这可能以前已经被问过，但我一直在反复思考，最高法院在授予这位总统豁免权时到底在想什么。这就像看着一个教室，挑出最 disruptive、最任性、最不友善的孩子，然后说无论你在这堂课上做什么，你永远不必像房间里其他人一样坐在惩罚椅上。他们有什么想法吗？他们没有意识到告诉这位总统这件事会或可能导致什么后果吗？我感到非常失望，我认为他们才是这个国家一路下滑的最大责任人。我希望你能解释他们的思考过程，因为我确实无法理解。
This has probably been asked before, but I keep going back to wondering what the Supreme Court was thinking when they granted this president immunity. It’s like looking at a classroom and taking the most disruptive, brattiest, unkind child and saying whatever you do in this class, you will never have to sit in the timeout chair like everyone else in the room. Did they have any idea? Did they not realize what telling this president would or could lead to? I’m so disappointed, I think really they are most to blame for this country’s downward slide. I hope you can explain their thought process because I certainly cannot understand it.
— 克里斯蒂·H.，辛辛那提，俄亥俄州 当最高法院就总统豁免权作出裁决时，我怀疑大法官们当时考虑的远不止是特朗普的法律失误。
— Christy H., Cincinnati, Ohio When the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity, I suspect the justices were thinking about far more than Donald Trump’s legal indiscretions.
在特朗普时代之前，总统和法院一直极不愿意将总统行为刑事化，无论该行为是否违法。
Before the Trump era, presidents and courts were extremely reluctant to criminalize presidential behavior, whether it was illegal or not.
这可能促使杰拉尔德·福特总统赦免理查德·尼克松在水门事件期间所犯的所有罪行。尽管福特当时受到广泛攻击，并且最终因尼克松赦免而输掉了1976年总统大选，但后来他获得了约翰·F·肯尼迪家庭颁发的“勇敢形象”奖。2001年5月21日，泰德·肯尼迪参议员曾这样评价福特当时不受欢迎的决定：许多人曾主张巴拉克·奥巴马在伊拉克战争期间指控乔治·W·布什犯有战争罪。
This may have driven President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon for all crimes committed during the Watergate scandal. While Ford was roundly attacked at the time, and ultimately lost the 1976 presidential election because of the Nixon pardon, he would later be awarded a Profiles in Courage Award by John F. Kennedy’s family. On May 21, 2001, Sen. Ted Kennedy said this of Ford’s once-unpopular decision: There were many who advocated that Barack Obama charge George W. Bush with war crimes during the Iraq War.
我警告即将上任的总统，八年后，“鞋子会换到另一只脚上”，而树立这样的先例对所有未来的总司令来说都是危险的。果然，八年后，共和党人确实指责奥巴马在无人机袭击中杀害海外美国人而犯有战争罪。
I warned the incoming president that in eight years, the “shoe would be on the other foot” and setting such a precedent would be dangerous for all future commanders in chief. And sure enough, eight years later, there were Republicans accusing Obama of war crimes for killing Americans overseas in drone strikes.
与唐纳德·特朗普的情况类似，他的极端行为将事情推向了一个令人不安的新阶段。我相信，历史学家会认定他应该因大规模窃取机密文件以及煽动2021年1月6日的骚乱而受到起诉。这样做才是公正的——即使这可能会为未来的总统树立危险的先例。
As is often the case with Donald Trump, his extreme actions took matters to a disturbing new level. I am confident historians will determine he should have been prosecuted for the stealing of classified documents on a grand scale, and also tried for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riots. That would have been the just thing to do — even if it set dangerous precedents for future chief executives.
2024年7月1日，最高法院在“特朗普诉美国案”中就总统豁免权问题作出了裁决，将总统的行为分为三类：
When the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024, they sorted presidential actions into three distinct categories.
