|
川普觀察：爛人爛事錄 -- 開欄文
|
瀏覽30,246 ｜回應63｜推薦2 |
|
聯邦政府召回部份解雇公務員 - Isabel van Brugen
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
White House Begs Hundreds of Workers Fired by DOGE to Come Back
Isabel van Brugen, 09/24/25
The White House is begging hundreds of federal employees laid off by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to come back to work.
Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE fired tens of thousands of federal workers as part of sweeping government cost-cutting efforts. The SpaceX and Tesla CEO, who is no longer associated with DOGE, said he wanted to reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.
But the strategy apparently backfired at the General Services Administration (GSA), as hundreds of employees who managed government workspaces are being offered their jobs back. They have until Sunday to make up their minds, according to the Associated Press, which cited an internal memo.
GSA slashed staff at its headquarters by 79 percent, its portfolio managers by 65 percent, and facilities managers by 35 percent, according to a federal official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The understaffed GSA was left in a mess, according to another former employee who said the downsizing happened too quickly. Too many people were given the boot and GSA has been in a “triage mode” for months, he said.
“Ultimately, the outcome was the agency was left broken and understaffed,” former GSA real estate official Chad Becker told the news agency. “They didn’t have the people they needed to carry out basic functions.”
Employees who choose to accept reinstatement will be back to work on Oct. 6, after what AP said amounted to “a seven-month paid vacation.”
During that time, it added, GSA has incurred significant expenses to maintain office space. The federal agency continued paying for dozens of properties it had intended to vacate or whose leases had expired, with the costs ultimately borne by taxpayers.
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House and GSA for comment.
GSA is just one of several federal agencies targeted by DOGE as part of brutal efforts to slash costs across the board.
DOGE claims to have slashed $206 billion in wasteful spending since Jan. 20 through a combination of asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
「和尚打傘」的川痞又被法官打臉 -- Greg Sargent
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
Trump’s Own Tweet Backfires on Him as Judge Delivers Harsh Loss on Fed
The evidence that led a federal judge to declare that Trump’s firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook broke the law? Some of it was provided by Trump himself.
Greg Sargent, 09/11/25
It has eluded many observers, but President Donald Trump has suffered mounting legal losses lately on some of his biggest-ticket initiatives, and now comes a new ruling blocking another biggie: his firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The decision—in federal district court in Washington, D.C.—concludes that the firing broke the law because he lacked any rationale rooted in her actual conduct on the job.
Yet buried in the ruling is an amusing tidbit worth highlighting: Judge Jia Cobb cited one of Trump’s own tweets to buttress the case that he’d acted unlawfully. The judge wrote that the timing of Trump’s initial tweet calling for Cook to resign suggested she’d been denied due process. Which opens a window into a bigger story: The lower courts are doing important work in creating concrete fact sets around Trump’s illegal actions that illustrate the deep rot of bad faith eating away at their core—thus exposing an essential element of his ongoing lawlessness.
On August 20, Trump tweeted: “Cook must resign, now!!!” The tweet linked to a news story reporting that the administration had supposedly found that Cook committed “mortgage fraud,” which became Trump’s stated rationale for removing Cook. Trump needed this rationale because by law he can only remove a member of the Fed “for cause.” He needs a legitimate reason to do so, a provision that insulates the Fed’s independence from political meddling.
Trump’s stated rationale is exactly what the court knocked down. The ruling—which reinstated Cook as the case plays out—concludes that this rationale does not satisfy the “for cause” requirement. This must be “limited to grounds” involving a Fed governor’s “behavior in office” and execution of “statutory duties.” The grounds can’t be some other conduct like this “mortgage fraud” allegation, the ruling said.
Now comes the funny part. But first, some background.
Barely half an hour before Trump’s August 20 call for Cook’s resignation, a top loyalist miraculously provided the pretext for it. William Pulte, a die-hard Trumpist who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which oversees mortgage markets, tweeted a referral he’d made to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, claiming to have evidence that Cook improperly classified multiple primary residences for mortgage purposes.
In a shocking coincidence, Pulte has “found” evidence of similar mortgage fraud by other prominent Trump foes, including California Senator Adam Schiff. The charges are an utter joke as a rationale for Trump’s actions: We’ve now learned that Trump officials and even Pulte’s relatives committed similar offenses. Pulte appears to be using his agency post to rummage through the mortgages of Trump foes to manufacture pretexts for prosecuting or firing them, which is itself a serious abuse of power.
Trump tweeted his call for Cook’s resignation around 30 minutes after Pulte’s tweet went out. It’s unlikely this could have happened without someone in the White House being fully in the loop on what was coming. Indeed, Pulte’s manipulations are likely being executed at the direction of the White House or with its assent.
This timing is exactly what the judge seized on. The ruling noted that Cook was denied due process, and one reason it cited is that Cook never got a chance to defend herself from the “mortgage fraud” charges before her removal.
