國際時事政治選舉新聞張貼及討論區（六）

In world's biggest one-day election, Indonesia votes for its president
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-election/in-worlds-biggest-one-day-election-indonesia-votes-for-its-president-idUSKCN1RS2CX

JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesians began voting in the world’s biggest single-day election on Wednesday as polling stations opened across the sprawling equatorial archipelago following a six-month campaign to choose a new president and parliament.

The eight-hour vote across a country that stretches more than 5,000 km (3,000 miles) from its western to eastern tips is both a Herculean logistical feat and testimony to the resilience of democracy two decades after authoritarianism was defeated.

President Joko Widodo, a furniture businessman who entered politics 14 years ago as a small-city mayor, is seeking re-election against former general Prabowo Subianto, whom he narrowly defeated in the last election, in 2014.

The economy dominated the hard-fought campaign, though the rise of political Islam loomed over the contest in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country.

Most opinion polls give Widodo a double-digit lead, but the opposition says the race is much closer and Prabowo told a news conference late on Tuesday that he expected to win with 63 percent of the vote.

Trump vetoes bill to end US military support for Saudi-led war in Yemen
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/16/trump-yemen-war-veto-military-aid

Donald Trump has vetoed a bill passed by Congress to end US military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

The Senate had passed the bipartisan resolution on 13 March in a 54-to-46 vote, in a move that was largely seen as a rebuke of Trump’s alliance with the Saudi forces leading military action in Yemen.

“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump wrote in explaining his veto.

The US provides billions of dollars of arms to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen.

But as the war drags on, members of Congress have expressed concern about the thousands of civilians killed in coalition airstrikes since the conflict began in 2014.

North Korea nuclear site shows signs of activity

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/17/north-korea-nuclear-site-shows-signs-of-activity

Week-old satellite images show movement at North Korea’s main nuclear site that could be associated with the reprocessing of radioactive material into bomb fuel, a US thinktank has reported.

Any new reprocessing activity would underscore the failure of a second summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Hanoi in late February to make progress toward North Korea’s denuclearisation.

Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies said satellite imagery of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear site from 12 April showed five specialised railcars near its uranium enrichment facility and radiochemistry laboratory.

It said their movement could indicate the transfer of radioactive material.

“In the past these specialised railcars appear to have been associated with the movement of radioactive material or reprocessing campaigns,” the report said. “The current activity, along with their configurations, does not rule out their possible involvement in such activity, either before or after a reprocessing campaign.“

lm

Indonesia election: Widodo leads presidential race, polls suggest

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47943905

Indonesia's president looks to be on course for re-election, according to unofficial results released within hours of polls closing.

Joko Widodo is about 10 percentage points ahead of his rival, ex-general Prabowo Subianto, in early results.

Official results are not expected until May, but the so-called "quick counts" - undertaken by polling companies - have proved correct in previous years.

Indonesia voted on Wednesday in one of the world's largest one-day elections.

More than 192 million people were eligible to cast their ballot to select 20,000 local and national lawmakers, including the president.

The presidential race was a re-match of the 2014 contest between Mr Widodo and Mr Prabowo, who both made political moves in line with the increased prominence of conservative Islam in the country.

A BBC poll, conducted by Kompas, puts Mr Widodo's share of the sample ballot counted so far at 54%, while his rival has 45%. A number of other private polling companies are reporting similar outcomes.

"“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, ..."

笑左, 要計美國憲法, 國會先係出兵同維持軍隊運作嘅權力來源, 直頭係第一條個section 8入面

然後, 2014年:

Saudi Arabia should fight their own wars, which they won't, or pay us an absolute fortune to protect them and their great wealth-$ trillion!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/506198852933013504?s=19

佢個專屬Twitter archive真係好方便

North Korea test fires new tactical guided weapon - state media

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47971164

North Korea says it has test-fired a new type of "tactical guided weapon".

A report, carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), gave few details but said the weapon came fitted with a "powerful warhead".

This would be the first public weapons test since talks between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump ended without agreement.

North Korea made a similar claim last year in what observers saw as an attempt to apply pressure on the US.

Last week, Mr Kim said Mr Trump needed to have the "right attitude" for talks to continue after the summit between the two broke up in February.

According to KCNA, the test was overseen by Mr Kim himself.

