来源：最天下
最天下导读：
当地时间4月18日周四上午，美国司法部公开了“通俄门”特别调查组报告的修订版全文。
“通俄门”调查由特别检察官穆勒主导，调查报告分为上下两册，分别解释“勾结俄国”和“妨碍司法”两个议题。司法部律师已隐去大陪审团材料、情报机构采集的机密信息、与正在进行的调查有关的材料。
与此前已经公布过的四页司法部总结相比，这份长达448页的报告全文提供了关于穆勒调查的更为丰富的细节，被遮蔽的内容也比此前外界预料的要少。
美国司法部长、共和党人威廉·巴尔在周四的新闻发布会上称，“经过将近两年的调查、数千次传唤、数百个搜查令和证人询问，特别检察官（穆勒）证实，俄罗斯政府赞助了干预2016年美国总统大选的非法行动，但没有发现特朗普的竞选团队或其他美国人与俄罗斯的行动进行勾结。”
报告全文发布后，特朗普在推特上对穆勒进行了攻击。他发文称，穆勒长达22个月的调查是“有史以来最大的政治骗局”，是对“总统的骚扰”。
最天下（ID：theveryworld）独家翻译了报告的执行摘要部分。本篇为第二部分，有关特朗普是否妨碍司法的调查。此外请留意最天下同时发布的报告第一部分，有关俄罗斯干预美国大选和特朗普竞选团队与俄罗斯的联系。
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II
第二卷执行摘要
Our obstruction-of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that related to the Russian-interference investigations， including the President‘s conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events。
我们的妨害司法调查侧重于总统与俄罗斯干涉调查有关的一系列行动，包括总统对监督调查的执法官员和相关事件的证人的行为。
FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION
妨碍调查的事实结果
The key issues and events we examined include the following：
The Campaign‘s response to reports about Russian support for Trump。 During the 2016 presidential campaign， questions arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump。 After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia， Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ about any further planned WikiLeaks releases。 Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia， even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow。 After the election， the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia‘s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election。
我们研究的主要问题和事件包括：
竞选团队对有关俄罗斯支持特朗普的报道做出了回应。在2016年总统竞选期间，人们对俄罗斯政府对候选人特朗普的明显支持提出了质疑。在维基解密公布了据报道称遭到俄罗斯黑客攻击的，具备政治破坏性的民主党电子邮件后，特朗普公开表示怀疑俄罗斯应对这些黑客攻击负责，与此同时，他和其他竞选官员私下寻求有关维基解密进一步释放计划的信息[删减]。特朗普还否认在俄罗斯有任何业务或与俄罗斯有任何联系，尽管直到2016年6月，特朗普集团还希望为在俄罗斯建造一座名为“莫斯科特朗普大厦”的摩天大楼寻求许可。选举结束后，总统向顾问们表示，担心有关俄罗斯干预选举的报道可能会导致公众质疑他当选的合法性。
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn。 In mid-January 2017， incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President， other administration officials， and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia‘s response to U.S。 sanctions on Russia for its election interference。 On January 27， the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI， the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty。 On February 14， the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation， the President told an outside advisor， “Now that we fired Flynn， the Russia thing is over。” The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue。
涉及联邦调查局局长科米和迈克尔·弗林的行为。2017年1月中旬，新任国家安全顾问迈克尔·弗林向副总统、其他政府官员和联邦调查局特工作出虚假陈述，他否认说自己曾与俄罗斯大使谢尔盖·基斯利亚克谈过俄罗斯对美国因其选举干预而对俄罗斯实施制裁的反应。1月27日，就在总统被告知弗林对副总统撒谎，并向联邦调查局发表了类似声明的第二天，总统邀请联邦调查局局长科米到白宫参加一次私人晚宴，并告诉科米他需要忠诚。2月14日，在总统要求弗林辞职的第二天，总统告诉一名外部顾问，“既然我们解雇了弗林，俄罗斯的事情就结束了。”这位顾问表示不同意，并表示调查将继续进行。
Later that afternoon， the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey。 Referring to the FBI‘s investigation of Flynn， the President said， “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go， to letting Flynn go。 He is a good guy。 I hope you can let this go。” Shortly after requesting Flynn’s resignation and speaking privately to Comey， the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T。 McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak。 McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true， and a White House Counsel‘s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered。
当天下午晚些时候，总统清空椭圆形办公室，与科米进行一对一的会谈。提到联邦调查局对弗林的调查，总统说：“我希望你能清楚地看到，你可以让这件事过去，让弗林走。他是个好人。我希望你能放下这件事。” 在要求弗林辞职并与科米私下交谈后不久，总统试图让副国家安全顾问K.T。麦克法兰起草一封内部信函，声明总统没有指示弗林与基斯利亚克讨论制裁问题。麦克法兰拒绝了，因为她不知道这是否属实。白宫法律顾问办公室的一名律师认为，这一请求看起来像是任命她成为大使的交换条件。
