同情特朗普

  • 主题发起人 主题发起人 ccc
  • 开始时间 开始时间
upload_2019-2-17_0-52-14.png



Heather Nauert, U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to be the next American ambassador to the United Nations, has withdrawn from consideration, the State Department said.

Nauert, a State Department spokesperson, said in a statement that "the past two months have been gruelling for my family and therefore it is in the best interest of my family that I withdraw my name from consideration."

Her impending nomination had been considered a tough sell in the Senate, where she would have faced tough questions about her relative lack of foreign policy experience, according to congressional aides.

A potential issue involving a nanny that she and her husband had employed may also have been a factor in her decision to withdraw, according to one aide. That issue, which was first reported by Bloomberg on Saturday, centred on a foreign nanny who was legally in the U.S. but did not have legal status to work, according to the aide, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The aide said some involved in the vetting process saw Nauert's inexperience and questions about her ability to represent the U.S. at the UN as a larger issue.


trump-un-ambassador.jpg

Nauert's impending nomination had been considered a tough sell in the Senate, where she would have faced tough questions about her relative lack of foreign policy experience, according to congressional aides. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

Trump's initial UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, served for nearly all of the administration's first two years. She announced her resignation in October with plans to step down by year's end.

That December, Trump said he would nominate Nauert, called her "very talented, very smart, very quick" and said he thought she would be "respected by all." In the wake of November elections that strengthened Republican control of the Senate, her confirmation appeared likely if not easy. Yet Trump never put Nauert's name forward with the Senate and no confirmation hearing was scheduled.

The State Department in its statement that Trump would announce a nominee for the U.N position "soon."

Made jump to State Department from Fox News
Nauert was a Fox News Channel reporter when she joined the State Department as spokesperson almost two years ago during Rex Tillerson's tenure was secretary of state. She rose to the upper echelons of the department's hierarchy after Trump fired Tillerson in March 2018 and Mike Pompeo replaced him.

In the department's statement, Pompeo said he respected Nauert's decision on the UN job and that she performed her duties as a senior member of his team "with unequalled excellence."


us-pampeo.jpg

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, said he respected Nauert's decision on the UN job and that she performed her duties as a senior member of his team 'with unequalled excellence.' (Brendan Smialowski/Pool Image via AP)

"Serving in the Administration for the past two years has been one of the highest honours of my life and I will always be grateful to the president, the secretary, and my colleagues at the State Department for their support," Nauert said in the statement provided by the department.

Before coming to the State Department, Nauert was a breaking news anchor on Fox & Friends. With a master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, she had moved to Fox from ABC News, where she was a general assignment reporter.

Nauert, who did not have a good relationship with Tillerson and had considered leaving the department, was appointed acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs after his departure. The appointment ended in October.
 
upload_2019-2-19_0-6-53.png


upload_2019-2-19_0-7-26.png


upload_2019-2-19_0-8-44.png


upload_2019-2-19_0-3-18.png
 
最后编辑:
upload_2019-2-23_11-9-49.png


upload_2019-2-23_11-10-26.png


Let's start with why we need to ask this question: Trump is increasingly proving himself to be a President eager to overstep his authority. Just last week, Trump displayed his willingness to invoke unprecedented presidential power to declare a national emergency utterly without justification. This week has brought a startling report from the New York Times that, for the past two years, Trump has tried to undermine the investigations by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and other parts of the Justice Department in order to, in the words of the Times, "make the president's many legal problems go away." In light of these overreaching assertions of his own authority, it's at least plausible that Trump might attempt to cling to power in ways previously unimaginable by an American president.

Thankfully, there are four steps that key actors across the American system of governance can take to get ahead of this possibility.

Remember, when Trump was merely a private citizen running for President in 2016, he became the first presidential candidate in recent memory to refuse to commit that he'd honor the results of the election if he lost. Now, he occupies the Oval Office. He's the commander in chief of the most powerful military on Earth. If he even hints at contesting the election result in 2020, as he suggested he might in 2016, he'd be doing so not as an outsider but as a leader with the vast resources of the US government potentially at his disposal.

Trump's unrelenting assaults on the media and intelligence community, augmented by his baseless insistence on widespread voter fraud, have laid the groundwork for him to contest the election results in worrisome ways by undermining two institutions Americans would count on to validate those results.