The weapon has a "peculiar mode of guiding flight", KCNA reported, adding that the test was "conducted in various modes of firing at different targets".

Washington in frenzy over release of Mueller report

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/439426-washington-in-frenzy-over-release-of-Mueller-report

Washington is on edge as it awaits the highly anticipated release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Thursday, the findings of which could ignite a political firestorm.

Attorney General William Barr isn't delivering the report to Congress until 11 a.m. — after he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein hold a 9:30 a.m. press conference to discuss the findings.

The move drew howls of protest from Democrats on Wednesday night, especially after The New York Times reported that White House lawyers and Department of Justice officials have already discussed details of Mueller's conclusions.

Democrats say Barr has acted as an agent of President Trump in his role overseeing the release of the report, which will mark the culmination of one of the most-watched probes in recent political history.

Barr has consistently argued he had to wait to release the report in order to redact any grand jury material, classified information and details pertaining to ongoing investigations.

Democrats are hoping to use the report to bolster their sprawling probes into Trump’s administration, businesses and campaign.

But if the roughly 400-page document contains little evidence implicating Trump on obstruction of justice, the probes are certain to lose steam and thwart their plans to dig into every facet of the administration heading into 2020.

Get Ready

Live Text: Mueller report: redacted Trump-Russia findings to be released today – live
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/apr/18/mueller-report-release-donald-trump-latest-news-live-updates-analysis-key-points
[/url]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

No Collusion - No Obstruction!

5:54 AM - 18 Apr 2019

Mueller report: Trump 'tried to get special counsel fired'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47983489

US President Donald Trump tried to get the man appointed to investigate his links to Russia fired, a long-awaited report has revealed.

The 448-page redacted document, collated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was finally released on Thursday.

Mr Trump's legal team has described the report as a "total victory".

But the country's top lawyer, William Barr, is facing heavy criticism of his handling of the report's release.

Senior democrats have accused the attorney general of "misleading" them with an earlier summary of the report's findings regarding whether Mr Trump obstructed justice.

Mr Mueller's report says he found no criminal conspiracy between Mr Trump's campaign and Russia, but could not reach a concrete legal conclusion on whether Mr Trump tried to obstruct the investigation.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report says. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The report says that in June 2017, Mr Trump called Don McGahn - then a White House lawyer - to try to get Mr Mueller removed over alleged "conflicts of interest".

Mueller report: Eight things we only just learned
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47983775

Mueller whacks Trump with evidence of obstruction
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/redacted-mueller-report-released-1280960

An annotated guide to the redacted Mueller report
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/mueller-report-summary-key-findings-1280879

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Special Counsel(SC)份report分兩部, 第一部係就俄羅斯干預大選嘅報告, 第二部係調查Trump涉嫌妨礙司法公正嘅報告, 加埋共448頁, 不過每部都有簡介同摘要, 通俗啲講, 摘要係TL;DR, 簡介係TLR嘅TL;DR

第一部有10頁簡介+摘要, 第二部係有8頁簡介+摘要, 原則上你睇完呢18頁已夠知道大體咩情況

利申: 我無睇晒448頁, 我係睇完SC寫嘅TL;DR後再揀左部分黎睇

以下係呢兩部嘅簡介+摘要嘅撮要, 我個人意見會放係[ ]入面


第一部: 俄羅斯干預16總統大選報告


簡介

第一部簡介第二段第一句, vol. p.1, pdf p.9, 就劈頭同你講:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."

俄羅斯政府以廣泛而系統嘅方式干預16總統大選

而報告指, 俄方主要以以下兩種行動干預(vol. 1 p.1, pdf p.9):

一、 Russian Media Campaign: 某俄佬組織(Internet Research Agency, IRA)發動社交平台運動去撐Trump踩Hillary;

二、 Russian Hacking Operation: 某俄佬情報組織(Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army, GRU)入侵Hillary Campaign有關人等嘅電腦, 然後將偷到嘅文件放出街(aka hacking-and-dumping)

而SC亦發現俄羅斯政府同Trump Campaign有眾多聯繫(vol. 1 p.1, pdf p.9)

然後, SC調查證立到(establish)俄羅斯政府認為Trump當選對佢有利, 而且做嘢去保證係Trump當選, 亦證立到Trump Campaign預期俄方hacking-and-dumping行動對佢地選情有助(vol. 1 p.1~2, pdf p.9~10)