- 绝对豁免权：总统在其“宪法赋予的明确且排他性的权力范围内的行为”享有绝对豁免权。法院列举的例子包括赦免权、解除行政官员职务、承认外国政府，以及调查和起诉犯罪行为。
A former president has absolute immunity for acts within his “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.”The court’s examples include the pardon power, removing executive officials, recognizing foreign nations, and the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
- 推定豁免权：总统在其官方职责范围内的其他行为（即那些处于其权力“边界”以内的行为）也享有豁免权。检察官只有在证明起诉总统不会“侵犯行政部门的权力和职能”时，才能突破这一豁免限制。
Official acts outside those core powers, up to the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility, get “at least a presumptive immunity.”Prosecutors can overcome it only by showing that charging him would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
- 无豁免权的行为：总统以私人身份进行的非官方行为则完全不受任何豁免权的保护。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨指出：“总统所做的并非所有事情都是官方行为；总统同样必须遵守法律。”最高法院的裁决通常基于事实和法律。我认为，虽然法院在未来对第一类行为的裁决上会保持坚定立场，但在界定总统“官方职责的边界”时可能会更加灵活——这取决于具体案件的情况、在场的法官以及相关方的意见。
Unofficial acts done in a private capacity get no immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”Most Supreme Court cases turn on the facts and the law. I suspect that while the court will prove steadfast in future decisions on the first of these three categories, there may be more flexibility with how courts determine what the “outer perimeter of a president’s official duties” ultimately prove to be. That will depend on the circumstances of each case, the justices on the bench, and the parties involved.
此外，即使总统滥用权力是出于个人目的，也无法因此获得豁免；即使律师试图以“官方职责”为借口来为其行为辩护，也无济于事。
And even on the first group of powers, abuse of presidential power for personal reasons will not protect a president—even if lawyers try to hide behind the “official duties” exception.
虽然我对该裁决的若干方面持强烈反对意见，但认为此决定赋予所有未来总统绝对豁免权的说法是不准确的。
While there are several aspects of this ruling with which I strongly disagree, the suggestion that this decision grants absolute immunity to all future presidents is not accurate.
我对民主党人对民调的兴奋感到担忧。我刚刚看到一则标题称，他们在Brian Fitzpatrick身上“闻到了水中的血腥味”。我住在宾夕法尼亚州巴克斯县的女儿是一位非常了解的MSNOW粉丝，她喜欢Brian Fitzpatrick，很可能会投他的票。她讨厌特朗普及其政治，但认为Brian Fitzpatrick真正具有两党性质，既不是MAGA，也不是罪犯。
I am concerned about the Democrats’ excitement over the polls. I just read a headline that they “smell blood in the water” with Brian Fitzpatrick. My daughter who lives in Bucks County [Pennsylvania] and is a very informed MS NOW fan likes Brian Fitzpatrick and will likely vote for him. She hates Trump and all Trump politics but feels Brian Fitzpatrick is truly bipartisan, not MAGA, not a criminal.
我担心这种动态正在民调背后酝酿，而民主党人没有给予这些选民足够的关注。—— 安·奥.，马萨诸塞州普利茅斯你有充分理由担心任何在选举前过度自信的政党。当年我参选时，我也对民调持怀疑态度，总是像我们的竞选落后对手20个百分点那样去奋斗。不抱任何侥幸心理才带来了四场压倒性胜利。
I worry that this dynamic is brewing under the polls and the Democrats are not paying enough attention to these voters. — Ann O., Plymouth, Mass. You have good reason to worry about any party that is overconfident going into an election. When I ran for office, I too was skeptical of polls and always ran like our campaign was 20 points behind our opponent. Taking nothing for granted led to four landslide victories.
民调机构如今预测下个月将出现“蓝色浪潮”。上次我们听到这种说法是在2022年，当时许多媒体成员预测会出现“红色浪潮”。然而，乔·拜登所在的党在中期选举中的表现却优于大多数总统。
Pollsters are now predicting a “blue wave” next month. The last time we heard such talk was in 2022, when many members of the media predicted a “red wave.”Instead, Joe Biden’s party outperformed most presidents in mid-term elections.
我也记得比尔·克林顿的第二次中期选举，当时华盛顿官方圈子普遍认为，由于莫妮卡·卢温斯基丑闻，共和党将取得巨大胜利。结果他们错了。
I also remember Bill Clinton’s second midterm election, when most of official Washington predicted a massive Republican victory because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They were wrong.
