【白宮】川普首次正式回應違法彈劾案(全文翻譯)(圖)



(圖片來源:視頻截圖)

【看中国2020年1月19日讯】(看中國記者天琴翻譯)1月18日,美國總統川普針對虛假彈劾案首次做出正式回應。白宮網站登出文件的影印件,共七頁。川普認為眾議院的彈劾指控無恥而非法,是對美國人民的危險攻擊。

(中文翻譯後面有英文完整版。)

唐納德·J·川普總統的回答

法律和正義
發布日期:2020年1月18日

美國總統唐納德·J·川普先生在此回應:

眾議院民主黨人提交的彈劾條款是對美國人民自由選擇總統權利危險的攻擊。這是無恥而非法的企圖推翻2016年大選的結果,並干擾距今僅數月之遙的2020年大選。對彈劾總統的高度黨派性質的和魯莽的執著始於總統就職那天,一直持續到今天。
________________________________________

在美國參議院的訴訟前程序
唐納德·J·川普總統的回答

傑伊·艾倫·塞庫洛,唐納德·J·川普總統的法律顧問
華盛頓D.C.

帕特·A·西波隆,總統律師
白宮

尊敬的美國總統唐納德·J·川普先生在此回應:
眾議院民主黨人提交的彈劾條款是對美國人民自由選擇總統權利危險的攻擊。這是無恥而非法的企圖推翻2016年大選的結果,並干擾距今僅數月之遙的2020年大選。對彈劾總統的高度黨派性質的和魯莽的執著始於總統就職那天,一直持續到今天。

彈劾條款在憲法上是明確的。(民主黨)無法指控(我)任何犯罪或違法行為,更不用說憲法要求的「嚴重罪行和不檢行為」。它們是違反基本公平和正當程序的結果。這些條款中的任何內容都不允許甚至開始考慮罷免正式當選的總統,或者支持廢除選舉和顛覆美國人民的意誌。

參議院面臨的彈劾條款冒犯了美國憲法、我們的民主體制和美國人民。條款本身以及將彈劾條款送抵參院的過程-是眾議院民主黨人明顯的政治行為。條款貶低了彈劾的嚴肅權力和權力所帶來的嚴肅責任。它們必須被拒絕。眾議院現在的程序違反了150多年以來所有關於彈劾調查的先例和公正原則。即便如此,眾議院民主黨人能成功證明的是:總統絕對沒有做錯任何事情。

川普總統絕對並明確否認兩項彈劾條款中的每一項指控。總統保留對彈劾條款進行抗辯的所有(和所有可用)的權利。出於本答覆和即將出臺的《審判摘要》中所述的原因,參議院必須拒絕彈彈劾條款。

一,第一彈劾條款必須予以拒絕

第一彈劾條款從表面上無法陳述可劾條的罪行。它根本沒有提到任何罪行,更不要說《憲法》所規定的「重罪和輕罪」。實際上,它沒有提出任何違反法律的指控。眾議院民主黨「濫權」的主張將對《憲法》中的分權制衡造成持久損害。

第一彈劾條款由於缺乏事實而失敗,因為川普總統絲毫沒有「濫用總統職位」。在任何時候,總統都代表美國人民忠實有效地履行了他的總統職責。總統在2019年7月25日採取的行動,與烏克蘭總統沃洛德米爾·澤倫斯基(Volodymyr Zelenskyy)進行電話通話(「7月25日進行通話」),以及在2019年4月21日之前的電話中進行通話(「4月2日1進行通話」),在所有周圍及相關事件中,都是符合憲法的,完全合法的,完全適當的,並符合我們的國家利益。

川普總統在7月25日的電話會議上提出了重要的責任分擔問題,並指出德國等其它歐洲國家沒有承擔應有的責任,川普總統也提出了烏克蘭腐敗的重要問題。澤倫斯基總統在同一電話中對此表示關註。

儘管眾議院民主黨人開展了完全非法和單方面的程序,但一些簡單的事實已證明總統沒有做錯任何事情:

