又来了。特朗普的表现简直就像希特勒。周五，《纽约时报》发表了一篇社论，标题颇具挑衅性：“特朗普正在启用威权镇压的旧工具”。这篇社论是为明尼苏达州民主党众议员伊尔汗·奥马尔辩护，后者因涉嫌移民欺诈等问题正接受调查。
Here we go again. Trump is behaving just like Hitler. On Friday, the New York Times published an editorial with the provocative headline "Trump Is Turning to an Old Tool of Authoritarian Repression." The editorial was a defense of Minn. Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is under investigation for potential immigration fraud and more.
为奥马尔辩护而祭出“希特勒论调”，是《纽约时报》编辑委员会想出来的。就骂人而言，这招很烂。
The Hitler defense of Rep. Omar was conjured by the Editorial Board of The New York Times. Insofar as name-calling goes, it’s lame.
这也是一种显而易见的转移视线之举。这就像孩子们在操场玩踢球作弊被抓时干的事。但有些孩子永远长不大。也许他们只是换了个更高级的游乐场，叫《纽约时报》。
It is also an unmistakable deflection. It’s the kind of stuff kids do in the schoolyard when caught cheating in kickball. But some kids never grow up. Perhaps they just move on to a fancier playground called The New York Times.
将特朗普比作希特勒，是《纽约时报》喜欢定期拿出来挥舞的一根陈旧的棍子，以此提醒读者：现任椭圆形办公室的主人是邪恶的。但在周五的这篇社论中，报纸以一种极其牵强的方式祭出了这一侮辱性比喻。
The Trump-Hitler comparison is a tired cudgel that the Times loves to trot out periodically to remind its readers that the current occupant of the Oval Office is evil. But in the newspaper’s Friday editorial, it deployed the insult in a remarkably disconnected way.
编辑们辩称，既然历史上的暴君——包括希特勒——都曾用“撤销政治对手的公民身份”作为“威权镇压的工具”，那么唐纳德·特朗普总统对奥马尔所做的必定也是这回事。
The editors argue that since tyrants in history —Hitler included— used "revocation of a political opponent’s citizenship" as a "tool of authoritarian repression" that must be what President Donald Trump is doing to Omar.
完全无视那些讨厌的东西，叫法律及其执行。事实上，《纽约时报》完全无视联邦法典，将其抛诸脑后，视为完全无关紧要或毫无意义。
Never mind those pesky things called the law and its enforcement thereof. In fact, the Times disregards the code of federal statutes entirely, tossing them out as utterly irrelevant or meaningless.
在他们的自负中，编辑们公开承认，他们对已知事实或证据知之甚少。“我们不装作知道这些指控是否站得住脚，”他们写道，并补充道，“那不是主要问题。”真的吗？像虚假陈述、欺诈、共谋和妨碍司法这类潜在犯罪就没有后果了？无关紧要？试着向大约6000名联邦检察官解释一下，他们职业生涯的大部分时间都在维护这类法律。
In their conceit, the editors openly confess that they are little acquainted with the known facts or evidence. "We do not pretend to know whether the allegations have merit," they write while adding, "They are not the main issue." Really? Are potential crimes like false statements, fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice of no consequence? Immaterial? Try explaining that to the roughly 6-thousand federal prosecutors who spend their professional careers upholding those types of laws.
《纽约时报》真正想要争论的——但不敢承认——是，一名民主党国会议员应该因其所憎恶的特定人担任总统，就能因涉嫌犯罪而逍遥法外。
What the Times is really arguing —but doesn’t have the courage to admit— is that a Democratic member of Congress should be entitled to get away with suspected crimes because a particular person they despise is president.
当然，这忽略了对奥马尔调查的最初版本是在乔·拜登总统任期内启动的。又是一个注定被忽略的碍事细节。
Of course, this ignores that the original incarnation of the Omar investigation began under the presidency of Joe Biden. Again, just another pesky detail destined to be overlooked.
相反，编辑委员会诋毁特朗普对“言论自由、法治和美国理想”的“践踏”。再煽情不过了。而且明显错误。
Instead, the Editorial Board traduces Trump for his "affront to free speech, the rule of law and American ideals." It doesn’t get more syrupy than that. And demonstrably wrong.
就拿言论自由来说。它从来就不是——也从未是——对移民事务中虚假陈述或欺诈的辩护。就此打住。
Let’s take free speech as an example. It is not —and never has been— a defense against false statements or fraud in immigration matters. Period.
更明显的是，《纽约时报》编辑们是如何歪曲“法治”的。这是一条可追溯至1215年《大宪章》的珍贵原则。它意味着所有人都受相同规则约束，并在法律体系中得到平等对待。
Even more obvious is how the Times editors managed to mangle "the rule of law." It is a cherished principle that dates back to the Magna Carta in 1215. It means that all people are subject to the same rules and receive equal treatment in the legal system.
