⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟視頻分析⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟⍟
在享有盛譽的“紐約時報DealBook峰會”上，一場引人入勝的對話正在展開。聚光燈下，前美國總統比爾·克林頓身著一套經典的深藍色西裝，內搭條紋領帶和一件深色針織馬甲，銀白的發絲更顯其儒雅氣質。他端坐於一張簡約而現代的白色扶手椅上，準備分享他對全球經濟與政治的獨到見解。
對麵的主持人，安德魯·羅斯·索爾金，同樣西裝革履，手持講稿和一支筆，以專注的姿態凝視著克林頓，眼神中充滿期待。他的任務是引導這場對話，深入挖掘克林頓總統的思想。
對話一開始，克林頓總統便展現出他標誌性的活力和感染力。他的手勢豐富而富有表現力，時而舉起一根手指強調核心觀點，時而雙臂張開比喻廣闊的格局，時而又將手掌攤開，真誠地與聽眾交流。他的麵部表情也極其生動，從深思熟慮的凝重，到突然迸發的笑容，無不傳遞著他投入其中的熱情。他似乎在闡述一係列重要問題，從他自信而有力的手勢中，可以感受到他正在耐心且詳盡地解釋複雜的議題。
索爾金則在對麵扮演著完美的傾聽者和提問者。他時而垂目看手中的資料，似乎在核對問題，時而又抬頭與克林頓進行眼神交流，捕捉每一個細節。他的微笑和點頭表明他對克林頓的觀點表示認同或思考，確保了對話的流暢進行。
整個交流過程充滿了智慧的火花，鏡頭在兩人特寫與全景之間切換，巧妙地捕捉了對話的動態與情感。克林頓總統不時將雙手合攏，或輕撫胸口，這些小動作都透露出他內心深處的情感和對他所談論話題的深刻關切。他似乎在循序漸進地引導著思路，從一個觀點過渡到另一個，用清晰的邏輯和富有魅力的語言，將抽象的理念變得觸手可及。
隨著討論的深入，克林頓的肢體語言愈發投入，他時而指著某個方向，似乎在描繪未來趨勢或指明解決之道；時而又攤開雙手，示意某種普遍存在的現象或困境。他仿佛在與在場的每一位觀眾進行無聲的互動，試圖將他們帶入他所構建的思考世界。
這場在“紐約時報DealBook峰會”上展開的對話，不僅僅是兩位知名人士的交流，更像是一場對全球重要議題的深度剖析。克林頓總統的經驗與智慧，通過他富有感染力的語言和肢體動作，在索爾金的精準引導下，得以淋漓盡致地展現。最終，他以一個略帶沉思但又充滿希望的表情結束了他的發言，仿佛為未來的挑戰與機遇留下了無限的思考空間。
~~~~~~~~~~音頻信息~~~~~~~~~~~
Please welcome Andrew Ross Sorkin and his guest, 42nd President of the United States and author of Citizen, My Life After the White House, Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is here, everybody. 42nd President of the United States, Bill Clinton is here. Thank you so very, very much for being with us today. The man, again, none of these none of these guests need introductions, but his legacy is something that I think we all know was a booming economy. He brought his party to the center. Last month, he published a new book. It is titled Citizen, My Life After the White House, reflecting on his past two decades as a private citizen. We'll talk about it during the 24 election. As you know, he was campaigning on behalf of the Harris-Waltz ticket. And I just would say there is no better person, I would say, right now in this country than former President Bill Clinton to discuss what is happening to our nation, to our world, to the Democratic Party and where we all go from here. So just thank you so, so much for being here. Thank you, Andrew. There's a lot to get to, and I want to understand what you think happened during this past election and and where where we are going. But I actually want to ask you the elephant in the room question, because I think you'll it's in the headlines. Everybody's crazed about it. And so I just want to go straight to it, if you'd indulge me, which is I want to know what you actually think of the pardon of Biden's pardon for his son. This was not on my my my plan originally, but I thought, you know what, everybody we were out in the hallway, they were all talking about that. And I said, I'm going to ask I'm going to ask the president first. Well, I think that the president did have reason to believe that the nature of the offenses involved were likely to produce far stronger adverse consequences for his son than they would for any normal person under the same circumstances. And but I would urge all of you to just look at the facts before you make a judgment and see what they're talking about, what the context is, because I'm still reading somebody say, well, this is just like when Bill Clinton pardoned his brother. Well, it's not. My brother did 14 months in the federal prison for something he did when he was 20 and I supported it and he testified, told the truth about what he'd done when he had a drug problem and helped to bring down a larger enterprise and they sentenced him and then he served 14 months and he got out. It was the real question was, would he ever be able to vote again? Would he ever be able to have normal citizenship responsibilities? And I've been sort of upset. That there's been almost no discussion about the larger problem, which is, does the pardon system we have work? Right. Now, you can say, well, it's all up to the president, but the truth is, the way it works now is if, let's say, you and I had childhood marijuana convictions or whatever, you apply for a pardon if you're a normal person and they send it to the Justice Department, to a division of the Justice Department, which is supposed to do research and make you a recommendation. And most of the