The President‘s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation。 In February 2017， Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign- related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign。 In early March， the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing。 And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2， the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him。 That weekend， the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to “unrecuse。” Later in March， Comey publicly disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election，“ including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign。 In the following days， the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency （CIA） and the National Security Agency （NSA） to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort。 The President also twice called Comey directly， notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice。 Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally， and the President asked Comey to ”lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly。
总统对持续性俄罗斯调查的反应。2017年2月，考虑到他在特朗普竞选中的角色，司法部长杰夫·塞申斯开始考虑是否必须退出与竞选相关的调查。3月初，总统告诉白宫法律顾问唐纳德·麦加恩不要让塞申斯回避。在塞申斯于3月2日宣布回避后，总统对这一决定表示愤怒，并告诉顾问们，他应该有一个司法部长来保护他。那个周末，总统在一次活动中把塞申斯拉到一边，敦促他“别回避”。3月晚些时候，科米在国会听证会上公开披露，联邦调查局正在调查俄罗斯政府干预2016年总统选举的行为，“包括俄罗斯政府与特朗普竞选团队之间的任何联系或合作。” 在接下来的几天里，总统联系了国家情报主任以及中央情报局和国家安全局的领导人，询问他们可以做些什么来公开驳斥关于总统与俄罗斯干预选举的努力有任何联系的说法。尽管麦克加恩指示他避免与司法部直接接触，总统仍两次直接打电话给科米。科米此前曾向总统保证，联邦调查局不会亲自调查他，总统要求科米公开表示这一点，来拨开通俄调查的阴云。
The President‘s termination of Comey。 On May 3， 2017， Comey testified in a congressional hearing， but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation。 Within days， the President decided to terminate Comey。 The President insisted that the termination letter， which was written for public release， state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation。 The day of the firing， the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation。 But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice。 The day after firing Comey， the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia，” which had been “taken off” by Comey‘s firing。 The next day， the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it，” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story。“ In response to a question about whether he was angry with Comey about the Russia investigation， the President said， ”As far as I‘m concerned， I want that thing to be absolutely done properly，“ adding that firing Comey ”might even lengthen out the investigation。“
总统解雇科米。2017年5月3日，科米在国会听证会上作证，但拒绝回答有关总统本人是否正在接受调查的问题。几天之内，总统决定终止科米的职务。总统坚称，为公开发表而写的解雇信里说，科米已通知总统，他（特朗普）不在接受调查之列。解雇当天，白宫坚持认为，科米的离职源于司法部长和副司法部长独立的判断，即科米应因处理希拉里·克林顿邮件调查不当而被解职。但在听取司法部的意见之前，总统已决定解雇科米。在解雇科米的第二天，总统告诉俄罗斯官员，他“因为俄罗斯而面临巨大的压力”，而解雇科米后终于摆脱了这一点。第二天，总统在一次电视采访中承认，不管司法部的建议如何，他都会解雇科米，当他“决定这么做”时，他认为“特朗普和俄罗斯勾结的事情是虚构的。”在回答关于他是否对科米对俄罗斯的调查感到愤怒的问题时，总统说，“就我而言，我希望这件事能恰当地完成，”他补充说，解雇科米“甚至可能会延长调查的时间”。
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him。 On May 17， 2017， the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters。 The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was the end of his presidency“ and demanding that Sessions resign。 Sessions submitted his resignation， but the President ultimately did not accept it。 The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve。 The President‘s advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice。
特别检察官的任命和罢免他的举动。2017年5月17日，通俄调查代理司法部长任命了一名特别检察官进行调查和相关事项。总统对任命了一名特别检察官的消息作出的反应是，他告诉顾问这会是自己总统任期的终点，并要求塞申斯辞职。塞申斯提交了他的辞呈，但总统最终没有接受。总统告诉助手，特别检察官存在利益冲突，因此建议不任命特别检察官。总统顾问告诉他说，所谓的冲突毫无价值，并且这已经得到司法部的审议。
On June 14， 2017， the media reported that the Special Counsel‘s Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice。 Press reports called this “a major turning point” in the investigation： while Comey had told the President he was not under investigation， following Comey’s firing， the President now was under investigation。 The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel‘s investigation。 On June 17， 2017， the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed。 McGahn did not carry out the direction， however， deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre。