民主党在众议院赢得了五个席位，一周后，纽特·金里奇被赶下议长席位。
Democrats picked up five seats in the House of Representatives, and a week later, Newt Gingrich was kicked out of his speakership.
汤姆·布罗卡瓦喜欢在《早间乔》节目中说，媒体的工作不是预测选举结果，而是报道结果。毕竟，拥有最终发言权的是选民，而决定美国未来的也正是选民。
Tom Brokaw liked to say on “Morning Joe,” the media’s job is not to predict election outcomes but to report on the results.
- 人名和地名一律用汉字转写；品牌及产品名称可保留其原有的拉丁字母形式。
It is the voters, after all, who have the final word, and it is the voters who will determine America’s future.
翻译内容：虽然今年的政治环境对民主党候选人有利，但共和党在资金方面拥有巨大优势，并且在动员低投票意愿的选民投票方面表现得更为娴熟。不过这种情况主要发生在唐纳德·特朗普参选的情况下。由于今年并非特朗普的选举年份，2026年大选的结果仍难以预测。你对此持怀疑态度是合理的。正如汤姆所说，我们应该先倾听选民的意见，然后再公布选举结果。
While this year’s political environment favors Democratic candidates, Republicans hold a massive financial advantage and have proved more adept at getting low-propensity voters out to the polls. But that is true mainly when Donald Trump’s name is on the ballot. Since it is not this year, he outcome of the 2026 election is anyone’s guess. You are right to be skeptical. Like Tom says, let’s just listen to the voters and then report the outcome.
特朗普在相关协议中赞扬普京、并同意解除对俄罗斯的制裁以缓解燃料危机，这一行为确实让人怀疑他是否是普京的傀儡——尤其是考虑到此举实际上帮助俄罗斯在战争中获得了优势。更令人震惊的是，特朗普还指责这一切都是泽连斯基的错。共和党究竟该如何与特朗普站在一起？还是说，随着选举的临近，这一行为反而会帮助共和党避免失去太多席位？——布鲁斯·M., 加拿大新不伦瑞克省蒙克顿
No doubt the reaction to Trump praising Putin on the deal to release all the diesel fuel to save the fuel crisis makes one wonder if Trump is not a puppet of Putin’s circle. Especially lifting the blockade on Russia giving them a leg up on the war. Most importantly, backstabbing Ukraine and now saying all this is Zelenskyy’s fault. How can the Republican Party stand with Trump? Or will this suddenly raise the fortunes of the party to not lose as many seats with the elections looming? — Bruce M., Moncton NB Canada Bruce, most October surprises are launched to help the party in control of the White House.
补充说明：在政治历史上，大多数“意外举措”都是为了帮助执政党继续掌控白宫。但这次可能是首次出现总统采取相反做法的情况。
美国人明白弗拉基米尔·普京将自己视为美国的死敌，并希望美国遭遇不幸；他们也将乌克兰人视为捍卫自己领土及西方民主的战士。
This may be the first time in recent political history that a president has unveiled one that does the opposite. Americans understand that Vladimir Putin considers himself a sworn enemy of the United States and wishes us ill. They also see Ukrainians as freedom fighters defending not only their own land, but also Western democracy.
唐纳德·特朗普继续偏袒这位前克格勃特工的行为确实令人震惊，但也在意料之中。
For Donald Trump to continue tipping the scales in the favor of a former KGB agent is shocking but not surprising.
人们只能希望共和党参议员能够阻止这一糟糕的协议，并重新对这位前苏联特工及其背后的军事力量实施制裁。
One can only hope Senate Republicans will block this horrible deal and reinstate sanctions on the former Soviet agent’s deadly war machine.
相关文章：“像落后20个百分点一样努力战斗”——乔·斯卡伯勒回答读者关于中期选举、民意调查及俄罗斯问题的提问
The post“Run like you’re 20 points behind”: Joe Scarborough answers reader questions about midterms, polls, and Russia MS NOW