“At no point did President Trump indicate that Cook would be provided an opportunity to argue that the allegations were untrue or did not merit removal,” the ruling said. “Instead, shortly after Director Pulte’s social media post was made public, President Trump called for Cook to resign—a far cry from inviting an opportunity to contest the allegations.”
In short, the very fact that Trump tweeted the call for her resignation right after Pulte’s “allegations” dropped itself shows how corrupted the process is here. As the ruling noted, Trump’s formal letter removing Cook followed only several days later—again without any warning or opportunity for Cook to defend herself.
“Trump’s public tweets very much complicate the administration’s effort to defend its actions,” Benjamin Klubes, a former acting general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and now a white-collar criminal defense attorney in D.C., told me. Klubes added that all this “demonstrates clearly the pretextual nature of the allegations against Ms. Cook,” and helps expose Pulte’s role in the scheme as “unusual and suspicious.”
Now, it’s unclear whether these facts about the timing—or the broader due process violation—will ultimately play a role if Cook does win. Perhaps it will merely be the failure to fire “for cause” that does it. Or maybe the Supreme Court will side with Trump in the end.
But it’s notable that the court went here for another reason. On one front after another, Trump has been manufacturing pretexts for his illegal actions with no constraint whatsoever. He’s invoked antisemitism to justify blocking billions in grants to Harvard, which everyone knows is nonsense. He’s used the Alien Enemies Act for deportations by absurdly claiming Venezuelan gang members constitute invasion by a hostile foreign nation. His tariffs rest on the knee-slapper that trade deficits pose an economic emergency.
This pileup of bogus rationales has thrust the lower courts into a critical role, as law professor Leah Litman recently detailed on our podcast. Again and again, they’ve engaged in painstaking fact finding to establish that those rationales are, to put it in technical terms, complete and utter horseshit. The ruling invalidating the deportations carefully constructed the facts on Tren de Aragua’s supposed “invasion.” The decision blocking Trump’s strong-arming of Harvard did something similar on the specious “antisemitism” rationale.
The problem, of course, is that the Supreme Court could undo much of this. Sherrilyn Ifill demonstrates that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the high court’s ruling allowing racial profiling in ICE arrests shows a stunning aversion to known facts about how arrests and detentions are playing out. The same might happen when the high court evaluates Trump’s pretexts for tariffs, the assault on Harvard, “alien enemy” deportations, and more, Litman argues: “This Supreme Court, like the Trump administration, has been all too willing to just ignore the facts.”
On the Cook affair, everyone knows exactly how the Trump-Pulte two-step works. Schiff’s lawyer, Preet Bharara, just released an extraordinary letter laying out detailed reasons why Pulte’s manipulations are corrupt and possibly illegal. Even some Republicans are fed up with Pulte. He’s running a big scam for Trump, and the whole sordid story is told in none other than Trump’s own tweet.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
世人眼中川普就像個國際小丑 - Tom Nichols
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
我已經有段時間不轉載《大西洋月刊》上的評論；因為，像我這樣厭惡川普的人，都覺得該雜誌做為老牌一流媒體，毫不掩飾其「反川普」立場(情結？)，過於「偏頗」。我至少偶而還會根據「平衡報導」原則，刊登一、兩篇我甚不以為然的文章。
不過，尼可斯博士文風雖然尖酸刻薄，分析倒也切中事實和問題要點(該欄2025/02/19 08:25，第2節的「官員素質」)；故介紹於此。
The World No Longer Takes Trump Seriously
At parades and in the halls of global power, America has been sidelined.
Tom Nichols, 09/05/25
The leaders of Russia, China, and North Korea are not good men. They preside over brutal autocracies replete with secret police and prison camps. But they are, nevertheless, serious men, and they know an unserious man when they see one. For nearly a decade, they have taken Donald Trump’s measure, and they have clearly reached a conclusion: The president of the United States is not worthy of their respect.
Wednesday’s military parade in Beijing is the most recent evidence that the world’s authoritarians consider Trump a lightweight. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s maximum nepo baby, Kim Jong Un, gathered to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. (Putin’s Belarusian satrap, Alexander Lukashenko, was also on hand.) The American president was not invited: After all, what role did the United States play in defeating Japan and liberating Eurasia? Instead, Trump, much like America itself, was left to watch from the sidelines.
But the parade was worse than a mere snub. Putin, Xi, and Kim stood in solidarity while reviewing China’s military might only weeks after Putin came to Alaska and refused Trump’s pleas to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. The White House tried to spin that ill-advised summit into at least a draw between Putin and Trump, but when the Kremlin’s dictator shows up with no interest in negotiation, speaks first at a press conference, and then caps the day by declining a carefully planned lunch and flying home, that’s a humiliation, not an exchange of views.
