Robert Mueller closed shop finding no crimes and no collusion with the Russians, What has the 25 million dollar probe produced?

Louie Gohmert : “There is not one single indictment that could not have been done by the current justice department.  ”

And how were these investigations carried out?

Sydney Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“FBI在凌晨搜查了麦纳福的家,撬开了门锁,把还在床上,刚被惊醒的麦纳福夫妻二人,置于枪口之下,对身着睡衣的麦纳福的妻子进行了搜身。我一听就知道这是Andrew Weissman的一贯作风, 我认为这是检察机关的恐怖行径。”
Sydney Powell :  “As soon as I heard that they raided Manafort’s home in the wee hours of the morning and picked the lock and had Manafort and his wife wake up in their bed with guns in their faces and search Manafort’s wife in the bed in her nightgown. That’s textbook Andrew Weissman. I call it prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”

The Democrats controlled House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena the unredacted Report. After the Mueller act is over, is it Congress’ turn to carry out Act II?

Christopher Farrell(司法观察调查研究主任):“这些政治人物将把‘迫使司法部公开报告原文’,作为筹款活动的主轴。”
Christopher Farrell : “All these politicians are going to go out and try to do fundraising off of, ‘They are fighting to get the report’. ”

And just how deep is the interlocking of top political powers, national security agencies and the media during the 2016 campaign and afterwards?

Christopher Farrell(司法观察调查研究主任):“她在短信里写道:‘POTUS要了解我们的全部工作。’,这里的‘POTUS’显然是指奥巴马总统。”
Christopher Farrell : “and she wrote in this text message quote: ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’ close quote. Of course ‘POTUS’ means Mr. Obama.”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察调查研究主任):“我想知道奥巴马总统是否知情?何时知情?知情后做了哪些指示?他都批准了些什么?”
Christopher Farrell : “So my question is for Mr. Obama. What did he know, when did he know it? What did he direct? What did he approve? ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):欢迎来到《世事关心》,我是萧茗。特别检察官罗伯特·穆勒最终判定,川普总统与俄国没有勾结。有很多事可以仔细思考,我们要问,穆勒调查到底是针对俄国插手美国政治,还是国家安全机构反对美国总统?更重要的是,我们要知道,

Welcome to Zooming In, I am Simone Gao. There are many things to reflect on after Robert Mueller finally concluded there was no collusion between president Trump and Russia. We need to ask if the Mueller investigation was a sincere probe into Russian meddling in American politics or an extension of the national security agencies opposition to the president? More importantly, we need to know what exactly was the syndicate behind the Russian Collusion Hoax that included a presidential campaign, the FBI, the Justice Department and their allies in the media who injected tall-tales from the Russians into the country’s bloodstream. In this edition of “Zooming In,” we look for lessons learned for our new, post-Mueller world.

Part 1: Act II is Article I

On March 24, Special Counsel Robert Mueller handed the final conclusion of his Russia probe to the Justice Department. The two-year investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. The report also concluded the evidence was “not sufficient" to establish that Trump had obstructed justice and leaves the attorney general with the task of determining “whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." The Justice department concluded “There is no obstruction of justice.”

This chapter did not end here.

Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called the Attorney General William Bar to request the full unredacted report by April 2 which the Attorney General did not commit. On April 3, The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize a subpoena for the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.

The committee also authorized subpoenas for members in the Trump orbit, including former White House counsel Don McGahn; McGahn’s former chief of staff Ann Donaldson; former adviser Steve Bannon; former spokesperson Hope Hicks; and former chief of staff Reince Priebus.

Meanwhile, The House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal filed a formal request with the Treasury Department for the tax returns of President Trump for the past six years.

