PBS高端访谈:针对特朗普的弹劾条款投票（在线收听）

Hari Sreenivasan: Joining us now for more on what comes next in the impeachment process and what a trial in the Senate may look like is Ryan Goodman. He's a professor of law at New York University and co-editor in chief of the "Justice Security" website. So, here we are. We're technically almost out of the House. It goes to the Senate now. And the rules and how it's even played out are one of those things that we're now thinking about.

Ryan Goodman: Right. So the critical next question really is, what will those rules be? Mitch McConnell gets to, in a certain sense, write them, as long as he has a simple majority of the Senate agreeing with him. So it's those critical Republicans right in the middle that determine what this will look like. Will there be witnesses? How fast will the entire process take? Are they just trying to get this out of the way or they're trying to make it look a little bit more robust than that?

Hari Sreenivasan: Now, the White House says they want witnesses. They want Hunter Biden on the stand. They want Nancy Pelosi. They want a bunch of other people. So is there an incentive then?

Ryan Goodman: If they open that door, if they open that door to some witnesses for the president's side, it's going to be very hard for them not to allow the House managers to bring witnesses. And then the key ones are the ones that they couldn't get in the House. John Bolton, I think, would be the star witness. Mick Mulvaney would be probably next on their wish list. Maybe Rudy Giuliani, though he is not the most reliable witness. And I think that's what's really at stake here. And I think the Democrats in the House, the House managers, have a strong argument as long as there're any witnesses: we want a real trial, these are the people that you want to hear from.

Hari Sreenivasan: And in this case, that there is a real trial. What is the role of the chief justice of the Supreme Court? Is he like a normal judge in these things? Is he just working within the confines of whatever the rules are that Mitch McConnell sets up?

Ryan Goodman: So the chief justice basically is regulated by the rules themselves. He's constricted. And in a certain sense, if the rules already are set up to say, no witnesses, there's nothing that he can really do about it. But if there is any wiggle room and as lawyers, there's lots of wiggle room and you can interpret certain rules different ways. If he has an interpretation of the rules, that sticks. That's the chief justice presiding over the proceedings. But he can be rebutted by a simple majority. I think a large part of this is not about the formal rules, but the legitimacy of how they decide to proceed. And yes, they might be, as many people think, like an acquittal in the Senate. But the question is, is an acquittal that the American public thinks was a fair process and a real trial, if indeed it comes to certain key questions that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says should be X, and then a political group of Republicans say not X. I think that's going to put them in some jeopardy.

Hari Sreenivasan: And technically, all the senators are part of the jury. And obviously we have now Republican senators that are saying, well, we have already decided before they've seen the trial, but this is also coming during a presidential season. Right? And so these there are campaign questions that are happening. How long will the senators be sticking around? Are they going to be there watching this the entire time?

Ryan Goodman: Yes. It's a strange confluence of events at this particular moment. It looks like the Senate will start the trial when they return early January. And that's the exact period of time for the Democratic primary heading in towards Iowa. And you have many of the senators who are up for that primary. So do they have to be seated for six days a week rather than on the campaign trail? That's one implication of it.

Hari Sreenivasan: All right. Ryan Goodman from the "Just Security" blog and NYU Law School. Thanks so much.

Ryan Goodman: Thank you.

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：今天，我们将来聚焦弹劾流程接下来的情况以及参议员审判的大概情形，今天节目的嘉宾是瑞恩·古德曼。瑞恩·古德曼是纽约大学的教授，是“正义的安全”网站的主编。那么，废话不多说了。现在的情况基本跟众议院无关了，而是走到了参议院这里。规则和规则发挥作用的方式是我们现在思考的问题之一。

瑞恩·古德曼：是的。下一个真正的关键问题是：规则会是什么？从某种程度来说，明奇·麦康奈尔要撰写规则，只要他能获得多数参议员的支持。所以，现在处于中立的共和党就成为决定局势的关键。会有证人出席吗？整个流程会有多快呢？他们是否要脱离当前情况，试着让形势更加激烈呢？

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：现在，特朗普政府表示他们希望证人出席。他们希望亨特·拜登站上证人席。他们也希望南希·佩洛西站上证人席。此外，他们还希望其他几人能出席。这背后的动机是什么呢？

瑞恩·古德曼：如果他们敞开了大门，让一些证人站在特朗普这边的话，那么众议院的管理者们就很难不让证人出席了。然后，关键证人就会是那些无法出现在众议院上的证人。我觉得，约翰·博尔顿会是重要证人。众议员姆瓦尼大概是心愿单上的下一位了。或许鲁迪·朱利安尼并不是最可靠的证人。我想，这是真正的紧要关头。我觉得众议院的民主党人、众议院的管理者们都有有力的证据，只要他们有证人就行：我们想要的是真正的审判，有一些人的证词是你迫切想要听到的。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：这样的话，就有真正的审判了。最高法院检察官的角色是什么呢？在这些事情中，他还能扮演正常法官的角色吗？他是否要规规矩矩地遵从麦康奈尔设定的规则呢？

瑞恩·古德曼：首席法官要受规则本身的限制，这一点是肯定的。从某种程度来说，如果规则已经确定了，那么他就无能为力，只能遵从。但如果还有回旋的余地，那么律师就可以解读规则，以不同的方式从中斡旋。他是否对规则有自己的解读，这一点很重要。毕竟首席检察官是主持流程的人。不过，首席检察官也可以被多数议员驳回。我想，这件事的关键与正式的规则无关，与他们决定推进流程方式的合法性有关。而且，正如很多人所想的那样，他们或许会在参议院赦免。问题在于，这个赦免在美国公众的眼中是公正的流程，是真正的审判，而如果在某些关键问题上，最高法院首席检察官认为应该是X，共和党的某政治团体认为不是X。那么我觉得这个事情就很危险了。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：理论上来说，所有参议员都是陪审团的组成部分。现在，显然，有些共和党参议员认为，我们已经在他们见证过审判流程之前就做了决定，但这也是总统竞选季发生的事情。不是吗？所以，对于正在发生的事情，选举活动中会有人提出疑问。这些参议员能坚持多久呢？他们会一直在那里关注事态吗？

瑞恩·古德曼：可以说，在当前的特殊节点上，许多事情都汇聚到一起了。看起来像是参议院在1月回归的时候会开启审判。而按时候，民主党初选将把矛头指向爱荷华州。有多少参议员会参加初选呢？他们是否每周要来6天，而不能参加竞选活动呢？这是一种可能性。

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：好的。感谢来自“公正的安全”网站及纽约大学法学院的瑞恩·古德曼给我们解析的内容，非常感谢。

瑞恩·古德曼：谢谢。