Nor has Trump fared very well with the other two members of this cheery 21st-century incarnation of SPECTRE. In the midst of Trumpian chaos, Xi is adroitly positioning China as the new face of international stability and responsibility. He has even made a show of offering partnership to China’s rival and former enemy India: Chinese diplomats last month said that China stands with India against the American “bully” when Trump was, for some reason, trying to impose 50 percent tariffs on India.
Likewise, the North Koreans, after playing to Trump’s ego and his ignorance of international affairs during meetings in the president’s first term, have continued their march to a nuclear arsenal that within years could grow to be larger than the United Kingdom’s. Trump was certain that he could negotiate with Kim, but the perfumed days of “love letters” between Trump and Kim are long over. Pyongyang’s leadership seems to know that it costs them little to humor Trump politely, but that they should reserve serious discussion for the leaders of serious countries.
Trump responded to his exclusion from the gala in Beijing by acting exactly like the third-tier leader that Xi, Putin, and Kim seem to think he is. As the event was taking place, Trump took to his social-media site—of course—to express his hurt feelings with a cringe-inducing attempt at a zinger. “May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration. Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”
Now, the reality is that Russia, China, and North Korea are conspiring against America, but it is beneath both the dignity and the power of an American president to whine about it. Trump continued his unseemly carping with a demand that China recognize the valor of the Americans who died in the Pacific:
The big question to be answered is whether or not President Xi of China will mention the massive amount of support and 'blood' that The United States of America gave to China in order to help it to secure its FREEDOM from a very unfriendly foreign invader. Many Americans died in China’s quest for Victory and Glory. I hope that they are rightfully Honored and Remembered for their Bravery and Sacrifice!
This message does not exactly project confidence and leadership; instead, it sounds like the grousing of a man beset by insecurities. A more self-assured commander in chief would have ignored the parade and, if asked about it, would have said something to the effect that the United States has always respected the sacrifices of our allies in World War II. But not Trump: He petulantly declared that he would not have attended even if the cool kids had invited him.
Authoritarians are unfortunately in good company in treating Trump as an incompetent leader. Even America’s allies have recognized that Trump may be their formal partner, but that they mostly get things done with the American president by soothing his ego and working around him. After Trump emerged from the summit in Anchorage essentially parroting Putin’s talking points, seven top European leaders rushed to Washington to tell Trump that he had done well and that they truly, really respected him, but that perhaps he should hold off on being a co-signer of Kremlin policy.
Trump’s damage to American power and prestige would be less severe if the president had a foreign policy and a team to execute it. He has neither: Trump ran for president mostly for personal reasons, including to stay out of prison, and his foreign policy, such as it is, is merely an extension of his personal interests. He holds summits, issues social-media pronouncements, and engages in photo ops mostly, it seems, either to burnish his claim to a Nobel Prize or to change the news cycle when issues such as the economy (or the Jeffrey Epstein files) get too much traction.
Worse, Trump is no longer surrounded by people who care about foreign affairs or can competently step in and create consistent policy. In his first term, Trump had a secretary of defense, James Mattis, who helped to create a national-defense strategy, a document that Trump might have ignored but was at least promulgated to a national-security establishment that needed direction from someone, somewhere. Now, at the Pentagon, Trump has Pete Hegseth, who shows little apparent inclination or ability to think about complexities.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio was supposed to be one of the new “adults in the room,” but he has instead become a man in a Velcro suit, with the president sticking jobs and responsibilities onto him without any further guidance. He has been reduced to sitting glumly in White House press sprays with foreign leaders while Trump embarrasses himself and his guests. Meanwhile, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is spending her time trying to root out the spies she thinks hate the president. Unfortunately, the agents she’s hunting are Americans, which must bring a smile to Xi’s face and perhaps even produce a belly laugh from former KGB officer Putin.
America is adrift. It has no coherent foreign policy, no team of senior professionals managing its national defense and diplomacy, and a president who has little interest in the world beyond what it can offer him. Little wonder that the men who gathered in Beijing—three autocrats whose nations are collectively pointing many hundreds of nuclear weapons at the United States—feel free to act as if they don’t even think twice about Trump or the country he leads.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
相關閱讀
Tom Nichols: Who’s running American defense policy?
Jonathan Lemire: How Putin humiliated Trump
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
川普接管華盛頓特區警察局搞烏龍 -- Ryan J. Reilly
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Bondi backs off initial order to take over D.C. police, issues new directive that keeps chief in place
The development came after Washington, D.C.'s attorney general filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department.
Ryan J. Reilly, 08/16/25
WASHINGTON — Washington, D.C.'s police chief is the force's top official once again, after the Trump administration rescinded an order that stripped her of power less than a day after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued it.
As part of an agreement struck Friday between attorneys from the Department of Justice and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb's office, Drug Enforcement Administration Chief Terry Cole will now be considered Bondi’s “designee,” instead of the emergency police chief, a position Bondi sought in her original order that claimed federal control of the department.
The agreement allows Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith to maintain control of the day-to-day operations of her department, while taking orders from Mayor Muriel Bowser.