As the 2018 midterms approached, Trump appeared to preview exactly such behavior. He tweeted that he was "very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election" and "pushing very hard for the Democrats." Without pointing to even a shred of analysis from the intelligence community, media reports or any other sources, Trump seemed to dangle the notion that, if the elections went too badly for the Republicans, he might allege foreign interference with the vote tally to cast doubt on the validity of the results.

In 2020, with his reelection on the line, the stakes for Trump himself are, of course, wildly bigger.

All told, there's real reason to worry here. So, what can be done now to avoid a potential constitutional crisis and ensure that the 2020 election results -- whatever they might be -- are respected and that any transfer of power occurs peacefully?

While many of us worry that President Trump has fallen woefully short in addressing foreign election interference through social media that can change American voters' minds, there's nonetheless an obvious imperative to respect the actual vote tally unless the intelligence community indicates that malicious actors have directly altered it (which would be unprecedented). Thankfully, there are four key sets of governmental actors across the United States that can commit now to certain steps that would help to isolate President Trump should he refuse to hand over power peacefully.

First is the justifiably much-maligned Electoral College. As we were reminded in 2016, elections are not determined by popular vote but by the votes of each state's and the District of Columbia's electors, who are generally chosen by the political parties at state conventions or through a vote of the party's central committee. For the sake of the rule of law and peaceful transfer of power, both parties should require anyone seeking to be one of the college's electors to pledge that they will not withhold, delay or alter their vote based on the claims or protestations of any candidate, including President Trump.

Second is Congress. It's the outgoing Congress that, in January 2021, will meet in joint session to receive the Electoral College's handiwork and count the electoral votes. Thereafter, the President of the Senate will formally announce the election's result. Unlike the electors, who haven't been selected as of this writing, we already know who will be serving in Congress that day (with the exception of any resignations, deaths or other unusual occurrences). These senators and representatives should make a joint pledge not to delay or alter counting of the votes based on any candidate's objections. Moreover, they should pledge to hold public hearings with intelligence community leaders should those officials or any candidate suggest that vote counts were influenced by foreign election interference or for any other reason. That unvarnished testimony by intelligence professionals could debunk any claims by Trump (or any other candidate) that the final vote count shouldn't be honored.

Third, 39 of America's 50 state governors will not be up for reelection in 2020. They represent continuity in critical positions of leadership, and some command respect across party lines. Those 39 should band together now to make clear that they will serve, at least informally, as bastions of our democracy should a peaceful transfer of power look threatened by any candidate's response to the election. Especially because most, if not all, are sure to support one candidate or the other, they hold great power to urge respect for the election's results, regardless of who wins. Think here of the example set by former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas after the December 2017 special election for a Senate seat in Alabama. When Republican candidate Roy Moore initially appeared intent on baselessly contesting the election results, Huckabee, a Republican stalwart, issued a sharply worded rebuke to Moore. Moore soon acknowledged defeat.

Fourth, our civilian and uniformed Defense Department leaders have a role to play. The health of our democracy rests, in part, on not involving the military in transfers of power. And that should continue. But imagine the most extreme scenario, with Congress certifying Trump's defeat but Trump refusing to leave office. In those circumstances, the military would no longer owe its loyalty to Donald Trump as of noon on January 20, 2021. And it's worth asking the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they testify before Congress in coming months, to affirm that they understand that and would act consistently with it.

These are dire thoughts. But we live in uncertain and worrying times. Perhaps, in 2016, Donald Trump never really intended to contest a loss at the ballot box. Still, having seen him in action as President, it's surely best, as we hurtle toward 2020, to be prepared in case President Trump makes good on his threats from 2016 -- now with far more power at his disposal.
 
Trump要把美国独立日改名了,但时间地点不变。。。真能整啊!
IMG_20190224_091658.jpeg
 
upload_2019-2-25_22-58-36.png


A staffer on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign says he kissed her without her consent at a small gathering of supporters before a Florida rally, an interaction that she alleges in a new lawsuit still causes her anguish.

In interviews and in the lawsuit, Alva Johnson said Trump grabbed her hand and leaned in to kiss her on the lips as he exited an RV outside the rally in Tampa on Aug. 24, 2016. Johnson said she turned her head and the unwanted kiss landed on the side of her mouth.

