作者：
温佛佳
来源：
温佛佳的小屋
学翻译，对比学习，是无法跳过的一步。
一方面可多读些英汉对照类阅读材料或有汉语注释的英语读物；另一方面还可根据译文类杂志上提供的某篇译文的原文出处去查找到相应的原文，继而进行对照翻译。
学翻译，对比学习，是无法跳过的一步。确实，
通过对比分析，可以找出自己的差距，学习和吸收他人在理解原文精神和翻译表达等方面的长处，促进翻译能力的提高。
来，先试试以下的这些段落吧。
请记住：要坚持住，先自己翻译，检查然后再对比译文。
坚持完成练习的小伙伴有彩蛋哦！
Thanks to Rudy Giuliani’s report that special prosecutor Robert Mueller told him he couldn’t legally indict President Trump, we are again confronted with a question of constitutional law for which there is no settled answer: Can a sitting president be indicted for criminal activity?
最近，鲁迪.朱利安尼称，负责“通俄案”的特别检查官罗伯特.穆勒告诉他，依据宪法，他不能起诉总统特朗普。我们就不得不再次面对一个法律尚无定论的问题：究竟能否针对在位的总统的犯罪行为进行起诉？
There is no precedent for such an indictment, but there is much debate among scholars and lawyers about whether it would be legal to do so.
尽管历史上还无先例，但这仍在在学者和律师间掀起了一场争论：起诉总统到底是否合法？
Justice Department policy and two internal memos—one dating back to Watergate and the other from the Clinton era—suggest that the answer is no. This view is contested by various scholars, and most recently Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who believes a president could be indicted and the trial postponed until after the president leaves office.
依据美国司法部政策以及两个内部备忘录（一个追溯至水门事件，一个可追溯至克林顿时代），答案是否定的。
当然这个结论遭到了无数学者的质疑，其中就包括参议员理查德布鲁门萨尔。新近这位参议员发声，他认为总统是可以被起诉的，可延迟到他退位后再开庭审理。
Who is right?
谁是对的？
Let’s start with the common ground. All agree that impeachment—which, if successful, turns a sitting president into an indictable ex-president—resolves the issue. But impeachment is highly unlikely in current circumstances, given that it requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.
我们不妨先来看看双方的共识。大家一致认为对总统进行弹劾可以解读这个难题。因为如果弹劾成功的话，就可将“在位的总统”变为“可起诉的总统”。
但在目前的情势下，这几乎是完全不可能的，因为这将需要获得参议院三分之二的投票通过。
It is unimaginable that Republicans, who have tightly yoked their party to Trump, will be willing to impeach, and so the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted remains live.
共和党和特朗普是捆在一根绳上的蚂蚱，想让他们去弹劾总统，实乃异想天开。因此，能否起诉在位的总统依是令人关心的问题。
Another point of agreement is that functional concerns matter. The president has a day job, and there is some risk that extensive involvement in court proceedings would interfere with his ability to carry out his constitutional functions.
大家还同意，宪法赋予总统的职能是很重要的。总统先生身居要职，责任重大，如果过多卷进一场官司中，就有可能影响他去履行宪法赋予的职责的能力。
This was one of the arguments put forward in 1997 by then-president Bill Clinton in seeking the dismissal or postponement of the lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, in which she claimed he sexually harassed her when Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
这一点也是1997年克林顿总统也曾拿来寻求豁免或延迟审判的理由之一。那时，保罗.琼斯提起诉讼，声称克林顿在任阿肯色州州长时曾对她进行过性骚扰。
The Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Clinton v. Jones rejected the argument for immunity or postponement, and decided that a sitting president could be sued civilly.
1997年，针对克林顿——琼斯一案，最高法院最终作出裁定：克林顿不享有豁免或推迟审判的权利，在职的总统也可以被提起民事诉讼。
The Court, however, did not resolve the question of whether he could be subject to criminal prosecution. The case held that the distraction involved in a civil suit was not so great as to impinge on the president’s carrying out his constitutional duty—an argument that turned out to be spectacularly wrong: It was the fallout from the civil suit that led to Clinton’s impeachment.
但对于能否对总统进行刑事诉讼，最高法院并没有作出裁定。法院认为，一起民事诉讼尚不至于牵扯总统过多的精力以至于影响他履行宪法职责。但这个观点后来证明是大错特错了：正是这起民事诉讼掀起千层浪，而后才导致了对克林顿的弹劾。
There is delicious irony in Trump relying on Clinton-era precedents to argue for immunity from process, but some of the language in Jones v. Clinton is not very helpful to Trump.
特朗普正在依靠克林顿时代的判例来寻求豁免，实在有些讽刺，但实际上，克林顿-琼斯案的语境实则对特朗普并不十分有利。
The Court emphasized that the president “is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, that no case had been found in which an official was granted immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue.”