In a new order Bondi issued Friday evening, the Department of Justice directed Bowser to order the police department to assist in immigration enforcement operations and to comply with database inquiries and requests for information from any federal law enforcement entity.
This effectively strips Washington, D.C., of its "sanctuary city" status.
But in a news conference after Friday's hearing in federal court, Schwalb, who had filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s police takeover, took a victory lap.
"The key for today is to know that our effort to avoid a hostile takeover of our police force is not going to happen," he told reporters. "Chief Smith remains in control of the police department under the supervision of our mayor."
Schwalb’s office argued in its lawsuit, which also challenges President Donald Trump’s order from Monday, that the initial orders exceed the limits on requesting services from D.C., which it says can be done on a temporary basis only under emergency circumstances.
The office sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Trump administration from taking over the police department, saying that D.C. would “suffer devastating and irreparable harms” if the Trump administration’s efforts succeeded.
“The Administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," Schwalb said in a statement. "This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”
The suit said that implementing Bondi’s order would “upend the entire command structure of MPD and sow chaos among the more than 3,100 officers serving the District, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike.”
Smith said in a sworn declaration in support of Schwalb's suit that she had “never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive.”
“If effectuated, the Bondi Order would upend the command structure of MPD, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike,” Smith said.
Schwalb’s office said Trump only had authority to request services for “federal purposes,” and that Congress didn’t grant the authority to replace D.C.’s police chief.
Bowser, who had been complying with Trump’s earlier directive, said in a post on social media that she agreed the initial Bondi order had gone too far.
“Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President. We have followed the law," Bowser wrote on X. "In reference to the U.S. Attorney General’s order, there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official,” she added.
In his order on Monday, Trump cited several high-profile violent acts to justify his decision to deploy National Guard troops into the capital and take control of the D.C. police.
Bowser pushed back on Trump's claims of out-of-control crime in Washington, saying statistics show it's substantially dropped. According to federal data released in January, violent crime in the district for 2024 was at its lowest level in more than three decades, and down 35% from the previous year.
The mayor characterized Trump’s moves as "unprecedented" and an “authoritarian push” earlier this week, but conceded he had the authority to issue the order.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Trump's order the “first step in stopping the violent crime that has been plaguing the streets of Washington, DC.”
Under the Home Rule Act, Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police for only 30 days unless Congress approves an extension. He said on Wednesday that he plans to ask Congress for a long-term extension — but that would need support from some Democrats to pass.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
川普最新民調 -- 《紐約時報》
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我在拙作《國際現勢：2025》中說：「美國老百姓跟川普的政治蜜月期頂多到今年七月」(該文第2節)。以下是08/03/25的最新民調數字：
認同川普施政 -- 44%；不認同川普施政 -- 53%。
如果選舉結果雙方得票率相差在10個百分點或以上，媒體會用「壓倒性勝利」來形容。民調數據因為包含種種情況(有些不認同、不認同、和極不認同)，同時各種突發因素所導致的變動性很大和很快，相差10個百分點通常算不上「壓倒性」。但是，它也夠嗆到足以視為「亮紅燈」或「蜜月期結束」。
President Trump’s Approval Rating: Latest Polls
NYT, 08/03/25
Presidential approval rating
This is a daily average of polls conducted by dozens of different organizations since Inauguration Day. See the latest polls.
Aug. 3
44% Approve
53% Disapprove
Note: Individual poll results are shown as circles. Polls with greater weight in the average have larger circles.
Ruth Igielnik, Staff editor, polling
Recent polls have shown President Trump’s agenda to be largely unpopular with the public. A majority of Americans expect his signature domestic policy bill will hurt the country, disapprove of his handling of the files in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, and oppose deporting undocumented immigrants to countries other than their own, according to a recent Quinnipiac Poll. And an increasing share of Americans think Trump is focused on the wrong priorities, according to a CNN/SSRS poll. Still, while the president’s job approval rating remains low, it has also been relatively stable over the last several weeks.
Compare with past presidents
These charts show how President Trump’s net approval rating compares with the net approval of past presidents. Net approval is the percentage of survey respondents who approve of the president minus the percentage who disapprove.
請至原網頁查看比較統計圖表
Irineo Cabreros, Staff editor, statistical modeling
It is typical for new presidents to experience a decline in support in the first few months of their presidencies. Trump’s approval rating has been dropping slightly faster than those of his recent predecessors, but the pace of the decline is not unprecedented.
Presidential approval polls
Polls from “select pollsters” meet certain criteria for reliability and are shown with a diamond.
請至原網頁查看比較統計圖表
Ruth Igielnik, Staff editor, polling
It is not uncommon for polls to show a fairly broad range of support on an issue. Results can vary because of the inherent challenges of polling — surveys can only be expected to be accurate within a couple of percentage points — or because polls were conducted using different methods and at different times. One of the reasons examining an average of polls can be so useful is it can balance out these differences and make it easier to analyze change over time.