但SC無法證立(not establish)Trump Campaign同俄羅斯政府干預行動有串謀或協調(vol. 1 p.2, pdf p.10)

[ 即係SC調查確立到俄羅斯政府同Trump Campaign目標一致, 利益一致, 而且有所連繫, 但中間差左個連接點去證明兩者係同黨 ]

咁咩為之「證立」(establish)呢? 係vol. 1 p.2, pdf p.10有解:

"In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

當SC有信心佢地有足夠可信、重要證據去得出某一結論, 佢地會用「證立」(establish)呢個字眼去形容; 但當SC用「無法證立」(not establish)嘅時候, 唔代表有關描述係無證據

[ 換言之, 當SC用「無法證立」(not establish)嘅時候, 可以係無發現證據, 可以係證據唔夠強去判斷某樣嘢, 但實際上, SC用「無法證立」嘅時候, 並唔係解做無發現證據, 而係「證據唔夠強」, SC用字分得好清楚, 無發現證據會用第二啲字, 見下文 ]

[ 另外, 管見所及, SC份報告係描述性, 分節描述佢地採集到嘅證據(evidence), 話你知有某件事發生過, 而就有關證據, 佢地可以證立某樣判斷, 或無法證立某樣判斷 ]

而就「串謀」(conspiracy)同「協調」(coordination), SC都有解, 呢個係針對SC委任書嘅字眼, 委任書有用「collud[e]」同「coordination」, 去劃定SC嘅任務, 所以要解解

SC話佢地唔會用「collusion」, 而係「conspiracy」, 原因係「collusion」唔係美國法律上嘅字眼, conspiracy先係, 至於「coordination」, SC認為呢個字係法律上無確切定義, 所以佢地自己界定為:

"We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" (vol. 1 p.2, pdf p.10)

用白話講, 即係係SC定義下, Trump Campaign同俄羅斯政府互相打默契波, 根據另一邊行動去做嘢回應係唔夠, 要雙方有或明或暗嘅協議, 就先符合佢地對「協調」(coordination)嘅定義

[ 因此Trump係電視叫俄佬hack Hillary, 而俄佬又真係即日做, 直覺上似乎符合日常意義上嘅協調, 但都唔足以符合SC係報告定義嘅「協調」]

花生

第二部: 對總統涉嫌係俄羅斯干預大選上妨礙司法公正調查報告

首先, Barr我屌你老母, 呢條友唔係美國司法部長, 而係Trump私人律師, 其實第一部已經要屌佢老母, 但我掛住打正文最後唔記得左屌佢老母, 今次屌定先, 以免唔記得


簡介

SC首先循例講下自己嘅調查源起, 然後好重要咁說明係進行是次妨礙司法公正(obstruction-of-justice)調查前, 佢地嘅考慮, 主要有四點:

一、 SC決定唔會下傳統司法判斷, 即係決斷起訴與否嘅判斷. 原因係DOJ嘅法律顧問辦公室(The Office of Legal Counsel, OLC)畀左份意見佢地, 指

"the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." (vol 2. p1, pdf p.213)

由於違反「三權分立」,「公訴或刑事起訴現任總統, 會損害行政部門履行其憲法職能嘅角色, 而此種損害不會被允許」

[ 用白話講, 即係DOJ政策唔會起訴現任總統, 呢點其實歷史悠久, 無記錯緣起自Nixon水門案, 可以自行google ]

SC指鑑於佢地係DOJ轄下, 以及Special Counsel嘅條例, 佢地同意OLC嘅法律意見, 但SC補充, 除左OLC嘅意見, 佢地亦認為刑事指控現任總統, 會令為其管治帶黎負擔, 以及有可能影響處理總統不當行為嘅憲法程序(vol 2. p1, pdf p.213)

[ 紅字好好好重要, 係SC係第二部第一次提到有憲法程序處理總統嘅不當行為, 即係國會, 思路上同三權分立有關, 下文會講 ]

二、 儘管OLC認為現任總統或不受起訴, 佢同時認為刑事調查現任總統係受允許, OLC亦指出現任總統卸任後, 唔會有法律豁免權, 以及如若總統以外任何人犯下妨礙司法公正, 可以即時起訴

