The purpose of this website is to be a place for learning and discussion. The website and each tutorial topics do not encourage anyone to participate in trading or investment of any kind.
Any information shown in any part of this website do not promise any movement, gains, or profit for any trader or non-trader.


Author Topic: 特朗普被裁定在干预大选结果案中无豁免权  (Read 30 times)


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile

ALAN FEUER, CHARLIE SAVAGE2024年2月7日前总统特朗普预计将继续向最高法院提出上诉。 Doug Mills/The New York TimesA federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, ruling that he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden.一家联邦上诉法院周二驳回了前总统特朗普关于他可以免于被指控阴谋颠覆2020年大选结果的主张。他被指控试图推翻输给拜登总统的结果,法院裁定他必须就此刑事起诉接受审判。The unanimous ruling, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat. But it was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity: Mr. Trump, who is on a path to locking up the Republican presidential nomination, is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court.美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院由三位法官组成的合议庭做出了一致裁决,这使特朗普遭遇重大挫败。但这不太可能是对其行政豁免权主张的最终裁决:有望锁定共和党总统候选人提名的特朗普将继续向最高法院提起上诉。Still, the panel’s 57-page ruling signaled an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question that had never been addressed by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?尽管如此,该合议庭长达57页的裁决仍标志着美国法理学的一个重要时刻,回答了一个上诉法院从未解答过的问题:前总统能否逃脱刑事司法系统对其在任期间所做所为的问责?The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he put forward.这个问题很新颖,因为在特朗普之前,还没有前总统被起诉过,所以从来没有机会让一名被告去提出特朗普提出的关于行政豁免权的全面主张,法院也从来没有机会去考虑这一问题。The panel, composed of two judges appointed by Democrats and one Republican appointee, said in its decision that, despite the privileges of the office he once held, Mr. Trump was subject to federal criminal law like any other American.该合议庭由两名民主党任命的法官和一名共和党任命的法官组成,他们在裁决中表示,尽管特朗普曾经拥有总统职位的特权,但和其他美国人一样,他也要遵守联邦刑法。“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”“就这起刑事案件而言,前总统特朗普已成为公民特朗普,拥有任何其他刑事被告的所有辩护权。”裁决写道。“但是,在他担任总统期间可能对他起到保护作用的任何行政豁免权都不再能保护他免受此次起诉。”The three judges cast Mr. Trump’s immunity claims as a danger to the nation’s constitutional system.三位法官认为,特朗普的豁免权主张是对国家宪法制度的一种威胁。“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,” they wrote. “Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”“从根本上说,前总统特朗普的立场将使我们的三权分立制度崩溃,因为他将总统置于所有三个分支的管辖范围之外,”他们写道。“总统享有联邦起诉豁免权将意味着,对于总统,国会不能立法,行政部门不能起诉,司法部门不能审查。我们不能接受这样的说法,即总统职位使前任总统在此后的任何时间里都凌驾于法律之上。”A spokesman for Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought the case against Mr. Trump, declined to comment on the decision.对特朗普提起诉讼的特别检察官杰克·史密斯的发言人拒绝对此裁决发表评论。Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said the former president “respectfully disagrees” with the decision and would appeal it.特朗普竞选团队的发言人史蒂文·张(音)表示,这位前总统“恕难同意”这一决定,并将提出上诉。“If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party,” Mr. Cheung said. “Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function.”“如果不给予总统豁免权,今后每一位卸任总统都会立即被对立的党派起诉,”他说。“如果没有完全的豁免权,美国总统将无法正常履行职责。”The panel’s ruling came nearly a month after it heard arguments on the immunity issue from Mr. Trump’s legal team and from prosecutors working for Mr. Smith. While the decision was quick by the standards of a normal appeal, what happens next will be arguably more important in determining not only when a trial on the election subversion charges will take place, but also on the timing of Mr. Trump’s three other criminal trials.在听取了特朗普律师团队和为特别检察官史密斯工作的检察官就豁免权问题进行的辩论近一个月后,合议庭做出了裁决。虽然按照普通上诉的标准,这一裁决是迅速作出的,但接下来发生的事情可以说更为重要,它不仅将决定颠覆选举指控的审判何时进行,还将决定特朗普其他三项刑事审判的时间安排。In addition to the federal indictment charging him with seeking to overturn his election loss in 2020, he faces similar charges brought by a district attorney in Georgia. In a footnote, the panel stressed that its decision did not address the separate question of whether state prosecutors could charge a former president over official actions.除了联邦起诉指控特朗普试图推翻2020年的选举失利之外,他还面临佐治亚州地方检察官提出的类似指控。合议庭在脚注中强调,其裁决并未涉及州检察官是否可以对前总统在任期内的职务行为提出指控这一单独问题。Mr. Smith, the special counsel appointed to oversee the federal prosecutions, has also brought a case in Florida accusing Mr. Trump of mishandling highly sensitive classified documents after leaving office and obstructing efforts to retrieve them. And Mr. Trump is scheduled to go on trial next month in Manhattan on charges related to hush-money payments to a Growth stock and Currency Trading Technique star during the 2016 campaign.被任命监督联邦起诉的特别检察官史密斯还在佛罗里达州提起诉讼,指控特朗普在卸任后对高度敏感的机密文件处理不当,并阻挠政府收回这些文件。特朗普还定于下月在曼哈顿受审,罪名与2016年竞选期间向一名色情明星支付封口费有关。When Mr. Trump first sought to have the federal election case dismissed on grounds of immunity, it was an attempt to expand the protections the Supreme Court had already granted to sitting and former presidents against civil lawsuits concerning their official actions.