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):美国根据《宪法》第一条,设立了联邦政府的立法部门,即美国国会。今天,这个政府机构似乎更像是政客的“武器”。在这部永不落幕的剧本中,穆勒出演的第一幕结束后,是不是该轮到国会上演第二幕了?我访问了前陆军反间谍官员、司法观察调查研究主管克里斯托弗·法雷尔,请问他对通俄门调查的第二幕将如何展开。
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Today, this body of government seems to be weaponized by politicians more than ever.  In this never ending play, after Mueller’s Act I is over, is it Congress’ turn to carry out Act II? I asked Christopher Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer and the director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch, how Act II of the Russian Probe will play out.

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“您认为在众议院司法委员会发出传票后,司法部长并且请愿在众议院司法委员会发出传票后,把穆勒的完整报告交给他们吗?”
“Do you think the Attorney General should and would hand over the full mueller report to the house judiciary committee after they subpoena it. ”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察调查研究主任):“司法部长处理穆勒报告的要遵循一定的程序,这一过程也是受法律管辖的。而且这一过程还要受来自法律法规的约束,司法部长必须满足这些非常具体的要求。因此,我们要明白,这只是一种政治杂耍,就在众议院司法委员会的政治舞台上上演,与管辖司法部长行为的法律几乎没有关系,或者根本没有任何关系。司法部长目前正在审查穆勒的报告,他已经承诺公开这份报告,但他具体公开的内容是受限的。法律要求司法部长保护所谓的‘大陪审团材料’,这是提交给大陪审团的信息,永远不会被公之于众,大陪审团被要求保密,这是我们法理学体系的基础,机密信息、与隐私相关的信必须保密。作为一个清白的人,为什么非要卷入到你碰巧看到、听到的事情里去呢?”
Christopher Farrell: “Well there’s a process for the attorney general to handle the Mueller report and that process is governed by law. It’s also governed by regulations that come from the law itself and it’s very specific and it has a number of requirements that the attorney general must fulfill. And so in doing that, you know there’s sort of this political sideshow, this political theater that’s taking place in the House Judiciary Committee which has little or nothing to do with the law that governs the attorney general’s conduct. And so the attorney general is currently reviewing Mueller’s report. He has already pledged to make it public. But there are constraints on what he can make public. And so the law requires that the attorney general protect what’s referred to as “‘grand jury material" and that’s information that’s presented to a grand jury but it is not intended to ever be made public. Grand jury secrecy is a tenant. you know a foundation of our system of jurisprudence. There’s also classified information that has to be withheld and then there’s privacy related information. You’re an innocent person. So why should your name be dragged into something that you just happened to see, hear, etc. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“您的意思是说他们要求提供完整的报告原文是违法的。”
Simone: “ So you are specifically saying they are violating the law by asking for an unredacted version.”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察调查研究主任):“他们想要什么就可以要求对方提供什么。政治和法律是有区别的。在当下这种情况下,二者存在了共通点,所以有些政治家,他们有自己的政治意图,试图使用法律工具,迫使司法部长违反法律。这是一个令人难以置信的矛盾,是无稽之谈。也没有什么实际意义。其目的是作为宣传工具、作为一个筹款工具。所有这些政客都要自己筹备资金,试图用‘我们在争取得到这份报告’的理由来为自己筹款。实际情况并非如此,这是他们的政治噱头,以吸引人们对他们的政治主张的兴趣。”
Christopher Farrell: “Well they can ask for whatever they want. There’s a difference between politics and law. In this case they sort of intersect and so you have politicians with their own political agenda trying to use a legal tool to force the attorney general to violate the law. There’s an incredible contradiction in this and it’s nonsensical. But it’s not intended to make sense. It’s intended as a propaganda tool. It’s intended as a fundraising tool. All these politicians are going to go out and try to do fundraising off of, ‘They are fighting to get the report’. No they’re not. They’re doing a political stunt to generate and to energize interest in their political base.  ”

Coming up, can a sitting president be indicted?

Part 2: Can a Sitting President be Indicted?