鑑於此, 公眾利益以及SC所知嘅事實, SC決定趁記憶尤以及文件仍在,進行詳盡嘅事實性調查, 以保存有關證據

[ 我理解係OLC直認總統係有特權, 不受起訴 ]

三、 SC考慮過按司法手冊(Justice Manual)標準去評估SC調查嘅行為, 但由於司法手冊係用於劃定起訴與否標準, SC決定唔採用呢種有可能得出總統犯罪此判斷嘅方法

SC解釋, 咁做對總統有失公允, 原因係一般而言, 當某君受刑事指控, 佢回應指控嘅方式亦係透過司法程序, 用司法程序去洗刷污名. 因此, 若果起訴官判斷某君犯罪, 但唔起訴, A君就會變左硬食, 無法以公正裁判前為自己平反

SC認為因於對象係現任總統, 即使係起訴官以內部報告指控總統犯罪, 由於有機會外洩, 以及無法係庭上為自己辯護, 因此有可能做成同樣後果

OLC意見亦認為, 即使以密封公訴書(sealed indictments), 等現任總統卸任後解封起訴, 亦由於可能外洩, 為總統管理帶黎不可磨滅嘅傷害, 因此唔應該咁做

[ Sealed indictment即係已送達法庭, 但未公開嘅公訴書, 可以理解為遊戲不嘅埋伏卡,一日未解封, 一日唔會進入下輪起訴程序]

四、 直接畀原文:

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."(vol 2. p2, pdf p.214)

SC指如若其調查證明總統明確無犯下妨礙司法公正, SC會如實直說. 但佢地無法得出呢個判斷, 佢地搜集到開於總統行動及意途嘅證據, 令佢地無法得出總統無犯刑事罪行嘅結論, 因此, 本報告雖無作出總統犯罪嘅判斷, 但亦無得出佢無罪嘅判斷

[ 呢段宇宙無敵重要, 配合前文睇, SC講明由於ABC原因, 佢地係報告唔會得出「總統犯罪」此判斷, 但「總統無罪」就可以直接寫, 但呢段寫明佢地調查完之後, 亦無法得出「總統無罪」嘅判斷, SC唔係用第一部「無法證立」呢個字眼, 即係解唔夠證據, 而係話「無法赦免」(not exonerate)

即係咩呢? 用白話講, SC係同我地講, 「職權所限, 我本身唔可以寫佢有罪, 無罪就可以直寫, 但我查完之後, 證據顯示我唔可以寫佢無罪」, 即係實際上係話你知, 如果權限上允許, 根據調查結果佢會起訴Trump ]

摘要

呢度分兩部分, 分別係妨礙司法公正嘅實證結果(Factual Results Of The Obstruction Investigation), 以及法律及憲法辯護(Statutory And Constitutional Defenses)


Factual Results Of The Obstruction Investigation

呢部分係描述性質, 描述Trump涉嫌妨礙司法公正嘅關鍵事件, 分左12節

一、The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump

WikiLeaks爆完料, Trump公開懷疑俄羅斯係爆料幕後黑手嘅講法, 公下就問~塗黑左, 唔知邊個~WikiLeaks仲有無料爆, 同時否認同俄羅斯有任何商業來往或一切接觸

二、 Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn

Trump得知前國家安全顧問Flynn對副總統及FBI等人講大話後, 叫左時任局長Comey黎食飯, 同Comey講佢需要「忠誠」(loyalty)

及後, Flynn辭職, Trump同街外顧問「"Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.」(vol. 2, p.3, pdf p.215)

同一晏晝, Trump單獨見Comey, 同佢講「I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.」(vol. 2, p.3, pdf p.215)

[ 暗示Comey唔好再查Flynn ,但Comey無理佢]

之後, Trump叫副國家安全顧問McFarland寫封內部信, 話總統無指示Flynn去同俄羅斯大使Kislyak討論制裁問題, McFarland出於不知此點是否事實, 以及睇落似係佢獲提名大使一職嘅回餽(quid pro quo)而拒絕

三、The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation

17年2月, 時任司法部長(AG)Sessions研究係咪應以身為前競選成員為任避嫌,(recuse), 唔干涉總統競選相關調查, 3月頭, Trump叫白宮法律顧問McGahn阻止Sessions避嫌, 當Sessions之後宣佈佢避嫌後, Trump發脾氣話佢應該有名保護佢嘅AG, 同週末就催促Sessions「解除避嫌」(unrecuse)

