×

LingQ'yu daha iyi hale getirmek için çerezleri kullanıyoruz. Siteyi ziyaret ederek, bunu kabul edersiniz: çerez politikası.

image

PBS NewsHour (Nov to Dec 2017), Nov 1, 2017 - Debating Trump’s reaction to the New York attack

Nov 1, 2017 - Debating Trump's reaction to the New York attack

Nov 1, 2017 - Debating Trump's reaction to the New York attack. Hari Sreenivasan:

The president responds to another terror attack on U.S.

soil, while Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to debate the path forward on tax reform, and Trump campaign associate are handed indictments in a federal probe into 2016 election interference.

John Yang has that.

John Yang:

Thanks, Hari.

For two different perspectives on these stories, we're joined by Karine Jean-Pierre. She's a senior adviser to MoveOn.org, a contributing editor to “Bustle,” which is an online women's magazine, and a veteran of the Obama administration.Also, Chris Buskirk, editor of the conservative blog AmericanGreatness.org.He's also a radio talk host out in Phoenix.He joins us tonight from San Francisco. Welcome to you both.

Chris, I would like to start with you.

Much is being made about the difference or the seeming difference between President Trump's response to the shootings in Las Vegas and this attack yesterday in New York. After Las Vegas, he said it's not the time to have a policy debate, it's time to focus on the victims. This time, he seemed to jump right into a policy debate about the diversity visa lottery program, and he identified a culprit, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader in the senate.

What do you make of this, Chris?

Chris Buskirk:

It's because we know a key fact that is different in these two incidents, and I think that key fact kind of drives where the debate goes. You know, in Las Vegas, we had — we had the sort of lone gunman who was not acting on ideology that was — at least one that was discernible.

In New York, we had somebody who was acting on a very definable and knowable ideology, an ideology that we have unfortunately seen come back and kill thousands of Americans time — well, over time, has killed thousands of Americans, has killed thousands of people throughout the West.

And so we can sort of get past that part and say, well, what drove this person to do it?

We know that.We know that already with the New York attacker.It was Islamic supremacism.He said so.We know that.

And so we get on to the part and say, well, what do we do about it?

Is there a way to make Americans safer?And what the president was reacting to is, he was looking and saying, we played the so-called diversity lottery on immigration, and we lost.So, let's try and change policy again in a way that can make Americans safer, more protected.John Yang: Karine?

Karine Jean-pierre:

Look, first, I want to say my thoughts and prayers go out to the families in New York City that were affected by this horrific event.

I'm from New York.I grew up there.New York is incredibly resilient, and I know that they will bounce back. Look, terrorism shouldn't be politicized. And it is troubling and pretty shameful that that's the first place that this president went to in the aftermath of this horrific event. And, look, there is a stark difference.

Let's be very clear.In Las Vegas, you had a white man who killed 58 Americans and injured more than 600 people.The White House was silent on his motive.They were silent about him. And they took a page out of a playbook of NRA, and didn't want to talk about how to move forward with policy, how to prevent these types of mass shootings. And last night, with the eight people dead and 11 people injured, it was — he couldn't wait. He ran to Twitter and started tweeting about immigration policy.And then, after that, he went and attacked a New York senator who was busy trying to figure out how he's going to help out his constituents and help out the responders in New York City, and that's what he decided to do. And there is also this type of — kind of thing that he continues to do, which is, like he did with the San Juan mayor, which is attack local officials who are trying to do the best that they can with what's happening in — with their constituency in their city and their state. John Yang:

Chris, I want to pick up on that point about going after Chuck Schumer.

Yes, he did introduce the legislation when he was in the House that led to the diversity visa — diversity visa lottery.

But he also tried to get rid of it in the Gang of Eight, the immigration overhaul.

That died — it passed the Senate, but died in the House, the Republican House.Is that — I think a lot of people were taken by that, by immediately making — trying to make Schumer the culprit in this.Chris Buskirk:

Yes, well, look, I say this, and I say this for both sides of the aisle.