2017年6月14日，媒体报道说，特别检察官办公室正在调查总统是否妨碍司法。新闻报道称这是调查的“一个重大转折点”：科米告诉总统说他没有被调查，然而在科米被解雇后，总统却正在接受调查。对这一消息，总统发表了一系列推文抨击司法部和特别检察官的调查。2017年6月17日，总统在家里打电话给麦加恩，指示他打电话给代理司法部长，说特别检察官有利益冲突，必须撤职。然而，麦加恩并没有执行命令，他决定辞职，而不是触发他认为可能出现的“周六夜间大屠杀“（编者注：指尼克松总统解雇水门事件调查官的一系列事件）。
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel‘s investigation。 Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed， the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation。 On June 19， 2017， the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski， a trusted advisor outside the government， and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions。 The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that， notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation， the investigation was “very unfair” to the President， the President had done nothing wrong， and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections。” Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do。
限制特别检察官调查的努力。在指示麦加恩将特别检察官撤职两天后，总统又试图影响俄罗斯的调查进程。2017年6月19日，总统在椭圆形办公室会见了他的前竞选经理科里·莱万多夫斯基——一位政府外值得信赖的顾问，并向莱万多夫斯基传达了一条信息。消息说，塞申斯应公开宣布调查对总统“非常不公平”——尽管塞申斯已回避通俄调查，但总统没有做错任何事情，而且塞申斯将计划会见特别检察官，“让他继续调查对未来选举的干预”。莱万多夫斯基说，他理解总统希望塞申斯做些什么。
One month later， in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19， 2017， the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference。 Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon。 Hours after that meeting， the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times， and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions‘s job was in jeopardy。 Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President’s message personally， so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions。 Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through。
一个月后，在2017年7月19日与莱万多夫斯基举行的另一次非公开会议上，总统询问了他向塞申斯发出的指令的现状，即将特别检察官的调查限制在今后的选举干预上。莱万多夫斯基对总统说，指令很快就会发出。几个小时后，总统在接受《纽约时报》采访时公开批评了塞申斯，然后发布了一系列推文，明确表示塞申斯的工作岌岌可危。莱万多夫斯基不想亲自传达总统的信息，因此他请白宫高级官员里克·迪尔伯恩向塞申斯传达这一信息。迪尔伯恩对这项任务感到不自在，没有贯彻下去。
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence。 In the summer of 2017， the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9， 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials， including Donald Trump Jr。， and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government‘s support for Mr。 Trump。” On several occasions， the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting， suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited。 Before the emails became public， the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr。 by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with “an individual who [Trump Jr。] was told might have information helpful to the campaign” and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children。 When the press asked questions about the President’s involvement in Trump Jr。‘s statement， the President’s personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role
防止公开披露证据的努力。2017年夏天，总统了解到，媒体机构正在就2016年6月9日在特朗普大厦举行会议提出质疑，其中包括竞选的高级官员小唐纳德·特朗普和一名俄罗斯律师。据称，这名律师提供了有关希拉里·克林顿的破坏性信息，作为“俄罗斯及其政府对特朗普支持的一部分”。总统曾多次指示助手不要公开安排6月9日会议的电子邮件，暗示这些电子邮件不能被泄露，可以接触到这些电子邮件的律师人数应该受到限制。在这些电子邮件公开之前，总统为小特朗普编辑了一份新闻声明，其中删除了一句承认说会议是与“一个人被告知可能有对竞选有帮助的信息”的话。最终只是说，这次会议是关于俄罗斯儿童的收养问题。当媒体就总统参与小特朗普的声明提出质疑时，总统的私人律师一再否认总统发挥了任何作用。
Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation。 In early summer 2017， the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation.2 Sessions did not reverse his recusal。 In October 2017， the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take [a] look” at investigating Clinton。 In December 2017， shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement， the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested， according to notes taken by a senior advisor， that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation， he would be a ”hero。” The President told Sessions， “I‘m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything。 I just want to be treated fairly。” In response， Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything ”improper” on the campaign and told the President there was a “whole new leadership team” in place。 He did not unrecuse。
进一步努力使司法部长掌握调查的控制权。2017年夏初，总统打电话给塞申斯，再次要求他撤销通俄调查。2017年10月，总统在椭圆形办公室与塞申斯私下会晤，要求他“看看”对克林顿的调查。2017年12月，在弗林根据一项合作协议认罪后不久，总统在椭圆形办公室会见了塞申斯，根据一名高级顾问的记录，他暗示，如果塞申斯不回避，并恢复对俄罗斯调查的监督，他将是一个“英雄”。总统对塞申斯说：“我不会做任何事，也不会命令你做任何事。我只想得到公平的对待。“作为回应，塞申斯自告奋勇地表示，他从未在竞选活动中看到任何“不当”之处，并告诉总统有一支“全新的领导团队”到位。他没有放弃回避。
Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed。 In early 2018， the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order。 The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed.1 McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed。 The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports。 In the same meeting， the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President‘s effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President。 McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle。
要求麦加恩否认总统曾命令他撤换特别检察官的行为。2018年初，媒体报道称，总统已指示麦加恩于2017年6月罢免特别检察官，麦加威胁要辞职，而不是执行这一命令。总统对新闻的反应是指示白宫官员告诉麦加恩要对这个故事提出异议，并创造一项记录表明他没有接到命令去解雇特别检察官。麦加恩告诉这些官员，媒体的报道是准确的，说总统已指示麦加恩，并再次向他施压，要求他否认这些报道。在同一次会议上，总统还问麦加恩，为什么他告诉特别检察官总统为罢免他所作的努力，为什么麦加恩记下他与总统的谈话。麦加恩拒绝放弃他记忆中发生的事情，并认为总统在考验他的毅力。
Conduct towards Flynn， Manafort， ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government， the President‘s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of the President‘s warm feelings towards Flynn， which he said “still remains，” and asking for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President。” When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement， the President‘s personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn’s actions reflected “hostility” towards the President.2 During Manafort‘s prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating， the President praised Manafort in public， said that Manafort was being treated unfairly， and declined to rule out a pardon。 After Manafort was convicted， the President called Manafort “a brave man” for refusing to ”break” and said that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed。” ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
针对福林、马纳福特和[删减]的行为。在弗林退出与总统的联合辩护协议并开始与政府合作后，总统的私人顾问给弗林的律师留下了一条信息，提醒他们总统对弗林的热情，他强调说这“仍然存在“，并表示如果弗林知道“牵连到总统的消息”，他需要“注意一下”。当弗林的律师重申，根据一项联合辩护协议，弗林不能再分享信息时，总统的私人律师说，他将确保总统知道弗林的行为反映出对总统的“敌意”。在马纳福特被起诉期间和刑事审判中的陪审团商议时，总统在公开场合赞扬了马纳福特，他说马纳福特受到了不公平的待遇，并拒绝排除赦免的可能性。马纳福特被判有罪后总统称马纳福特是“一个勇敢的人”，因为他拒绝“打破”，并说，“翻转”“几乎应该是非法的。”[删减]
Conduct involving Michael Cohen。 The President‘s conduct towards Michael Cohen， a former Trump Organization executive， changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project， to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness。 From September 2015 to June 2016， Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times， including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal。 In 2017， Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project， including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him， in an effort to adhere to a “party line” that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President‘s connections to Russia。 While preparing for his congressional testimony， Cohen had extensive discussions with the President’s personal counsel， who， according to Cohen， said that Cohen should stay on message“ and not contradict the President。 After the FBI searched Cohen‘s home and office in April 2018， the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not ”flip，“ contacted him directly to tell him to stay strong，” and privately passed messages of support to him。 Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of。 But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018， the President publicly criticized him， called him a “rat，” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes。