当特朗普首次以豁免权为由,要求驳回联邦法庭的颠覆选举案时,其目的是试图扩大最高法院已经给予现任和前任总统的保护,这种保护使其免受有关其职务行为的民事诉讼。While not accepting that Mr. Trump’s actions were official — the panel noted that presidents have no constitutionally prescribed role in counting electoral college votes — the judges rejected his arguments about being immune from criminal charges.法官们不承认特朗普的行为是职务行为——合议庭指出,宪法没有规定总统在计算选举人团选票时的职责——同时法官们驳回了他关于免于刑事指控的论点。“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”“我们不能接受前总统特朗普的说法,即总统拥有不受限制的权力,可以犯下抵消对行政权力最根本的制约——承认和执行选举结果——的罪行,”法官们写道。“我们也不能认可他的明显论点,即行政部门可以全权侵犯公民个人的投票权和计票权。”The unsigned decision was issued by all three judges: Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, and two appointees of President Biden, Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs.这项未署名的裁决是由三名法官一致做出的:由前总统乔治·H·W·布什任命的卡伦·亨德森法官,由拜登总统任命的弗洛伦斯·潘法官和米歇尔·蔡尔兹法官。During the arguments last month, the judges signaled particular concern after Mr. Trump’s lawyer argued that a former president could avoid criminal prosecution even for ordering SEAL Team 6, an elite group of Navy commandos, to assassinate one of his political rivals unless the Senate had first convicted him at an impeachment trial.在上个月的辩论中,特朗普的律师提出,除非参议院在弹劾审判中首先对他定罪,否则前总统即使下令海豹突击队六分队(一支由海军突击队员组成的精英队伍)暗杀他的一名政治对手,他也可以免受刑事起诉。法官们对此表示尤为关注。The panel rejected the Trump legal team’s arguments about the necessity of an impeachment conviction before bringing criminal charges.合议庭驳回了特朗普法律团队关于在提起刑事指控之前必须先进行弹劾定罪的论点。And in another significant part of their decision, the three appellate judges also circumscribed Mr. Trump’s ability to use further appeals to waste more time and delay the election case from going to trial — a strategy the former president has pursued since the indictment against him was filed in August in Federal District Court in Washington.在判决的另一个重要部分,三位上诉法官还限制了特朗普利用进一步上诉来浪费更多时间并推迟选举案开审的能力——自8月份华盛顿联邦地区法院对他提起诉讼以来,这位前总统一直在采取这一策略。The panel said that Mr. Trump had until Monday to ask the Supreme Court to get involved in the case and continue a stay of all the underlying proceedings. The case was initially put on hold by the trial judge in December.合议庭表示,特朗普必须在周一之前请求最高法院介入此案,并继续暂停所有相关程序。该案最初于12月被初审法官搁置。But the panel imposed a rule designed to discourage Mr. Trump from making an intermediate challenge to the full court of appeals. It said that if Mr. Trump instead took that route, trial preparations could begin again after Feb. 12.但合议庭制定了一项规则,旨在阻止特朗普向上诉法院全体法官提出中间上诉。合议庭表示,如果特朗普采取这一途径,庭审准备工作可在2月12日后重新开始。If the question does reach the Supreme Court, the justices will first have to decide whether to accept the case or to reject it and allow the appeals court’s ruling against Mr. Trump to stand.如果这个问题提交到最高法院,大法官们首先必须决定是接受此案,还是驳回此案,并允许上诉法院作出不利于特朗普的裁决。If they decline to hear the issue, the case would be sent directly back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. She scrapped her initial March 4 date for the trial last week, but has otherwise shown every sign of wanting to move the charges toward trial as quickly as possible.如果他们拒绝审理此案,此案将被直接送回初审法官塔尼娅·丘特坎手中。她上周取消了原定于3月4日的庭审,但在其他方面却表现出希望尽快将指控提交庭审的种种迹象。If, however, the Supreme Court does accept the case, the crucial question will become how quickly the justices act in asking for briefs and in scheduling arguments. Should they move rapidly to hear the case and issue a decision, there remains the chance that a trial on the election charges will occur before the general election in November.如果最高法院真的受理此案,关键问题将是大法官们在要求提交辩护状和安排辩论时间方面的行动有多迅速。如果他们迅速审理此案并做出裁决,那么在11月大选之前对选举指控进行庭审的可能性仍然存在。But if the justices take their time, it is possible a trial could be delayed until after the election. If that were to happen and Mr. Trump were to win, he would be in a position to ask his Justice Department to dismiss the case or even seek to pardon himself.但如果大法官们没有迅速行动,审判有可能推迟到大选之后。如果出现这种情况,而特朗普最终胜选,他将有资格要求司法部驳回此案,甚至寻求赦免自己。Even though Mr. Trump put three of the justices on the bench, the Supreme Court has not shown much of an appetite for wading into issues related to his efforts to tinker with the mechanics of American democracy.尽管特朗普任命了三名大法官,但是对于介入特朗普试图篡改美国民主机制有关的问题,最高法院并没有表现出太大的兴趣。But the question of how to handle Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is heading the Supreme Court’s way as it prepares for arguments on Thursday about another momentous question related to the former president: whether he can be disqualified from the ballot for having engaged in an act of insurrection by encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.面临如何处理特朗普的豁免权主张问题之际,最高法院正准备在周四就另一个与这位前总统有关的重大问题进行辩论:是否可以因他在2021年1月6日鼓动支持者冲击国会大厦的叛乱行为而取消他的竞选资格。Alan Feuer为《纽约时报》报道极端主义和政治暴力,重点关注涉及1月6日国会大厦袭击和针对前总统特朗普的刑事案件。点击查看更多关于他的信息。Charlie Savage撰写有关国家安全和法律政策的文章。点击查看更多关于他的信息。翻译:Ziyu Qing、Sammi Zheng点击查看本文英文版。