Let's let politics be political. And when we have something that requires a policy response, I say, fine, let's have at it. And let's have that debate, because Americans' lives on the line. When it comes to Chuck Schumer specifically in this case, I think the good news for Senator Schumer is, he's going to get another bite at the apple. If he really wants to repeal the diversity lottery program that he was in part responsible for — he sponsored it in the House — he's going to get another chance to do that. And he should sponsor a clean bill, just an up-or-down bill, nothing attached to it, that repeals that, if that's what he's serious about. Karine Jean-pierre:

The problem is not Senator Chuck Schumer.

The problem is the president of the United States, when, at times like these, past presidents, both Democrats and both Republicans, have unified this country and brought people together in these times.

And he just refuses to do that.

He refuses to grow into the office of the presidency.He wants to divide and just continue to govern for a very small part of this country.John Yang:

Chris, another big event this week, of course, the first charges by the — in the Mueller investigation on Monday.

We're now seeing reports that the president is being advised by some advisers to get a little tougher in this, to be a little more combative, taking on Mueller, maybe even talk about trying to cut off the funding for the investigation. Do you think that would be a good idea?

Chris Buskirk:

Yes, I don't know if it would be a good idea to cut off the funding for the investigation. That's a — that's a purely political question.It's a complicated one. What I will say is that I think a lot of attention needs to be paid to Robert Mueller and to Rod Rosenstein, for that matter, too.

These are two people who I think, the more we dig into their records, particularly when you look at something like Uranium One, they're deeply compromised. And I think it bears keeping the spotlight on them as well.

I mean, these indictments over the weekend, after all the ink that's been spilled, all the hyperventilating about Russian collusion, the only thing that Robert Mueller can come up with is an almost-15-year-old tax fraud case? It just — it beggars belief that this is what he's doing, and you wonder — you have to wonder why. Karine Jean-pierre:

I think this is just the beginning of Robert Mueller's investigation. We have a long ways to go.

Look, I think Donald Trump has made this really clear as to what he thinks about this investigation.

He thinks it's a hoax.This is what he's told the American people.And we should really listen to him and believe him when he says that, because, as we saw with FBI — former FBI Director Comey, he's not afraid to obstruct. He's not afraid to fire — to fire people. So I think we have to be really mindful.We can't — I think Congress needs to really make sure that they protect Mueller, they protect his budget, they protect the investigation, because if Donald Trump does indeed fire Mueller, we will be in a constitutional crisis.John Yang: You know, Chris, I always sort of turn to you for — you have got a very good feel for the president's base. He called The New York Times this afternoon to tell them that he's really not angry over this, over this Russia investigation, over the indictments. Does his base want him to be angrier about this and to fight back on this?Chris Buskirk:

I think — I don't know about angry. I think that's the wrong word. I think that the base looks at the Mueller investigation and says, this is not about — this is not about Donald Trump, per se.

He is, of course, talked about a lot with regard to the Mueller investigation.This is basically about what we found out is a Clinton campaign/DNC dirty trick cooked up last week, right?

They paid for the Fusion GPS dossier.

And this is something that has now been turned into a cooked-up scandal.It's a Beltway scandal that is trying to overturn the results of the election.And so do people who support the president want him to be angry?No, but maybe indignant is a better word, is to say, why are we allowing this to go on? We had the election.

We know that this is really something that was cooked up during the campaign to try and win the election.That didn't work.And so now it's being used as a way to try and undermine the president and to prevent him from governing after the election. People don't like that. And I do think people want that story to be told.John Yang:

Quickly.

Karine Jean-pierre:

Yes.

Well, there's a larger part of the population that wants to know exactly what happened. We have a foreign government that compromised — potentially compromised our election, and that's the cornerstone of our democracy. John Yang:

Karine, that has got to be the last word.

Karine Jean-Pierre, Chris Buskirk, thanks so much for joining us.

