years in Texas and Virginia, and has been lead counsel in more than 500 appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Powell told me she knew for the past two years that the collusion narrative was groundless.

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「兩年前我就知道他們整個的勾結的過程。我一開始在我看來就很明顯,因為我認識Andrew Weissmann。他是穆勒特別工作組的首席檢察官,事實上,他是我2014年出版的《特許說謊: 揭露司法部的腐敗》一書中的頭號反派。他極具造事的能力,他編造了針對Arthur Andersen的罪行,毀掉了這家公司和八萬五千個工作崗位。直到三年以後,最高法院才推翻該判決。他還編造了針對Merrill Lynch四名高管的罪行,將他們無故關押了一年。所以,我親自觀察他的工作,我能從他們說的話和他們做事的方式上看出來,特別是當我看到嚴重節選過的,在『對外國情報監控』法庭申請的對carter page 的監控申請裡,什麼實質內容都沒有,沒有法官應該在那上面簽字,這絕對令人震驚。所以我本來以爲會發現他們與俄羅斯沒有勾結。但我也在期待,因爲穆勒挑出了Weismann和一群厭惡川普的人,穆勒他們向民主黨人喂料,試圖爲他們的彈劾行動提供素材。所以對穆勒他們沒有肯定地說出絕對沒有妨礙司法公正的證據,我並不感到驚訝。儘管他們應該這麼說,本質上,他們並不建議總統因此而受到起訴。這和免責是一回事。但是,他們繼續向民主黨人喂料,說我們不能爲他開脫,這是胡扯。」
Sydney Powell: “I’ve known for two years that they made up the entire collusion narrative that was obvious for me from the beginning because I know Andrew Weissmann, the lead prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s task force. He’s actually the lead villain in my book “‘License to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice", that came out in 2014. And he’s very capable of making things up. He made up crimes against Arthur Andersen and destroyed that company and 85,000 jobs only to be reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously three years later. And he made up crimes against four Merrill Lynch executives and sent them to prison for a year for nothing. So I’ve seen his work up close and personal. And I could just tell from the things they said and the way they went about doing it, especially when I saw the heavily redacted FISA application, the one on Carter Page, that they didn’t have anything. No judge should have signed off on that. It was absolutely appalling. So I was expecting a finding of no collusion with Russia. But I was also expecting because it was Weismann and a group of people who absolutely loathe President Trump that Mr. Mueller picked for his special council operation, that they would throw all kinds of red meat to the Democrats to try to give’em fodder for the impeachment effort. So I’m not surprised that they didn’t affirmatively say there was absolutely no evidence of obstruction of justice. Although that’s what they should have said. They essentially said that they’re not suggesting that he be indicted for that. That’s the same thing as an exoneration really. But yet they go on to throw red meat to the Democrats by saying well we can’t really exonerate him. That’s just baloney.”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「您的書是2014年出版的。」
Simone: “Your book came out 2014. ”

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「是的 」
Sydney Powell: “Yes.”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「那麼你揭露了Weissman。」
Simone: So you exposed Weissman then.

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「是的。」
Sydney Powell:“ I do. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「那麼,我就在想這個時間,爲什麼當時沒有引起穆勒的警覺呢?」
Simone:“ And then, I am just thinking about the timeline. Why didn’t that sound alarm for Mueller? ”

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「我本來應該引起他的警覺的,但是他花了二十年時間保護和提拔Weissman。」
Sydney Powell: “Well I should have. But Mr. Mueller spent protecting and promoting Mr. Weisman for 20 years. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「嗯!」
Simone:“ OK.”