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This policy was adopted by the DOJ’s office of Legal Counsel In 1973 during President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned in 1974, under the impeachment pressure from the House of Representatives.  This is why the House Judiciary Committee named Nixon as a quote “unindicted co-spirator”. It was also part of President Gerald Ford’s motivation to pardon Nixon to shield him from future indictments, since he no longer had the protection of being president.

DOJ reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo and concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

In practice, indicting a sitting president is subject to procedure conflict. In the case of the Mueller Probe, the special counsel and his staff were not independent of the Justice Department or its chain of command. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller and launched the investigation and throughout its active phase, Mueller reported to Rosenstein and his decisions were subject to Rosenstein’s approval. Because Rosenstein and Mueller and everyone else in the Justice Department works for the president, if Mueller indicted Trump for obstructing justice, he could order Mueller to withdrawn the charge or fire Mueller and hire someone else to withdraw the charge.

This is why the president cannot be indicted. Constitutionally, you cannot have the sovereign working against himself. As a practical matter, no president would allow one of his subordinates to prosecute him, let alone indict him.

For these reasons, the Framers placed the power to impeach, which is the constitutional equivalent of an indictment, with the House of Representatives. Once impeached, the president is literally put on trial in the Senate presided over by the chief justice.

The Mueller Probe is over, but constitutionally, the real action has always been in the House–and with Democrats winning control of the chamber in the 2018 midterms, House Democrats are taking center stage.

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):德克萨斯州共和党议员路易·戈莫特是前州法院法官,同时也是众议院司法委员会最资深的共和党人之一。任何弹劾川普总统的动议必须经过他的司法委员会。他告诉《世事关心》节目组,民主党人不会善罢甘休,停止与总统作对。但是,目前议会中的氛围也不赞成弹劾总统。
Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert is a former state judge and one of the most senior Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. Any move to impeach President Donald Trump must go through his committee. He told “Zooming In” that Democrats are not moving on from their efforts to undermine the president. But the mood in congress is not for impeachment either at this moment.

路易·戈莫特(德克萨斯州共和党议员): “至于弹劾,我认为已经不再具有任何实际意义。从特别检察官办公室内部人员中传出一些流言,说报告的实际内容比综述中提出的还要多。但是,不论特别检察官办公室内部的什么人传出的这些流言,你得这样理解,他们散布这些流言,他们本人很可能就是罪犯。所以,如果你愿意相信特别检察官办公室那些可能是罪犯的人说的话,那你去相信好了。不过,我认为我们需要对罪犯散布的所有传言进行调查,因为那些罪犯本身负有严查深究,匡扶正义的责任, 实际上真正的作恶者是他们自己。”
Louie Gohmert:“ Well as far as impeachment I don’t think that’s at all practical anymore. There are rumors from people within the special counsel’s office that are leaking out that there’s more than the summary indicated. But you also have to understand anybody in the special counsel’s office that’s leaking that information may well be criminals themselves for leaking that information. So if you want to take the word of potential criminals who were working in the special counsel’s office then that’s fine. But I think we need an investigation into all the leaking that’s going on by criminals that are supposed to be ferreting out and punishing (in)justice when actually they’re the perpetrators. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“对于司法部长巴尔处置纳德勒的作法以及穆勒的调查报告,你有何看法?”
“what is your take on how Attorney General Barr is handling himself with Nadler and the Mueller Report?”

Louie Gohmert: “ I know there were a lot of Republicans that, that thought a lot of Attorney General Barr even when he was nominated. I just don’t know the man and I didn’t know the man well enough. I mean I could read about him but that’s not really knowing him like I know Mueller after years of asking him questions and years of research on him so, I know him well and that’s one of the reasons I was very upset when he was appointed as special counsel. But as far as attorney general Barr’s conduct since being confirmed and made attorney general. I was a bit skeptical because I knew he had been there before and was friends with some of the people that I considered deep state problems. But I think he’s comported himself extremely well and, and is actually restoring some of the dignity to the office as head of the Department of Justice.”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“他提出将于5月2日到您的委员会作证。您会向他提什么样的问题?”
Simone: “He offered to testify before your committee May 2, what are your questions that you are going to ask him?”