Chris Buskirk:

Thanks, John.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Nov 1, 2017 - Debating Trump’s reaction to the New York attack |обсуждение||||||| |dibattendo||||||| 1. November 2017 - Debatte über Trumps Reaktion auf den Anschlag in New York 1 nov 2017 - A debate la reacción de Trump al atentado de Nueva York 1er novembre 2017 - Débat sur la réaction de Trump à l'attentat de New York 1 novembre 2017 - Il dibattito sulla reazione di Trump all'attentato di New York 2017年11月1日 - ニューヨークのテロに対するトランプの反応を論じる 2017년 11월 1일 - 뉴욕 테러에 대한 트럼프의 반응에 대해 토론하기 Nov 1, 2017 - Diskusija apie D. Trumpo reakciją į išpuolį Niujorke Listopad 1, 2017 - Debata na temat reakcji Trumpa na zamach w Nowym Jorku 1 nov 2017 - Debate sobre a reação de Trump ao ataque em Nova Iorque Nov 1, 2017 - Обсуждение реакции Трампа на теракт в Нью-Йорке 1 Kasım 2017 - Trump'ın New York saldırısına tepkisi tartışılıyor 1 листопада 2017 - Дебати щодо реакції Трампа на теракт у Нью-Йорку 2017 年 11 月 1 日 - 辩论特朗普对纽约袭击事件的反应 2017 年 11 月 1 日 - 辯論川普對紐約攻擊事件的反應

Nov 1, 2017 - Debating Trump's reaction to the New York attack. 1er novembre 2017 - Débat sur la réaction de Trump à l'attaque de New York. Hari Sreenivasan: Hari Sreenivasan:

The president responds to another terror attack on U.S. |||||terrorismo|||| O presidente reage a outro ataque terrorista contra os EUA.

soil, while Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to debate the path forward on tax reform, and Trump campaign associate are handed indictments in a federal probe into 2016 election interference. ||||||||||||||||||сотрудники Трам|являются|вручили|обвинения||||расследование|||вмешательство в выбор |||||||||||||||ve||||||||||||| ||repubblicani||Capitol Hill||||debate||path forward|forward||tasse|reform|||campagna|||consegnate|accusezioni||||indagine||| suelo, mientras los republicanos en el Capitolio siguen debatiendo el camino a seguir en la reforma fiscal, y los asociados de la campaña de Trump reciben acusaciones en una investigación federal sobre la interferencia en las elecciones de 2016. sol, tandis que les républicains de Capitol Hill continuent de débattre de la voie à suivre sur la réforme fiscale, et l'associé de la campagne Trump est mis en accusation dans une enquête fédérale sur l'ingérence électorale de 2016. enquanto os republicanos no Capitólio continuam a debater o caminho a seguir na reforma fiscal, e colaboradores da campanha de Trump são acusados numa investigação federal sobre a interferência nas eleições de 2016.

John Yang has that. John Yang tem isso.

John Yang:

Thanks, Hari.

For two different perspectives on these stories, we're joined by Karine Jean-Pierre. |||точки зрения||||||||| Para duas perspectivas diferentes sobre estas histórias, juntamo-nos a Karine Jean-Pierre. She's a senior adviser to MoveOn.org, a contributing editor to “Bustle,” which is an online women's magazine, and a veteran of the Obama administration.Also, Chris Buskirk, editor of the conservative blog AmericanGreatness.org.He's also a radio talk host out in Phoenix.He joins us tonight from San Francisco. ||||||||вкладной|редактор||Бастл||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||consigliera|||||editor contributing|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Elle est conseillère principale de MoveOn.org, rédactrice en chef de "Bustle", un magazine féminin en ligne, et vétéran de l'administration Obama. Aussi, Chris Buskirk, rédacteur en chef du blog conservateur AmericanGreatness.org. parler à l'hôte à Phoenix. Il nous rejoint ce soir depuis San Francisco. É conselheira sénior da MoveOn.org, editora colaboradora da "Bustle", uma revista feminina online, e veterana da administração Obama. Chris Buskirk, editor do blogue conservador AmericanGreatness.org. É também locutor de rádio em Phoenix e junta-se a nós esta noite a partir de São Francisco. Welcome to you both. Bem-vindos a ambos.