当时法庭强调，总统犯法，“与庶民同罪，美国历史上，还没有哪位总统因非职务行为犯罪而被豁免的判例，职务行为豁免原则也并不适用于总统的非法个人行为。”
Trump himself has been subjected to dozens of civil lawsuits since taking office. If he engaged in criminal behavior before taking office—involving campaign finance, or conspiracy to commit a crime, for instance—the logic of the opinion is that he would be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
上任以来，针对特朗普本人的民事诉讼已经有十几起。如果他在就任前确实参与过刑事行为，比如竞选资金上手脚不干净，同谋犯罪等，那么按照上述原则，他也将与我们其他人一样，受到同样法律的制裁。
There is, however, the question of who could indict a president. Normally, the Department of Justice policies bind special prosecutors, and so Mueller would be unable to indict, absent a waiver from his superiors, in this case Rod Rosenstein.
然而，问题又来了，谁有权起诉特朗普？一般来说，美国的特别检查官是受司法部约束的，因此像米勒这样的检察官，除非得到上级（在这一起案子中，是罗德罗森斯坦英）的授权，是不能提起诉讼的。
The independent counsel who prosecuted Clinton, Kenneth Starr, obtained a memo arguing that the independent prosecutor could indict a sitting president, but that special prosecutors could not because they are under presidential authority at the Department of Justice.
曾起诉过克林顿的独立检察官肯尼斯.史塔拿到一份备忘录显示，美国独立检查官有权起诉在职总统，但是特别检查官不能，因为他们供职司法部，拿着国家的薪水，实际上还是受总统管。
There is another group of prosecutors, however, who are not subject to Department of Justice policy: those in the states. There is nothing in the constitutional text that immunizes the president from state prosecutions. Nor, as the Jones case makes clear, is there immunity for unofficial acts of the president.
然而，还有另外一类检察官也不受司法部管，州检察官。现行宪法没有任何地方规定州检察院不能起诉总统。或者正如琼斯案表明，总统个人非法行为也不会享受豁免。
If armed with evidence of violations of state law, the president would be “subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens.”
一旦证据显示总统的行为侵犯了州宪法，那么他也将“与庶民同罪”。
Here’s where the special prosecutor comes in. Even if he does not believe he can indict the president without approval from the Department of Justice, there is the possibility that the special prosecutor could legally release information that would lead to a state prosecution of the president.
而这一点，其实也正是“俄通案”的特别检察官米勒可利用的。即使他相信自己没有得到司法部的允许将不能起诉总统，但有可能将所搜集的证据信息依法移交给州法院，这些证据可以导致州法院对总统提出诉讼。
The Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, decided to name Richard Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator for the Watergate break-in, rather than prosecuting directly. This led to impeachment proceedings and Nixon’s resignation, followed by a full pardon by Gerald Ford.
在水门事件中，检察官里昂.贾瓦斯基并没有直接起诉总统，而是将他定义为“不予起诉的共犯”。此举直接导致了国会对尼克松的弹劾，尼克松因此引咎辞职，但后来，得到了接任总统杰拉德·福特的赦免。
Since conspiracies involve all of their participants in the crimes of any one of them, a federal prosecution of one of Trump’s associates for, say, wire fraud ，might lead to evidence that could be used against him in state court.
“共犯”在法律是个很宽泛的概念，在一个犯罪团伙里，任何一个成员犯了罪，其他成员都可能成为他的共犯。因此如果特朗普被定成了某个远程诈骗者的共犯，他就可能会被起诉到某个州的法院。
Stay tuned for the next episode.
到时想必还将有更多精彩大戏等着大家。
好了，重点来了。
大家练习的感觉如何？现在来讲具体的学习方法。
上述英文文章来自
Wall Street Journal
,谈论的是起诉特朗普是否合法的问题。
我自己练习大致按照下面四个步骤。
第一步，限时翻译
按照国家人事部翻译资格证书水平考试的要求，对翻译员的翻译速度要求如下：
英译汉：500—600单词/小时
汉译英：300-400汉字/小时
翻译速度，也从一个侧面反映着一个人的英文水平，所以日常翻译练习过程中，也要主要卡时间。
这篇英文文章（见第三部分）总共860个英文单词。
按照要求，大概应在1个半小时内完成。
我自己最终花了1个小时50分钟，翻译速度还需要提高。
当然我主要卡在了对美国法律知识比较欠缺上，因为理解上比较吃力，导致速度下降。
背景知识的积累很重要，下面我会谈到。
第二步，专业词汇积累
很多人问，该怎样记单词才有效呢？
方法很多，从阅读中积累词汇就是一种哈。
而分门别类整理记忆，又更佳了。
我有一个词汇积累本，专门积累自己阅读和翻译过程中遇到的词汇。
我按照”政治“、”经济“、”法律“、“环境”、“热点”等分类，每个专题分配6页纸左右的空白页，按类型去积累。
当然，更加推荐朋友们“各个击破”，一个阶段只阅读一个领域的文章，比如用2个月，每天只阅读经济类英语文章，并认真在笔记本上积累相关术语。
这样做的好处在于，可以迅速积累某个领域的背景知识和专业词汇。
我自己就是这样做的。
好了，具体回归到这篇文章，做完第一步翻译后，我归纳出了一下法律词汇：