time, any president doesn't give a second thought to pardons for most of the week, in any given week. And when it got down sort of toward the end of my term, I looked around and I was absolutely stunned that there were these massive backlog of applications that had been sent to the Justice Department and there had been no action. Why? Because you never get in trouble for saying no. If you recommend it. Right. So all I'm saying is, you've got to see this in a larger context. I think Hakeem Jeffries said the other day he understood why the president had done this, but there were lots of deserving people who had gotten excessive sentences. That's the broader piece. But let me ask you this. This is what Politico just wrote. They said, this is a rich gift to those who want to blow up the justice system as we know it, who claim the government is a self-dealing club for hypocritical elites. It's a promise breaking act that subjects Biden's allies. Right. This is the hard part. To yet another humiliation in a year packed with Biden inflicted injuries. What does it do to the Democratic Party to all those folks who were out there saying no rule of law, this rule of law that he said he would never do this? Yes. And we had a lot better record than the Republicans did, didn't we? And what good did it do us? I mean, nobody believes anybody anymore. Is that the problem? But this didn't make it any better, though. That didn't make that any better. But I if my view of this is that that specific thing that you mentioned should be explained in greater detail. That is, I personally believe that the president is almost certainly right that he's that his son received completely different treatment than he would have if he hadn't been the president's son in this kind of case. But like I said, I don't think people I think there's a lot of people who understand it as a parent. No question. I think the bigger question is about what was said for so many months, the last six months ahead of it. You have to ask them that. I don't know. I've never talked. But when you heard it, did you say, OK, this this this frustrates me. This upsets. Is it upset you at all? Does it not upset you? Well, in the hierarchy of things that there are to be upset about today. This is not one of them. No, no, I don't. But but it's not way high on there. I mean, look, I have been you got to understand I've been through all this. And you act like this is new. This is not new. We had six people, six in different cases when I was president who were being prosecuted by Ken Starr's people told me they were screaming at him. Wait, wait. You started this. Told me they were screaming at him when they were being interviewed. You are trying to get me to commit perjury. Six people and all of them said some version of what do you care if you tell us what we want to hear? We'll take care of you. If we don't, we'll make your life. You don't will make your life a living hell. Six people told me that. And it was never in the press. Nobody ever expressed any outrage. And a hell of a lot of people knew what was going on. So you can't take the politics out of these pardon decisions if the president's in any way involved. So I wish he hadn't said he wasn't going to do it. I think it does weaken his case and it makes people freer to jump on him. But there's also a reason the founding fathers gave this pardon power to the president. Because all kinds of things are always happening that you can't reconcile in terms of this, that and the other thing. And you can't figure out how to solve it. Let me try a different one out on you then. Senator Manchin actually made a very interesting comment the other day where he said, Why don't you go ahead and that Biden should pardon President-elect Trump? He says, why don't you go ahead and pardon Donald Trump for all his charges and make it, you know, it would have gone down as balanced this way. It's off the table for the next four years. Just cleans the slate. You think Biden should be pardoning Trump? And by the way, there's some people who think that Trump should be pardoning Biden. Well, I do think we should stop trying to criminalize politics. But on the other, I think we should, both of us.