About our polling averages
Source: Polling averages produced by The New York Times. Polls collected by The New York Times. Historical polling data provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and FiveThirtyEight.
The polling averages adjust for a variety of factors, including the recency and sample size of a poll, whether a poll represents all adults, registered voters or likely voters, and whether other polls have shifted since a poll was conducted.
Pollsters that meet at least two of the three criteria below are considered “select pollsters” by The Times, as long as they are conducting polls for nonpartisan sponsors.Has a track record of accuracy in recent electionsIs a member of a professional polling organizationConducts probability-based sampling.
These elements factor into how much weight each poll gets in the average. Polls that were conducted by or for partisan organizations are labeled, as they often release results that are favorable only to their causes. Margins are calculated using unrounded vote shares when available. Read more about our methodology.
The Times conducts its own national and state polls in partnership with Siena College. Those polls are included in the averages. Follow Times/Siena polling here.
Download the data
Unless otherwise noted, the data sets that power this project are created by The New York Times and are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Use of these data sets is subject to the terms and conditions of this license, including but not limited to the attribution requirements. These data sets are offered as-is and as-available, and The Times does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, concerning these data sets. If you are migrating from the FiveThirtyEight dataset, you can see known differences documented here.Presidential approval polls, Jan. 20, 2025, to present: Download Presidential approval averages, Jan. 20, 2025, to present: Download
Credits
By Irineo Cabreros, Annie Daniel, Jon Huang, Ruth Igielnik, Jasmine C. Lee, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Dan Simmons-Ritchie, Jonah Smith, Albert Sun and Rumsey Taylor. Additional work by Andrew Chavez and Isaac White.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普訪蘇：蘇格蘭《國家日報》頭版標題聳動媒體 – USA Today
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
川普名列性侵犯艾普斯坦檔案 - 馬安妮
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
美國總統公然說謊？川普稱不知自己名列艾普斯坦檔案，《華爾街日報》打臉：司法部長5月就當面告訴你了！
馬安妮，風傳媒2025/07/24
《華爾街日報》7月23日獨家率先揭露，多名官員證實，美國司法部長邦迪早在今年5月就在白宮會議中，當面告訴川普，他的名字多次出現在艾普斯坦調查檔案中。由於內容涉及未經查證的社交紀錄、兒童色情與受害者個資，官方決定不再公開。川普近日受訪時則否認聽說過自己在名單上，顯然與事實不符。
司法部長早就告訴川普：你在艾普斯坦名單裡
根據《華爾街日報》7月23日的獨家報導，多位知情官員證實，美國司法部長潘姆・邦迪(Pam Bondi)與其副手早在今年5月，就曾在白宮向總統川普簡報，當面告訴他——他的名字多次出現在與已故性犯罪者艾普斯坦(Jeffrey Epstein)有關的調查文件中。
這批資料來自司法部年初重啟的內部審查。報導指出，川普並不是唯一被提到的人，文件中還包含數百位名人。內容多半是過往的社交紀錄與舊調查資料，例如出席同一場活動、或與艾普斯坦有過私下接觸等。官員強調，名字出現在文件中，不代表涉入任何違法行為。
邦迪也在會中說明，司法部決定不再公開更多內容。因為部分資料涉及兒童色情影像和受害者個資，屬於高度敏感資訊，一旦外洩恐造成二次傷害，也可能違反法律。報導指出，川普當時表示尊重司法部的決定。
