爱泼斯坦文件本不该公之于众
The Epstein Files Should Never Have Been Released
译文简介
《纽约时报》能登这篇文章出来挺好的，让普通人看清精英阶层的真实想法。这篇文章完美诠释了精英立场：闭嘴乖乖听话，让我们为所欲为。
正文翻译
Every day seems to bring new reports of financiers, academics, politicians and royalty (among others) who cozied up to Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose predation took a horrendous toll on innocent lives. With accountability for people in power in short supply, it can be hard to see a downside in the huge dump of documents relating to Mr. Epstein and his various associates.
几乎每天都有新的报道出现，披露金融家、学者、政界人士和王室成员（以及其他群体）与杰弗里-爱泼斯坦巴结往来。这位已被定罪的性犯罪者对无辜生命造成了骇人听闻的伤害。在对当权者问责普遍不足的情况下，大量与爱泼斯坦及其各类关联人士相关的文件被大规模倾倒式公开，似乎很难看出其中有何弊端。
But we should recognize the release of millions of pages of the Epstein files as both a sign of institutional failure and a cause for concern. If our justice system were working properly, the public would never have such access.
但我们应该认识到，数百万页爱泼斯坦案文件的公开，既是制度性失灵的标志，也令人深感忧虑。如果我们的司法系统运作正常，公众绝无可能接触到如此大量的材料。
In the not-too-distant past, most people probably would have at least grudgingly accepted a regime in which prosecutors and law-enforcement agents sorted through materials from a sprawling investigation and made public only those portions needed to properly handle a case. The additional information that might interest us, and perhaps even help improve society, would remain secret. Federal prosecutors could generally be trusted to focus on their narrow criminal enforcement mission and to not abuse the tools given them for that limited purpose. No longer.
在不远的过去，大多数人或许至少会勉强接受这样一种制度：检察官和执法人员在庞杂的调查材料中进行筛选，只公开为了案件审理的需要所必需的部分。那些可能引起我们兴趣、甚至可能有助于改善社会的额外信息，则会继续保密。人们通常相信联邦检察官会专注于其狭义的刑事执法使命，并且不会滥用为此有限目的而赋予他们的工具。但这样的时代已经一去不复返。
Calls for the Epstein files’ release predate the Trump administration. But they are now online and searchable because too many Americans didn’t trust the Justice Department’s leadership with control of them. In the past, departmental leaders could limit suspicions about their motives by conspicuously leaving a matter such as this to career subordinates, rather than political appointees. Seen by so many as having fired or driven out prosecutors and agents who refused to become tools of President Trump’s will, Attorney General Pam Bondi lacked credibility. She couldn’t get away with asking the public to rely on the apolitical and independent judgment of those who remained. The eventual result was the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
要求公开爱泼斯坦案文件的呼声在特朗普政府之前就已存在。但这些文件如今得以在线公开并可检索，是因为太多美国人不信任司法部领导层对它们的管控。过去，部门领导人可以通过将此类事务明确交由职业下属而非政治任命的官员处理，来限制外界对其动机的怀疑。但司法部长帕姆-邦迪已被许多人视为解雇或逼退了那些拒绝成为特朗普总统意志工具的检察官和特工，她缺乏公信力。她无法再指望公众会接受那些仍在职的职业检察人员的超然政治立场和独立判断。最终的成果便是《爱泼斯坦文件透明法案》。
The release of the files is also cause for concern because so much of the raw investigative material in them — untold layers of hearsay, unverified accusations and vague circumstantial connections — ought not be released for the public to pick over.
这些文件的公开也令人担忧，因为其中大量原始调查材料——无数层的传闻、未经核实的指控以及模糊的间接关联——本不应供公众反复翻找、挑拣解读。
We don’t know the degree to which the Justice Department has appropriately or inappropriately withheld or redacted documents. We do know that any effort to protect victims was woefully inadequate, as explicit photos and identifying information of many women, and possibly girls, have been found in the files. The government’s obligation not to revictimize people ought to be one of its highest priorities. Here, it failed.