Chris, I would like to start with you.

Much is being made about the difference or the seeming difference between President Trump's response to the shootings in Las Vegas and this attack yesterday in New York. |||||||||мнимом|||||||||||||||||| On parle beaucoup de la différence ou de la différence apparente entre la réponse du président Trump à la fusillade de Las Vegas et cette attaque d'hier à New York. Muito se tem falado sobre a diferença ou a aparente diferença entre a reação do Presidente Trump aos tiroteios em Las Vegas e a este ataque de ontem em Nova Iorque. After Las Vegas, he said it's not the time to have a policy debate, it's time to focus on the victims. ||||||||||||политическая дискус|дебаты по полит||||||| This time, he seemed to jump right into a policy debate about the diversity visa lottery program, and he identified a culprit, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader in the senate. |||||||||||||разнообразие||||||||виновник||||||||| Cette fois, il a semblé sauter directement dans un débat politique sur le programme de loterie des visas pour la diversité, et il a identifié un coupable, Chuck Schumer, le leader du Sénat démocrate au Sénat.

What do you make of this, Chris? Что||||||

Chris Buskirk:

It's because we know a key fact that is different in these two incidents, and I think that key fact kind of drives where the debate goes. |||||||||||||инцидентах||||||||||||| C'est parce que nous connaissons un fait clé qui est différent dans ces deux incidents, et je pense que ce fait clé détermine en quelque sorte la direction du débat. You know, in Las Vegas, we had — we had the sort of lone gunman who was not acting on ideology that was — at least one that was discernible. ||||||||||||одинокий|стрелок||||||||||||||различимый

In New York, we had somebody who was acting on a very definable and knowable ideology, an ideology that we have unfortunately seen come back and kill thousands of Americans time — well, over time, has killed thousands of Americans, has killed thousands of people throughout the West. ||||||||||||определяемой||познаваемой|идеология||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| À New York, nous avions quelqu'un qui agissait selon une idéologie très définissable et connaissable, une idéologie que nous avons malheureusement vue revenir et tuer des milliers d'Américains — eh bien, au fil du temps, a tué des milliers d'Américains, a tué des milliers de personnes dans tout l'Occident.

And so we can sort of get past that part and say, well, what drove this person to do it? |||||||||||||что|||||| Et donc nous pouvons en quelque sorte dépasser cette partie et dire, eh bien, qu'est-ce qui a poussé cette personne à le faire ?

We know that.We know that already with the New York attacker.It was Islamic supremacism.He said so.We know that. |||||||||||||||супремасизм||||||

And so we get on to the part and say, well, what do we do about it? Et donc nous passons à la partie et disons, eh bien, qu'est-ce qu'on fait à ce sujet ?

Is there a way to make Americans safer?And what the president was reacting to is, he was looking and saying, we played the so-called diversity lottery on immigration, and we lost.So, let's try and change policy again in a way that can make Americans safer, more protected.John Yang: Y a-t-il un moyen de rendre les Américains plus sûrs ? Et ce à quoi le président réagissait, c'est qu'il regardait et disait, nous avons joué à la soi-disant loterie de la diversité sur l'immigration, et nous avons perdu. Alors, essayons de changer à nouveau la politique d'une manière qui peuvent rendre les Américains plus sûrs, plus protégés. John Yang : Karine?