（掌聲）讓我們歡迎安德魯·羅斯·索金與他的特別嘉賓——美國第42任總統、《公民：白宮之後的生活》作者比爾·克林頓。比爾·克林頓蒞臨現場！美國第42任總統親臨！衷心感謝您今日的到來。這位傳奇人物無需過多介紹，我們都記得他主政時期的經濟繁榮，記得他將民主黨推向政治光譜中央。上月他出版的新書《公民：白宮之後的生活》，正是對他過去二十年平民生活的深刻反思。在談論2024年大選的特別節目中，我們將深入探討這部作品。眾所周知，他正在為哈裏斯-沃爾茲組合助選。我認為當下全美沒有比克林頓前總統更適合探討國家命運、世界局勢、民主黨前景與未來方向的人選。再次感謝您的到來。
安德魯：感謝您。我們有很多話題要探討，我想了解您對本次大選的看法以及未來走向。但首先請允許我提出這個全場最敏感的問題——這已成為頭條新聞，全民熱議。如果您不介意，我想直擊要害：您如何看待拜登總統對其子的特赦決定？這原本不在采訪提綱中，但我在走廊聽到所有人都在討論這個問題，所以決定首先請教您。
克林頓：我認為總統有理由相信，涉案性質可能對其子造成遠比普通人更嚴重的負麵影響。但我建議大家先審視事實再下判斷，了解具體背景。有人稱這好比當年我特赦弟弟的情形——實則不然。我弟弟因20歲時的毒品問題在聯邦監獄服刑14個月，他如實供述並協助瓦解了更大犯罪網絡。當時真正的爭議在於他能否重獲完整公民權。令我困擾的是，幾乎無人討論特赦製度的係統性問題——現行製度是否有效？理論上總統擁有特赦權，但實際操作中，普通民眾申請特赦需經司法部審核推薦。而曆任總統多數時候無暇顧及此類申請。在我任期尾聲，驚訝地發現司法部積壓著大量未處理的申請。為何？因為拒絕永遠不會惹麻煩。正如哈基姆·傑弗裏斯所言，他理解總統的動機，但還有眾多量刑過重的普通人值得關注——這才是更宏觀的問題。
安德魯：請看看《政客》雜誌的評論："這無異於送給'司法體係破壞者'的大禮，他們聲稱政府是虛偽精英的利益俱樂部。此舉違背承諾，令拜登盟友在飽經創傷的一年中再遭羞辱。"這對民主黨意味著什麽？對那些曾高呼"法治至上"、堅稱絕不會特赦的支持者意味著什麽？
克林頓：我們比共和黨有著更清白的記錄，但這有何用？如今沒人相信任何人了。但這個問題並未因此改善。我認為需要更詳細解釋的是：總統之子在此類案件中確實受到了區別於常人的對待。不過作為父母，許多人能理解這種情感。更關鍵的是此前數月的公開表態——這需要詢問當事人。就我個人而言，在當今值得憂慮的事務清單上，此事排名並不靠前。
安德魯：當您聽到特赦消息時，是否感到沮喪或不安？
克林頓：在當今所有令人憂心的事務中，這並非我的關注重點。別忘了我是經曆過更大風浪的人。當年斯塔檢察官團隊有六名涉案人員告訴我，調查人員曾對他們咆哮："按我們說的作證就能得到關照，否則讓你生不如死。"六個人的證詞如出一轍，卻從未見諸報端，無人表達憤慨。隻要總統涉足特赦領域，政治因素就難以剝離。我確實希望他未曾作出過不特赦的承諾，這削弱了他的立場，給了批評者把柄。但建國者賦予總統特赦權自有深意——總有些無法調和的特殊狀況需要解決。
安德魯：那麽曼欽參議員近日提出驚人建議：拜登應該特赦特朗普前總統，這樣既展現平衡姿態，又能讓此事在未來四年翻篇。您認為拜登應該特赦特朗普嗎？順便說一句，也有人認為特朗普應該特赦拜登。
克林頓：我認為我們確實應該停止將政治問題刑事化。但另一方麵...（話語未竟）我們雙方都需要反思。
您今天到現在為止參與《我愛我家》的業績
| 名次 | 項 目 | 數量 |
|---|---|---|
| #10 | 獲點讚 | 5 |
| #24 | 字節數 | 493 |
| #25 | 被瀏覽 | 39 |
| #85 | 總貼數 | 1 |