Louie Gohmert:  “Well I don’t know. I have more questions for Mueller than I do Barr. I would really like to have Mueller back in front of our committee. He hasn’t been here to testify before our committee since he became special counsel. He had all kinds of bases for recusal himself, all kinds of reasons he should never have accepted the job, if he were an ethical, moral person concerned about justice. But he did. We do also know absolutely that there was a conspiracy between a foreign agent named Steele and the people who were foreign agents in Russia with whom he worked with the Clinton campaign and with high level officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI. That’s where the criminal conspiracy needs to be investigated. That’s where the real problem is. And I hope now we’ll get around to doing that. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“这个有多大的可能会发生? 这个调查有多大的可能会发生?”
Simone:  “How likely is that going to happen? That investigation.”

Louie Gohmert: “ It will not be as a result of a demand from the Judiciary Committee as I would have hoped, because our chairman has made clear…He takes a very very partisan approach to the investigation and the Department of Justice so… It fits an investigation into Clinton who is found to have perjured himself. He wants to protect the president and his administration at all costs as he did with President Clinton. But when it’s in the case of President Trump, a Republican where no criminality is found by anyone, no indictments, no criminality regarding anyone, including the president, with any type of conspiracy with Russia…He still wants to persist and prevent a true investigation into the real crimes that occurred. But the truth is you look at all the indictments that came as a result of the special counsel. There is not one single indictment that could not have been done by the current justice department.  ”

Coming up, Is the Deep State the new Fourth Estate?

Part 3: Is the Deep State the new Fourth Estate?

法国国王路易十六呼吁召开王国三阶级会议,以解决导致政府瘫痪的金融危机。这三阶层分别是贵族、神职人员和平民。20世纪60年代,美国记者开始把媒体称作 “第四阶级”,又称“第四权”。它是宪法的一个补充机构,可以跟政府和社会唱反调。在这次通俄门事件中,另一个势力强大的机构出现了——国家安全机构。
France’s Louis XVI called for the assembly of the kingdom’s three estates to resolve the financial crisis that crippled his government. The three estates were the nobility, the clergy and the commoners. In the 1960s, American reporters began referring to the media as the so-called Fourth Estate, an extra-constitutional body with a veto over the government and society. During the Russia Probe, yet another powerful estate surfaced, namely, the national security agencies.

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao): Sydney Powell,《特许撒谎》一书的作者。她曾在德克萨斯州和弗吉尼亚州的司法部工作了10年,在第五巡回上诉法院担任500多起上诉案件的首席律师。Powell告诉我,在过去两年里这种勾结论是毫无根据的。
Sydney Powell is the author of Licensed to Lie. She served in the Department of Justice for ten years in Texas and Virginia, and has been lead counsel in more than 500 appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Powell told me she knew for the past two years that the collusion narrative was groundless.

