通俄门|《经济学人》：特朗普家族与俄罗斯，剪不断理还乱
欢迎打开“我与我们的世界”，从此，让我们一起“纵览世界之风云变幻、洞察社会之脉搏律动、感受个体之生活命运、挖掘自然之点滴奥妙”。
我与我们的世界，既是一个“奋斗”的世界，也是一个“思考”的世界。奋而不思则罔，思而不奋则殆。这个世界，你大，它就大；你小，它就小。
欢迎通过上方公众号名称打开公众号“查看历史信息”来挖掘往期文章，因为，每期都能让你“走近”不一样的世界、带给你不一样的精彩。
本期导读：美国的“通俄门”事件热度不减，经久不衰，这不，“料”又来了，而且显示出愈演愈烈之势。美国总统特朗普的长子小特朗普11日公布一批电子邮件，搅乱了整个美国。小特朗普被曝光曾在去年会见一名据称与俄罗斯政府有关联的女律师，在美国政界引起轩然大波。
The Trumps and Russia
特朗普家族与俄罗斯
He loves it
他爱它
If the revelations about the president’s son do not shock Republicans, perhaps nothing will.
若牵涉美国总统特朗普儿子小特朗普的曝光事件还不能让共和党警醒的话，恐怕就不会有什么事会让共和党警醒了。
THE first rule of modern conspiracies is that you do not talk about them in e-mails. It always seemed unlikely that, if Donald Trump’s associates had conspired with the Kremlin, they would have been amateurish enough to leave a paper trail. At least, it seemed that way until July 11th, when the president’s son, Donald junior, released astonishing messages he sent and received in advance of a meeting, in 2016, with a Russian lawyer. In the convoluted saga of the Trumps and the Russians, this may be the most explosive revelation yet.
当今这个时代，若要通敌，需要遵循的首要法则就是，不能用电子邮件来说事儿。一直以来，人们都认为，若特朗普的人与克里姆林宫有什么瓜葛，尽管他们都是政治门外汉，但也不至于会留下什么“铁证”，这种状况一直持续着，不过，到7月11日却戛然而止。7月11日，特朗普的儿子小特朗普公布了与一位俄罗斯律师在2016年会面之前的往来邮件，令人震惊。特朗普家族“通俄门”丑闻延烧良久，此次事件可以说是目前为止最具爆炸性的了。
It is no good arguing, in the younger Mr Trump’s defence, that he gave the e-mails up himself: he knew the New York Times was about to publish them, because it had asked him for his side of the story. It scarcely helps to note that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, says she does not work for the Kremlin. Her use of such a meeting to assail American sanctions, a neuralgic subject for Vladimir Putin, suggests that she was not simply a private citizen. Nor does it help that Donald junior says she did not, in the end, provide the dirt on Hillary Clinton he craved. Whoever she was, whatever the outcome, the intent to collude is plain. That vindicates what has always been the real charge: not that the Russians swayed the election, a claim that is impossible to verify, but that Mr Trump’s team overstepped the bounds of propriety, and maybe the law.
In the e-mails Donald junior was promised “very high level and sensitive information” that “is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump”, then a candidate. “I love it,” the son replied. Ms Veselnitskaya is described as a “Russian government attorney”; the goods are said to come from a Russian prosecutor. Rather than calling the FBI, Donald junior took the meeting—bringing Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law, and Paul Manafort, who later quit as campaign manager amid uproar over his ties to Russian-backed Ukrainian politicians.
Contrary to claims from defenders of Mr Trump, a freelance bid by a junior Democratic operative to get dirt on Mr Manafort from the Ukrainians does not compare to this intrigue. Among other things, Ukraine is not a hostile power. Not only does this reinforce a pattern of fishy meetings involving Russian officials and Mr Trump’s advisers, many of which were mysteriously forgotten when they filled out security forms or testified in Congress; this looks worse, for both the Trumps and America. It is worse than Mr Kushner’s bizarre bid to set up a back-channel to talk to Moscow. It is more nakedly collusive than what has so far emerged about Michael Flynn, forced out as national security adviser for lying about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador. It ought to be damning.
That the reaction to such a bombshell could be in doubt exemplifies the damage being inflicted on America. As the president’s support holds up among ordinary Republicans, most Republican congressmen have dismissed the Russian affair as chatter or partisanship. Maintaining that blithe posture now will imply—or confirm—that they have entirely ditched principle for short-term self-interest. Another big risk is that misleading accounts of Russian meetings, which continue to multiply, may even now give the Kremlin leverage over the White House. The administration was told of that worry over Mr Flynn, but the president fired him only when he had no choice. (Soon, of course, he also fired James Comey, who was overseeing the FBI’s Russia probe, and whose treatment may itself constitute obstruction of justice.) Mr Trump claims not to have known about Ms Veselnitskaya; but then he would.
The gun smokes
赤裸裸的通敌
The scandal is becoming a clash between the worst aspects of American democracy and the best. The worst is its bilious, myopic hyper-partisanship; the best the unrivalled ability of American institutions, including journalists whom Mr Trump reviles, to hold the powerful to account. Legally and politically, the ending is unclear. Morally, the verdict is already in.
“通俄门”丑闻愈演愈烈，这既反映了美国民主最坏的一面，也反映了美国民主最好的一面。最坏一面是，美国政治那争吵不断、目光短浅的激烈党派斗争；最好的一面是，美国体制，包括特朗普所憎恶的美国媒体，所具有的那种对掌权者的超强问责能力。从法律或政治层面来讲，“通俄门”事件的结果，是不明朗的。不过，从道德层面来看，结论已经很明确。
特朗普一大家子
特朗普的老婆们和孩子们
特朗普团队与俄罗斯的千丝万缕
往期精彩：
注：
1：后台回复“20170715”，可获本期《经济学人》下载方式。
2：本文为原创，若发现不错，欢迎转发共享，或点击“赞赏”直接打赏，感谢支持（苹果用户看不到微信赞赏功能，其他客户端可看到）。
3：英文转自《经济学人》，非商业用途。
4：可将本公众号设为“置顶公众号”，第一时间收到最新消息。
5：若有任何方面的问题，可随时联系进行沟通。
6：关注可搜索“我与我们的世界”或扫描下方二维码：