我们不知道司法部在多大程度上恰当地或不恰当地扣留或编辑了文件。但我们确实知道，任何保护受害者的努力都严重不力，因为在文件中发现了许多女性（可能包括未成年女孩）的露骨照片和身份信息。政府有义务避免对受害者造成二次伤害，这理应成为其最优先事项之一。而在此事上，政府失职了。
We give federal prosecutors and agents a broad range of information-gathering tools that private parties and even most government agencies aren’t allowed to use. At the heart of criminal enforcement authority is the power to invade privacy. Legally available tools include search warrants, wiretaps, grand jury subpoenas and administrative subpoenas. That is how criminal investigators gain access to our emails, our private conversations, and our phone, bank and medical records. In addition, we allow prosecutors and agents to use the threat of prosecution to gain the cooperation of witnesses.
我们赋予了联邦检察官和特工一系列广泛的调查工具，这些工具是私人团体甚至大多数政府机构所不被允许使用的。刑事执法权力的核心在于侵入隐私的能力。法律允许的手段包括搜查令、窃听、大陪审团传票和行政传票。刑事调查人员正是通过这些方式获取我们的电子邮件、私人对话，以及我们的电话、银行和医疗记录。此外，我们还允许检察官和特工利用起诉的威胁以争取证人的合作。
These coercive investigative tools can and have been misused, as when prosecutors and F.B.I. agents illegally rummaged through my emails and computer files in an effort to come up with a case against James Comey, the former F.B.I. director. Cogent arguments have been made for more rigorous legal restriction of these tools and the government’s use of information obtained with them. But so long as we think federal criminal laws are worth enforcing, we need to give federal enforcers a way to get information about criminal activity that, by its very nature, is closely held, and to pierce veils of privacy that normally shield our everyday activities from prying eyes or ears.
这些带有强制性的调查工具可能并已被滥用，例如检察官和联邦调查局特工曾非法翻检我的电子邮件和电脑文件，试图拼凑出一个案件来指控前联邦调查局局长詹姆斯-科米。已有有力的论点主张对这些工具及政府对其所获信息的使用施加更严格的法律限制。但是，只要我们仍然认为联邦刑事法律值得执行，我们就需要为联邦执法者提供一种途径，以获取关于犯罪活动的信息——这些活动因其本质而被严密隐藏——并穿透那些通常保护我们日常活动免受窥探的隐私面纱。
The tools we give the government are justified not only by the importance of the criminal enforcement mission but by the care and professional judgment prosecutors and agents are required to exercise with the information they obtain with those tools. Government secrecy may conceal misconduct or atrocious judgment. We have yet to understand the decision by U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, almost two decades ago, not to charge Mr. Epstein. (Mr. Epstein was ultimately convicted in state court in 2008, after taking a plea deal.) Still, prosecutors’ use of the materials they collect is ordinarily bounded by their mission — to charge individuals (or not to charge them), to satisfy disclosure obligations after a case is brought and, if possible, to convince a jury or to obtain a guilty plea.
我们赋予政府的调查工具之所以合理，不仅因其刑事执法使命的重要性，更在于检察官与特工必须对所获信息秉持审慎态度和专业判断。政府保密机制可能掩盖不当行为或严重误判。时至今日，我们仍无法理解近二十年前联邦检察官亚历克斯-阿科斯塔决定不起诉爱泼斯坦的缘由（爱泼斯坦最终于2008年在州法院通过认罪协议被判刑）。尽管如此，检察官对调查材料的使用通常受其职责范围约束——决定是否起诉个人、履行案件提起后的证据开示义务，并在可能情况下说服陪审团或获取认罪协议。
When materials collected in a criminal investigation get released in bulk for public consumption, the justification for the coercive and privacy-invading tools we give investigators gets a lot weaker. Institutions claiming to protect user or customer privacy might be more likely to resist valid uses of these tools. Witnesses who would otherwise speak to investigators about sensitive matters might start to rethink whether they want to provide grist for internet searches.
当刑事调查中收集的材料被大规模公开供公众审视时，我们赋予调查人员那些具有强制性和侵犯隐私特性的工具的正当性就会大幅削弱。宣称保护用户或客户隐私的机构可能会更倾向于抵制这些工具的合法使用。原本愿意就敏感事项与调查人员沟通的证人，或许会开始重新考虑是否要让自己成为被反复检索和消费的网络素材。
We have to reckon with what happens when a huge investigative haul — with its swirling mix of gossip, casual association and possible criminal misconduct — is opened up for public viewing. The justice system should never be the only means of holding people accountable. The power of shame can be a good thing, and some reputations deserve to be tarnished. But informal accountability processes can easily slide into misuse of unfiltered source material.