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“两年前我就知道他们整个的勾结的过程。我一开始在我看来就很明显,因为我认识Andrew Weissmann。他是穆勒特别工作组的首席检察官,事实上,他是我2014年出版的《特许说谎: 揭露司法部的腐败》一书中的头号反派。他极具造事的能力,他编造了针对Arthur Andersen的罪行,毁掉了这家公司和八万五千个工作岗位。直到三年以后,最高法院才推翻该判决。他还编造了针对Merrill Lynch四名高管的罪行,将他们无故关押了一年。所以,我亲自观察他的工作,我能从他们说的话和他们做事的方式上看出来,特别是当我看到严重节选过的,在‘对外国情报监控’法庭申请的对carter page 的监控申请里,什么实质内容都没有,没有法官应该在那上面签字,这绝对令人震惊。所以我本来以为会发现他们与俄罗斯没有勾结。但我也在期待,因为穆勒挑出了Weismann和一群厌恶川普的人,穆勒他们向民主党人喂料,试图为他们的弹劾行动提供素材。所以对穆勒他们没有肯定地说出绝对没有妨碍司法公正的证据,我并不感到惊讶。尽管他们应该这么说,本质上,他们并不建议总统因此而受到起诉。这和免责是一回事。但是,他们继续向民主党人喂料,说我们不能为他开脱,这是胡扯。”
Sydney Powell: “I’ve known for two years that they made up the entire collusion narrative that was obvious for me from the beginning because I know Andrew Weissmann, the lead prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s task force. He’s actually the lead villain in my book “‘License to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice", that came out in 2014. And he’s very capable of making things up. He made up crimes against Arthur Andersen and destroyed that company and 85,000 jobs only to be reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously three years later. And he made up crimes against four Merrill Lynch executives and sent them to prison for a year for nothing. So I’ve seen his work up close and personal. And I could just tell from the things they said and the way they went about doing it, especially when I saw the heavily redacted FISA application, the one on Carter Page, that they didn’t have anything. No judge should have signed off on that. It was absolutely appalling. So I was expecting a finding of no collusion with Russia. But I was also expecting because it was Weismann and a group of people who absolutely loathe President Trump that Mr. Mueller picked for his special council operation, that they would throw all kinds of red meat to the Democrats to try to give’em fodder for the impeachment effort. So I’m not surprised that they didn’t affirmatively say there was absolutely no evidence of obstruction of justice. Although that’s what they should have said. They essentially said that they’re not suggesting that he be indicted for that. That’s the same thing as an exoneration really. But yet they go on to throw red meat to the Democrats by saying well we can’t really exonerate him. That’s just baloney.”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“您的书是2014年出版的。”
Simone: “Your book came out 2014. ”

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“是的 ”
Sydney Powell: “Yes.”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“那么你揭露了Weissman。”
Simone: So you exposed Weissman then.

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“是的。”
Sydney Powell:“ I do. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“那么,我就在想这个时间,为什么当时没有引起穆勒的警觉呢?”
Simone:“ And then, I am just thinking about the timeline. Why didn’t that sound alarm for Mueller? ”

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“我本来应该引起他的警觉的,但是他花了二十年时间保护和提拔Weissman。”
Sydney Powell: “Well I should have. But Mr. Mueller spent protecting and promoting Mr. Weisman for 20 years. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“嗯!”
Simone:“ OK.”

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“穆勒先生把他安置在安然特遣部队,在那里他犯下了我在书中谈到的所有暴行。之后穆勒先生把他带回联邦调查局担任他的总法律顾问。尽管我们对韦斯曼提出了非常令人信服的申诉,尽管美国第五巡回上诉法院发现韦斯曼明显隐瞒了有利于辩方的证据,但穆勒一直在护着他。 接着,我在书中提到的另一个人莱斯利·卡尔德威尔,把韦斯曼带回了司法部。当时是洛雷塔·林奇担任部长。韦斯曼、卡尔德威尔和林奇这三个人成为了我称之为‘深层政府交接团队’的一帮人。他们和克里斯托弗·斯蒂尔、布鲁斯·欧尔里应外合,搞出来这个黑卷宗。把黑卷宗弄到联调局和司法部,都是在韦斯曼成为特别检察官小组成员之前很久的事情。我是说真的是韦斯曼和 Ahmad插手过的每一件事情,Ahmad也和克里斯托弗·斯蒂尔配合搞黑卷宗。每一件他们插手过的案件,都应该以政府极端行为不当为由予以撤销。”
Sydney Powell: “Mr. Mueller had a hand in putting him on the Enron Task Force where he committed all the atrocities that I talk about in my book. And then Mr. Muller brought him back into the FBI as his general counsel after that. And even though we filed a grievance against Mr. Weissman that was very compelling, and even though the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Mr. Weissman plainly suppressed evidence favorable to the defense, Mr. Muller kept protecting him. And then Leslie Caldwell who is also in the book, brought him back into the Department of Justice when Loretta Lynch was attorney general and they became what I call the “Deep State Transition Team" that then went about running the back channel with Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr, to do the dossier…getting it to the FBI and through the DOJ and all that, long before Weismann went on the special counsel force. I mean really everything Weissman and Ms. Ahmad touch…She was running the back channel with Christopher Steele too. Everything they touch should be thrown out for egregious government misconduct. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“所以你认为穆勒知道这一切,他完全了解韦斯曼。”
Simone: “And so you think Mueller knew all this and he knew Weismann from the inside out. ”

