It's shocking to read some Chinese applauding "jail Hillary," - if you like dictator, why come here?
######
Taking a page straight out of the Kremlin political playbook, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said that if elected he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, prosecute and jail his political opponent Hillary Clinton. The threat violates virtually every more of American politics and democracy hearkening to brutal dictatorships like Russia.
The threat came as part of his response on her so-called email scandal (a faux scandal in which Republicans in Congress have completely exonerated Clinton of any wrongdoing).
Trump said:
If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. There has never been so many lies, so much exception.There has never been anything like it. We will have a special prosecutor. I go out and speak and the people of this country are furious. The long time workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this with emails. You get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails and acid wash them or bleach them. An expensive process. We will get a special prosecutor and look into it. You know what, people have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. You should be ashamed.
When allowed to respond, Clinton said:
Everything he said is absolutely false. It would be impossible to be fact checking Donald all the time. I would never get to talk and make lives better for people. Once again, go to Hillaryclinton.com. You can fact check Trump in realtime. Last time at the first debate we had millions of people fact checking and we will have millions more fact checking. It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
To which Trump threatened, “Because you would be in jail.”
This is the point we’ve reached as a nation where a political candidate threatens – during an active election cycle – to jail his opposition.
Threatening to jail a political opponent who has not committed or been convicted of a crime is a direct assault on democracy, full stop. More frighteningly, it aligns with his earlier statements threatening to take other unconstitutional actions including gutting the First Amendment to censor the press.
Moreover, Putin actually engaged in this exact sort of political maneuver in Ukraine after installing a new president and having his political opponent jailed.
This is everything we feared about Donald Trump. His long history of trying to silence critics with lawsuits, his inability to let personal slights go, his pettiness: The nightmare scenario is that these would incline him to use the power of the presidency to forcibly silence his critics and opponents. That’s what is done by tin-pot dictators spanning the globe from North Korea to Zimbabwe. That’s what happens in countries where peaceful transitions of power are the exception, not the rule.
Donald Trump just threatened to bring that to America.
Once again Trump has shown us just how much he admires Putin. He admires him so much he’d turn the United States into a hard line dictatorship that jails political opposition – an act that would literally begin the dissolution of our democracy.
Federal prosecutors have enormous power, none greater than their unfettered ability to conduct criminal investigations and to pursue criminal charges. The decision to prosecute can destroy lives, even when charges are later dismissed or when a jury acquits the defendant. Even the existence of a criminal investigation and the threat of criminal prosecution can irreparably damage reputations.
For that reason, there are few principles more sacred to the rule of law than the understanding that we should never politicize criminal prosecution and never deploy criminal charges as a political weapon. It is shocking that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both of whom were United States attorneys, have argued as surrogates for Mr. Trump that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted. As former prosecutors, they know better.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/vengeance
TJKCB 发表评论于
to be a rambling, swaggering bully. Listening to him for an hour and a half is like being hit on the head constantly by a rubber hammer — or listening to a classic tavern drunk, full of bluster and bluff, plentiful exclamations and very few facts. To saddle this barstool blatherer up with the full force of the greatest military in the history of the world is to beg for one of Mr. Trump’s favorite words: “disaster.” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/the-barroom-brawl-in-st-louis
根据第五条修正案的规定，被告不能作为证人，也不能利用被告的言论为被告自己定罪，所以被告说话可以尽可能少或拒绝回答问题，以免对自己不利。修正案是这样陈述的：“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
回复 '阿留' 的评论 : What you claimed here was wrong, period.
雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:28:53
回复 '阿留' 的评论 : How can you say that "英语一句只有一个主语，增加主语必须用分句、分号或句号。"? Please read this sentence that I copied from the web, there were certainly two subjects, one for the first half and another one for the second half of the sentence:
"As Donald Trump's campaign reels over tapes of the presidential candidate's sexually aggressive comments about women in 2005, the Republican nominee now trails Hillary Clinton by double digits among likely voters, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. "
Please add "a" here. Thanks. 我说“一句一个主语”有点不准确，但多个主语在同一句时确实需要用分句(clause)或者分号，不能逗号到底。
文以止戈 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:15:50
好文章！
雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:13:56
Although I welcome diverse messages for the discussions here, but those posts with insulting words, phrases or sentences will be deleted immediately. I am very tolerant person. It's my obligation to clean up my backyard.
阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:08:58
Your English needs improvement. : ) You cannot use so many "," as you do in Chinese. Just a friendly reminder to save the reviewers/editors more time in the future.
雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:06:14
回复 '阿留' 的评论 : What you said here was not right at all: "英语一句只有一个主语，增加主语必须用分句、分号或句号。"
I have given you a real example below. :) So clearly you haven't read it.
One cannot propose to enjail his/her political opponent only because of the differences in political views. However, one could propose to prosecute that person because of his/her crime. In this debate, it is the latter case.
At the Republican Convention many were shouting "Put her in jail". That's also freedom of speech. : )
回复 '阿留' 的评论 : Your understanding on fifth amendment was wrong, my interpretation was accurate.
Although they are not exactly the same between Trump's comments and double jeopardy, I was more focusing on Trump's behavior to abuse his potential executive power, this was exactly the founding fathers' intention to prevent from happening.
雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:55:26
回复 'comeback' 的评论 : You should do your homework before you put anything here: http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-threatens-jail-hillary-clinton/
Democrats and Republicans Agree: Donald Trump Was Wrong to Threaten Hillary Clinton With Jail
The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith," i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.[77]
If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.[78] The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.
Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antiques dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a record four times for the murder of Danny Hansford and (after three mistrials) was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie omits the first three murder trials).”
comeback 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:45:54
川普说的"Because you'd be in jail",根据上下文来看，就是一虚拟语气。作者就这一烂英文水平，还成天在这里指点江山，自以为进入了主流社会
昨天晚上的辩论，那位Anderson Cooper的第一个问题居然就是让川普交代十年前的那番“黄色”讲话。看来民主党的媒体认为总统最重要的资格是由他是否讲色情决定的。果真如此，当年比尔 克林顿就应该因为做的远超于川普说的而被弹劾了。可当初就是因为民主党们的力保才使克林顿立于不倒。可见民主党们并不认为这类行为应当影响做总统的资格。既然如此，何以今天他们对川普发难，仅仅因言就要取消川普做总统的资格。
轮到希拉里讲话时，上来就讲：they go low，we go high。结果她立马开始评论川普的讲话，刚说了她要go high，分明就冲着川普的low去了。她对她的丈夫的low 并无深恶痛绝，非但不认为应当影响他做总统的资格，也不认为应当影响做她丈夫的资格，却对川普言论如此难以容忍，分明是利益驱使的双重标准。