1,4月21日電話會議和7月25日電話會議的筆錄都絕對清楚地表明,總統沒有做錯任何事情。

2,澤倫斯基總統和烏克蘭官員一再證實這一通話是「良好」和「正常」的,沒有交換條件,沒有人在任何事上施加壓力。

3,根據記錄,有兩個人都曾向總統談過這個問題,談話都證明總統無罪。歐盟大使戈登·桑德蘭德(Gordon Sondland)說,當他問總統他想從烏克蘭人那裡得到什麼時,總統說:「我什麼都不想要。我什麼都不要,我不想要任何交換條件。」參議員羅恩·約翰遜(Ron Johnson)報告說,當他問總統時,總統回應說:「不會的,我永遠也不會這樣做。」眾議院民主黨人忽視這些事實,相反完全依賴於沒有第一手證據的證人的假設,推定和猜測。這兩人在我國任何法院都被接受。

4,雙邊總統會議是在正常情況下舉行的,安全援助已被發放,而且是在烏克蘭政府沒有宣布任何調查的情況下。

不僅眾議院民主黨人收集的證據本身駁斥了第一條所依據的每個事實,4月21日和7月25日的電話筆錄也反駁了該條的說法。當眾議院民主黨人意識到這一點時,希夫(Schiff)製造了7月25日電話的欺詐版本,並在國會聽證會上將其閱讀給美國人民,但沒有透露他只是在拼湊所有內容。事實上,希夫先生認為需要偽造7月25日通話的文件版本證明,他的同事們已知道該通話絕對沒有錯。

眾議院民主黨人進行了一個有缺陷的,非法的程序,該程序剝奪了總統的每一項基本權利,其中包括請律師在場的權利,對證人進行盤問的權利以及出示證據的權利。儘管如此,眾議院民主黨人收集的信息實際上反駁了他們對總統的指責。總統在任何時候都具有充分的憲法和法律權威,並符合我們的國家利益。他繼續執行他的政府對烏克蘭空前支持的政策,其中包括提供殺傷性的軍事援助,這是前一屆政府拒絕向烏克蘭提供的。

第一彈劾條款從憲法上講是無效的,是建立在虛假之上的,必須予以拒絕。

二,第二彈劾條款必須予以拒絕

第二彈劾條款從文字陳述上也沒有指出任何可彈劾的罪行。它沒有指控任何犯罪或違法行為。對於國家而言,總統對行政部門合法保密利益的主張是基於三權分立,不構成對國會的阻礙。

此外,關於川普總統阻礙國會的說法是荒謬的。川普總統解密併發布了7月25日電話的文字記錄,這是以前所未有的和超級的透明性行事,這是此事的核心。

總統披露了7月25日的電話記錄後,眾議院民主黨人發出了一系列違憲傳票,以作證和聽證。他們未經國會投票,即沒有憲法授權,就發出了傳票。他們尋求許多總統最親密顧問的證詞。儘管事實是,在長期以來兩黨執政的實踐以及司法部的長期指導下,這些顧問從他們表面職責上是絕對豁免接受國會相關聽證的。他們尋求披露行政部門在外交關係和國家安全問題上的機密通信和內部決策程序的證詞,儘管這些信息享有公認的憲法特權和豁免權。正如最高法院所承認的那樣,總統保護在行政關係領域信息的憲法授權,是其對外關係和國家安全領域的最高職責。眾議院民主黨人也被禁止參與行政部門的保密工作。

儘管存在這些弊端,川普政府還是對這些傳票做出了適當答覆,並確定了它們的憲法缺陷。可以說,眾議院民主黨沒有尋求在法庭上強制執行這些有憲法缺陷的傳票。在這個國家,當一個傳票的接收者就其收到的傳票的有效性作出聲明性判斷時,眾議院民主黨人很快就收回傳票,以阻止法院作出裁決。

