
马克·埃利亚斯又回来了。这位臭名昭著的民主党律师在2016年“通俄骗局”中扮演了关键角色,如今再次成为新闻焦点。《纽约时报》认定,他的律师事务所是不断扩大的丑闻的一部分,该丑闻涉及民主党试图在阿拉斯加用一名名为丹尼尔·J·沙利文的“诱饵候选人”来混淆选民。
Marc Elias is back. The notorious Democratic lawyer who played a critical role in the 2016 Russia hoax is again in the news. His law firm has been identified by the New York Times as part of the expanding scandal involving Democratic effort to confuse voters in Alaska with a decoy candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan.
对于熟悉埃利亚斯劣迹斑斑过往的人来说,这属于“惯犯重出江湖”的典型案例。
For those familiar with Elias’s checkered history, this is a case of rounding up the usual suspects.
涉及民主党候选人玛丽·佩尔托拉的丑闻本周迅速发酵。《纽约时报》的一篇重磅调查报道引述前工作人员称,她知晓本方竞选团队和民主党参议院竞选委员会(DSCC)的一项愤世嫉俗的行动,即在对阵现任参议员丹尼尔·S·沙利文(共和党,阿拉斯加)的竞选中,招募并推出一名“诱饵候选人”丹·沙利文,以此混淆选民。州和联邦层面的调查正在展开,数十份联邦传票如雨后春笋般落到了阿拉斯加。
The scandal involving Democratic candidate Mary Peltola has quickly snowballed this week. A New York Times blockbuster investigative report quotes former staff who claim she knew of a cynical effort by her own campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to confuse voters by recruiting and fielding a decoy “Dan Sullivan” candidate in the race against incumbent Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan (R-Alaska). State and federal investigations are now unfolding, with dozens of federal subpoenas raining down on Alaska.
诱导选民误投选票的做法极不道德,即便在当下这愤怒弥漫的时代,这也是一种独特的、可耻的阴谋。佩尔托拉和民主党此前一直否认参与了另一位沙利文的参选。因此,当《纽约时报》拿出证据,显示她据称知情,且民主党工作人员和律师从一开始就深度介入时,我们许多人感到惊讶——直到“马克·埃利亚斯”这个名字浮出水面。那时一切就都说得通了。
The effort to get voters to cast mistaken ballots is grossly unethical and, even in these rage-filled times, a uniquely disgraceful scheme. Peltola and the Democratic Party had long denied any involvement in the other Sullivan’s candidacy. So when the Times produced evidence that she allegedly knew, and that Democratic staffers and lawyers had been deeply involved from the beginning, many of us were surprised — that is, until the name “Marc Elias” emerged. Then it made more sense.
埃利亚斯律师事务所在本选举周期内已因威胁记者而登上新闻:如果记者继续追问前州长罗伊·库珀(北卡罗来纳州民主党参议员提名人)的健康状况,就将提起诽谤诉讼。更早些时候,埃利亚斯在一次失败的民主党杰利蝾螈划区(注:指为党派利益操纵选区划分)行动中引发轩然大波,他提出民主党领导人可以在法院叫停其激进的重新划分选区计划后,废除整个弗吉尼亚州政府。
The Elias Law Group was already in the news this election cycle for threatening reporters with defamation lawsuits if they kept asking questions about the health of former Gov. Roy Cooper, the Democratic nominee for Senate in North Carolina. Earlier, Elias caused a stir during an unsuccessful Democratic gerrymandering effort, raising the idea that Democratic leaders could abolish the entire Virginia government after courts blocked their attempted radical redistricting plan.
佩洛塔和库珀等人想要与由埃利亚斯领导的任何律所建立关联这一事实本身,就是对他们判断力和标准的谴责。
The fact that figures such as Peltola and Cooper wanted to be associated with any law firm headed by Elias is itself an indictment of their judgment and standards.