In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed Johnson’s allegation as “absurd on its face.”

“This never happened and is directly contradicted by multiple highly credible eye witness accounts,” she wrote.

Two Trump supporters that Johnson identified as witnesses — a campaign official and Pam Bondi, then the Florida attorney general — denied seeing the alleged kiss in interviews with The Washington Post.

As recently as May 2017, Johnson spoke glowingly of Trump in a radio interview.

“He is more incredible in person than I think you would even think as you see him on TV,” she told the Alabama-based program “Politics and Moore.” “He’s just the nicest guy. . . . He treats everyone as if they are a part of his family.”

She also said she expected to be given a job as the “second-in-command” at the U.S. Embassy in Lisbon. “I will at some point be heading over to Portugal to work in the embassy,” she said.

The Post found the recording of the show after the first version of this story was published.

One of Johnson’s lawyers, Hassan Zavareei, said that at the time of the radio interview, she was bound by a nondisclosure agreement and was “saying what she thought Trump and his supporters wanted.”

“She was under an oppressive NDA that prevents her from saying anything negative about the president,” he said. “She was also trying to move on with her life and had an application for a job with the embassy in Portugal pending.”

Johnson said she told her boyfriend, mother and stepfather about the alleged kiss on the day that it occurred, an account all three confirmed to The Post. Two months later, Johnson consulted a Florida attorney; he gave The Post text messages showing that he considered her “credible” but did not take her case for business reasons. The attorney gave Johnson the name of a therapist, whose notes, which The Post reviewed, reference an unspecified event during the campaign that had left her distraught.

While more than a dozen other women have publicly accused Trump of touching them in some inappropriate way, Johnson is the only accuser to come forward since he took office and the only one to allege unwanted contact during the campaign. Trump faces a defamation lawsuit in New York brought by Summer Zervos, a former “Apprentice” reality TV contestant, who claims he forcibly kissed and groped her in 2007.

Johnson, an event planner who lives in Madison County, Ala., is seeking unspecified damages for emotional pain and suffering. The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in Florida, also alleges that the campaign discriminated against Johnson, who is black, by paying her less than her white male counterparts. A campaign spokeswoman, Kayleigh McEnany, rejected that claim as “off-base and unfounded.”

The Post first contacted Johnson nearly a year ago, while reporting on misconduct allegations against Trump, but she declined to comment. In recent days, Johnson’s attorney gave The Post a draft copy of her complaint, and Johnson and others connected to the lawsuit agreed to be interviewed.

Johnson said she began to consider coming forward in October 2016, after video surfaced of Trump bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent. That was the moment, she said, when she came to view the kiss as part of a pattern of Trump doing whatever he pleased to women.

She said she was nervous about speaking out but had come to regret having worked on the campaign. “I’ve tried to let it go,” she said, beginning to cry. “You want to move on with your life. I don’t sleep. I wake up at 4 in the morning looking at the news. I feel guilty. The only thing I did was show up for work one day.”

She said she talked to a few other lawyers as she considered her options before, in June of last year, finally hiring Zavareei. Three months later, she moved to seal a years-old court case in which two family members had briefly sought a temporary restraining order against her. The family members joined her request to have the records sealed, documents show.

Johnson, a 43-year-old mother of four, does not have a long history of political activism. She registered as a Democrat in California several years ago. She said she voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but thought Trump might be able to use his business experience to help struggling black communities.

Johnson got interested in the Trump campaign through her stepfather, Jacob Savage, a retired microbiology professor who said he has been active in Republican politics for decades. She met Trump at a November 2015 rally in Birmingham, Ala., where Johnson said the candidate looked her up and down. “Oh, beautiful, beautiful, fantastic,” he said, according to the lawsuit.

DJT_and_Alva.jpg

Alva Johnson and Donald Trump at Birmingham Jefferson Civic Center in Alabama on Nov 21, 2015. (Courtesy of Alva Johnson)

She said she looked past the comment and, two months later, took a job as the campaign’s director of outreach and coalitions in Alabama. Johnson said she thought she could put her background in human resources and event planning to use on a political campaign.

For the three months before the general election, Johnson was assigned to Florida. Her main responsibility was managing the recreational vehicles that traversed the state as mobile campaign offices. It was inside one, on a rainy afternoon in Tampa, where Johnson said the candidate pressed his lips against hers.

