重磅 川普首次正式回应弹劾案(全文翻译)

　　1月18日，美国总统川普针对虚假弹劾案首次做出正式回应。白宫网站登出文件的影印件，共七页。川普认为众议院的弹劾指控无耻而非法，是对美国人民的危险攻击。

　　（中文翻译后面有英文完整版。）

　　唐纳德·J·川普总统的回答

　　法律和正义

　　发布日期：2020年1月18日

　　美国总统唐纳德·J·川普先生在此回应：

　　在美国参议院的诉讼前程序

　　唐纳德·J·川普总统的回答

　　杰伊·艾伦·塞库洛，唐纳德·J·川普总统的法律顾问

　　华盛顿D.C.

　　帕特·A·西波隆，总统律师

　　白宫

　　尊敬的美国总统唐纳德·J·川普先生在此回应：

　　众议院民主党人提交的弹劾条款是对美国人民自由选择总统权利危险的攻击。这是无耻而非法的企图推翻2016年大选的结果，并干扰距今仅数月之遥的2020年大选。对弹劾总统的高度党派性质的和鲁莽的执着始于总统就职那天，一直持续到今天。

　　弹劾条款在宪法上是明确的。（民主党）无法指控（我）任何犯罪或违法行为，更不用说宪法要求的“严重罪行和不检行为”。它们是违反基本公平和正当程序的结果。这些条款中的任何内容都不允许甚至开始考虑罢免正式当选的总统，或者支持废除选举和颠覆美国人民的意志。

　　参议院面临的弹劾条款冒犯了美国宪法、我们的民主体制和美国人民。条款本身以及将弹劾条款送抵参院的过程-是众议院民主党人明显的政治行为。条款贬低了弹劾的严肃权力和权力所带来的严肃责任。它们必须被拒绝。众议院现在的程序违反了150多年以来所有关于弹劾调查的先例和公正原则。即便如此，众议院民主党人能成功证明的是：总统绝对没有做错任何事情。

　　川普总统绝对并明确否认两项弹劾条款中的每一项指控。总统保留对弹劾条款进行抗辩的所有（和所有可用）的权利。出于本答复和即将出台的《审判摘要》中所述的原因，参议院必须拒绝弹弹劾条款。

　　一，第一弹劾条款必须予以拒绝

　　第一弹劾条款从表面上无法陈述可劾条的罪行。它根本没有提到任何罪行，更不要说《宪法》所规定的“重罪和轻罪”。实际上，它没有提出任何违反法律的指控。众议院民主党“滥权”的主张将对《宪法》中的分权制衡造成持久损害。

　　第一弹劾条款由于缺乏事实而失败，因为川普总统丝毫没有“滥用总统职位”。在任何时候，总统都代表美国人民忠实有效地履行了他的总统职责。总统在2019年7月25日采取的行动，与乌克兰总统沃洛德米尔·泽伦斯基（Volodymyr Zelenskyy）进行电话通话（“7月25日进行通话”），以及在2019年4月21日之前的电话中进行通话（“4月2日1进行通话”），在所有周围及相关事件中，都是符合宪法的，完全合法的，完全适当的，并符合我们的国家利益。

　　川普总统在7月25日的电话会议上提出了重要的责任分担问题，并指出德国等其它欧洲国家没有承担应有的责任，川普总统也提出了乌克兰腐败的重要问题。泽伦斯基总统在同一电话中对此表示关注。

　　尽管众议院民主党人开展了完全非法和单方面的程序，但一些简单的事实已证明总统没有做错任何事情：

　　1，4月21日电话会议和7月25日电话会议的笔录都绝对清楚地表明，总统没有做错任何事情。

　　2，泽伦斯基总统和乌克兰官员一再证实这一通话是“良好”和“正常”的，没有交换条件，没有人在任何事上施加压力。

　　3，根据记录，有两个人都曾向总统谈过这个问题，谈话都证明总统无罪。欧盟大使戈登·桑德兰德（Gordon Sondland）说，当他问总统他想从乌克兰人那里得到什么时，总统说：“我什么都不想要。我什么都不要，我不想要任何交换条件。”参议员罗恩·约翰逊（Ron Johnson）报告说，当他问总统时，总统回应说：“不会的，我永远也不会这样做。”众议院民主党人忽视这些事实，相反完全依赖于没有第一手证据的证人的假设，推定和猜测。这两人在我国任何法院都被接受。