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“是啊,我想这就是为什么他选他做特别检察官的原因。因为穆勒知道韦斯曼是个多么卑鄙的检察官。我听说他们在凌晨袭击了马纳福特的家,撬开门锁,用枪指着躺在床上的马纳福特和他的妻子,并搜查了正穿着睡衣的马纳福特的妻子。这就是典型的安德鲁·韦斯曼作风。我称之为起检察机关的恐怖手段。”
Sydney Powell: “Oh yeah I think that’s why he picked him for the special counsel operation. Because he knew what a dirty prosecutor he is. As soon as I heard that they raided Manafort’s home in the wee hours of the morning and picked the lock and had Manafort and his wife wake up in their bed with guns in their faces and search Manafort’s wife in the bed in her nightgown. That’s textbook Andrew Weissman. I call it prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“在奥巴马执政期间,招收新人时保守派人士是很难进入司法部的,是吗?”
Simone:“ Is it true that during the Obama time, when they hired new people, it was very hard for the Conservatives to go into the Justice Department?”

Sydeny Powell(《特许撒谎》作者):“不一定。我认为,20年来司法部变得越来越糟。这是一个缓慢的过程,奥巴马可能加剧了这个过程,他纵容检察官肆意践踏人民的权利,并将目标对准人民。从未见过联邦机构像奥巴马执政期间,我们看到的搞的那么政治化、武器化。从环保局到国税局,从国务院到司法部,无不如此。不夸张地说,他把特警队派到了环保局,我是说环保局和其它联邦机构都搞得军事化了。”
Sydney Powell: “Not necessarily. I think the Department of Justice has gotten progressively worse over the last 20 years. It’s been a slow process. Obama probably doubled it and ramped it up in terms of allowing prosecutors to run rampant over people’s rights and target people. I mean I’ve never seen such politicization and weaponization of all federal agencies as we’ve witnessed during the Obama administration. I mean from the Environmental Protection Agency to the IRS to the State Department to the DOJ. He literally put SWAT teams in the EPA. I mean militarized SWAT team for the EPA and other federal agencies. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao): 在美国历史上,国家安全机构从未如此密切地与一位总统候选人合作,却与另一位总统候选人对抗。而且,在他们支持的候选人竞选失败后,这种对抗还依然继续。这些国家机构没有成为第五级,却与左翼媒体联手,成为了一个新的更强大的第四级,差点推翻了一位合法当选的总统。更多细节,我与Farrell接着来谈。
Never before in American history have the national security agencies worked so closely with one presidential candidate and against another–and then, continuing that opposition after their candidate lost the election. Rather than becoming a Fifth Estate, these agencies and the left-wing media joined forces forming a new more powerful Fourth Estate that nearly ousted a duly-elected president. For more details, Here is the rest of my conversation with Farrell.