川普發言前後矛盾，支持者強烈反彈
然而，川普近日對外的說法卻完全不同。7月15日，川普在白宮接受《ABC新聞》記者提問時表示，司法部長邦迪「從沒說過他在名單上」，聲稱自己僅收到「非常簡短的簡報」。這番說法與《華爾街日報》揭露的白宮內部會議內容明顯矛盾，立刻引發外界質疑他是否試圖掩蓋事實，甚至說謊。
川普甩鍋時間軸 (請至原網頁查看相關事件時間列表)
事實上，司法部在7月7日才於官網低調發布一份未具名的備忘錄，宣布不會再對外公布更多與艾普斯坦有關的調查資料。聲明中指出，審查並未發現新的犯罪證據，也不存在所謂的「客戶名單」，且資料涉及兒童色情與受害者個資，若進入司法程序將依法封存。儘管如此，此舉未能平息爭議，反而引來部分保守派的強烈反彈。
《華爾街日報》指出，這起事件讓川普在支持者之間面臨罕見的反彈。長期以來，他對外宣稱要「揭露權貴黑幕」，如今卻在關鍵時刻選擇低調處理，令不少人感到失望。就連川普陣營內的一些盟友，也質疑封存資料的做法已偏離原本「公開真相」的承諾。
報導也提到，聯邦調查局(FBI)局長卡什・巴特爾(Kash Patel)與副局長丹・邦吉諾(Dan Bongino)原本傾向釋出更多文件。據悉，邦吉諾曾向同事表示，外界把他和政府「壓下文件」的決策連在一起，導致他在保守派支持群中聲譽受損。
事件最後演變成高層衝突。7月9日，司法部長邦迪與邦吉諾在白宮開會時爆發激烈爭執。知情人士透露，邦迪指控邦吉諾洩密給媒體、企圖抹黑她；邦吉諾則反擊她「說謊成性」。會議中氣氛緊繃，邦吉諾甚至情緒激動、面紅耳赤。
川普試圖止血，風波仍未平息
面對外界質疑，川普近日多次重申，自己早在2000年代中期就與艾普斯坦決裂，甚至把對方趕出佛州私人俱樂部，強調兩人已多年無聯繫。不過，《華爾街日報》7月17日爆料，一封署名川普、帶有性暗示意味的信件，曾在2003年寄給艾普斯坦。川普隨即反擊，痛批是假新聞，否認信件存在，並對報社提起誹謗訴訟。
川普也在17日表示，已指示司法部長邦迪申請釋出與本案有關的大陪審團證詞，強調「只要法院同意，就全面公開」，試圖挽回與論風向。邦迪與副部長布蘭奇也在隔天正式向聯邦法院遞案，稱此事「攸關公共利益」。
《華爾街日報》指出，這些證詞是FBI重啟調查時整理的300GB資料之一，部分來自2019年突襲艾普斯坦在紐約與美屬維京群島住處時，所扣押的文件和硬碟。
不過，大陪審團證詞依法受到高度保密，只有在特定情況下法院才會開放。多位官員坦言，這類申請很難過關，川普此舉更像是表態給支持者看的政治動作。
相關報導：
川普為救艾普斯坦案，不惜揭開金恩博士瘡疤？24萬頁FBI監控檔案全公開，家屬怒回：那也公布艾普斯坦的
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普讓中國贏了又贏 -- 媒體看中國
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
德語媒體：特朗普讓中國贏了又贏
意識到普京缺乏和平誠意的特朗普威脅要對俄羅斯石油的主要買家----也就是中國和印度----加征高額關稅，奧地利《標準報》指出，這很可能重燃損人不利己的美中貿易戰，而且會在其他方面加強北京的競爭優勢。《萊茵郵報》則指出，特朗普的關稅會讓其他國家投入中國懷抱。
媒體看中國，07/19/25
(德國之聲中文網) 維也納出版的奧地利《標準報》以“特朗普的對俄政策反復無常，對華政策則一片混亂”為題，刊發評論指出，特朗普日前威脅要對俄羅斯石油買家加征懲罰性關稅，這樣的做法很可能重新點燃損人不利己的美中貿易戰。而在科技和經濟競爭方面，特朗普也在將優勢拱手送人。
“美國總統對俄羅斯進口產品加征關稅幾乎不會有什麼影響，因為美國目前幾乎沒有從俄羅斯進口任何東西。特朗普威脅的關鍵之處在於：要對購買俄羅斯石油的國家加征100%的關稅；但問題是，俄羅斯石油的最主要買家是印度(特朗普正尋求和印度建立緊密伙伴關系)以及中國。”
“中國商品目前已經被征收30%的關稅，如果升到100%稅率，那麼在4月份曾震撼全球經濟的美中貿易戰就會重新爆發。這對美國的物價、就業都會產生巨大影響。特朗普不可能對普京失望到要冒這種風險。”
作者注意到，特朗普近期明顯在討好中國，比如TikTok的“不賣就禁”期限一再推遲，英偉達的高性能AI芯片也重新被允許對華出口，美國總統還一再強調對習近平的尊重。
“中國是一個重量級對手，特朗普喜歡與之較量以證明自己的實力。對他來說，關稅就像一把激光劍，他能像電影裡那樣揮舞著激光劍和人決鬥。與此同時，特朗普的行為正在讓中國能贏得真正的戰鬥----奪取21世紀的科技、經濟主導權。北京的中共領導層系統性地推進戰略領域的科研、創新以及產業優勢，而特朗普政府卻在對美國的高校及科研機構發動一場殲滅戰，並用民粹主義的非理性關稅政策傷害美國自己的經濟。”
文章最後指出，特朗普對俄羅斯日漸失望，普京或許失去了華盛頓的一位朋友，“但是對於習近平而言，特朗普依然是他最得力的干將。”
杜塞爾多夫出版的《萊茵郵報》以“贏家是中國”為題，刊發評論指出，關稅往往被用來懲罰那些所謂不公平的貿易伙伴或者“不聽話”的政府，但是特朗普亂揮的關稅大棒，到頭來只會加強美國對手中國的實力。
“將關稅當作政治報復手段，許多人都覺得這樣的作法太簡單粗暴。實際上，這樣的做法更是愚蠢的。不僅僅是因為關稅到頭來會損害美國企業和消費者的利益、讓進口商品以及日常生活變得更加昂貴，還因為企業正在改變其商品流向。如果美國不再需要巴西的咖啡、大豆或其他原材料，它們就會被運往中國。長期以來，巴西的最主要貿易伙伴都是中國，後者正在成為特朗普政策的贏家。”
“加強中國的地位並不符合特朗普的利益，畢竟他視中國為經濟、政治、軍事方面的最大對手。然而，他卻依然在增加中國實力，這恰恰表明特朗普欠缺戰略眼光。他的執政全靠一時衝動，最終會給自己國家帶來嚴重後果。”
摘編自其他媒體的內容，不代表德國之聲的立場或觀點。
DW中文有Instagram！歡迎搜尋dw.chinese，看更多深入淺出的圖文與影音報道。
© 2025年德國之聲版權聲明：本文所有內容受到著作權法保護，如無德國之聲特別授權，不得擅自使用。任何不當行為都將導致追償，並受到刑事追究。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普的艾普斯坦性醜聞風暴 - Betsy Klein
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
另請參見：Ex-White House Aide Reveals Why Trump's 'Panicking Right Now'
川普未來可能的墓誌銘一覽：
多行不義必自斃！
不是不報，時候未到！
夜路走多了總有一天碰到鬼！
Epstein fallout poses a loyalty test: Trump — or MAGA?