我们必须认真思考，当一项庞大的调查成果——其中交织翻涌着流言蜚语、随意的人际往来以及可能的犯罪行为——被公之于众时，会产生怎样的后果。司法体系绝不应成为追究责任的唯一途径。舆论谴责的力量有时能起到积极作用，某些人的声誉也确实应当受到玷污。然而，这种舆论式问责机制很容易演变为对未经筛选的原始材料的滥用。
At a time when the Justice Department seems intent on filling the criminal docket with baseless prosecutions of its perceived enemies, many might not mourn a spectacle that highlights the lack of public confidence in the department. Or one that appears to weaken the justification for extraordinary prosecutorial powers generally. But we need to think about a future in which real crimes fill the docket, when coercive information-gathering tools are needed to pursue them. Those of us who want to preserve those tools and the justification for them ought to regret the dump of the Epstein files, even as we rummage through them ourselves.
在司法部似乎一心要用毫无根据的起诉来对付其认定的敌人，以此塞满法院的待审案件列表的当下，许多人或许不会为一场凸显公众对该部门缺乏信任的公开戏码感到惋惜。或者，也不会为一场看似普遍削弱了特殊检察权正当性的事件感到遗憾。但我们需要思考的是这样一个未来：当真正的罪行充斥案卷，当我们需要借助强制性信息收集工具来追究这些罪行时。我们这些希望保留这些工具及其正当性理由的人，应当对爱泼斯坦文件的泄露感到遗憾——即便我们自己也忍不住去翻看这些材料。
几乎每天都有新的报道出现，披露金融家、学者、政界人士和王室成员（以及其他群体）与杰弗里-爱泼斯坦巴结往来。这位已被定罪的性犯罪者对无辜生命造成了骇人听闻的伤害。在对当权者问责普遍不足的情况下，大量与爱泼斯坦及其各类关联人士相关的文件被大规模倾倒式公开，似乎很难看出其中有何弊端。
But we should recognize the release of millions of pages of the Epstein files as both a sign of institutional failure and a cause for concern. If our justice system were working properly, the public would never have such access.
但我们应该认识到，数百万页爱泼斯坦案文件的公开，既是制度性失灵的标志，也令人深感忧虑。如果我们的司法系统运作正常，公众绝无可能接触到如此大量的材料。
In the not-too-distant past, most people probably would have at least grudgingly accepted a regime in which prosecutors and law-enforcement agents sorted through materials from a sprawling investigation and made public only those portions needed to properly handle a case. The additional information that might interest us, and perhaps even help improve society, would remain secret. Federal prosecutors could generally be trusted to focus on their narrow criminal enforcement mission and to not abuse the tools given them for that limited purpose. No longer.
在不远的过去，大多数人或许至少会勉强接受这样一种制度：检察官和执法人员在庞杂的调查材料中进行筛选，只公开为了案件审理的需要所必需的部分。那些可能引起我们兴趣、甚至可能有助于改善社会的额外信息，则会继续保密。人们通常相信联邦检察官会专注于其狭义的刑事执法使命，并且不会滥用为此有限目的而赋予他们的工具。但这样的时代已经一去不复返。
Calls for the Epstein files’ release predate the Trump administration. But they are now online and searchable because too many Americans didn’t trust the Justice Department’s leadership with control of them. In the past, departmental leaders could limit suspicions about their motives by conspicuously leaving a matter such as this to career subordinates, rather than political appointees. Seen by so many as having fired or driven out prosecutors and agents who refused to become tools of President Trump’s will, Attorney General Pam Bondi lacked credibility. She couldn’t get away with asking the public to rely on the apolitical and independent judgment of those who remained. The eventual result was the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
要求公开爱泼斯坦案文件的呼声在特朗普政府之前就已存在。但这些文件如今得以在线公开并可检索，是因为太多美国人不信任司法部领导层对它们的管控。过去，部门领导人可以通过将此类事务明确交由职业下属而非政治任命的官员处理，来限制外界对其动机的怀疑。但司法部长帕姆-邦迪已被许多人视为解雇或逼退了那些拒绝成为特朗普总统意志工具的检察官和特工，她缺乏公信力。她无法再指望公众会接受那些仍在职的职业检察人员的超然政治立场和独立判断。最终的成果便是《爱泼斯坦文件透明法案》。
The release of the files is also cause for concern because so much of the raw investigative material in them — untold layers of hearsay, unverified accusations and vague circumstantial connections — ought not be released for the public to pick over.
