評論
打印
This means the only solution to any clash that Mr Trump sets up between the courts and the voters is a political one.
這就意味著要解決特朗普在法庭和選民沖突的唯一辦法是政治性的。
Ultimately the decision to remove a president is a matter of politics, not law.
最終，罷免總統的決定是一個政治問題，而不是法律問題。
It could hardly be otherwise, as America’s Founding Fathers foresaw.
否則是不可能的，這正和美國開國元勛們所預見的一樣。
In “Federalist 65”, Alexander Hamilton explained why it was the Senate, rather than the Supreme Court, that should sit in judgment on the president,
在《聯邦黨人文集》第65章中，亞歷山大·漢密爾頓解釋了審判總統的為什么是參議院，而不是最高法院。
for “who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives themselves?”
因為“誰能像代表們自己一樣，恰當地成為國家的檢察官呢？”
No other body, he thought, would have the necessary “confidence in its situation” to do so.
漢密爾頓認為，其他人恐沒有必不可少的“對現狀的信心”。
Alas, that confidence has gone missing, leaving American democracy in a strange place.
遺憾的是，這種信心已經喪失，將美國民主置于一種奇怪的境地。
Thus far Republicans in Congress have stood by the president.
因此到目前為止，國會的共和黨人一直是站在總統這邊的。
The only thing likely to change that is a performance in the mid-terms so bad that enough of them come to see the president as an electoral liability.
除非特朗普在即將到來的中期選舉中表現糟糕，讓自己變成共和黨人眼中的競選包袱。
Although Democrats may well win a majority in the House, a two-thirds majority in the Senate—the threshold required to remove a president—looks unachievable.
雖然民主黨很可能贏得眾議院的多數席位，但要想獲得參議院三分之二的席位，即罷免總統的門檻，看起來是不可能實現的。
Mr Cohen’s plea has made the president of the United States an unindicted co-conspirator in a pair of federal crimes.
科恩的認罪使得美國總統成為兩起聯邦罪行中未被起訴的同謀者。
That makes this a sad week for America.
這對美國來說是悲傷的一周。
But it is a shameful one for the Republican Party, whose members remain more dedicated to minimising Mr Trump’s malfeasance than to the ideal that nobody, not even the president, is above the law.
但對于共和黨來說是恥辱的一周，共和黨成員仍然更加致力于最小化特朗普總統的瀆職行為，而不是去維護法律至高無上，即使總統也不能凌駕于法律之上的信念。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