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「穆勒先生把他安置在安然特遣部隊,在那裡他犯下了我在書中談到的所有暴行。之後穆勒先生把他帶回聯邦調查局擔任他的總法律顧問。儘管我們對韋斯曼提出了非常令人信服的申訴,儘管美國第五巡迴上訴法院發現韋斯曼明顯隱瞞了有利於辯方的證據,但穆勒一直在護著他。 接著,我在書中提到的另一個人萊斯利·卡爾德威爾,把韋斯曼帶回了司法部。當時是洛雷塔·林奇擔任部長。韋斯曼、卡爾德威爾和林奇這三個人成為了我稱之為『深層政府交接團隊』的一幫人。他們和克里斯托弗·斯蒂爾、布魯斯·歐爾裡應外合,搞出來這個黑卷宗。把黑卷宗弄到聯調局和司法部,都是在韋斯曼成為特別檢察官小組成員之前很久的事情。我是說真的是韋斯曼和 Ahmad插手過的每一件事情,Ahmad也和克里斯托弗·斯蒂爾配合搞黑卷宗。每一件他們插手過的案件,都應該以政府極端行為不當為由予以撤銷。」
Sydney Powell: “Mr. Mueller had a hand in putting him on the Enron Task Force where he committed all the atrocities that I talk about in my book. And then Mr. Muller brought him back into the FBI as his general counsel after that. And even though we filed a grievance against Mr. Weissman that was very compelling, and even though the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Mr. Weissman plainly suppressed evidence favorable to the defense, Mr. Muller kept protecting him. And then Leslie Caldwell who is also in the book, brought him back into the Department of Justice when Loretta Lynch was attorney general and they became what I call the “Deep State Transition Team" that then went about running the back channel with Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr, to do the dossier…getting it to the FBI and through the DOJ and all that, long before Weismann went on the special counsel force. I mean really everything Weissman and Ms. Ahmad touch…She was running the back channel with Christopher Steele too. Everything they touch should be thrown out for egregious government misconduct. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「所以你認爲穆勒知道這一切,他完全瞭解韋斯曼。」
Simone: “And so you think Mueller knew all this and he knew Weismann from the inside out. ”

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「是啊,我想這就是爲什麼他選他做特別檢察官的原因。因爲穆勒知道韋斯曼是個多麼卑鄙的檢察官。我聽說他們在淩晨襲擊了馬納福特的家,撬開門鎖,用槍指著躺在床上的馬納福特和他的妻子,並搜查了正穿著睡衣的馬納福特的妻子。這就是典型的安德魯·韋斯曼作風。我稱之爲起檢察機關的恐怖手段。」
Sydney Powell: “Oh yeah I think that’s why he picked him for the special counsel operation. Because he knew what a dirty prosecutor he is. As soon as I heard that they raided Manafort’s home in the wee hours of the morning and picked the lock and had Manafort and his wife wake up in their bed with guns in their faces and search Manafort’s wife in the bed in her nightgown. That’s textbook Andrew Weissman. I call it prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「在奧巴馬執政期間,招收新人時保守派人士是很難進入司法部的,是嗎?」
Simone:“ Is it true that during the Obama time, when they hired new people, it was very hard for the Conservatives to go into the Justice Department?”

Sydeny Powell(《特許撒謊》作者):「不一定。我認爲,20年來司法部變得越來越糟。這是一個緩慢的過程,奧巴馬可能加劇了這個過程,他縱容檢察官肆意踐踏人民的權利,並將目標對準人民。從未見過聯邦機構像奧巴馬執政期間,我們看到的搞的那麼政治化、武器化。從環保局到國稅局,從國務院到司法部,無不如此。不誇張地說,他把特警隊派到了環保局,我是說環保局和其它聯邦機構都搞得軍事化了。」
Sydney Powell: “Not necessarily. I think the Department of Justice has gotten progressively worse over the last 20 years. It’s been a slow process. Obama probably doubled it and ramped it up in terms of allowing prosecutors to run rampant over people’s rights and target people. I mean I’ve never seen such politicization and weaponization of all federal agencies as we’ve witnessed during the Obama administration. I mean from the Environmental Protection Agency to the IRS to the State Department to the DOJ. He literally put SWAT teams in the EPA. I mean militarized SWAT team for the EPA and other federal agencies. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao): 在美國曆史上,國家安全機構從未如此密切地與一位總統候選人合作,卻與另一位總統候選人對抗。而且,在他們支持的候選人競選失敗後,這種對抗還依然繼續。這些國家機構沒有成為第五級,卻與左翼媒體聯手,成為了一個新的更強大的第四級,差點推翻了一位合法當選的總統。更多細節,我與Farrell接著來談。
Never before in American history have the national security agencies worked so closely with one presidential candidate and against another–and then, continuing that opposition after their candidate lost the election. Rather than becoming a Fifth Estate, these agencies and the left-wing media joined forces forming a new more powerful Fourth Estate that nearly ousted a duly-elected president. For more details, Here is the rest of my conversation with Farrell.