　　4，双边总统会议是在正常情况下举行的，安全援助已被发放，而且是在乌克兰政府没有宣布任何调查的情况下。

　　不仅众议院民主党人收集的证据本身驳斥了第一条所依据的每个事实，4月21日和7月25日的电话笔录也反驳了该条的说法。当众议院民主党人意识到这一点时，希夫（Schiff）制造了7月25日电话的欺诈版本，并在国会听证会上将其阅读给美国人民，但没有透露他只是在拼凑所有内容。事实上，希夫先生认为需要伪造7月25日通话的文件版本证明，他的同事们已知道该通话绝对没有错。

　　众议院民主党人进行了一个有缺陷的，非法的程序，该程序剥夺了总统的每一项基本权利，其中包括请律师在场的权利，对证人进行盘问的权利以及出示证据的权利。尽管如此，众议院民主党人收集的信息实际上反驳了他们对总统的指责。总统在任何时候都具有充分的宪法和法律权威，并符合我们的国家利益。他继续执行他的政府对乌克兰空前支持的政策，其中包括提供杀伤性的军事援助，这是前一届政府拒绝向乌克兰提供的。

　　第一弹劾条款从宪法上讲是无效的，是建立在虚假之上的，必须予以拒绝。

　　二，第二弹劾条款必须予以拒绝

　　第二弹劾条款从文字陈述上也没有指出任何可弹劾的罪行。它没有指控任何犯罪或违法行为。对于国家而言，总统对行政部门合法保密利益的主张是基于三权分立，不构成对国会的阻碍。

　　此外，关于川普总统阻碍国会的说法是荒谬的。川普总统解密并发布了7月25日电话的文字记录，这是以前所未有的和超级的透明性行事，这是此事的核心。

　　总统披露了7月25日的电话记录后，众议院民主党人发出了一系列违宪传票，以作证和听证。他们未经国会投票，即没有宪法授权，就发出了传票。他们寻求许多总统最亲密顾问的证词。尽管事实是，在长期以来两党执政的实践以及司法部的长期指导下，这些顾问从他们表面职责上是绝对豁免接受国会相关听证的。他们寻求披露行政部门在外交关系和国家安全问题上的机密通信和内部决策程序的证词，尽管这些信息享有公认的宪法特权和豁免权。正如最高法院所承认的那样，总统保护在行政关系领域信息的宪法授权，是其对外关系和国家安全领域的最高职责。众议院民主党人也被禁止参与行政部门的保密工作。

　　尽管存在这些弊端，川普政府还是对这些传票做出了适当答复，并确定了它们的宪法缺陷。可以说，众议院民主党没有寻求在法庭上强制执行这些有宪法缺陷的传票。在这个国家，当一个传票的接收者就其收到的传票的有效性作出声明性判断时，众议院民主党人很快就收回传票，以阻止法院作出裁决。

　　众议院不得篡夺行政部门的权力，也不得绕开宪法的制衡机制。主张有效的宪法特权和豁免绝非可弹劾的罪行。因此，第二条弹劾条款无效，必须予以拒绝。

　　三，结论

　　弹劾条款违反了宪法。它们从整体上有缺陷的。它们是无效程序的产物，这些程序公然否认了总统所有程序上的权利。他们基于对宪法的危险扭曲，这将对我们的政府结构产生持久损害，

　　在第一弹劾条款中，众议院试图夺取总统根据《宪法》第二条所获的外交决策权力。在第二弹劾条款中，众议院试图控制和惩罚行政部门的宪法特权，同时试图破坏制宪者的制衡制度。通过批准弹劾第二条，众议院违反了我们的宪法秩序，非法滥用了其弹劾权，并试图阻碍川普总统可以被豁免过失地忠实履行其行政职责的能力。他们试图破坏总统根据《宪法》第二条所授予的权力，该宪法条款赋予“美利坚合众国总统”全部“行政权力”。

　　为了维护我们政府的宪政结构，要拒绝制宪者警告的有毒的政党性质，确保来自一个党派的政治弹劾仇杀不成为“新常态”。为维护美国人民的意志，参议院必须拒绝这两个弹劾条款。最后，这整个过程只是对美国人民本身及其他们基本的投票权的危险攻击。

　　杰伊·艾伦·塞库洛，唐纳德·J·川普总统的法律顾问

　　华盛顿D.C.

　　帕特·A·西波隆，总统律师

　　白宫

　　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.