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“联邦法律和宪法规定,未经授权不得对美国公民进行监视。 但是,奥巴马政府的人取消了对几百位这样被偶然监视到的美国人身份的隐蔽。这是怎么回事呢?”
Simone: “Federal law and the Constitution forbid unwarranted surveillance of U.S. citizens, so when Americans are picked up incidentally, their identity is masked. Yet, members of the Obama administration made hundreds of requests to “unmask” US citizens accidentally picked up in surveillance–what was going on?”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察/调查研究所主任):“问得好。大家知道,前美国驻联合国大使萨曼莎·鲍尔,她或她的办公室至少提出了几百项身份披露要求。这是惊人的,首先,作为美国驻联合国大使,她无权访问高度机密的情报信息,这不属于她的职责范围,不属于她的工作范围。”
Christopher Farrell: “That’s a great question. We know that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power… I think at least a couple of hundred unmasking requests have come either from her or from her office. That’s astonishing. First of all she, I mean really as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., She has no business accessing extremely classified, signals intelligence information. It’s just not in her portfolio. It’s not part of her job.”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“苏珊·赖斯是可以理解的。但是她…”
Simone Gao: “Susan Rice is understandable. But her…  ”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察/调查研究所主任):“是的。所以这是一个好奇心。请求司法部长进行刑事调查,因为我们看到了滥用执法手段和情报手段,这是我们历史上从未见过的。我想,最重要的政治危机就是‘水门事件’。尼克松时代的丑闻和危机迫使他辞职。我们所看到的这个人为的骗局,俄罗斯歇斯底里,使水门事件看起来像一个笑话。我的意思是,这对宪法是一个非常严重的威胁。滥用执法和情报机构去追击政治候选人就是犯罪。”
Christopher Farrell: “Yeah. And so,Again this is a, It’s a curiosity. It begs… begs for a criminal investigation by the attorney general because we’ve seen the abuse of law enforcement techniques and intelligence techniques the likes of which we have never seen in our history. You know the sort of the I guess the benchmark political crisis of all, that everything is sort of measured against is Watergate. The Nixon era scandal and crisis that forced his resignation. What we’ve seen with this manufactured hoax, Russia hysteria, makes Watergate look like a joke. I mean this is a really, very grave threat to the Constitution. It’s a criminal, corrupt abuse of our law enforcement and intelligence services to go after a political candidate. And really to try to manufacture or orchestrate a coup. We’ve never had that sort of a planned deliberate revolt emanating from our government against the sitting president. Nothing like it.  ”
萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“这些人是奥巴马政府故意针对的吗?”
Simone: “Are these individuals intentionally targeted, that is my question, by the Obama administration? ”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察/调查研究所主任):“是的,我觉得这不是偶而为之,不是一种漫不经心之举。比如今天下午你没有别的事要做,干嘛不去披露一些人呢。这是一个非常严重、非常深思熟虑的过程,真的应该给国家安全局敲响警钟,因为这很罕见,很特殊,有非常具体的要求。这不是经常做的。当你看到 Samantha Power提交了200个奇怪的请求时,你可能会想,某些地方的某些人很反常,我们以前从未见过这种情况,为什么这个人这么急切地想盯这些人。这是一个异常现象,非常令人担忧。”
Christopher Farrell:  “Yeah I mean it’s not something that you just sort of do by accident or you know… It’s a not a cavalier sort of you know… You have nothing else to do this afternoon. So why not go unmask some people. It’s a very serious, very deliberate process that really should have set off alarm bells at the National Security Agency because it is rare, it is exceptional, there are very specific requirements. It’s not done very often. And you know when you see Samantha Power submitting 200 and some odd requests, somebody somewhere, you would think, would have said you know, this is highly irregular. We have never seen this before. Why from this person with such urgency looking at these people. It is a… It’s an aberration that is extremely alarming. ”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):“您如何描述克林顿竞选团队、国家安全机构和媒体在2016年竞选期间及之后的相互关联?”
Simone: “How would you describe the interlocking of the Clinton campaign, national security agencies and the media during the 2016 campaign and afterwards? ”