Betsy Klein, CNN, 07/14/25
CNN — It’s President Donald Trump versus MAGA.
In the days since the Trump administration released a memo about Jeffrey Epstein directly at odds with conspiracy theories pushed by the president and some of his top lieutenants, Trump’s movement and most ardent supporters are in revolt
The Justice Department and the FBI released a memo last week concluding there was no evidence that Epstein had a list of powerful men who participated in his alleged underworld of sex trafficking and pedophilia. It also said the disgraced former financier died by suicide and was not murdered in his New York jail cell.
Yet after years of big promises to the president’s base, the memo failed to produce a smoking gun, undercutting Trump and his team’s own words. And MAGA world isn’t happy, pitting the president’s closest allies against one another.
Evan Perez breaks down the beef between Bongino and Bondi
With Trump defending the findings, the situation has set up an unprecedented loyalty test between the president and the movement he created. While Trump has long held significant sway over his base, the situation marks one of the first times his movement is not taking cues from its leader — perhaps offering an early blueprint into how MAGA will evolve in a post-Trump era.
Infighting between the DOJ and the FBI came to a head Wednesday at an explosive meeting where FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, were confronted about whether they were behind a story that said the FBI wanted more information on Epstein released but was ultimately stymied by the Department of Justice.
After that meeting, Bongino told people he was considering resigning, and did not come to work on Friday as his status in the administration remains uncertain. Trump said “I think so” when asked by reporters Sunday whether Bongino was still FBI deputy director but indicated “he’s in good shape” after speaking with him earlier in the day.
Patel, for his part, posted to social media on Saturday that he would continue to serve in the Trump administration. Though he frequently fanned the flames of Epstein conspiracies, Patel conceded in his post, “The conspiracy theories just aren’t true, never have been.”
Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who repeatedly promised to release Epstein documents, has borne the brunt of the frustration from MAGA supporters.
She could have emerged as a sacrificial lamb, but Trump has made clear, so far, that he’s sticking with his attorney general, offering a robust show of support in a Saturday social media post and inviting Bondi to join him at Sunday’s FIFA Club World Cup final in New Jersey, where she watched the game from the president’s box and Trump flashed her a thumbs-up.
The infighting has clearly caught the president off-guard, and Trump attempted to rein in his supporters and shield Bondi over the weekend.
“What’s going on with my boys and in some cases, gals? They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Privately, Trump has also doubled down on his support for Bondi. The president called some of the attorney general’s most vocal critics over the weekend in an effort to stem the bleeding over the Epstein files, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Members of the president’s inner circle have also reached out to some of her most vocal critics to essentially ask them to cool it. Her job, they say, is safe — for now.
The president has also reverted to a familiar playbook, blaming Democrats: “Why didn’t these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it?”
And Epstein, Trump claimed, is “somebody that nobody cares about.”
But that didn’t appear to be enough to appease many of his most vocal and prominent supporters, who raised the situation repeatedly at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, an event aimed at mobilizing young conservatives, in Tampa, Florida.
Bondi “has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way. Try to lead you to believe that she’s got it. It’s on her desk. It’s coming tomorrow. You’re gonna see something on Epstein, and it was a tease. So you either believe that Pam Bondi was telling the truth then, or that she’s telling the truth now, but both cannot be true,” conservative political commentator Megyn Kelly said at the summit Friday, calling Bondi the “villain in this story.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, warned Saturday, “Pam, if you can’t do your job, we’ll find someone who will.”
While much of the criticism centered on Bondi, others blamed the administration more broadly.