Johnson brought volunteers into the RV to take pictures with Trump. She noticed that Trump was attempting to make eye contact with her, she said in the interviews and lawsuit. When it was time for the rally, Johnson said Trump passed her as he exited the RV.

“I’ve been on the road for you since March, away from my family,” she told him, according to the lawsuit. “You’re doing an awesome job. Go in there and kick ass.”

Trump grasped her hand, thanked her for her work and leaned in, she said.

“Oh, my God, I think he’s going to kiss me,” she said in an interview, describing the moment. “He’s coming straight for my lips. So I turn my head, and he kisses me right on corner of my mouth, still holding my hand the entire time. Then he walks on out.”

She said she stood there, feeling humiliated, and Bondi gave her a smile as she walked out of the RV. Karen Giorno, director of the Florida campaign, grabbed Johnson’s elbow and gave it a tug, Johnson said in the interviews and lawsuit.

Bondi and Giorno said they do not recall seeing Trump kiss Johnson. They denied reacting the way Johnson described.

“Do I recall seeing anything inappropriate? One hundred percent no,” Bondi said in an interview. “I’m a prosecutor, and if I saw something inappropriate, I would have said something.”

Giorno dismissed the allegation as “ridiculous,” saying “that absolutely did not happen.”

Sanders urged The Post to speak with Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump. Grisham, who was Trump’s press director in 2016, said she did not see the alleged kiss and was in front of Trump as he exited the vehicle.

Later that day, Johnson called Miguel Rego, her boyfriend of several years. He, too, was working on the campaign in Florida. “I thought it was crazy that he had kissed her. I didn’t know how to process it,” said Rego, recalling the conversation.

Then Johnson called Savage, her stepfather. “I felt it was a betrayal of trust,” Savage said. “I felt I was responsible because, had I not introduced her to the campaign, she would not have been in that position.”

Johnson also discussed the incident with her mother, Anne Savage. “She was hysterical,” Savage said.

AP_79640626594.jpg

Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump visits campaign volunteers before speaking at a campaign rally in Tampa on Aug. 24, 2016. (Gerald Herbert/AP)

Johnson, however, continued working for Trump, even after an opportunity to work in the campaign’s New York headquarters was offered and abruptly rescinded in mid-September, according to her and campaign officials. The position was never filled.

After the election, Johnson attended one of the inaugural balls. She also twice applied for jobs in the administration — the one in Portugal and another with the Energy Department. She said she felt she had earned those opportunities through her work on the campaign. Johnson said that, while she was disappointed, being passed over for those jobs had no bearing on her decision to sue.

About six weeks after the alleged kiss, on Oct. 7, 2016, The Post published the videotape of Trump boasting about his sexual aggression to an “Access Hollywood” host. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them,” Trump said in 2005. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Johnson said she was stunned.

“I felt sick to my stomach,” she said. “That was what he did to me.”

Johnson said she stopped going into the office and, about three weeks before the election, she quit. “She is having nightmares because of what happened,” therapist Lisheyna Hurvitz wrote on Oct. 27, according to notes that Johnson obtained and provided to The Post.

Johnson also was talking to attorney Adam Horowitz, who represents sexual abuse victims, including children. “I believe you and want to see you gain justice and expose this behavior,” Horowitz wrote to Johnson in a text dated Oct. 28, 2016. “Right now my practice simply cannot dive into something like that which would be so time-consuming with an uncertain outcome.”

Johnson said she grew agitated as the #MeToo movement emboldened women to speak up about sexual misconduct. She said she was also motivated to act as she saw the impact of the president’s policies, specifically the detention of immigrant children.

In September, acting on the request from Johnson and her relatives, a Georgia judge sealed the court records stemming from the years-ago family dispute. According to the records, Johnson’s half sister and her father, on behalf of a younger half sister, briefly obtained a temporary restraining order against Johnson in 2006. They alleged she was calling the younger sibling’s school and falsely claiming that the teenager was using drugs. The older sibling wrote that she fired Johnson from her business for using “company property” to arrange extramarital affairs for herself online.

The family members withdrew the petitions less than three weeks later, before the case could be heard by a judge and before Johnson had the opportunity to respond in court. A clerk inadvertently provided the sealed records to The Post.