但显然，《纽约时报》认为奥马尔高于法律，而特朗普不是。这真是个大逆转。
But apparently the Times believes that Omar is above the law while Trump is not. That’s quite the reversal.
你可能记得，在特朗普的刑事调查期间，同一家报纸发表了大量明确援引“法律面前人人平等”格言的评论文章和社论。这些话甚至被用作社论标题。
You may recall that during the criminal investigations of Trump, the same newspaper published numerous opinion pieces and editorials that explicitly invoked the maxim that "no one is above the law." Indeed, those very words were heralded in the titles of editorials.
可以预见，《纽约时报》指责特朗普试图“封杀批评者”，却故意省略了拜登司法部以起诉针对其对手的做法。
Predictably, the Times accuses Trump of trying to "silence a critic," conveniently omitting how Biden’s Department of Justice targeted his opponent with indictments.
但真正的杀手锏是，该报哭诉称“没有一名归化公民会安全”。这是个巧妙的把戏。如果在申请过程中说了实话，归化公民无需担心。但那些没有说实话的人，则受法治约束。
But the real kicker is how the newspaper sobs that "no naturalized citizen will be safe." That is a clever artifice. Naturalized citizens have nothing to fear if they told the truth during the application process. But those who did not are subject to the rule of law.
120年前，国会通过一项法规，在涉及欺诈或虚假陈述的情况下撤销公民身份。是民选立法者这么做的，而非特朗普。但总统竟然履行其宪法规定的执法职责，这怎么敢！至少《纽约时报》是这么想让你相信的。
Congress passed a statute 120 years ago revoking citizenship in cases of fraud or false statements. Elected lawmakers did that, not Trump. But how dare the president abide by his constitutional duty to enforce the law! Or so the New York Times would have you believe.
无论谁执政，政府都有义务在出现犯罪不法行为证据时进行调查。在我们的国家理想中，正义女神是蒙着眼睛的。绝不应该在乎某个人名字后面是字母“R”还是“D”。有人应该告诉《纽约时报》。
The government, regardless of who is in charge, has an obligation to investigate the possibility of criminal wrongdoing whenever evidence of it arises. In our national ideal, Lady Justice is blind. It should never matter whether there is a letter "R" or "D" after an individual’s name. Someone should tell the New York Times.
奥马尔坚决否认自己做过任何错事或违反任何法律。但不可忽视的是，是华盛顿特区的一位民主党法官，基于存在合理根据的充分证据，授权搜查了她的住所。
Omar flatly denies that she did anything wrong or violated any laws. But it cannot be missed that it was a Democrat judge in Washington, D.C. who authorized the search of her home based on sufficient evidence that probable cause existed.
被查获的证据及相关搜查令引发严重质疑。奥马尔是她自称的那个人吗？她的公民身份是否通过虚假陈述或欺诈获得？是否存在掩盖？她是否与自己的兄弟进行了假婚姻？
The evidence seized and the accompanying warrant raise serious questions. Is Omar the person she purports to be? Was her citizenship obtained through false statements or fraud? Was there a cover-up? And did she engage in a sham marriage to her brother?
奥马尔在最近一次采访中对后一个问题的回答，反而对自己不利。她说：“据我所知，没有。”这种谨慎且带有保留的回答，只会加剧怀疑。这是装傻充愣？还是可否认的合理推脱？抑或是一种技术性或法律化的措辞，旨在不撒谎的同时隐瞒真相？
Omar did herself no favors in a recent interview when she responded to the latter question by stating, "Not to my knowledge." That cautious and qualified reply only compounded suspicion. Was it feigned ignorance? Plausible deniability? Or was it a technical or legalistic phrase to avoid lying while hiding the truth?
《纽约时报》的记者们对伊尔汉·奥马尔案进行了大量报道。但编辑委员会似乎更感兴趣的是指责特朗普，而不是审视事实。
Journalists at The New York Times have done extensive reporting on the Ilhan Omar case. But the Editorial Board seems more interested in blaming Trump than examining the facts.
那么，如果事实证明这位女议员犯有公民身份欺诈罪，那些编辑们会怎么做？他们会为预先判断调查并谴责特朗普而提供真诚的自我批评或道歉吗？不太可能。他们仍会将他比作希特勒。因为那是他们运作的游乐场。
So, what will those same editors do if it turns out that the congresswoman committed citizenship fraud? Will they offer a sincere mea culpa or apology for prejudging the investigation and denouncing Trump? Not likely. They will still compare him to Hitler. Because that’s the playground on which they operate.