Source: 特朗普被裁定在干预大选结果案中无豁免权



Discussion Forum / 论坛 / منتدى للنقاش/ Diễn đàn thảo luận/

Disclaimer : The purpose of this website is to be a place for learning and discussion. The website and each tutorial topics do not encourage anyone to participate in trading or investment of any kind. Any information shown in any part of this website do not promise any movement, gains, or profit for any trader or non-trader.

By viewing any material or using the information within this site, you agree that it is general educational material whether it is about learning trading online or not and you will not hold anybody responsible for loss or damages resulting from the content provided here. It doesn't matter if this website contain a materials related to any trading. Investing in financial product is subject to market risk. Financial products, such as stock, forex, commodity, and cryptocurrency, are known to be very speculative and any investment or something related in them should done carefully, desirably with a good personal risk management.

Prices movement in the past and past performance of certain traders are by no means an assurance of future performance or any stock, forex, commodity, or cryptocurrency market movement. This website is for informative and discussion purpose in this website only. Whether newbie in trading, part-time traders, or full time traders. No one here can makes no warranties or guarantees in respect of the content, whether it is about the trading or not. Discussion content reflects the views of individual people only. The website bears no responsibility for the accuracy of forum member’s comments whether about learning forex online or not and will bear no responsibility or legal liability for discussion postings.

Any tutorial, opinions and comments presented on this website do not represent the opinions on who should buy, sell or hold particular investments, stock, forex currency pairs, commodity, or any products or courses. Everyone should conduct their own independent research before making any decision.

The publications herein do not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any particular person. You should obtain individual trading advice based on your own particular circumstances before making an investment decision on the basis of information about trading and other matter on this website.

As a user, you should agree, through acceptance of these terms and conditions, that you should not use this forum to post any content which is abusive, vulgar, hateful, and harassing to any traders and non-traders.