Karine Jean-pierre:

Look, first, I want to say my thoughts and prayers go out to the families in New York City that were affected by this horrific event. ||||||||||||||||||||||||ужасное|

I'm from New York.I grew up there.New York is incredibly resilient, and I know that they will bounce back. ||||||||||||устойчивый|||||||оправятся| Je viens de New York. J'y ai grandi. New York est incroyablement résiliente et je sais qu'elle va rebondir. Look, terrorism shouldn't be politicized. And it is troubling and pretty shameful that that's the first place that this president went to in the aftermath of this horrific event. |||тревожно|||постыдно|||||||||||||последствия этого события|||| |||||||||||||||||||sonrasında|||| Et il est troublant et assez honteux que ce soit le premier endroit où ce président se soit rendu à la suite de cet horrible événement. And, look, there is a stark difference. |||||разительный| Et, regardez, il y a une nette différence.

Let's be very clear.In Las Vegas, you had a white man who killed 58 Americans and injured more than 600 people.The White House was silent on his motive.They were silent about him. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||мотиве||||| And they took a page out of a playbook of NRA, and didn't want to talk about how to move forward with policy, how to prevent these types of mass shootings. ||||||||стратегия|||||||||||||||||||||| Et ils ont pris une page d'un livre de jeu de la NRA, et ne voulaient pas parler de comment faire avancer la politique, comment empêcher ces types de fusillades de masse. And last night, with the eight people dead and 11 people injured, it was — he couldn't wait. He ran to Twitter and started tweeting about immigration policy.And then, after that, he went and attacked a New York senator who was busy trying to figure out how he's going to help out his constituents and help out the responders in New York City, and that's what he decided to do. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||избиратели|||||спасателям||||||||||| Il a couru sur Twitter et a commencé à tweeter sur la politique d'immigration. Et puis, après cela, il est allé attaquer un sénateur de New York qui était occupé à essayer de comprendre comment il allait aider ses électeurs et aider les intervenants à New York, et c'est ce qu'il a décidé de faire. And there is also this type of — kind of thing that he continues to do, which is, like he did with the San Juan mayor, which is attack local officials who are trying to do the best that they can with what's happening in — with their constituency in their city and their state. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||избиратели|||||| John Yang:

Chris, I want to pick up on that point about going after Chuck Schumer.

Yes, he did introduce the legislation when he was in the House that led to the diversity visa — diversity visa lottery. |||||законодательство||||||||||||||| Oui, il a présenté le projet de loi lorsqu'il était à la Chambre qui a mené au visa de diversité — la loterie des visas de diversité.

But he also tried to get rid of it in the Gang of Eight, the immigration overhaul. ||||||||||||||||реформа иммиграции Mais il a aussi essayé de s'en débarrasser dans le Gang des Huit, la refonte de l'immigration.

That died — it passed the Senate, but died in the House, the Republican House.Is that — I think a lot of people were taken by that, by immediately making — trying to make Schumer the culprit in this.Chris Buskirk: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||виновным|||| Cela est mort – il a été adopté par le Sénat, mais est mort à la Chambre, la Maison républicaine. Est-ce que – je pense que beaucoup de gens ont été séduits par cela, en faisant immédiatement – en essayant de faire de Schumer le coupable de cela. Chris Buskirk :

Yes, well, look, I say this, and I say this for both sides of the aisle. |||||||||||||||сторон Oui, eh bien, écoutez, je dis ceci, et je le dis pour les deux côtés de l'allée.

Let's let politics be political. And when we have something that requires a policy response, I say, fine, let's have at it. And let's have that debate, because Americans' lives on the line. ||||дебаты|||||| Et ayons ce débat, parce que la vie des Américains est en jeu. When it comes to Chuck Schumer specifically in this case, I think the good news for Senator Schumer is, he's going to get another bite at the apple. En ce qui concerne Chuck Schumer en particulier dans ce cas, je pense que la bonne nouvelle pour le sénateur Schumer est qu'il va avoir une autre bouchée de la pomme. If he really wants to repeal the diversity lottery program that he was in part responsible for — he sponsored it in the House — he's going to get another chance to do that. |||||отменить|||||||||||||||||||||||||| S'il veut vraiment abroger le programme de loterie sur la diversité dont il était en partie responsable — il l'a parrainé à la Chambre — il aura une autre chance de le faire. And he should sponsor a clean bill, just an up-or-down bill, nothing attached to it, that repeals that, if that's what he's serious about. ||||||||||||||||||отменяет||||||| Et il devrait parrainer un projet de loi propre, juste un projet de loi à la hausse ou à la baisse, rien qui s'y rattache, qui abroge cela, si c'est ce qu'il veut vraiment faire. Karine Jean-pierre:

