好英语网7个问题，了解特朗普弹劾案后续流程
Now that the House has voted to impeach President Trump, the matter would normally move to the Senate for a trial — the third for an American president.
现在众议院已通过弹劾特朗普的投票，通常下一步将移交参议院审理——这是第三位进入弹劾审判的美国总统。
But questions about the timing of a trial arose after the House approved two articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, wouldn’t say when she would transmit the articles, indicating that she may wait to get certain assurances about the fairness of a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate.
但是在众议院通过两项针对特朗普的弹劾条款后，出现了有关审判时宜的问题。众议院议长南希·佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)不愿透露她将何时移送条款，这表明她可能会等待共和党控制的参议院对公平审判做出一定的保证。
罢免特朗普总统需要参议院三分之二的多数票。
A trial would require a two-thirds majority — 67 senators — to convict and remove the president. Republicans control the Senate, 53 to 47, and Mr. Trump is widely expected to be acquitted. But Democrats have argued that impeaching him is a moral necessity, even if he remains in office.
审判需要三分之二的多数（即67名参议员）才能定罪并罢免总统。共和党以53票对47票控制着参议院，人们普遍认为特朗普将被宣布无罪。但民主党人指出，弹劾他是道德上的必要，即使他继续任职。
Mr. Trump is only the third president to face a Senate trial for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” (The first two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were both acquitted. Another president, Richard M. Nixon, resigned rather than face impeachment and trial.)
特朗普是第三位因“重罪和不端行为”面临参议员审判的总统。（前两位安德鲁·约翰逊[Andrew Johnson]和比尔·克林顿[Bill Clinton]均被宣告无罪。另一位总统，理查德·尼克松[Richard Nixon]因辞职避开了弹劾和审判。）
Here’s what we know about how it would unfold.
关于接下来的流程，以下是我们所知道的。
When is the trial expected? How long will it be?
审判预计何时进行？需要多长时间？
This is unclear. While the president and his allies are eager for a speedy acquittal, Ms. Pelosi’s comments raised the possibility that the House could leave for the holidays without the matter resolved — leaving the stain of impeachment with no conclusion.
尚不清楚。尽管总统和他的盟友急切希望迅速宣布无罪释放，佩洛西的评论提出了这样一种可能性，即众议院可能会在问题未解决的情况下休圣诞假——让弹劾的子弹再飞一会儿。
A trial had been expected to begin in early January, and it’s unclear how long it would last. Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed an interest in keeping it short.
预计审判将于1月初开始，尚不清楚会持续多长时间。两党都表示有意速战速决。
The 1999 trial of Mr. Clinton, who was tried on two articles of impeachment — perjury and obstruction of justice — lasted about five weeks.
1999年对克林顿两项弹劾条款（伪证罪和妨碍司法公正）的审判持续了大约5个星期。
Who does what?
谁负责做什么？
To start, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California would appoint a team of lawmakers to act as prosecutors during the trial. They are called managers, and they present the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
首先，来自加利福尼亚的议长南希·佩洛西将任命一组议员在审判期间担任检察官。他们被称为监察(managers)，向参议员呈交弹劾条款。
The chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., would preside over the trial, and a legal team would defend Mr. Trump. Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, is expected to represent Mr. Trump, along with the president’s outside lawyers.
美国首席大法官小约翰·G·罗伯茨(John G. Roberts Jr.)将主持审判，一个法律团队将为特朗普辩护。预计白宫法律顾问帕特·A·希波隆(Pat A. Cipollone)将与总统的外部律师一起代表特朗普。
The Senate would have to come to an agreement on the trial procedures. Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Chuck Schumer of New York, the Republican and Democratic leaders, have already sparred over that task.
参议院必须就审判程序达成一致。作为共和党和民主党领袖，肯塔基州参议员米奇·麦康奈尔(Mitch McConnell)和纽约州参议员查克·舒默(Chuck Schumer)已经就这一问题发生争执。
How will it work?
如何进行？
Any senator could propose a motion to dismiss the charges. (A simple majority vote would be needed.)
任何参议员都可以提出撤销指控的动议。（需要简单多数票。）
But if the trial proceeds, there would be opening and closing statements, questions from senators to the managers and defense lawyers, and, possibly, more subpoenas, evidence requests and witnesses called. Deliberations would likely happen in a closed session before a vote.
一旦审判继续进行，将会有开庭陈词与结案陈词，由参议员向监察和辩护律师提出问题，还可能有更多传票、证据请求和证人传唤。在投票前，可能会进行闭门会议。
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presided over Mr. Clinton’s trial, during which senators were allowed to ask questions of the prosecution and defense through written notecards. Justice Rehnquist read them aloud.