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「聯邦法律和憲法規定,未經授權不得對美國公民進行監視。 但是,奧巴馬政府的人取消了對幾百位這樣被偶然監視到的美國人身份的隱蔽。這是怎麼回事呢?」
Simone: “Federal law and the Constitution forbid unwarranted surveillance of U.S. citizens, so when Americans are picked up incidentally, their identity is masked. Yet, members of the Obama administration made hundreds of requests to “unmask” US citizens accidentally picked up in surveillance–what was going on?”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察/調查研究所主任):「問得好。大家知道,前美國駐聯合國大使薩曼莎·鮑爾,她或她的辦公室至少提出了幾百項身份披露要求。這是驚人的,首先,作為美國駐聯合國大使,她無權訪問高度機密的情報信息,這不屬於她的職責範圍,不屬於她的工作範圍。」
Christopher Farrell: “That’s a great question. We know that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power… I think at least a couple of hundred unmasking requests have come either from her or from her office. That’s astonishing. First of all she, I mean really as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., She has no business accessing extremely classified, signals intelligence information. It’s just not in her portfolio. It’s not part of her job.”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「蘇珊·賴斯是可以理解的。但是她…」
Simone Gao: “Susan Rice is understandable. But her…  ”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察/調查研究所主任):「是的。所以這是一個好奇心。請求司法部長進行刑事調查,因爲我們看到了濫用執法手段和情報手段,這是我們歷史上從未見過的。我想,最重要的政治危機就是『水門事件』。尼克松時代的醜聞和危機迫使他辭職。我們所看到的這個人爲的騙局,俄羅斯歇斯底里,使水門事件看起來像一個笑話。我的意思是,這對憲法是一個非常嚴重的威脅。濫用執法和情報機構去追擊政治候選人就是犯罪。」
Christopher Farrell: “Yeah. And so,Again this is a, It’s a curiosity. It begs… begs for a criminal investigation by the attorney general because we’ve seen the abuse of law enforcement techniques and intelligence techniques the likes of which we have never seen in our history. You know the sort of the I guess the benchmark political crisis of all, that everything is sort of measured against is Watergate. The Nixon era scandal and crisis that forced his resignation. What we’ve seen with this manufactured hoax, Russia hysteria, makes Watergate look like a joke. I mean this is a really, very grave threat to the Constitution. It’s a criminal, corrupt abuse of our law enforcement and intelligence services to go after a political candidate. And really to try to manufacture or orchestrate a coup. We’ve never had that sort of a planned deliberate revolt emanating from our government against the sitting president. Nothing like it.  ”
蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「這些人是奧巴馬政府故意針對的嗎?」
Simone: “Are these individuals intentionally targeted, that is my question, by the Obama administration? ”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察/調查研究所主任):「是的,我覺得這不是偶而為之,不是一種漫不經心之舉。比如今天下午你沒有別的事要做,幹嘛不去披露一些人呢。這是一個非常嚴重、非常深思熟慮的過程,真的應該給國家安全局敲響警鐘,因爲這很罕見,很特殊,有非常具體的要求。這不是經常做的。當你看到 Samantha Power提交了200個奇怪的請求時,你可能會想,某些地方的某些人很反常,我們以前從未見過這種情況,爲什麼這個人這麼急切地想盯這些人。這是一個異常現象,非常令人擔憂。」
Christopher Farrell:  “Yeah I mean it’s not something that you just sort of do by accident or you know… It’s a not a cavalier sort of you know… You have nothing else to do this afternoon. So why not go unmask some people. It’s a very serious, very deliberate process that really should have set off alarm bells at the National Security Agency because it is rare, it is exceptional, there are very specific requirements. It’s not done very often. And you know when you see Samantha Power submitting 200 and some odd requests, somebody somewhere, you would think, would have said you know, this is highly irregular. We have never seen this before. Why from this person with such urgency looking at these people. It is a… It’s an aberration that is extremely alarming. ”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):「您如何描述克林頓競選團隊、國家安全機構和媒體在2016年競選期間及之後的相互關聯?」
Simone: “How would you describe the interlocking of the Clinton campaign, national security agencies and the media during the 2016 campaign and afterwards? ”