涉及迈克尔·科恩的行为。总统对特朗普集团前高管迈克尔·科恩的态度，在科恩虚假陈述时降低了总统对特朗普大厦莫斯科项目的参与度时是称赞，当科恩成为合作证人又变成批评。2015年9月至2016年6月，科恩代表特朗普集团推进特朗普大厦莫斯科项目，并多次向候选人特朗普介绍该项目，包括讨论特朗普是否应前往俄罗斯推进该协议。2017年，科恩就该项目向国会提供了虚假证词，例如他表示，他只向特朗普简要介绍了该项目三次，从未与他讨论过前往俄罗斯的问题，以努力坚守党派底线。科恩说，制定这条路线是为了尽量减少总统与俄罗斯的联系。在准备他的国会证词时，科恩与总统的私人律师进行了广泛的讨论，据科恩说，律师说科恩应该说该说的话“而不是反驳总统”。2018年4月，美国联邦调查局搜查了科恩的家和办公室后，总统公开宣称科恩不会“翻脸”，他直接联系了他，让他保持坚强，“并私下传递了支持他的信息”。科恩还与总统的私人律师讨论了赦免问题，并认为如果他继续说该说的话，他就会得到照顾。但在2018年夏天科恩开始与政府合作后，总统公开批评称科恩为“老鼠”，并暗示他的家人犯下了罪行。
Overarching factual issues。 We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts， but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President‘s conduct。
首要的事实问题。我们没有就这些事实作出传统的起诉决定，但我们获得的证据可以支持关于总统行为的几项一般性声明。
Second， unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime， the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference。 Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime， the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President‘s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct。 Third， many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses， including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons， took place in public view。 That circumstance is unusual， but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws。 If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony， the harm to the justice system‘s integrity is the same。
第二，与某一主体为掩盖罪行而妨害司法的情况不同，我们获得的证据并未证实总统参与了与俄罗斯干预选举有关的潜在罪行。虽然妨害法规并不要求提供这种罪行的证据，但缺乏这种证据影响了对总统意图的分析，并要求考虑其行为的其他可能动机。第三，总统针对证人的许多行为，包括不鼓励与政府合作和关于今后可能赦免的建议，都是在公众视野中发生的。这种情况是不寻常的，但没有任何法律原则将公共行为排除在妨害法律范围之外。如果公共行为的可能后果是影响证人或改变其证词，则对司法系统完整性的损害也是一样的。
Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts， the overall pattern of the President‘s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent。 In particular， the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases， reflecting a possible shift in the President‘s motives。 The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through the President‘s firing of Comey。 During that time， the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation。 Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel， however， the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry。 At that point， the President engaged in a second phase of conduct， involving public attacks on the investigation， non-public efforts to control it， and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation。 Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence。
虽然我们调查的一系列事件涉及零散的行为，但对总统行为进行调查的总体模式可以说明其性质，并可以对他的意图作出推断。值得注意的是，我们调查的行动可以分为两个阶段，反映了总统动机可能发生的变化。第一阶段包括从总统与科米的第一次互动到总统解雇科米的这段时间。在此期间，总统多次被告知他本人没有受到调查。然而，在科米被解雇和任命特别检察官后不久，总统意识到他自己的行为正接受是否妨碍司法的调查。当时，总统进行了第二阶段的行为，包括公开攻击调查，非公开地控制调查，以及公开和私下里鼓励证人不配合调查。在每一阶段对总统动机的性质的判断将以全部证据为依据。
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
法定抗辩和宪法抗辩
The President‘s counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated。 We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts。
总统的律师对我们调查的行为进行了可能的妨害司法分析，提出了法定辩护和宪法辩护。我们的结论是，这些法律辩护都没有提供拒绝调查事实的依据。
Statutory defenses。 Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice‘s general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes， we concluded that several statutes could apply here。 See 18 U.S.C。 §§ 1503， 1505， 1512（b）（3）， 1512（c）（2）。 Section 1512（c）（2） is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings。 No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence。 Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury， judicial， administrative， and congressional proceedings， and they are supplemented by a provision in Section 1512（b） aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime。