首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特(William H. Rehnquist)主持了克林顿的审判，在审判期间，参议员被允许通过书面记录卡向控方和辩方提问，伦奎斯特大法官将其念出来。
When the White House counsel leading Mr. Clinton’s defense, Charles F. C. Ruff, wanted to rebut, he put down his pen, which signaled Democratic aides to submit a question asking Mr. Ruff to comment on assertions made by the opposition.
当领导克林顿辩护的白宫法律顾问查尔斯·鲁夫(Charles Ruff)想要反驳时，他用放下笔的动作示意民主党的助手们提交一个问题，让鲁夫对反方的主张发表意见。
What are the rules?
都有什么样的规则？
Essentially, it’s up to senators to decide the format of the trial, but they will most likely follow a set of rules governing impeachment trials that were revised in the 1980s.
从本质上讲，审判的形式由参议员决定，但他们很可能会遵循1980年代修订的一系列弹劾审判规则。
Senators also act as the jury, and must take an oath to render “impartial justice.” (A handful of the jurors are running for president.)
参议员还充当陪审团的角色，必须做出“公正正义”的宣誓。（有几位陪审员正在参加总统竞选。）
Mr. Schumer laid out a detailed proposal this week that called for additional witnesses who have not previously testified (including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser) as well as subpoenas for additional documents that the White House has withheld.
舒默本周提出了一份详细提案，要求增加之前未作证的证人（包括特朗普的代理幕僚长米克·马尔瓦尼[Mick Mulvaney]、总统前国家安全顾问约翰·R·博尔顿[John R. Bolton]），并命令白宫交出更多扣留的文件。
Mr. McConnell rejected Democrats’ demands to call White House officials as witnesses and said he had no obligation to be evenhanded or impartial during the proceedings. He is working with the White House to establish rules for the trial, trying to balance Mr. Trump’s desire for vindication with lawmakers’ concerns.
麦康奈尔拒绝了民主党要求白宫官员作证的要求，并称他没有义务在诉讼过程中一视同仁或保持公正。他正在与白宫合作，为审判制定规则，试图平衡特朗普证明自己无罪的要求和立法者的担忧。
During Mr. Clinton’s trial, witnesses were not allowed to appear in person. Senators were shown videotaped portions of their testimony instead.
在克林顿受审期间，证人不允许亲自出庭。取而代之的是，向参议员播放他们部分证词的录像。
“When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,” Gregory B. Craig, who helped defend Mr. Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, told The New York Times in 2017.
格雷戈里·B·克雷格(Gregory B. Craig)在2017年告诉《纽约时报》：“当参议院决定我们审判的规则时，他们真的是边进行边制定。”他曾在克林顿的弹劾程序中为其辩护，后来担任了贝拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)的白宫法律顾问。
What does the Constitution say about all this?
对于这一切，宪法是怎么规定的？
The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
如果议员投票认为总统犯下了“叛国罪、贿赂罪、其他重罪或不端行为”，宪法允许国会在总统任期结束前将其罢免。
But it does not explain how lawmakers should interpret what constitutes those offenses. Similarly, there is no established standard of proof that must be met.
但它并没有解释立法者应该如何解释什么样的行为构成这些罪行。同样，也没有既定的证明标准是必须满足的。
How might it end?
将会如何结束？
A conviction would require a two-thirds vote on at least one article, resulting in the president’s removal from office, with no opportunity to appeal. The vice president would take over as president.
定罪需要对至少一项条款有三分之二的投票通过，才能将总统罢免，并且没有上诉机会。副总统将接任总统一职。
The Senate could subsequently vote to disqualify the president from future office, using a simple majority vote.
随后，参议院可能会通过普通多数投票决定取消总统在未来任职的资格。
Though a conviction is unlikely — barring some unexpected development — the trial could have political ramifications for both parties.
尽管定罪的可能性很小（除非出现一些意想不到的发展），审判可能会给两党都带来政治后果。
How did previous impeachment trials end?
以前的弹劾审判是如何结束的？
The Johnson trial, in 1868, was anticlimactic, and mired in constant battles over process and authority between long-winded men in love with their own words, according to Brenda Wineapple, the author of “The Impeachers.”
根据《弹劾者》(The Impeachers)一书作者布伦达·维恩阿波(Brenda Wineapple)的说法，1868年对约翰逊的审判虎头蛇尾，陷入了爱长篇大论的咬文嚼字者之间在程序和权威方面的无休止的斗争。
In the end, enough Republicans rallied with Democrats to spare Johnson from conviction by a single vote.
最终，有足够的共和党人与民主党人联合起来，以一票之差使约翰逊免于定罪。
On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted Mr. Clinton, falling short of even a majority vote on either of the charges against him.
1999年2月12日，参议员院宣告克林顿无罪，对他的两项指控都没有获得多数票。