【环球时报驻美国特约记者 萧达 环球时报特约记者 王逸】从当地时间19日起，迫于国会法案的要求，美国司法部分批公开爱泼斯坦案数十万页档案文件。 不过，人们发现，在此次公布的文件中至少有550页内容被完全涂黑，根本无法读取。许多媒体和民众嘲讽美国政府此举完全是"行为艺术"，所谓"透明"只 是政治表演。与此同时，这批文件"大量曝光"前总统克林顿及民主党人，却很少提及此前被认为与爱泼斯坦往来密切的现总统特朗普。对此，民主党人怒斥 司法部选择性公布文件、刻意隐瞒关键信息，司法部则坚称自己"透明"。美国两党再度陷入唇枪舌剑。 大量文件被涂黑 据美国《国会山报》20日报道，美国司法部当天公布了新一批与爱泼斯坦案有关的文件和照片。其中多张手写便条显示爱泼斯坦未接来电的记录，一些留言 写着"我有女人给他"。留言中大部分来电者姓名被涂黑，一张没有日期、也没有任何留言的便条上写着来电者是"唐纳德·特朗普"。 美国司法部从12月19日起开始在其网站公布爱泼斯坦案相关文件。司法部表示，此次将公开数十万份相关记录，接下来几周将继续公开更多内容，并在年底 前公布全部文件。 爱泼斯坦曾长期诱拐年轻和未成年女性为大批政商名流提供性交易，并为 ...

Core Viewpoint - The meeting between President Trump and newly elected New York City Mayor Mamdani marks a significant shift in their previously adversarial relationship, with both leaders expressing mutual respect and a willingness to collaborate [1][2][4]. Group 1: Meeting Dynamics - Trump praised Mamdani, stating he could surprise many conservatives and expressed a desire to help him make New York stronger and safer [2][3]. - Mamdani reciprocated by appreciating Trump's approach to set aside differences and seek consensus [2][4]. - The meeting included light-hearted interactions, with both leaders showing a willingness to overlook past criticisms [4][5]. Group 2: Political Context - Trump had previously opposed Mamdani's election, labeling him negatively and threatening to cut federal funding to New York if he won [3][4]. - Following the meeting, Trump retracted his earlier threats, indicating a desire for cooperation [4]. - The meeting serves as a political opportunity for both, with Mamdani gaining visibility and Trump addressing voter concerns about rising living costs amid dissatisfaction with his administration [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. military recently conducted an operation in the Caribbean, targeting a "drug trafficking submarine," resulting in the death of two individuals and the repatriation of two others to their home countries [1][2][4]. Summary by Relevant Sections U.S. Military Action - President Trump announced that the U.S. military struck a "drug trafficking submarine" in the Caribbean, killing two of the four individuals on board, with the survivors sent back to Ecuador and Colombia for questioning [2][4]. - The submarine was reportedly transporting illegal narcotics along a route to the U.S., as confirmed by U.S. intelligence [4]. Regional Reactions - Colombia's President Petro condemned the U.S. actions as a violation of Colombian sovereignty, demanding explanations regarding the killing of a Colombian fisherman during the military operation [5][8]. - Venezuelan President Maduro stated that Venezuela has completed its defense plans against perceived U.S. threats, emphasizing the deployment of military resources and the mobilization of citizens into militia groups [9][11]. Strategic Implications - The U.S. has justified its military presence in the region as a counter-narcotics effort, although reports indicate that Venezuela is not a primary source of drugs entering the U.S. [12]. - Analysts suggest that the U.S. military actions may serve multiple strategic purposes, including creating instability in Venezuela and exerting pressure on other Latin American countries [12][14].