“I don’t think they’re telling us the truth about Epstein. I think that that guy was involved in something nefarious that implicates a whole lot of people. And my guess is that the whole lot of people may happen to be some of our allies,” YouTuber and conservative political commentator Brandon Tatum said.
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon called Epstein “the key that picks the lock on so many things — not just individuals, but also institutions.”
Fox News host Laura Ingraham polled the summit crowd: “How many of you are satisfied — you can clap — satisfied with the result of the Epstein investigation?”
She received overwhelming boos.
MAGA faithful weigh in on Epstein files debate
And it’s not just conservatives with a public platform. CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan spoke to Trump supporters throughout the weekend who called on the president to release the files his team said do not exist.
“I don’t think people are going to be quiet about it until they really do it. But who knows if we’ll ever know the true story,” said Lisa Britt.
“There’s two things that President Trump lied about: One was that the Epstein files would come out, and they’re not out yet. They need to come out,” said Taylor Sharp. “The second thing is that we’re not tired of winning. He said that we’d be tired of winning. We’re not tired of winning.”
CNN’s Jenna Monnin, Donie O’Sullivan, Kristen Holmes, Kaitlan Collins, Hannah Rabinowitz and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Related article：
What to know about the Jeffrey Epstein saga
MAGA media’s conspiracy theories put Trump in power — and now they’re coming back to bite him
Trump shrugs off questions over Epstein memo, calling them ‘a desecration’
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
生日快樂！川痞-Rex Huppke
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down
All he wanted was to celebrate his birthday with a massive military parade that made him look powerful and beloved. Instead he got a derpy, dull parade overshadowed by massive nationwide protests.
Rex Huppke, USA TODAY Opinion, 06/16/25
Well, Americans, I hope you’re happy with yourselves. You really let President Donald Trump down June 14.
All he wanted was to celebrate his 79th birthday with a massive military parade that made him look powerful, scary and beloved. Instead, thanks to millions of Americans and their stupid First Amendment rights, he got a derpy, dull parade overshadowed by massive nationwide protests denouncing him.
People from Virginia to California and everywhere in between were hoisting signs that said mean things about President Trump like “IF MELANIA DOESN’T HAVE TO LIVE WITH HIM…WHY DO WE?” and “You sucked in Home Alone 2,” referring to the 1992 movie in which Trump had a cameo.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizers of the "No Kings" protests, said in a statement, “More than five million people nationwide rallied at over 2,100 events across the country, condemning President Trump’s escalating abuses of power.”
Way to go, America. You ruined Trump's parade and made him sad
Nice job, guys. Do you know how hurtful that was for a man who just wanted to have a cool birthday parade that would make him feel like a powerful dictator?
While those protests were massive and made a clear and peaceful point that Americans, only six months into the Trump administration, are fed up, they completely took the shine off the parade in Washington, DC.
The weather there was cloudy with a little rain, the crowd was thin and, while an announcer gave an interesting history of the U.S. Army on its 250th anniversary, the dull pace of tanks and other military vehicles made the event drag.
Troops marched past the VIP section where Trump and administration officials were seated, but they weren’t marching in carefully choreographed lockstep like troops have done in past military parades for notorious authoritarians.
Trump was bored and angry during the parade, while protesters had fun
It all felt a bit phoned in and drab. A New York Times reporter noted: “The energy level at the military parade here is a bit desultory.”
And Trump? He looked like a kid who wanted a Nintendo Switch 2 for his birthday and instead got a desultory military parade.
He sulked. He slouched. At one point, the band played an instrumental version of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son,” a famous anti-war song that decried wealthy families able to keep their kids out of the draft during the Vietnam War. That probably made Trump’s bone spurs hurt.
How dare Americans protest instead of bolstering the president's ego
Through it all, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sat next to the president, looking like a guy about to be held accountable for not making the parade “strong” and “huge” enough.
But it wasn’t all Hegseth’s fault. This was the fault of all the Americans who chose to take our president’s special day and make it about America. You meanies decided that standing up against government-sponsored cruelty against immigrants and vast federal overreach was more important than letting the guy behind the government-sponsored cruelty and the overreaching have a glorious parade that would make everyone think he’s awesome.
For shame, Americans. President Trump has been working tirelessly to enrich himself and not do any of the things he said he would do, other than the be-cruel-to-immigrants thing, and this is how you repay him? By making his parade seem puny and sad while making your own grievances seem widespread and legitimate?
A bad weekend led to Trump going off on liberal cities
Trump was so mad about how the weekend went that on the night of June 15 he announced on social media that “we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside. These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good-paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens. These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our Country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities.”
Look what you all did! You made the poor man completely lose his mind and start babbling like a maniac who capitalizes words For No reason!
I hope you’re happy with yourselves.
I certainly am.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @rexhuppke.bsky.social and on Facebook at facebook.com/RexIsAJerk
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Opinion
Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