Christopher Farrell(司法觀察/調查研究所主任):「 如果你在尋找一個陰謀,一個真正的陰謀,看看克林頓競選團隊官員、司法部和聯邦調查局人員、檔案偽造者之間的非常熟絡的關係。我認爲這能說明問題,尤其是當你考慮到司法部和聯邦調查局在得知克林頓觸犯了《美國法典》第18章第793節時,他們否決了對她的電子郵件調查。毫無疑問,這是對涉及國防信息的不正當處理。科米先生根據法律提出了一項新要求,涉及法律中沒有的意圖。但他們竭盡全力爲她開脫,因爲他們不想讓民主黨的總統候選人被起訴,對吧? 我是說,有點公關的味道。但我認爲,即使是更大、更大、最大的問題要追溯到麗莎·佩奇發給彼得·史卓克的一條短信。她非常激動地寫給他,因爲她正在爲FBI局長科米準備談話要點,好讓他向總統簡要介紹他們調查川普的活動,她在短信中寫道: “POTUS想知道我們正在做的一切”。當然,POTUS的意思是奧巴馬先生,對吧?當時是總統。這是麗莎·佩奇,她寫短信的時候想的就是爲FBI局長準備的簡報,因爲她知道科米要去見總統。她告訴史卓克,這一切的首席調查員,『總統想知道我們正在做的一切』,時間是2016年9月。所以,我有問題要問奧巴馬先生:他知道了什麼?什麼時候知道的?他作出了什麼指示?批準了什麼?」
Christopher Farrell:   “Sure. I mean if you’re looking for a conspiracy, a real conspiracy, look at the very cozy relationships between Clinton campaign officials, various persons in the Department of Justice and the FBI, the manufacturers of the phony dossier…and I mean, what that really gets to I think, particularly when you take into account that Department Justice and the FBI threw out the Clinton email investigation when they knew that she had committed crimes and very specifically I can tell you,18 United States Code Section 793 F. Which is the mishandling of national defense information. Without a doubt. Mr. Comey manufactured a new requirement under the law something concerning intent which is not in the law. But they bent over backwards to absolve her of any wrongdoing because they didn’t want to have the Democratic nominee for the president to be indicted. Right? I mean, a little bit of a public relations problem there. But I think even the larger, the greater, the greatest question goes back to a text that Lisa Page sent to Peter Strzok. And she wrote to him, very excitedly, because she was preparing talking points for the director of the FBI, Mr. Comey, to go brief the president on their activities going after Trump and she wrote in this text message quote: POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing" close quote. Of course ‘POTUS’ means Mr. Obama, Right? The president at the time. So here’s Lisa Page. She’s thinking about this briefing she’s preparing for the FBI director because she knows he’s going to go see the president. And she tells Strzok, who’s the chief investigator in all this, ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’, and that was in September of 2016. So my question is for Mr. Obama. What did he know, when did he know it? What did he direct? What did he approve?”

蕭茗(Host/ Simone Gao):有關民主黨人及其在政府中的盟友以及媒體如何試圖逆轉2016大選結果的內幕,仍未大白於天下。請持續關注《世事關心》,我們將一如既往地深度報道各方面的進展。請在Twitter上關註我們 ( @ZoomingInSimone ),並分享您的看法。您也可以關注我們的臉書專頁並訂閱我們的Youtube頻道: Zooming In With Simone Gao。
The story of how Democrats and their allies inside government and media tried to overturn the 2016 presidential election is still unfolding. Stay with “Zooming In” as we continue to cover all the developments in depth.  Let me know what you think on Twitter @ZoomingInSimone. You can also join the conversation on our Facebook page and subscribe to our YouTube channel: Zooming In With Simone Gao. Good bye until next time.


End

==========================================

Producer :Simone Gao
Writer  :Simone Gao
Editors   : Bonnie Yu,  Frank Lin,  Melodie Von, York Du
Narrator :Rich Crankshaw
Translation :Greg Yang,  Juan Li,  Xiaofeng Zhang,
Bin Tang,  Chu Yue
Transcription :Jim Battaglini
Cameraman :York Du, Teddy Lin, Ken Li
Special Effects :Harrison Sun
Assistant producer :Bin Tang,  Merry Jiang

Feedback:ssgx@ntdtv.com
Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique

New Tang Dynasty Television
Zooming In
April., 2019
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVWMVBg1RPrDlakdmbyTKBA

 

 

相關文章
評論