Christopher Farrell(司法观察/调查研究所主任):“ 如果你在寻找一个阴谋,一个真正的阴谋,看看克林顿竞选团队官员、司法部和联邦调查局人员、档案伪造者之间的非常熟络的关系。我认为这能说明问题,尤其是当你考虑到司法部和联邦调查局在得知克林顿触犯了《美国法典》第18章第793节时,他们否决了对她的电子邮件调查。毫无疑问,这是对涉及国防信息的不正当处理。科米先生根据法律提出了一项新要求,涉及法律中没有的意图。但他们竭尽全力为她开脱,因为他们不想让民主党的总统候选人被起诉,对吧? 我是说,有点公关的味道。但我认为,即使是更大、更大、最大的问题要追溯到丽莎·佩奇发给彼得·史卓克的一条短信。她非常激动地写给他,因为她正在为FBI局长科米准备谈话要点,好让他向总统简要介绍他们调查川普的活动,她在短信中写道: “POTUS想知道我们正在做的一切”。当然,POTUS的意思是奥巴马先生,对吧?当时是总统。这是丽莎·佩奇,她写短信的时候想的就是为FBI局长准备的简报,因为她知道科米要去见总统。她告诉史卓克,这一切的首席调查员,‘总统想知道我们正在做的一切’,时间是2016年9月。所以,我有问题要问奥巴马先生:他知道了什么?什么时候知道的?他作出了什么指示?批准了什么?”
Christopher Farrell:   “Sure. I mean if you’re looking for a conspiracy, a real conspiracy, look at the very cozy relationships between Clinton campaign officials, various persons in the Department of Justice and the FBI, the manufacturers of the phony dossier…and I mean, what that really gets to I think, particularly when you take into account that Department Justice and the FBI threw out the Clinton email investigation when they knew that she had committed crimes and very specifically I can tell you,18 United States Code Section 793 F. Which is the mishandling of national defense information. Without a doubt. Mr. Comey manufactured a new requirement under the law something concerning intent which is not in the law. But they bent over backwards to absolve her of any wrongdoing because they didn’t want to have the Democratic nominee for the president to be indicted. Right? I mean, a little bit of a public relations problem there. But I think even the larger, the greater, the greatest question goes back to a text that Lisa Page sent to Peter Strzok. And she wrote to him, very excitedly, because she was preparing talking points for the director of the FBI, Mr. Comey, to go brief the president on their activities going after Trump and she wrote in this text message quote: POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing" close quote. Of course ‘POTUS’ means Mr. Obama, Right? The president at the time. So here’s Lisa Page. She’s thinking about this briefing she’s preparing for the FBI director because she knows he’s going to go see the president. And she tells Strzok, who’s the chief investigator in all this, ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’, and that was in September of 2016. So my question is for Mr. Obama. What did he know, when did he know it? What did he direct? What did he approve?”

萧茗(Host/ Simone Gao):有关民主党人及其在政府中的盟友以及媒体如何试图逆转2016大选结果的内幕,仍未大白于天下。请持续关注《世事关心》,我们将一如既往地深度报道各方面的进展。请在Twitter上关注我们 ( @ZoomingInSimone ),并分享您的看法。您也可以关注我们的脸书专页并订阅我们的Youtube频道: Zooming In With Simone Gao。
The story of how Democrats and their allies inside government and media tried to overturn the 2016 presidential election is still unfolding. Stay with “Zooming In” as we continue to cover all the developments in depth.  Let me know what you think on Twitter @ZoomingInSimone. You can also join the conversation on our Facebook page and subscribe to our YouTube channel: Zooming In With Simone Gao. Good bye until next time.



Producer :Simone Gao
Writer  :Simone Gao
Editors   : Bonnie Yu,  Frank Lin,  Melodie Von, York Du
Narrator :Rich Crankshaw
Translation :Greg Yang,  Juan Li,  Xiaofeng Zhang,
Bin Tang,  Chu Yue
Transcription :Jim Battaglini
Cameraman :York Du, Teddy Lin, Ken Li
Special Effects :Harrison Sun
Assistant producer :Bin Tang,  Merry Jiang

Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique

New Tang Dynasty Television
Zooming In
April., 2019