“These false allegations came in the context of a family dispute that was resolved amicably years ago,” Zavareei said. “Ms. Johnson’s family stands firmly behind her pursuit of justice against Donald Trump for the sexual assaults he has committed against Ms. Johnson and so many other women over the course of decades.”

Her father and two half siblings either could not be reached or declined to comment.
 
upload_2019-3-4_23-36-14.png


LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged Monday that opponents of President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border have enough votes in the Republican-led Senate to prevail on a resolution aimed at blocking the move.

McConnell, who fell in line behind Trump despite his own misgivings about the declaration, said Trump will veto the resolution and that it's likely to be sustained in Congress. McConnell's remarks in his home state came after fellow Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul became the latest GOP lawmaker to say he can't go along with the White House on the emergency declaration.

"I think what is clear in the Senate is there will be enough votes to pass the resolution of disapproval, which will then be vetoed by the president and then, in all likelihood, the veto will be upheld in the House," McConnell told reporters.

Besides Paul, other Republican senators who have announced they'll defy Trump on the issue are Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. With those four, and assuming that all 47 Democrats and their independent allies go against Trump, that would give opponents 51 votes — just past the majority needed.

Paul told reporters Monday that based on conversations with colleagues, there are "at least 10" GOP senators prepared to vote to nullify Trump's move. The vote is expected next week.

The Democratic-led House recently voted to upend Trump's declaration, which he declared to circumvent Congress and funnel billions of extra dollars to erecting his proposed border wall.

Asked Monday if the Senate can try to amend the resolution, McConnell said senators have been consulting with the parliamentarian about "what options there are, if any."

McConnell, who has worked closely with Trump on the tax system overhaul, the selection of conservative judges and other issues, acknowledged he had counseled the president against making the declaration. The Senate leader said he's worried that Trump's move would set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to make such a declaration for their own purposes.

"That's one reason I argued, obviously without success to the president, that he not take this route," McConnell said.

Many lawmakers opposed to the emergency declaration say it tramples Congress' constitutional power to control spending. They also are concerned Trump would siphon money from home-state projects to barrier construction.

McConnell didn't comment Monday on Paul's position on the declaration. At a GOP dinner this past weekend in Kentucky, Paul said: "I can't vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress.

"We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn't authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing," Paul added, according to the Bowling Green (Ky.) Daily News.

Under the declaration, Trump would divert $3.6 billion from military construction to erect more border barriers. He's invoking other powers to transfer an additional $3.1 billion to construction. Lawsuits have been filed aimed at derailing the declaration, which could at least prevent Trump from getting the extra money for months or more.

Other lawmakers including Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., have been trying to persuade Trump to abandon the emergency declaration and draw the money from other budget accounts that he has the power to tap.

Paul said he spoke to Trump Sunday night and detected no signs of backing down. "I think he's made his decision," he told reporters.
 
upload_2019-3-4_23-48-18.png


(CNN) On Monday, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that he was beginning a broad-scale investigation into Donald Trump's business and political life, the first step in a slow but purposeful attempt by congressional Democrats to build an impeachment case against the President.

Nadler, in an interview with ABC's "This Week," was open about the strategy. "We do not now have the evidence all sorted out and everything to do an impeachment," he said. "Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen."

That persuasion campaign began in earnest Monday, with Nadler issuing more than six dozen letters to various Trump administration officials, business partners and campaign officials, seeking answers to a wide variety of questions. The questions deal with, among other topics: potential obstruction of justice, hush money payments to two women alleging affairs with Trump, potential collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign and violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause.
As Axios' Mike Allen wrote in his Monday newsletter:

"In an investigation being coordinated among six to eight House committees, Trump will essentially be on public trial for months to come, with topics that include abuse of power, obstruction of justice, conflicts of interest (including profit from the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue) and money laundering."

That this "public trial" is being led by Nadler -- and the Judiciary Committee -- is no coincidence. The impeachment process -- if it happens -- would run through that same Judiciary Committee and be overseen by Nadler.

This is a testing ground.

It's also an acknowledgment by Democrats that impeachment is a purely political -- not legal -- process that requires persuasion. This isn't about convincing a jury or a judge. This is about convincing the American people, who then, theoretically, pressure their representatives in Congress. (The last time Congress impeached a president without public buy-in -- in 1998 -- the impeachment backfired badly against the Republicans who had pursued it.)