这些文件的公开也令人担忧，因为其中大量原始调查材料——无数层的传闻、未经核实的指控以及模糊的间接关联——本不应供公众反复翻找、挑拣解读。
We don’t know the degree to which the Justice Department has appropriately or inappropriately withheld or redacted documents. We do know that any effort to protect victims was woefully inadequate, as explicit photos and identifying information of many women, and possibly girls, have been found in the files. The government’s obligation not to revictimize people ought to be one of its highest priorities. Here, it failed.
我们不知道司法部在多大程度上恰当地或不恰当地扣留或编辑了文件。但我们确实知道，任何保护受害者的努力都严重不力，因为在文件中发现了许多女性（可能包括未成年女孩）的露骨照片和身份信息。政府有义务避免对受害者造成二次伤害，这理应成为其最优先事项之一。而在此事上，政府失职了。
We give federal prosecutors and agents a broad range of information-gathering tools that private parties and even most government agencies aren’t allowed to use. At the heart of criminal enforcement authority is the power to invade privacy. Legally available tools include search warrants, wiretaps, grand jury subpoenas and administrative subpoenas. That is how criminal investigators gain access to our emails, our private conversations, and our phone, bank and medical records. In addition, we allow prosecutors and agents to use the threat of prosecution to gain the cooperation of witnesses.
我们赋予了联邦检察官和特工一系列广泛的调查工具，这些工具是私人团体甚至大多数政府机构所不被允许使用的。刑事执法权力的核心在于侵入隐私的能力。法律允许的手段包括搜查令、窃听、大陪审团传票和行政传票。刑事调查人员正是通过这些方式获取我们的电子邮件、私人对话，以及我们的电话、银行和医疗记录。此外，我们还允许检察官和特工利用起诉的威胁以争取证人的合作。
These coercive investigative tools can and have been misused, as when prosecutors and F.B.I. agents illegally rummaged through my emails and computer files in an effort to come up with a case against James Comey, the former F.B.I. director. Cogent arguments have been made for more rigorous legal restriction of these tools and the government’s use of information obtained with them. But so long as we think federal criminal laws are worth enforcing, we need to give federal enforcers a way to get information about criminal activity that, by its very nature, is closely held, and to pierce veils of privacy that normally shield our everyday activities from prying eyes or ears.
这些带有强制性的调查工具可能并已被滥用，例如检察官和联邦调查局特工曾非法翻检我的电子邮件和电脑文件，试图拼凑出一个案件来指控前联邦调查局局长詹姆斯-科米。已有有力的论点主张对这些工具及政府对其所获信息的使用施加更严格的法律限制。但是，只要我们仍然认为联邦刑事法律值得执行，我们就需要为联邦执法者提供一种途径，以获取关于犯罪活动的信息——这些活动因其本质而被严密隐藏——并穿透那些通常保护我们日常活动免受窥探的隐私面纱。
The tools we give the government are justified not only by the importance of the criminal enforcement mission but by the care and professional judgment prosecutors and agents are required to exercise with the information they obtain with those tools. Government secrecy may conceal misconduct or atrocious judgment. We have yet to understand the decision by U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, almost two decades ago, not to charge Mr. Epstein. (Mr. Epstein was ultimately convicted in state court in 2008, after taking a plea deal.) Still, prosecutors’ use of the materials they collect is ordinarily bounded by their mission — to charge individuals (or not to charge them), to satisfy disclosure obligations after a case is brought and, if possible, to convince a jury or to obtain a guilty plea.
我们赋予政府的调查工具之所以合理，不仅因其刑事执法使命的重要性，更在于检察官与特工必须对所获信息秉持审慎态度和专业判断。政府保密机制可能掩盖不当行为或严重误判。时至今日，我们仍无法理解近二十年前联邦检察官亚历克斯-阿科斯塔决定不起诉爱泼斯坦的缘由（爱泼斯坦最终于2008年在州法院通过认罪协议被判刑）。尽管如此，检察官对调查材料的使用通常受其职责范围约束——决定是否起诉个人、履行案件提起后的证据开示义务，并在可能情况下说服陪审团或获取认罪协议。
When materials collected in a criminal investigation get released in bulk for public consumption, the justification for the coercive and privacy-invading tools we give investigators gets a lot weaker. Institutions claiming to protect user or customer privacy might be more likely to resist valid uses of these tools. Witnesses who would otherwise speak to investigators about sensitive matters might start to rethink whether they want to provide grist for internet searches.