The problem is not Senator Chuck Schumer. ||||||Шумер

The problem is the president of the United States, when, at times like these, past presidents, both Democrats and both Republicans, have unified this country and brought people together in these times. ||||||||||||||||||||||объединяли|||||||||

And he just refuses to do that. |||отказывается|||

He refuses to grow into the office of the presidency.He wants to divide and just continue to govern for a very small part of this country.John Yang: Il refuse de grandir dans le bureau de la présidence. Il veut diviser et continuer à gouverner pour une toute petite partie de ce pays. John Yang :

Chris, another big event this week, of course, the first charges by the — in the Mueller investigation on Monday. |||событие|||||||обвинения||||||||

We're now seeing reports that the president is being advised by some advisers to get a little tougher in this, to be a little more combative, taking on Mueller, maybe even talk about trying to cut off the funding for the investigation. |||||||||||||||||||||||||агрессивным|||||||||||||финансирование||| Nous voyons maintenant des rapports selon lesquels le président est conseillé par certains conseillers d'être un peu plus durs à cet égard, d'être un peu plus combatif, de s'attaquer à Mueller, peut-être même de parler d'essayer de couper le financement de l'enquête. Do you think that would be a good idea?

Chris Buskirk:

Yes, I don't know if it would be a good idea to cut off the funding for the investigation. ||||||||||||прекратить|||||| That's a — that's a purely political question.It's a complicated one. ||||чисто|||||| What I will say is that I think a lot of attention needs to be paid to Robert Mueller and to Rod Rosenstein, for that matter, too. Ce que je dirai, c'est que je pense qu'il faut accorder beaucoup d'attention à Robert Mueller et à Rod Rosenstein, d'ailleurs.

These are two people who I think, the more we dig into their records, particularly when you look at something like Uranium One, they're deeply compromised. |||||||||||||||||||||||||скомпрометированы Ce sont deux personnes qui, je pense, plus nous fouillons dans leurs dossiers, en particulier quand vous regardez quelque chose comme Uranium One, elles sont profondément compromises. And I think it bears keeping the spotlight on them as well. ||||стоит|||внимание|||| Et je pense qu'il convient également de garder les projecteurs sur eux.

I mean, these indictments over the weekend, after all the ink that's been spilled, all the hyperventilating about Russian collusion, the only thing that Robert Mueller can come up with is an almost-15-year-old tax fraud case? |||обвинительные акты||||после всего|||чернила|||пролито|||переволновались|||сговор с Россией|||||||||||||||||мошенничество| Je veux dire, ces inculpations du week-end, après toute l'encre qui a coulé, toute l'hyperventilation sur la collusion russe, la seule chose que Robert Mueller peut trouver est une affaire de fraude fiscale vieille de presque 15 ans ? It just — it beggars belief that this is what he's doing, and you wonder — you have to wonder why. |||не укладывается в голове||||||||||||||| C'est juste - cela dépasse l'entendement que c'est ce qu'il fait, et vous vous demandez - vous devez vous demander pourquoi. Karine Jean-pierre:

I think this is just the beginning of Robert Mueller's investigation. We have a long ways to go.

Look, I think Donald Trump has made this really clear as to what he thinks about this investigation.