尽管在“全国共和党参议员竞选委员会诉联邦选举委员会案”等案件中败诉,埃利亚斯凭借其激进作风和党派热情,依然是许多左派人士的宠儿。让他臭名昭著的争议,反而让他在另一些人眼中备受推崇。
Despite his losses in cases such as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, Elias is still a favorite of many on the left thanks to his aggression and partisan fervor. The controversies that make him notorious to many make him popular with others.
埃利亚斯曾担任克林顿总统竞选团队的总法律顾问,当时该团队秘密资助了臭名昭著的“斯蒂尔档案”,并推动了虚假的“阿尔法银行阴谋论”。(他当时在珀金斯·库伊律所的合伙人迈克尔·苏斯曼后来因向联邦调查局作虚假陈述被起诉,但最终获判无罪。)2016年大选期间,克林顿竞选团队官员对记者撒谎,否认与“斯蒂尔档案”有任何牵连。
Elias was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy theory. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted but acquitted for making a false statement to the FBI.) Clinton campaign officials lied to reporters during the 2016 campaign, denying any involvement in the Steele Dossier.
大选结束后,记者们揭露了真相——克林顿竞选团队将为该档案支付的款项隐瞒在支付给珀金斯·库伊律所的560万美元“法律费用”中。《纽约时报》记者肯·沃格尔表示,当他试图报道此事时,埃利亚斯“强烈反驳,说‘你(或你的消息来源)搞错了’。”时报记者玛吉·哈伯曼后来指出:“资助此事的人撒谎了一年,还冠冕堂皇。”联邦选举委员会最终因这一欺骗行为制裁了克林顿竞选团队。
Journalists discovered the truth after the election — that the Clinton campaign had hidden payments for the dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that when tried to report the story, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’”Times reporter Maggie Haberman later observed that “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”The Federal Election Commission ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign for the subterfuge.
在自诩为民主捍卫者筹集资金的同时,埃利亚斯的团体却参与了选区划分,并采取了被批评为试图使共和党选票无效的行动,包括对民主党选举失利发起的失败挑战。
While raising money as the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, Elias’s group has been involved in gerrymandering and efforts criticized as seeking to invalidate Republican votes, including unsuccessful efforts to challenge Democratic electoral losses.
在马里兰州,埃利亚斯的团队支持另一项滥用选区划分的方案,法院认定该方案不仅违反马里兰州法律,还违反州宪法的平等保护、言论自由和自由选举条款。法院认定,拟议地图“颠覆了被统治者的意愿”。一家媒体网站指责埃利亚斯及其团体“通过选区划分操作赚取数百万美元”,同时公开谴责共和党的选区划分操作。
In Maryland, Elias’s team supported another abusive gerrymandering scheme that a court found not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the proposed map “subverts the will of those governed.”One media site accused Elias and his group of “making millions off gerrymandering efforts” while publicly denouncing Republican gerrymandering.
2024年,埃利亚斯的法律团队还被指控“推动阻止第三方总统候选人——包括康奈尔·韦斯特——出现在摇摆州选票上,因为他们可能会分走”民主党提名人卡马拉·哈里斯的选票。
In 2024, Elias’s legal team was also accused of pushing “to bar third-party presidential candidates — including Cornel West — from swing state ballots where they might siphon votes” from Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.
同样,《纽约时报》报道称,埃利亚斯律师事务所“代表索罗斯资助的德克萨斯州政治行动委员会(PAC)所做的工作……遭到一个左倾选举监督组织的反对,认为这破坏了旨在限制大额捐赠者影响力的法律。”他的团体为纽约州重新划分选区所做的工作被嘲讽为不仅无视选民的明确意愿,而且实际上使共和党选票失效。
Likewise, the New York Times reported that the Elias firm’s work “on behalf of a Soros-funded PAC in Texas … was opposed by a left-leaning election watchdog as undermining laws intended to limit the influence of major donors.”His group’s work for New York’s redistricting effort was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters and also effectively negating Republicans’ votes.