当刑事调查中收集的材料被大规模公开供公众审视时，我们赋予调查人员那些具有强制性和侵犯隐私特性的工具的正当性就会大幅削弱。宣称保护用户或客户隐私的机构可能会更倾向于抵制这些工具的合法使用。原本愿意就敏感事项与调查人员沟通的证人，或许会开始重新考虑是否要让自己成为被反复检索和消费的网络素材。
We have to reckon with what happens when a huge investigative haul — with its swirling mix of gossip, casual association and possible criminal misconduct — is opened up for public viewing. The justice system should never be the only means of holding people accountable. The power of shame can be a good thing, and some reputations deserve to be tarnished. But informal accountability processes can easily slide into misuse of unfiltered source material.
我们必须认真思考，当一项庞大的调查成果——其中交织翻涌着流言蜚语、随意的人际往来以及可能的犯罪行为——被公之于众时，会产生怎样的后果。司法体系绝不应成为追究责任的唯一途径。舆论谴责的力量有时能起到积极作用，某些人的声誉也确实应当受到玷污。然而，这种舆论式问责机制很容易演变为对未经筛选的原始材料的滥用。
At a time when the Justice Department seems intent on filling the criminal docket with baseless prosecutions of its perceived enemies, many might not mourn a spectacle that highlights the lack of public confidence in the department. Or one that appears to weaken the justification for extraordinary prosecutorial powers generally. But we need to think about a future in which real crimes fill the docket, when coercive information-gathering tools are needed to pursue them. Those of us who want to preserve those tools and the justification for them ought to regret the dump of the Epstein files, even as we rummage through them ourselves.
在司法部似乎一心要用毫无根据的起诉来对付其认定的敌人，以此塞满法院的待审案件列表的当下，许多人或许不会为一场凸显公众对该部门缺乏信任的公开戏码感到惋惜。或者，也不会为一场看似普遍削弱了特殊检察权正当性的事件感到遗憾。但我们需要思考的是这样一个未来：当真正的罪行充斥案卷，当我们需要借助强制性信息收集工具来追究这些罪行时。我们这些希望保留这些工具及其正当性理由的人，应当对爱泼斯坦文件的泄露感到遗憾——即便我们自己也忍不住去翻看这些材料。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 6 )
收藏
But... The Epstein files illustrate why the justice system cannot be trusted. They illustrate that the wealthy elite are not prosecuted for crimes that would put "little people" away for life. It's a little late for lawyers to say "Just trust us."
但是……爱泼斯坦案卷宗恰恰说明了为何司法体系不可信。它们表明，若发生在平民身上足以判终身监禁的罪行，财富精英犯下后却不会受到起诉。律师们现在来说“相信我们就好”，未免为时已晚。
@Brooklyncowgirl
Exactly. If Jeffery Epstein had been some low life street pimp selling sex to traveling salesmen, the cops would have shut him down in a heartbeat. He was protected because he was rich and the people who he supplied with everything from underage girls and insider information were even richer and more powerful.
确实。如果杰弗里-爱泼斯坦只是个向出差销售员卖淫的底层街头皮条客，警察早立马把他端掉了。他之所以被保护，是因为他有钱，而他为之提供从未成年少女到内幕消息一切服务的人，更是财势滔天。
We like to believe in this country that no man is above the law but clearly, if you have enough money and influential friends to shut down investigations before they start, you pretty much have the ticket to a get out of jail free card.
我们总喜欢相信在这个国家无人能凌驾于法律之上，但显然，如果你有足够的金钱和有影响力的朋友，能在调查启动前就将其扼杀，那你基本上就等于拿到了“免罪金牌”。
This has to end.
这种情况必须终结。
@DW
You say, basically, that the files shouldn't have been released because now people won't trust the government. But that's _why_ the files were released. This is a peculiar argument, at best.
作者基本上是在说，这些文件不该被公开，因为现在人们会不信任政府。但公开这些文件的原因恰恰就在于此。这充其量只能算是个古怪的论点。
@Ben
Yes! It definitely feels like putting the cart before the horse. Trying to protect an institution that has already lost people's trust. Without taking any action to actually rebuild that trust.
没错！这感觉完全就是本末倒置。试图保护一个已经失去公众信任的机构，却没有任何实际行动去真正重建这种信任。
@mijosc
No, your summary reverses the argument. The author isn’t saying “files were released and therefore people won’t trust the government.” He’s saying the opposite: the files were released because public trust in DOJ leadership was already too low for the usual regime (prosecutors filter; public sees only what’s necessary) to be politically sustainable.