3月尾, Comey係國會作證, 公開FBI正在調查「俄羅斯干預16總統大選事宜」, 調查包括俄羅斯政府同Trump Campaign有無任何連繫, 之後, Trump聯絡DNI, CIA同NSA班老頂, 問佢地可否公開否認Trump同俄羅斯干預大選有任何關係, 仲直接call左Comey兩次, 有違McGahn叫佢唔好同DOJ接觸嘅指引. Comey之前有同Trump保證FBI無調查佢本人, 而Trump就叫Comey公開對大眾講

四、The President's termination of Comey

17年5月, Comey又去國會作供, 會上拒絕回應總統本人是否受調查. 過左幾日, Trump就決定炒左Comey, 係封炒魷公開信提及Comey曾對總統話總統並非調查對象

同一日, 係炒Comey一事上, 白宮官方口徑係遵從正副司法部長嘅獨立意見, 以處理Hillary email事件失當解僱Comey, 但Trump係DOJ開聽證會處理前, 就炒左Comey. 第二日Trump就同俄羅斯政府人員話佢「因俄羅斯事宜受巨大壓力, 而呢份壓力因炒Comey而無左」, 第三日仲上電視話就算無DOJ嘅意見都會炒Comey, 當佢決定咁做時, 腦入面係 「this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story」(vol. 2, p.4, pdf p.216)

五、The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him

17年5月, 副司法部長委任SC去調查俄羅斯事宜, Trump得知後, 話 「Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I' m fucked.」(vol. 2, p.78, pdf p.290), 並要求Sessions辭職, 但Sessions遞完信到Trump拒絕佢辭職

6月, 回應傳媒報導「總統正受調查」, Trump係twitter批評DOJ同SC, 同月仲係打左畀係屋企嘅McGahn, 叫佢同署理部長Rosenstein講, SC查Trump有利益衝突, 所以要炒左SC. McGahn唔聽Trump支笛, 決定寧願辭職都唔會引發Saturday Night Massacre

六、Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation

係叫McGahn炒左SC兩日後, Trump係辦公室單獨會見前競選經理Lewandowski, 叫Lewandowski傳話畀Sessions知[ ...好迂迴 ], 叫Sessions公開話SC調查對總統極為不公, 公開講總統乜都無做錯, 以及公開指會約見SC, 叫佢將精力投放係「investigating election meddling
for future elections.」(vol. 2, p.5, pdf p.217) [ 我唔知點譯 ], Lewandowski話佢知總統想Sessions做乜

一個月後, Trump又單獨見一次Lewandowski, 問佢傳左話未, Lewandowski話就快傳話, 見完Lewandowski後, Trump係採訪公開批判Sessions, 又係Twitter話Seesions份工凍過水

由於唔想傳話, Lewandowski問白宮人員Dearborn幫手傳話, 但Dearborn都一樣唔想傳, 最後都係無傳話


[ 班友明佢想做乜, 為左唔上身, 所以叫極唔郁]

七、Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence

Trump得知傳媒查緊Trump Tower Meeting單嘢, 叫班助手唔好洩漏安排有關會面嘅email, 係相關email出街前, 改動Trump Jr嘅公開聲明, 刪左「an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign」一句, 只話個見面係討論領養俄仔

當傳媒追問總統係Trump Jr公開聲明上嘅角色, Trump私人律師一重否認Trump同篇嘢有任何關係

八、Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.

17年夏天, Trump打畀係屋企嘅Sessions, 再叫佢唔好避嫌, Sessions唔理佢,

同年10月, Trumps係辦公室私下約見Sessions, 叫佢不如「諗下調查Hillary」

同年12月, 當Flynn認罪, Trump又係辦公室見Sessions, 話如果佢解除避嫌, 重新掌管俄羅斯事宜調查, 佢就係英雄, 又話「I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.」(vol 2 p.5, pdf p. 217), Sessions無解除避嫌

九、 Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed

2018年, 傳媒報左上面McGahn寧願辭職都唔會幫手炒SC單嘢, Trump叫白宮人員同McGahn公開否認, McGahn同呢班傳話者講, 係報導總統指示佢剷走SC上, 傳媒無報導錯

