經濟學人-Is he above the law？

10-06

來自專欄老白說英文4 人贊了文章

經濟學人 180825-Is he above the law

他是否凌駕於法律之上？

The slow drip of revelations and convictions will eventually force America to confront a simple question

隨著信息和罪行一點點被披露，美國將不得對面對這個看似簡單的問題。

revelation/r?v?le??n/ 顯露，揭露

IT WAS the kind of moment that would crown the career of a reality-TV producer. While the president of the United States was on his way to a campaign rally, hisformercampaign manager, Paul Manafort, was found guilty of eight counts of tax and bank fraud; and his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guiltyto eight counts of tax evasion, fraud and breaking campaign-?nance laws.

對於真正的電視製作人來說，這應該就是高光時刻。當美國總統為競選演說時，他的前競選策劃人，Paul, 收到8起稅務和銀行相關的指控；他的前私人律師，Michael Coh, 收到8項逃稅、詐騙和違法競選法的指控。

Cable-news channels needed so many split screens to cover what was going on that they began to resemble a Rubik』s cube. Amid the frenzy, however, something important changed this week. For the ?rst time, President Donald Trump faces a formal accusation that he personally broke the law to further his candidacy.

有線電視新聞頻道需要這些爆料來報道背後的真相。然而在輿論浪潮中，有些重要的事在本周發生了變化。美國總統因為違法法律幫助其候選人，而面臨正式指控。這是特朗普第一次受到類似指控。

candidacy /k?nd?d?si/ 候選人

Mr Manafort』s conviction did not surprise anyone who had followed his trial, or his long career as a political consultant available for hire by dictators and thugs. Mr Cohen』s plea was more striking, because he was not just Mr Trump』s lawyer; he was the guy who made his problems go away. This included making payments during the 2016 campaign to buy the silence oftwo women who appear to have had a?airs with MrTrump. (The president has denied the a?airs and now says he learned about the payments later.) But Mr Cohen told a court under oath that the money was paid 「at the direction ofa candidate for federal o?ce」. In other words, that MrTrump told Mr Cohen to breakthe law, then lied to cover it up.

Manaford的罪行和他為獨裁者長期效力的政治任期並沒有讓關注此事的人過於震驚。倒是Cohen的認罪引起了更大爭論，因為他不僅是特朗普的私人律師，同時他也有機會為自己洗清罪名。這包括在2016年大選期間，買通了傳言跟特朗普有染的2名女性。（總統否認了緋聞，近日論及此事又稱，其後續才得知買通的事。）但是Cohen在法庭上宣誓說，這筆錢是"在聯邦政府某位候選人的直接指令下支付的。" 換言之，是特朗普告知Cohen挑戰法律權威，並且事後說謊試圖掩蓋此事的。

thug /θ?ɡ/ 暴徒
plea/pli/ 懇求

Neither Mr Manafort』s conviction nor MrCohen』s plea is directly related to the allegations of collusion with Russia that have dogged the Trump campaign, and are being investigated by Robert Mueller, the special counsel. Yet neither case would have been brought without his investigation. This week』s events mean that Mr Mueller now stands on ?rmer ground. It will be harder for the president to dismiss him without it looking as though he is obstructing justice. And in such cases, convictions often lead to more convictions as those found guilty look for ways to save themselves. The question now is whether, and how far, Mr Manafort and Mr Cohen will turn against their former boss in return for leniency. As the slow drip of revelations and convictions continues, Americans will have to confront a simple question: is MrTrump above the law?

無論是Manaford還是Cohen的罪行，都沒有證據表明，跟俄羅斯干預特朗普大選有直接關係，二人也都沒有受到來自白宮特別顧問Robert Mueller的調查。如果沒有後者的起訴，兩起案件可能都不會進入法律程序。本周的事件意味著穆勒先生的罪證又多了一記石錘。儘管他違反了司法公正，但總統如果想不經過調查便解僱他也會更加困難。在此類事件中，案件之間可能彼此牽連，因為當事人為了包庇自己可能再次犯罪。現在的問題在於，Manaford和Cohen會在"背叛之前的老闆"於"寬大處理"之間，會選擇哪一邊以及何時會做出選擇。隨著揭露的證據和罪行越來越多，美國人將不得不面臨這樣一個問題：特朗普是否凌駕於法律之上？

stands on ?rmer ground 更加站得住腳=石錘
leniency/linj?nsi/ 寬大，仁慈

Follow the money

跟錢走

Mr Cohen says Mr Trump asked him to make hush-money payments—something that is not illegal for ordinary citizens, but counts as an undeclared donation when done on behalf of a political candidate, as Mr Trump was at the time.So what? After all, America treats breaches of campaign-?nance law much more like speeding tickets than burglary: they are often the result of ?lling in a form wrongly, or incorrectly accounting for campaign spending. There are good reasons for this indulgent approach. When voter select someone who has bent the rules, it sets up a con?ict between the courts and the electorate that is hard to resolve cleanly.

Cohen指出，特朗普曾讓他儘快支付--這對普通市民來說並不違法，但如果是總統候選人批複的財務支出去向不明，這個候選人又是特朗普時，就要另當別論了。可是那又怎樣呢？美國對待違法競選財政法的案例，跟為劫匪開超速罰單如出一轍：要麼是填錯了表格，要麼就是動用競選資金。違法者的肆無忌憚是有原因的。當選民投票給候選人的那一刻，就為法院和全體選民間糾纏不清的鬥爭埋下了種子。

burglary/b?ɡl?ri/ 搶劫
indulgent /?nd?ld?(?)nt/ 放縱的
electorate /?lekt(?)r?t/ 全體選民

Mr Trump does not stand accused of getting his paperwork wrong, however, but of paying bribes to scotch a damaging story. That is a far more serious o?ence, and one that was enough to end the career of John Edwards, an aspirant Democratic presidential candidate, when he was caught doing something similar in 2008. There is no way of knowing if MrTrump would still have won had the story come out. Even so, the possibility that he might not have done raises questions about his legitimacy, not just his observance of campaign-?nance laws.