眾議院不得篡奪行政部門的權力,也不得繞開憲法的製衡機制。主張有效的憲法特權和豁免絕非可彈劾的罪行。因此,第二條彈劾條款無效,必須予以拒絕。

三,結論

彈劾條款違反了憲法。它們從整體上有缺陷的。它們是無效程序的產物,這些程序公然否認了總統所有程序上的權利。他們基於對憲法的危險扭曲,這將對我們的政府結構產生持久損害,

在第一彈劾條款中,眾議院試圖奪取總統根據《憲法》第二條所獲的外交決策權力。在第二彈劾條款中,眾議院試圖控制和懲罰行政部門的憲法特權,同時試圖破壞制憲者的製衡制度。通過批准彈劾第二條,眾議院違反了我們的憲法秩序,非法濫用了其彈劾權,並試圖阻礙川普總統可以被豁免過失地忠實履行其行政職責的能力。他們試圖破壞總統根據《憲法》第二條所授予的權力,該憲法條款賦予「美利堅合眾國總統」全部「行政權力」。

為了維護我們政府的憲政結構,要拒絕制憲者警告的有毒的政黨性質,確保來自一個黨派的政治彈劾仇殺不成為「新常態」。為維護美國人民的意志,參議院必須拒絕這兩個彈劾條款。最後,這整個過程只是對美國人民本身及其他們基本的投票權的危險攻擊。

傑伊·艾倫·塞庫洛,唐納德·J·川普總統的法律顧問
華盛頓D.C.

帕特·A·西波隆,總統律師
白宮

2020年1月18日
________________________________________

Answer of President Donald J. Trump

LAW & JUSTICE

Issued on: January 18, 2020

THE HONORABLE DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY RESPONDS:

The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President.  This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election—now just months away.  The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day. Click here to read the full answer.
________________________________________

In proceedings before the united states senate
Answer of President Donald J. Trump

Jay Alan Sekulow, Counsel to President Donald J. Trump
Washing, D.C.

Pat A. Cipillone, Counsel to the President
The White House

The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, Hereby Responds:

The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election-now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.

The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally on their face. The fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these Articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying and election and subverting the will of the American people.

The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are affront to the Constitution of the United States, our democratic institutions, and the American people. The Articles themselves - and the rigged process that brought them here - are a transparently political act by House Democrats. They debase the grave power of Impeachment and the solemn responsibility that power entails. They must be rejected. The House process violated every precedent and every principle of fairness governing Impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years. Even so, all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the President did absolutely nothing wrong.

President Trump categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both Articles of Impeachment. The President resident reserves all rights and all available defenses to the Articles of Impeachment. For the reasons set forth in this Answer and in the forthcoming Trial Brief, the Senate must reject the Articles of Impeachment.

I. The first Articles of Impeachment must be rejected

The first Article fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone “high Crime and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. In fact, it alleges no violation of law whatsoever. House Democrats “abuse of power” claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution.

The first Article fails on the facts, because President Trump has not in any way “abused the powers of the Presidency.” At all times, the President has faithfully and effectively executed the duties of his Office on behalf of the American people. The President’s actions on the July 25, 2019, telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine (the “July 25 call”), as well as on the earlier April 21, 2019, telephone call (the “April 2 1 call”), and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest.

President Trump raised the important issue of burden sharing on the July 25 call, noting that other European countries such as Germany were not carrying their fair share, President Trump also raised the important issue of Ukrainian corruption. President Zelenskyy acknowledged concerns on that same call.

Despite House Democrats having run an entirely illegitimate and one-sided process, several simple facts were establish that prove the President did nothing wrong:

First, the transcripts of both the April 21 call and the July 25 call make absolutely clear that the President did nothing wrong.

Second, President Zelenskyy  and Ukrainian officials have repeatedly confirmed that the call was “good” and “normal,” that there was no quid pro quo, and that no one pressured than on anything.