He thinks it's a hoax.This is what he's told the American people.And we should really listen to him and believe him when he says that, because, as we saw with FBI — former FBI Director Comey, he's not afraid to obstruct. ||||обман|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||препятствовать Il pense que c'est un canular. C'est ce qu'il a dit au peuple américain. Et nous devrions vraiment l'écouter et le croire quand il dit cela, parce que, comme nous l'avons vu avec le FBI - l'ancien directeur du FBI Comey, il n'a pas peur de faire obstruction. He's not afraid to fire — to fire people. So I think we have to be really mindful.We can't — I think Congress needs to really make sure that they protect Mueller, they protect his budget, they protect the investigation, because if Donald Trump does indeed fire Mueller, we will be in a constitutional crisis.John Yang: ||||||||внимательными|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||конституционный кризис|| Je pense donc que nous devons être très attentifs. Nous ne pouvons pas - je pense que le Congrès doit vraiment s'assurer qu'ils protègent Mueller, qu'ils protègent son budget, qu'ils protègent l'enquête, car si Donald Trump vire effectivement Mueller, nous serons dans une crise constitutionnelle.John Yang : You know, Chris, I always sort of turn to you for — you have got a very good feel for the president's base. He called The New York Times this afternoon to tell them that he's really not angry over this, over this Russia investigation, over the indictments. ||||||||||||||||||||||||обвинения Il a appelé le New York Times cet après-midi pour leur dire qu'il n'était vraiment pas en colère contre ça, contre cette enquête sur la Russie, contre les actes d'accusation. Does his base want him to be angrier about this and to fight back on this?Chris Buskirk:

I think — I don't know about angry. I think that's the wrong word. I think that the base looks at the Mueller investigation and says, this is not about — this is not about Donald Trump, per se. ||||||||||||||||||||||как таковой| Je pense que la base se penche sur l'enquête Mueller et dit, ce n'est pas à propos - ce n'est pas à propos de Donald Trump, en soi.

He is, of course, talked about a lot with regard to the Mueller investigation.This is basically about what we found out is a Clinton campaign/DNC dirty trick cooked up last week, right? |||||||||относительно|||||||||||||||||||||||| On parle beaucoup de lui, bien sûr, en ce qui concerne l'enquête Mueller. Il s'agit essentiellement de ce que nous avons découvert, c'est un sale tour de la campagne Clinton/DNC concocté la semaine dernière, n'est-ce pas ?

They paid for the Fusion GPS dossier. ||||Fusion||досье Fusion GPS

And this is something that has now been turned into a cooked-up scandal.It's a Beltway scandal that is trying to overturn the results of the election.And so do people who support the president want him to be angry?No, but maybe indignant is a better word, is to say, why are we allowing this to go on? |||||||||||сфабрикованный|||||Вашингтонский скандал||||||опровергнуть||||||||||||||||||||||возмущённый||||||||||||||| Et c'est quelque chose qui s'est maintenant transformé en un scandale inventé. C'est un scandale du Beltway qui tente de renverser les résultats de l'élection. Et les gens qui soutiennent le président veulent-ils qu'il soit en colère ? Non, mais peut-être indigné est un meilleur mot, c'est-à-dire, pourquoi permettons-nous que cela continue? We had the election.

We know that this is really something that was cooked up during the campaign to try and win the election.That didn't work.And so now it's being used as a way to try and undermine the president and to prevent him from governing after the election. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||подорвать авторитет||||||||управлять||| Nous savons que c'est vraiment quelque chose qui a été concocté pendant la campagne pour essayer de gagner les élections. Cela n'a pas fonctionné. élection. People don't like that. And I do think people want that story to be told.John Yang:

Quickly.

Karine Jean-pierre:

Yes.

Well, there's a larger part of the population that wants to know exactly what happened. We have a foreign government that compromised — potentially compromised our election, and that's the cornerstone of our democracy. ||||||||||||||основа||| Nous avons un gouvernement étranger qui a compromis — potentiellement compromis notre élection, et c'est la pierre angulaire de notre démocratie. John Yang:

Karine, that has got to be the last word.

Karine Jean-Pierre, Chris Buskirk, thanks so much for joining us.

Chris Buskirk:

Thanks, John.