Core Points - The U.S. military recently attacked a "drug submarine" in the Caribbean, resulting in the death of two individuals and the repatriation of two others to their home countries [1][2] - The operation has faced strong criticism from regional countries, with Colombia condemning the action as a violation of its sovereignty and Venezuela declaring its defense plans against U.S. threats are complete [1][3][4] Summary by Sections U.S. Military Action - President Trump announced the U.S. military's strike on a "drug submarine" in the Caribbean, claiming it was transporting illegal narcotics towards the U.S. [2] - The attack resulted in the death of two out of four individuals on board, with the survivors sent back to Ecuador and Colombia for prosecution [2] - This incident marks the first time survivors have been reported since the U.S. claimed to have targeted "drug boats" in the region in September [2] Colombia's Response - Colombian President Petro criticized the U.S. military actions as an infringement on Colombia's sovereignty and demanded explanations regarding the killing of a Colombian fisherman during the incident [3] - The fisherman, Alejandro Calanza, was reportedly not involved in drug trafficking, and there are claims that the attacked vessel was a fishing boat, not a drug-related craft [3] Venezuela's Defense Measures - Venezuelan President Maduro stated that the country's defense plans against U.S. threats have been completed, with all defense zones deployed as part of the "Independence 200 Plan" [4] - Maduro condemned U.S. military deployments in the Caribbean as a threat aimed at regime change and resource appropriation [5] U.S. Strategic Intentions - The U.S. has justified its military presence in the Caribbean as a drug enforcement measure, although reports indicate that Venezuela is not a major source of drugs entering the U.S. [7] - Analysts suggest that the U.S. aims to create chaos within Venezuela and intimidate other Latin American countries through its military pressure [7] - The military actions are viewed by some as a political maneuver by the Trump administration to solidify its image and gain political benefits [7]

Group 1 - The Trump administration has deployed National Guard troops in Washington D.C. to patrol the streets, with plans to extend this deployment to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and New York [1][4] - National Guard personnel are allowed to carry firearms only for specific tasks, while others involved in transportation and administration do not carry weapons [1][2] - The presence of National Guard troops has led to some improvement in security in Washington D.C., but incidents of gun violence continue to occur [3] Group 2 - Local residents in high-crime areas express skepticism about the effectiveness of the National Guard's presence, viewing it as a political stunt rather than a genuine security measure [2][4] - The mayors of Baltimore and other cities have criticized the militarization of law enforcement, advocating for long-term social investments instead [4] - The Trump administration's focus on cities led by Democratic mayors has raised concerns about racial stereotypes and discrimination, as highlighted by civil rights leaders [4]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is taking measures to address homelessness and violent crime in Washington, D.C., including potential fines or imprisonment for homeless individuals who refuse assistance [1][3]. Group 1: Government Actions - The White House announced that homeless individuals in Washington, D.C., may face fines or imprisonment if they do not cooperate with government efforts to combat violent crime [1][3]. - The federal government has cleared 70 homeless encampments in federal parks since March and plans to clear remaining sites [3]. - President Trump deployed 800 National Guard soldiers to Washington, D.C., to assist in policing efforts and announced a federal takeover of the local police department [3][4]. Group 2: Political Reactions - Democratic leaders and civil rights groups criticized the federal government's actions as "political theater" and unnecessary, arguing that crime rates in Washington, D.C., have decreased to historic lows [2][5]. - D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser expressed initial concern over the federal intervention but later indicated a willingness to cooperate with federal officials overseeing law enforcement [4]. Group 3: Public Sentiment - Some residents of Washington, D.C., are skeptical about the necessity of deploying National Guard troops, noting that crime rates are already low [6]. - There is a general concern among homeless assistance organizations about the potential consequences of the federal government's actions, urging homeless individuals to seek shelter for their safety [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article criticizes the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its inadequate disaster response to Typhoon "Danas," suggesting that the party prioritizes its political interests over the needs of disaster victims [1] Group 1: Disaster Response - The DPP's response to the disaster caused by Typhoon "Danas" has been described as slow and ineffective, leading to public dissatisfaction and criticism [1] - The spokesperson expressed concern for the victims and hopes for a quick recovery of normal life and production [1] Group 2: Political Implications - The DPP's actions are portrayed as politically motivated, with accusations that they are more focused on political maneuvering than on addressing the needs of the affected population [1] - The spokesperson highlighted the hypocrisy of the DPP's claims of "democracy" and "love for Taiwan," suggesting that their true priorities lie in self-interest [1]