特朗普受到指控的原因不是在這次付款文件上簽字，而是對行賄的事情慾蓋彌彰。後者的罪行要嚴重得多，這也是讓民主黨總統候選人John Edwards結束政治生涯的原因。其在2008年曾犯過同樣錯誤。

scotch /skɑt?/ 傷口、刻痕、蘇格蘭
John Edwards 美國民主黨前參議員，同樣有過婚內出軌的行為，作者提到他，是為了跟特總統進行對比
aspirant /?spa??r?nt/ 有抱負的，有上進心的

What of the convention, which has been in place since the Nixon era, thatthe Justice Department will not indict a sitting president? Again, there are good reasons for this. As with breaches of campaign-?nance law, such an indictment would set up a con?ict between the bureaucracy and the president』s democratic mandate that has no happy ending. The convention would doubtless be void ifthere were credible evidence that a sitting president had, say, committed murder. But the payment of hush money to avoid an inconvenient story about an extramarital a?air falls a long way short of that.

從尼克松時代就存在的，司法部不得起訴在任總統的傳統，到底是什麼？傳統當然也有其存在的理由。違法選舉-財政法這類案件，可能在國家部門和總統民主職責之間引發鬥爭，而鬥爭的結局註定是雙輸。如果有可信證據可以證明在任總統涉嫌謀殺，那麼這項傳統就成了一紙空文。但想通過封口費掩蓋婚外情的事實，遠沒有這麼嚴重。

convention/k?nv?n??n/ 傳統、慣例

The authors of the constitution wanted to allow the president to get on with his job without unnecessary distractions. But, fresh from a war against King George III, they were very clear that the presidency should not be an elected monarchy.If a president does it, that does not make it legal. The constitutional problem that America is heading towards is that the Justice Department』s protocol not to prosecute sitting presidents dates from another age, when a president could be expected to resign with a modicum of honour before any charges were drawn up, as Nixon did. That norm no longer applies. The unwritten convention now says in e?ect that, if his skin is thick enough, a president is indeed above the law.

憲法的制定者們不想讓總統為不必要的事分心。但是，從反對喬治三世鬥爭引起的鮮活歷史可以清楚地證明，總統不是人民選舉出的特權階級。王子犯法，與庶民同罪。美國憲法面對的問題在於，司法部不能為現任總統定罪的規定的時代變了。按照當時的規定，在判決下達之前，總統可能帶著僅有的一絲尊嚴辭職，就像尼克松當時一樣。但這套規定在今天已經不適用了。今天不成文的規定實際表明，如果臉皮夠厚，總統實際上可以凌駕於法律之上。

protocol/prot?k?l/ 禮儀，條款
modicum /m?d?k?m/ 一點

Drip, dripping down the drain

每況愈下

This means the only solution to any clash that MrTrump sets up between the courts and the voters is a political one. Ultimately the decision to remove a president is a matter ofpolitics, not law. It could hardly be otherwise, as America』s Founding Fathers foresaw. In 「Federalist 65」, Alexander Hamilton explained why it was the Senate, rather than the Supreme Court, that should sit in judgment on the president, for 「who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives themselves?」 No other body, he thought, would have the necessary「 con?dence in its situation」 to do so.

這表明特朗普在法院和選民之間起任何衝突時，政治手段是唯一的解決方案。最終彈劾總統的決定是政治範疇，而不是法律範疇。正如美國國父們所預測的，這兩種情況很難互換。在「Federalist 65中，亞歷山大漢密爾頓解釋了為什麼審判總統的是參議院而不是最高法院，質疑國家的人除了選民自己，還有更合適的人員嗎？亞歷山大認為，"沒有其他人有處理這種情況的自信"。

inquisitor /?nkw?z?t?/ 詢問者，檢察官
America』s Founding Fathers 美國國父。歷史學家Richard B. Morris在1973年確立了以華盛頓為首的7位國父。

Alas, that con?dence has gone missing, leaving American democracy in a strange place. Thus far Republicans in Congress have stood by the president. 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. 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.

唉，可是這種自信已經消失，置美國民主於尷尬境地。議會中的共和黨已經選擇了支持總統。唯一改變的可能，是總統中期表現太過糟糕，導致議會中足夠席位的議員，把總統視為眼中釘。儘管民主黨佔據眾議院的大多數及參議院三分之二的席位--這是彈劾總統的門檻--看起來難以實現。

Alas 哎，語氣詞
liability 障礙

Mr Cohen』s plea has made the president of the United States an unindicted co-conspiratorin a pair of federal crimes. That makes this a sad week for America. 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.

科恩的請求使得美國總統與聯邦罪犯一道，成為了未被起訴的同謀。這讓美國人本周非常難過。但對於其議員極力降低特朗普瀆職影響的共和黨來說，這是令人羞恥的一周。他們想證明任何人都不能凌駕於法律之上，哪怕是總統也不行。

minimise /minimaiz/ 最小化

【總結】

發現個問題，《經濟學人》Leader那個國家都點評，為啥說自己國家--英國的這麼少呢？