Trump之後係辦公室見McGahn, 說自叫佢公開否認有關報導, 又問佢點解同SC講總統曾經嘗試剷走SC, 以及做乜鬼佢會筆錄同總統嘅對話

McGahn又一次拒絕Trump

十、 Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, ~~REDACTED~~

係Flynn退出同Trump嘅聯合辯護後, Trump私人律師留言, 傳達Trump對Flynn嘅好感, 以及如果Flynn知道調查中任何涉及總統嘅資料, 同總統講聲, 當Flynn律師拒絕後, Trump私人律師話會保證將呢份敵意傳達畀Trump知

而係Manafort訴訟中, 當大陪審團商議緊判決時, Trump公開讚揚Manafort, 指佢受不公對待, 而當Manafort被定罪後, 又讚Manafort「為人勇敢, 唔會崩潰」, 又話「轉軚(flipping)幾乎應該要犯法」(vol. 2 p.6, pdf p.218)

十一、 Conduct involving Michael Cohen

2017 Cohen就Trump Tower Moscow計畫向國會作假證供前, Cohen有同Trump私人律師促膝長談, 而Trump私人律師叫Cohen「口徑一致」, 唔好同總統講法矛盾

當2018 FBI刮完Cohen間屋搜證後, Trump公開話Cohen唔會「軓軚」, 叫佢「振作」(stay strong), 私下傳訊話會撐佢, 但當Cohen同控方合作後, Trump公開話佢係反骨仔(rat), 又話Cohen家人都犯左法

十二、 Overarching factual issues

呢度係講上述行為同典型妨礙司法公正現象有咩唔同, 分三點

1. 總統某啲行為, 例如炒FBI局長Comey,關係度佢憲法第二條權力, 係咪合理涉及憲法問題

2. 同一般妨礙司法公正係為左掩蓋犯罪行為唔同, SC調查完無法證立總統涉及俄羅斯干預大選行動, 雖然妨礙司法公正並不限定掩蓋犯罪, 但有關罪行從缺, 對分析總統行動目的有所影響

3. 總統種種指向證人嘅行徑, 例如唔鼓勵證人同政府合作[ btw, 佢係行政首長 ], 或者拋出將來會特赦嘅提議, 都係係公眾眼前進行, 呢種情況非常少見, 不過法律上無排除公開活動唔計入妨礙司法公正, 只要此種公開活動影響證人, 一樣計數

之後簡述Trump對俄羅斯調查整體反應舉動嘅分析, SC判斷有兩階段, 反映Trump嘅可能轉向

A. 第一階段係由Trump接觸Comey至炒Comey, 呢段期間佢獲通知佢本人並無受調查, 而佢致力於話畀公眾知佢無受調查, 認為呢點非常重要( vol. 2 p.158, pdf p.370);

B. 第二階段係炒完Comey, Trump發現原來佢身受涉嫌妨礙司法公正調查, 行為由同公眾講佢無受調查, 變為攻擊調查本身, 同做其他嘢去控制調查

係報告正文有例子( vol. 2 p.158, pdf p.370), 例如:
1. 嘗試剷除SC;
2. 設法試令司法部長Sessions解決避嫌, 限制調查;
3. 設法令俄羅斯人員同Trump Campaign係Trump見面資料唔公開;
4. 用公眾平台攻擊可能有對佢不利資訊嘅潛在證人
5. 用公眾平台讚揚唔合作嘅證人[ btw, 佢係行政首長 ];

呢部分嘅報告正文仲有一段非常重要, 但無放係摘要入面, 茲述如下:

SC評估左總統用職權影響調查嘅舉動, 得出以下結論:

"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."( vol. 2 p.158, pdf p.370)

之所以Trump影響調查嘅舉動大體上唔成功, 係因為佢身邊嘅人拒絕執行或唔同意佢有關命令, 仲有例子, 文文有提到, 啲紅字拒絕就係, 依家回顧下:

1. Comey無取消對Flynn嘅調查, 最後Flynn入左罪;
2. McGahn無對署任司法部長Rosenstein講SC必須死, 反而準備辭職;
3. Lewandowski同Dearborn無幫Trump向Sessions傳話, 叫佢改變調查方向;
4. McGahn拒絕公開否認傳媒就2.嘅有關報導
[ 唔知點解無提到Sessions拒絕unrecuse, 我會當呢個係例子5 ]