不，你的总结把论点搞反了。作者不是在说“文件被公开了，所以人们不再信任政府”。他说的恰恰相反：文件之所以被公开，是因为公众对司法部领导层的信任已经低到常规模式（检察官筛选；公众只看到必要内容）在政治上难以为继的地步。
Then he adds a separate concern: once you normalize dumping raw investigative material (hearsay, unverified allegations, victim-identifying info), you create predictable collateral damage and make future investigations harder—because witnesses and institutions will be more reluctant to cooperate with coercive tools if they think their private information may later become public.
然后他提出了另一个担忧：一旦你让公开原始调查材料（传闻、未经证实的指控、暴露受害者身份的信息）成为常态，就会造成可预见的附带损害，并让未来的调查变得更加困难——因为证人和机构如果认为他们的私人信息日后可能被公开，就会更不愿意配合强制调查手段。
The irony is that your comment—and the fact that it’s getting heavily recommended—demonstrates the op-ed’s warning in miniature. The author’s concern isn’t merely “trust the government”; it’s that when raw, context-poor material (or even simplified summaries of it) circulates publicly, people form—and then amplify—confident conclusions untethered to what’s actually in the text or the record. That dynamic is exactly what he’s talking about when he argues that bulk disclosure invites misuse of unfiltered information and weakens the justice system’s ability to handle sensitive material responsibly.
讽刺的是，你的评论——以及它被大量推荐的事实——恰恰小规模印证了那篇专栏文章所警告的现象。作者担忧的不仅仅是“信任政府”的问题；而是当未经加工、缺乏背景的材料（甚至是对材料的简化总结）在公众间流传时，人们会形成——并进一步传播——一些自信的结论，而这些结论与文本或记录中的实际内容脱节。这种动态正是他所指出的：大规模披露会助长对未经过滤信息的滥用，并削弱司法系统负责任地处理敏感材料的能力。
@Ra
Your opinion piece lost all credibility for me at this sentence:
读到这句话时，文章观点在我这里已经毫无可信度了：
But we need to think about a future in which real crimes fill the docket, when coercive information-gathering tools are needed to pursue them.
但我们需要思考的是这样一个未来：当真正的罪行充斥案卷，当我们需要借助强制性信息收集工具来追究这些罪行时。
The use of the phrase "real crimes" implies that what happened to these women and girls and boys was not a real crime. Real crimes were committed and powerful people got away with them, so far.
使用“真正的罪行”这个说法，暗示这些女性、女孩和男孩所遭遇的并非真正的罪行。真正的罪行已经发生，而有权势者至今仍逍遥法外。
@Local
That caught my eye too, but I suspect the author wasn't referring to the Epstein victims. Likely he was referring to the "trumped up" charges against Comi, Kelley, and all of Trump's political enemies who are under investigation by this administration. No one trusts, or should trust, that Bondi is using the justice department as anything other than Trump's vengeance tool.
这一点也引起了我的注意，但我怀疑作者指的不是爱泼斯坦案的受害者。他很可能指的是针对科米、凯利以及所有被本届政府调查的特朗普政敌的那些“莫须有”的指控。没有人相信——也不该相信——邦迪领导的司法部门除了作为特朗普的复仇工具之外还能有什么别的用途。
@Gregory
Lifting that sentence out for comment, you strip away the previous two sentences that focus on current abuses of the Justice Department against innocent political enemies. That's what the author is referring to, and not to Epstein's victims.
你单独拎出这句话来评论，却略过了前两句——那两句的重点是司法部当前如何滥用权力迫害无辜的政治敌人。作者指的就是这个，跟爱泼斯坦的受害者压根没关系。
@News Runner
In the months leading up to the release of archival material related to the civil rights movement in Mississippi, elite whites were seen coming out of the archive building with wheel barrows full of materials that implicated them or their families.
在密西西比州民权运动相关档案材料公布前的数月里，人们目睹白人精英们推着手推车从档案馆大楼出来，车上满载着牵连他们或其家族的材料。
The heavy redaction of the Epstein files, in my humble opinion, represents the wheel barrows of yesteryear.
在我看来，爱泼斯坦文件的大面积删节，简直就是当年那些手推车的现代翻版。
@Andrew
Exposing the manner in which elite people live (and exploit) is the highest form of justice - in my humble opinion. Hiding the way they live is the epitome of protecting those that need it least.