2024年,威斯康星州西区联邦地区法院首席法官批评埃利亚斯法律集团发起的其中一项挑战。詹姆斯·彼得森法官(奥巴马任命)表示,该论点“根本讲不通”。如今,埃利亚斯的团体与阿拉斯加的“诱饵候选人”丑闻有关联,据称该丑闻旨在诱导选民投错票。从事这种选民干扰的律师,其区别不在于才华,而在于意愿。有些事情大多数律师 simply 不会做。
In 2024, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin criticized the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”Now, Elias’s group is linked to the decoy scandal in Alaska, which allegedly aimed to make voters cast mistaken ballots. What distinguishes lawyers involved in this type of voter disruption is less their talent as their willingness. There are simply some things that most lawyers will not do.
在如何对待律师的问题上,这类争议中也存在差异。似乎涉及共和党律师的选举争议更容易以律师协会指控和吊销执照告终。以约翰·伊斯特曼为例,这位特朗普的前律师在加利福尼亚州被吊销执照,此前州律师协会专家组认定,他推动了毫无根据的法律理论,并密谋阻挠2021年1月6日的选举人票计数。
There is also a difference in how lawyers are treated in such controversies. It often seems that in election controversies involving Republican lawyers are more likely to end with bar charges and disbarments. Take John Eastman, the former Trump lawyer disbarred in California after a state bar panel found that he had pushed unfounded legal theories and conspired to obstruct the electoral vote count on Jan. 6, 2021.
尽管我公开反对伊斯曼的理论,但我反对剥夺其律师资格的做法,因为这会为寻求推进新颖或不受欢迎的追偿或责任理论的律师树立危险的先例。毕竟,左派律师经常提出可疑的理论,其中一些更多是出于意识形态而非法律驱动。此类争议很少上升到剥夺律师资格的程度,尤其是在有更合适的制裁手段可用的情况下,从训诫到罚款均可。
Although I publicly disagreed with Eastman’s theories, I opposed the effort to disbar him as setting a dangerous precedent for lawyers seeking to advance novel or unpopular theories of recovery or liability. After all, lawyers on the left routinely advance dubious theories, including some that are more ideologically than legally driven. Such controversies rarely rise to the level of disbarment, especially when more appropriate sanctions are available, ranging from reprimands to fines.
伊斯曼目前正请求最高法院推翻剥夺其律师资格的决定。埃利亚斯法律集团或佩尔托拉的律师不太可能面临类似的剥夺律师资格的行动——在我看来,除非他们涉及犯罪行为,否则也不应该面临。但这个国家按党派对待律师的差别待遇仍是一个日益令人担忧的问题。对共和党律师引来大量律师协会投诉的行为,对民主党律师却带来大量客户。
Eastman is currently asking the Supreme Court to overturn his disbarment. It is unlikely that Elias Law Group or Peltola’s lawyers will face similar disbarment efforts — nor should they, in my view, unless they were involved in criminal conduct. But the disparate treatment afforded to counsel in this country by party remains a growing concern. What draws a shower of bar complaints for Republican lawyers brings a windfall of clients for Democratic lawyers.
《纽约时报》援引消息来源称,佩尔托拉竞选团队的律师参与了这一行动,尽管他们此前曾告诉联邦法院,他们“缺乏相关知识或信息”并“否认关于这些目的的任何指控”。此类文件和陈述可能在州和联邦两级的调查中引发道德甚至刑事问题。
The New York Times has produced sources alleging that lawyers for Peltola’s campaign were involved in this effort, even though they previously told a federal court that they “lack knowledge or information” and “deny any allegation about those purposes.”Such filings and statements could raise ethical or even criminal questions in investigations at both the state and federal levels.
与此同时,阿拉斯加已有数万名选民投出了包含诱饵候选人苏利文的选票。如果佩尔托拉在计票中获胜,这可能导致国会爆发一场恶劣的斗争。到那时,我们将看到马克·埃利亚斯大显身手。
Meanwhile, though, tens of thousands of voters in Alaska have already cast ballots that included the decoy Sullivan candidate. This could result in a nasty fight in Congress if Peltola prevails in the vote count. And when it happens, that is where we will find Marc Elias in his element.
乔纳森·特利是法学教授,也是《纽约时报》畅销书《愤怒与共和国:美国革命未完成的故事》的作者。
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”