亦因為上述人等無執行Trump要求, 除左已經起訴嘅人, SC採集到嘅證據, 唔支持以妨礙司法公正起訴Trump身邊嘅人, 故無起訴

[ ...即係因為佢叫唔郁人而失敗, leader btw]

[ SC特別提到證據唔支持起訴Trump身邊嘅人, 但無提到證據唔支持起訴Trump本人]

好撚眼瞓, Statutory And Constitutional Defenses呢part聽日再打, 呢part好有趣

Statutory And Constitutional Defenses

回應SC調查所作嘅分析, 總統法律顧問以法定抗辯及憲法抗辯兩角度回應, 呢部分係SC回應返佢地, 由於摘要部分太簡, 所以部分內容會援引正文

一、 Statutory Defenses

呢部分係咬文嚼字, 總統法律顧問針對美國法律中, 關鍵嘅妨礙司法公正條文Section 1512(c)(2), 認為呢條條文唔包含總統做過嘅嘢(vol. 2 p.159, pdf p.371), 爭論由於1512(c)(1)係針對「損壞證據嘅可得性或完整性」, 所以1512(c)(2)個範圍都係一樣, 嘗試以較狹窄嘅角度詮釋1512(c)(2), SC用左4個角度反駁,

1. 條文上1512(c)(1)同1512(c)(2)各不統屬, 互不相限;
2. 法庭一路嘅判斷都支持較廣義嘅1512(c)(2)解釋;
3. 1512(c)(2)嘅充立法歷史唔支持狹義解釋;
4. 無法律解釋支持1512(c)(2)不適用於本調查

所以SC總結佢地用1512(c)(2)去分析總統涉嫌妨礙司法公正行徑係無問題

[ 1512(c)(2)條文係
(c) Whoever corruptly-
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts
to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(vol. 2 p.160, pdf p.372)

字眼上, 呢條應該係監管「以權謀私地阻擋、影響、妨礙司法程序, 或嘗試進行上述動作」嘅後果

利申: 唔係讀law ]


二、 Constitutional Defenses

總統法律顧問似乎以「根據憲法第二條, 總統係行政機關元首, 憲法賦予佢權力自由解僱行政機關人員, 因此行使此憲法權力炒FBI局長唔會構成妨害司法公正, 若然, 則會限制其憲法權力」去為Trump炒Comey舉動辯護, 而SC就同樣從憲法角度回應

SC主要根據最高法院就三權分立問題判決往例, 去分析同回應, SC指, 憲法上, 總統行使憲法第二條權力嘅關鍵, 在於呢句:

"take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (vol. 2 p.168, pdf p.380)

「負責使法律忠實執行」

然後援引最高法院判例去分析, 說明憲法上, 總統以「不軌企圖」(corrupt intent)行使憲法第二條(炒人)權力, 係無得到憲法明確且永久嘅轄免保護, 而且國會可以根據憲法第一條賦予嘅權力, 去規制總統嘅腐敗行徑

SC亦特別指出, 按其分析, 限制總統以不軌企圖行使憲法權力, 並唔構成限制佢憲法權力 -- 因為憲法賦予總統權力, 只係為左「使法律忠實執行」, 當總統圖謀不軌咁去行使憲法權力時, 就會有違其憲法賦予總統權力嘅原因, 因此限制呢種用法並無限制佢憲法權力

關鍵指在於corruptly一字, SC解釋:

"It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others"
(vol. 2 p.8, pdf p.220)

基本上即係「不克己責, 以權謀私」

SC再進一步闡釋, 限制總統以權謀私咁運用權力, 反而有助總統履行「負責使法律忠實執行」嘅憲法職責, 而當總統以不軌企圖行使憲法權力時, 國會係可以行使其憲法權力制衡總統, 係呢個case, 如果總統妨礙司法公正, 國會可以應用妨礙司法公正法於總統上, 呢樣亦符憲法上三權制衡(checks-and-balances)嘅意思, 以及「無人立於法律之上」(no person is above the law)嘅根本原則

咁其實國會可以行使權力係乜? SC quote左一段最高法院嘅判詞:

