PBS高端访谈:对弹劾调查的期待（在线收听）

Karina Mitchell: For more on what's ahead in the impeachment inquiry and the continuing showdown between congressional committees and the White House, Emily Bazelon, a staff writer for The New York Times magazine, joins us now from New Haven, Connecticut. Emily, thank you so much for being here. We're heading into the second week of testimony, but it comes after some argue week one didn't really deliver the fireworks Democrats promised from their star witnesses. Who do you think is going to be key to hear from this week in helping them make their case for impeachment?

Emily Bazelon: You know, I think this is like a mosaic. And each witness is filling in a different part of the picture for us. One really key witness that I think everyone is waiting to hear from again is Gordon Sondland. He is President Trump's appointee to be the ambassador for the European Union.

So Sondland had this conversation with President Trump in which, according to another official, David Holmes, Sondland told President Trump that, no worries, Ukraine was going to do the investigating, the providing of presumably false information about the Bidens that Trump was requesting. So, I think we're going to see Sondland to try to figure out how to handle a report of a phone call, which could get him in a lot of trouble because he omitted it when he testified before Congress previously.

Karina Mitchell: Do you think that is possible Gordon Sondland doesn't testify? He'll definitely find himself in the hot seat, as you say.

Emily Bazelon: It's possible that he could plead the fifth, as we say, because if he has lied to Congress, that's a crime. We just saw another Trump associate, Roger Stone, be convicted of that crime on Friday. I would imagine, though, that it is in Sondland's best interest to try to clean this up. And the question will be, does that mean that he further implicates President Trump directly in this effort to pressure Ukraine?

Karina Mitchell: Yeah, it will be very interesting to see which way he goes. How do you think transcripts released yesterday from Tim Morrison and Penn's staffer, Jennifer Williams, both set to testify on Tuesday, tie in to all of this case that the Democrats are trying to make?

Emily Bazelon: You know, I think with Morrison and Williams, what you see is dismay on the part of these professionals in the State Department and the National Security Council. They're trying to run the regular agreed-upon policy in Ukraine. And they're getting a lot of interference and feedback from this irregular policy channel that Giuliani was running. And so they're filling in some of the details of this kind of end run around the policy making that the regular government was trying to pursue.

Karina Mitchell: What do you think the end game for Adam Schiff and Democrats is with all of this and the overarching role of Congress here to investigate when the executive branch says, it can't be investigated?

Emily Bazelon: Well, the Trump administration has taken a very unusual position in having a blanket refusal to allow anyone from the government to testify. Now, obviously, we have nonetheless had a parade of witnesses, but all of those people are testifying despite a direct order from the White House and this very unusual decision by the Trump administration to try to block all testimony that really flies in the face of Congress's responsibilities and and authority to investigate the executive branch. There are institutional interests at play here: Congress versus the president. And then there are partisan interests at play: Republicans versus Democrats. And we're seeing the Republicans in Congress seem to focus only on the partisan interests and not at all on their institutional prerogatives. And that is weakening Congress.

Karina Mitchell: We'll see how the very busy week ahead plays out. Emily Bazelon, thank you so much.

Emily Bazelon: Thanks for having me.

卡琳娜·米切尔：今晚，我们将了解有关弹劾调查的更多前端报道，国会各委员和白宫的持续停摆问题。艾米丽，《纽约失败》特约撰稿人今天从康涅狄格州的纽黑文市赶来加入我们的节目。艾米丽，感谢你到场。现在是提供证词的第二周。但是此前有些人说民主党并未从主要证人的证词中获得重磅消息。你觉得本周哪些消息会是有助于弹劾调查的关键消息呢？

卡琳娜·米切尔：我觉得这是一个混合体吧。每位证人都填补了一部分信息。有一位特别关键的证人是戈登·桑德兰，我想大家都很期待能听到他的证词。特朗普总统任命他为驻欧盟大使。据另一名官员大卫·霍姆斯称，桑德兰跟特朗普有过这样一次谈话：桑德兰对特朗普说，别担心，乌克兰会做调查的，会如特朗普所愿，提供拜登父子的虚假信息的。所以我想我们要见一下桑德兰来判断如何处理电话报告。这可能会让桑德兰陷入大麻烦，因为桑德兰之前在国会面前提供证词的时候忽略了这一点。

卡琳娜·米切尔：你觉得桑德兰有可能没提供证词吗？如你所说，他现在的处境可能很尴尬。

艾米丽：有可能他以第五修正案作为辩护理由，因为如果他对国会说谎的话，那就构成犯罪了。我们还看到了另一位特朗普的助手罗杰·斯通，此人在周五的时候被定了这样的罪名。不过，我想，把这件事好好善后对桑德兰本人是有利的。问题在于：这是否更加表明特朗普总统直接向乌克兰施压了呢？

卡琳娜·米切尔：没错，桑德兰会怎样抉择是我们都很感兴趣的事情。昨天，蒂姆·莫里森和珍妮弗·威廉姆斯的笔录公开了。这两人都是周二要提供为民主党花费气力所做的弹劾调查提供证词。

艾米丽：我觉得就莫里森和威廉姆斯来说，你可以看到国务院和国家安全委员会专业人士的惊慌。他们试图在乌克兰方面采取已经批准的常态化政策。他们试图从朱利亚尼开展的非常态化政策中起到干预的作用，同时获得反馈。他们为迂回进攻的政策填补了一些细节信息，这种政策是正常政府试图追求的。

卡琳娜·米切尔：你觉得采取这些手段的亚当和民主党的最后阶段会是什么样子呢？国会的首要任务是调查，但行政分支却说不能调查。

艾米丽：特朗普政府一反常态的采取了拒绝其政府内任何工作人员提供政策的立场。现在，显然，我们已经有多位证人了。这些人都提供了证词，虽然白宫方面下令说不许提供证词。特朗普政府一反常态地决定阻止所有人提供证词，这跟国会调查政府行政分支的职责相冲。这里有制度上的利益：国会和总统之间的利益纠葛。这里也存在党派的利益：共和党和民主党之间的利益纠葛。我们注意到，国会的共和党议员似乎专注于党派利益，而不关心制度利益的问题。这会削弱国会的力量。

卡琳娜·米切尔：我们会持续关注未来这一周的情况。谢谢你，艾米丽。

艾米丽：感谢邀请。