在我看来，揭露精英阶层如何生活（与剥削）是最高形式的正义。而掩盖他们的生活方式，则是对最不需要保护之人的终极庇护。
@Tweedle
Very doubtful that shameful conduct is limited to the elite.
无耻行径仅限于精英阶层？我对此深表怀疑。
@RemaineHumane
Is that how you feel about exposing the manner in which everyone else lives? How *you* live?
这就是你对于揭露他人生活方式的态度吗？或者是你自己的生活态度？
Rights are for everyone, not just elites, or non-elites.
权利属于所有人，而非仅限于精英或非精英阶层。
The public has the right to know about crimes alleged against people, yes. But not the right to know how other people live their private lives when not being accused of crimes. No matter who they are.
公众有权知晓针对个人的犯罪指控，这没错。但无权过问他人的私生活，无论对方是谁，只要未被指控犯罪。
What society *does* have the right to do is to investigate crime and prosecute when there is evidence that a person committed one.
社会真正有权做的，是在掌握证据时调查罪行并提起诉讼。
And yes, that means that the electorate has to do its job to make sure that those elected to do those investigations and prosecutions don't give elites a pass.
是的，这意味着选民必须履行职责，确保那些被选举出来负责调查和起诉工作的人不会给精英阶层开绿灯。
But we don't do that, do we?
但我们并没有做到，不是吗？
If the Epstein case wasn't a political tool of both sides of the political spectrum right now, few would care about it.
如果爱泼斯坦案不是当前政治光谱两派相互攻讦的工具，根本不会有多少人在意。
Few did, even after reporters wrote about what Epstein was doing a long time ago.
很久以前记者就报道过爱泼斯坦的所作所为，当时也没多少人关心。
Few cared when he was given a slap on the wrist in the courts.
他在法庭上被不痛不痒的处罚时，关心者寥寥。
Worse, few cared about the girls, now women, whom he and those in his circle trafficked and abused.
更糟的是，很少有人在意那些被他及其圈子贩卖虐待的女孩们——如今已是成年女性。
Few still do.
现在依然如此。
None of this led to a public push to address the plight of young girls trafficked by such men as Epstein.
这些事从未引发公众推动解决爱泼斯坦这类人贩运少女的问题。
No. The solution to protecting those who "need it most" is actually caring about their suffering and making the changes needed to relieve that suffering, not exposing the manner in which elite people live.
不，保护“最需要帮助者”的真正方法是切实关注他们的苦难，并做出必要改变来缓解这种苦难，而非揭露精英阶层的生活方式。
And doing it in ways that do not violate *anyone's* right to privacy, elite or not.
而且要以不侵犯任何人隐私权的方式进行——无论对方是否属于精英阶层。
@Miles Parker
I couldn’t disagree more. Exposing how the elite live and how they think is precisely what is needed. It has demonstrated clearly what we have been saying all along: they live in a different, unconstrained moral universe. They are engaged in class warfare against everyone else. The only people who want to preserve a system like this are the elites themselves.
我完全无法苟同。揭露精英阶层的生活与思维方式恰恰是我们所需要的。这清楚地印证了我们一直以来的观点：他们生活在另一个不受约束的道德宇宙中，正对其他人发动阶级战争。唯一想维护这种体系的，就是精英自己。
So, I’m sorry to have to derail your bid for sympathy for these unfortunates, but “Elite” is not a protected identity, and really it’s not even accurate. “Ruling class” is more correct. And viewed from that perspective, we’d all be better off if that class did not exist. Don’t like being labelled an “elite”? Easy: drop the manners and privileges that come from being one.
所以很抱歉，我得打断你试图为这些人争取同情的说法了。“精英”并非受保护的身份标签，甚至这词本身都不够准确。“统治阶级”才是更贴切的表述。从这个角度看，如果这个阶级不存在，我们所有人都会过得更好。不喜欢被贴上“精英”标签？很简单：抛弃这个身份带来的做派与特权。
@Brian Cullen
There is no longer a justice department that works for the people and therein lies the problem. Not only Bondi, the entire deparment works for Trump. It seems to me that the release so far of the Epstein Files is only scratching the surface of the what is truly there, with pedophilia, sexual assault, money laundering and corruption at the highest level of government and corporations.