[ 白話講, 即係憲法唔包總統以權謀私, 所以總統係有可能以憲法權力去妨礙司法公正, 而當出現此種情況, 憲法上, 國會有權力去規制總統 ]

[ 管見所及, 成個Volume 2個思路似乎係咁:

1. 開宗明義, 由於職權所限, SC唔可以作「總統有罪」嘅司法判斷, 但可以寫佢無罪, 而如果總統無罪, SC會照寫;
2. 定義何謂妨礙司法公正及其元素;
3. 詳情條列總統涉嫌妨礙司法公正嘅事件, 以及進行分析, 睇下係咪符合2.規範嘅定義;
4. 回應以涉嫌妨礙司法公正法調查總統有無法律或憲法問題, 答案係無問題;
5. 係回應憲法疑慮時, 特別詳細寫出「為何國會有權用妨礙司法公正法制衡總統」
6. 總結話你知由於1. 佢唔可以寫「總統有罪, 但可以寫「總統無罪」,但寫完3. 之後, 佢寫唔出「總統無罪」

最簡單咁講, 即係咁:「職權問題, 我唔可以話總統有罪, 而除非總統卸任或被彈劾罷免, 否則我無法起訴, 以下係總統做過嘅嘢, 寫完我亦講唔出佢無罪, 咁如果總統真係妨礙司法公正, 因為以下原因, 國會可以行使權力去制衡 」

咁你明點解份報告出完街, Trump會又係Twitter發癲]

睇完之後, 明點解要屌Barr老母未?

重溫下佢封信: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG%20March%2024%202019%20Letter%20to%20House%20and%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf

佢無解釋establish意思, 就咁quote SC報告話SC調查無證立Trump Campaign有同俄羅斯串謀或協調, 但無證立唔係解「無證據」,而係「有證據但唔夠證據」,引用SC解釋「協調」(coordination)又係故意遺留半段解釋, 唔講SC有提到佢地唔計打默契波係協調, 出左街就啲人就會讀成「SC話無證據Trump Campaign勾結俄羅斯」, 此其一;

佢斷章取義, 例如就咁話SC無作決定, 交左個波畀佢, 但無講點解SC無作判斷, 或者只quote "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities", 但唔quote上一句:"expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts", 其實全句係:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”(vol 1. p.1, pdf p.9)

此其二;

佢判斷Trump無犯妨礙司法公正, 話原因唔關DOJ唔會起訴現任總統事, 但佢無講Mueller唔起訴原因, Mueller幾乎係明示, 因為對象係總統, 所以先唔起訴, 原因之一就係DOJ嘅政策, 但Barr寫法好易引導人誤會Mueller判斷唔關總統不獲起訴事, 此其三;

由兩部簡介及摘要都毫無塗黑可知, 呢兩部分無機密資料, SC根本就係寫黎預左當TL;DR, 畀公眾可以快速掌握調查結果, Barr明明一收到掃完可以先放呢兩part出街, 但佢係要自己先寫4頁紙總結, 拖足一個月先放呢400頁出黎, 目標好明顯係斷章取義,引導輿論, 此其四,

係報告出街前幾個鐘開記招, 聲稱"The White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation", 但係Vol.2 p.13, pdf p.225, SC寫明總統拒絕面談,只願意書面訊問, 而係 Appendix C-2, pdf p.418, 對於Trump嘅書面回答, 更加寫明"We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. "(同上), 明明係inadequate, 係Barr把口變左fully cooperated, 此其五

根本係Trump私人律師, 而唔係美國司法部長

Ukraine election: Comedian Zelensky wins presidency by landslide

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48007487

Ukrainian comedian Volodymyr Zelensky has won a landslide victory in the country's presidential election, exit polls suggest.

The polls give the political newcomer, who dominated the first round of voting three weeks ago, more than 70% support.

Mr Zelensky, 41, challenged incumbent president Petro Poroshenko who has admitted defeat.

The apparent result is being seen as a huge blow to Mr Poroshenko and a rejection of Ukraine's establishment.

"I will never let you down," Mr Zelensky told celebrating supporters on Sunday.

"I'm not yet officially the president," he added. "But as a citizen of Ukraine I can say to all countries in the post-Soviet Union: Look at us. Anything is possible!"