Third, the two individuals who have stated for the record that they spoke to the President about the subject actually exonerate him. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stated that when he asked the President what he wanted from Ukriane, the President said:”I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” Senator Ron Johnson reported that, when he asked the President responded:”No way. I would never do that.” House Democrats ignore these facts and instead rely entirely on assumptions, presumptions, and speculation from witnesses with no first-hand knowledge. Their accepted in any court in our country.

Fourth, the bilateral presidential meeting took place in the ordinary course, and the security assistance was sent, all without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.

Not only does the evidence collected by House Democrats refute each and every one of the factual predicates underlying the first Article, the transcripts of the April 21 call and the July 25 call disprove what the Article alleges. When the house Democrats realized this, Mr. Schiff created a fraudulent version of the July 25 call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up. The fact that Mr. Schiff felt the need to fabricate a file version of the July 25 call proves that he colleagues knew was absolutely nothing wrong with that call.

House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to crosse-examine witnesses, and the right to present evidence. Despite all this, the information House Democrats assembled actually disproves their claims against the President. The President acted at all times with full constitutional and legal authority and in our national interest. He continued his Administration’s policy of unprecedented support for Ukraine, including the delivery of lethal military aid that was denied to the Ukrainians by the prior administration.

The first Article is therefore constitutional invalid, founded on falsehoods, and must be rejected.

II, The second Articles of Impeachment must be rejected

The second Articles also fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It does not allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever. To the country, the President’s assertion of legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests grounded in the separation of power cannot constitute obstruction of Congress.

Furthermore, the notion that President Trump obstructed congress is absurd. President Trump acted with extraordinary and unprecedented transparency by declassifying and releasing the transcript of the July 25 call that is at the heart of this matter.

Following the President’s disclosure of the July 25 call transcript, House Democrats issued a series of unconstitutional subpoenas for documents and testimony. They issued their subpoenas without a congressional vote and, therefore, without constitutional authority. They sought testimony from a number of the President’s closest advisors despite the fact that, under longstanding, bipartisan practice of prior administrations of both political parties and similarly longstanding guidance from the Department of Justice, those advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress related to their facial duties. And they sought testimony disclosing the Executive Branch’s confidential communications and internal decision-making processes on matters of foreign relations and national security, despite the well-established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its ape in the field of foreign relations and national security. House Democrats also barred the attendance of Executive Branch confidentiality interests.

Notwithstanding these abuses, the Trump Administration replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects. Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court. To the country, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling.

The House may not usurp Executive Branch authority and may not bypass our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Asserting valid constitutional privileges and immunities cannot be an impeachable offense. The second Article is therefore invalid and must be rejected.

III, Conclusion

The Articles of Impeachment violate the Constitution. They are defective in their entirety. They are the product of invalid proceedings that flagrantly denied the President any due process rights. They rest on dangerous distortions of the Constitution that would do lasting damage to our structure of government.

In the first Article, the House attempts to seize the President’s power under Article II of the Constitution to determine foreign policy. In the  second Article, the House attempts to control and penalize the assertion of the Executive Branch’s constitutional privileges, while simultaneously seeking to destroy the Framers’ system of checks and balances. By approving the Articles, the House violated our constitutional order, illegally abused its power of impeachment, and attempted to obstruct President Trump’s ability to faulty to faithfully execute the duties of his Office. They sought to undermine his authority under Article II of the Constitution, which vests the entirety of “he executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.”

In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become there “new normal,” and to vindicate the will of American people,  the Senate must reject both articles of Impeachment. In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.

Jay Alan Sekulow, Counsel to President Donald J. Trump
Washing, D.C.

Pat A. Cipillone, Counsel to the President
The White House

Dated this 18th day of January, 2020.


歡迎給您喜歡的作者捐助。您的愛心鼓勵就是對我們媒體的耕耘。 打賞

看完這篇文章您覺得

評論




神韻晚會

看中國版權所有 Copyright © 2001 - Kanzhongguo.com All Rights Reserved.