司法部已不再为人民服务，问题就出在这里。不仅是邦迪，整个部门都在为特朗普效力。在我看来，目前公布的爱泼斯坦文件只是冰山一角，其中涉及政府和企业最高层的恋童癖、性侵、洗钱和腐败问题。
@Mike
Better headline suggestion: “Ethical government negates need for Epstein file release.”
建议拟一个更好的标题：“政府讲道德，爱泼斯坦文件就不用公开了。”
…but, in reality, I can’t think of any other news item in my entire boomer lifetime which reinforces the unspoken existence of the depth of the rot which is part of the protective circle around the “elite.”
……但说真的，在我这婴儿潮一代的一生里，想不出还有哪条新闻能如此赤裸地揭露：所谓“精英”保护圈里的腐败，早已烂到根上了。
@Matt
This is a truly pathetic argument. The idea that the government was trustworthy at one point is historically inaccurate. The government was trusted more in the past because it was smaller and therefore did less damage. No one should trust the government. In fact, trusting your government is the antithesis of American values. America was founded on distrust of the government. George Washington, from the early days as military leader of a revolution through his days as a two-term president was constantly aware of the lack of trust in government. He always wanted limited government. Even when he had all of the power.
这论点真是可悲。说什么政府曾经值得信任，这完全不符合历史。过去人们更信任政府，仅仅因为它规模小、破坏力有限。政府根本不该被信任。事实上，信任政府恰恰违背美国价值观——美国的立国根基就是对政府的不信任。从革命军统帅到两任总统，乔治-华盛顿始终清醒意识到民众对政府缺乏信任。即便大权在握，他也始终主张限制政府规模。
Governments are incredibly hard to hold to account because they are rarely transparent.
政府极难被问责，因为它们几乎从不透明。
This author seems to be arguing that the problem isn’t government corruption but that the public is now aware of how corrupt the government and elites are.
作者似乎在偷换概念：问题不在于政府腐败，而在于公众如今看清了政府和精英阶层有多腐败。
This is one of those rare articles that will achieve outrage amongst nearly every person. Democrats and republicans alike (outside the ruling class of course) can agree that blindly trusting the government is bad for all of us and reject this ridiculous argument.
这种文章难得能同时激怒几乎所有人。除了统治阶级，民主党共和党都会认同——盲目信任政府对我们都没好处，这种荒谬论点就该被唾弃。
I’m glad the NYT published this so regular people can see what the elites really think about them. This article perfectly articulates the elite position. Just shut up and let us do whatever we want. This is what I would expect to be said by King George III and Lord North in 1775 when they sent an army to Boston.
《纽约时报》能登这篇文章出来挺好的，让普通人看清精英阶层的真实想法。这篇文章完美诠释了精英立场：闭嘴乖乖听话，让我们为所欲为。简直像是1775年乔治三世和诺斯勋爵派兵镇压波士顿时会说的话。
@Vanessa
Honestly, I think this is a ridiculous article.
老实说，我觉得这篇文章简直荒谬透顶。
It would have been better for the American population to not have known that people in places of power were involved or indifferent to a sex trafficking ring that abused over 1,000 girls? Are you insane?
难道美国民众不该知道那些权贵阶层曾参与或漠视一个虐待了上千名女孩的性贩卖团伙吗？你脑子是不是进水了？
Is it not better for us to learn of the problems that have occurred in investigating and prosecuting offenders so we can try to fix things so that there can be justice for victims in the future.
我们难道不该了解调查和起诉罪犯过程中出现的问题，以便设法改进，让未来的受害者能获得正义吗？
You seem to argue that it would have been better for Americans to have remained in the dark regarding all of this corruption and criminal activity that was concealed for years. Though we have far to go to remedy these missteps, the only way we can is by having enough public outrage to demand accountability.
你似乎主张美国人最好永远蒙在鼓里，对隐藏多年的腐败和犯罪活动一无所知。尽管要弥补这些过错还有很长的路要走，但唯一的方法就是激起足够的公愤来追责。
Having distrust in your government is not necessarily a bad thing, it can lead to reform.
对政府保持警惕并非坏事，这反而能推动改革。
Your argument that the people who protected pedophiles who trafficked girls for decades should continue to be able to lie to us is unnerving.
你居然认为那些保护了几十年贩卖女童的恋童癖者的人应该继续对我们撒谎，这种论调令人毛骨悚然。
Seeing the problem clearly is the only way we can work to make things better. Or are children not important enough to protect from abuse?
看清问题才是我们努力改善现状的唯一途径。难道保护孩子免受虐待这件事，还不够重要吗？