法定抗辩。根据先例和律政司解释妨害法规的一般做法，我们的结论是，这里可以适用几项法规。详见18 U.S.C。§1503、1505、1512（B）（3）、1512（C）（2）。第1512（C）（2）条是一项总结性的妨害司法规定，涵盖一系列针对待决或设想的正式诉讼的妨害行为。任何法定的解释原则都没有理由将规定的范围缩小到只包括损害证据的完整性或可得性的行为。第1503和1505条还提供了广泛的保护，使其免受针对待审大陪审团、司法、行政和国会程序的妨害行为，第1512（b）条中还补充了一项条款，专门针对旨在防止或阻碍向执法机构通报与联邦罪行有关的信息的行为。
Constitutional defenses。 As for constitutional defenses arising from the President‘s status as the head of the Executive Branch， we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues。 We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues。 The Department of Justice and the President’s personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority。 With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution， we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President‘s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice。
宪法抗辩。至于总统作为行政首长的地位所引起的宪法辩护，我们认识到司法部和法院尚未最终解决这些问题。因此，我们通过最高法院确立的权力分立问题先例框架审查了这些问题。司法部和总统的私人律师承认，总统必须遵守禁止贿赂证人或禁止提供伪证来妨碍司法的法规，因为这种行为并不涉及他的宪法权力。关于总统是否因行使“宪法”第二条规定的权力而妨碍司法的问题，我们的结论是，为保护司法的完整性，国会有权禁止总统滥用其权力。
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent， the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers。 The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings， including those of courts and grand juries， from corrupt， obstructive acts regardless of their source。 We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President‘s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission。 The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard。 It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else， inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others。 A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers。 For example， the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment， avoiding financial liability， or preventing personal embarrassment。 To the contrary， a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers， rather than hinders， the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law。 It also aligns with the President‘s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws。 Finally， we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified， inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties。 The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President‘s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law。
根据适用的最高法院先例，“宪法”没有明确或永久免除总统通过行使其第二条规定的权力而妨碍司法公正的责任。三权分立原则授权国会保护官方诉讼程序，包括法院和大陪审团的诉讼程序，使其不受腐败和阻碍行为的影响，不论其来源为何。我们还得出结论，禁止腐败行为对总统权力的任何侵犯都不会损害总统履行其宪法使命的能力。“腐败”一词有严格的标准。它要求具体表明，一个人的行为意图为自己或他人获得不正当的好处，且不符合官方职责和他人的权利。排除“腐败”的官方行为并不削弱总统行使第二条权力的能力。例如，对刑法的适当监督并不意味着总统有自由以腐败的意图行事，以逃避刑事处罚、逃避经济责任或避免个人的尴尬。相反，这种腐败的官方行为的禁令促进，而不是阻碍公正和公正的执法。这也符合总统忠实执行法律的宪法义务。最后，我们的结论是，在罕见的情况下，对总统的行为进行刑事调查是有道理的，为确定总统是否出于腐败动机而采取行动而进行的调查不会使他在履行宪法赋予的职责时受到不被允许的打击。国会可以对总统的腐败行为采用妨碍司法罪的法规，这符合我们的宪法制衡制度和任何人都不能凌驾于法律之上的原则。
CONCLUSION
结语
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment， we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President‘s conduct。 The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment。 At the same time， if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice， we would so state。 Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards， we are unable to reach that judgment。 Accordingly， while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime， it also does not exonerate him。
因为我们决定不作出传统的起诉判决，所以我们没有对总统的行为作出最终的结论。我们获得的有关总统行动和意图的证据彰显出一些棘手的问题，如果我们作出传统的起诉判决，就需要解决这些问题。与此同时，如果我们在对事实进行彻底调查后有信心下结论说总统没有妨碍司法，我们也会这样说。然而根据事实和适用的法律标准，我们无法作出这一判决。因此，虽然本报告没有得出总统犯罪的结论，但也不能宣布他免罪。