One person who has long grasped that a) impeachment, not indictment, is the real threat to the President and b) impeachment only happens if the court of public opinion wants it to happen is one Donald John Trump.

For much of the past 18 months, Trump has railed against his own Justice Department, describing the ongoing special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election as a witch hunt and a hoax. He has savaged Robert Mueller and his special counsel team as "angry" Democrats trying to relitigate the election. (Mueller is a registered Republican who ran the FBI for a decade under one Democratic and one Republican president.)

"Presidential Harassment by 'crazed' Democrats at the highest level in the history of our Country," Trump tweeted Sunday night of the Nadler investigations. "Likewise, the most vicious and corrupt Mainstream Media that any president has ever had to endure - Yet the most successful first two years for any President. We are WINNING big, the envy of the WORLD, but just think what it could be?"

Trump's PR campaign against Mueller has worked -- to an extent. Mueller's approval ratings have dropped somewhat (although so, too, have Trump's) in CNN polling. In a December survey, 43% approved of the job Mueller was doing while 40% disapproved -- a far tighter margin than the 48% approval/36% disapproval for Mueller from CNN polling earlier, in the fall of 2018.

That same poll showed some waning in the public's desire for Trump to be impeached, as well. Fully 50% said they didn't think Trump should be impeached and kicked out of office while 43% favored those moves. That was down from a September 2018 poll, when 47% of people supported the impeachment and removal of Trump. As CNN pollster Jennifer Agiesta noted, however, that 43% number in the December poll is a higher mark than any of Trump's three most recent predecessors received when pollsters asked whether they should be impeached.)

Nadler, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (California) and every other Democratic leader will insist the investigations launched Monday are all about bringing accountability and oversight to the executive branch -- a role for the legislative branch laid out in the Constitution.

But make no mistake: This is Democrats' first major step toward the possibility of pursuing impeachment against the President. Impeachment is a process -- in Congress, yes, but more so in convincing the public (and even wavering Republican elected officials) that this is not a partisan exercise but rather a necessary defense of our democratic ideals.

That sales effort started today. Who knows when it ends -- and if it's successful.
 
最后编辑:
民主党人对特朗普展开广泛的调查
VOA, 2019年3月5日 10:04

FCF8FB86-25C1-415D-9721-E3394A3BE0EE_w1023_r1_s.jpg

2019年1月25日星期五特朗普总统竞选顾问罗杰·斯通在佛罗里达州劳德代尔堡举行听证会后走出联邦法院。

华盛顿 —
美国众议院民主党议员们星期一对特朗普总统开展广泛的调查,内容包括2016年的竞选活动、个人商业行为、政权过渡以及就任总统后是否阻碍对他进行的司法调查。

众院司法委员会已经向与特朗普有牵连的81个人与机构发出了信函,要求在两个星期内提供涉及特朗普总统很多活动的文件。委员会说,除了阻碍司法的调查重点以外,委员会还将检查特朗普执政两年来是否存在公共腐败和滥用权力的可能性。

委员会主席纳德勒宣布调查时表示,“过去几年来,特朗普总统几乎每天都对我们的基本法律、操守和宪法规章与准则进行攻击,而且逃避了问责”。

他表示,“对这些法治面临的威胁进行调查是国会的义务,也是众院司法委员会的核心职能。”

特朗普长时间以来都否认他在竞选期间和执政以后存在通俄。特朗普星期一在回答纳德勒的调查问题时说,“我任何时候都与任何人进行合作。你知道美好的是,没有勾结。这统统是骗局。”

白宫表示,白宫律师和“白宫有关官员”将会审议司法委员会提出的文件要求,“并在适当的时候做出回应。”

除了白宫以外,司法委员会还向司法部,高级竞选官员,特朗普组织和特朗普的两个儿子发出了要求提供文件的信函。

纳德勒星期天表示,他认为总统阻碍了司法。他说特朗普的前私人律师科恩上星期在国会作证时,“显示总统竞选时以及就职以后,都直接涉及了不同的犯罪活动”。

纳德勒说,“我们尚未掌握事实”,“但我们将启动适当的调查”。
 
后退
顶部