2月11日，由共和党牢牢掌控的众议院，以219票对211票通过决议，公开反对特朗普对加拿大加征关税的政策。 虽然这次投票是象征性行动，因为这个决议最终还是会送达特朗普办公桌，特朗普必然会行使否决权。但这是13个月 来特朗普宣布的多项全国紧急状态中，首个遭遇国会重新审视的案例，被舆论直接定性为共和党人的"罕见倒戈"，是 对特朗普的"罕见谴责"。 放在几年前，这样的场景几乎不可想象，如今却堂而皇之发生在共和党占优的众议院，表面看是一场围绕关税政策的 博弈，实则撕开了美国政坛最不堪的遮羞布 —— 所谓政党团结、国家利益、三权分立，从来都是选举算计和权力内斗 的遮羞布。 特朗普自以为一手遮天的 "美国优先"，终究被自家党派狠狠背刺。 尤其在此次投票前，特朗普还在"真实社交"上发文警告："任何在众议院或参议院投票反对关税的共和党人，都将在选 举时付出惨重代价，包括初选！"他补充道："关税保障了我们的经济和国家安全，任何共和党人都不应该破坏这一特 权。" 警告声言犹在耳，6个共和党的倒戈却如一记猝不及防的重拳，击碎了特朗普对党内铁板一块的幻想。 这次罕见的反水，与其说是背叛，不如说是各有各的现实算盘。 摇摆选区和票仓敏感 ...

转自：京报网_北京日报官方网站 【日新说｜#美国底层斩杀线顶层萝莉岛#】#美国斩杀线被杀的只有平民# 美国政坛最近发生了一件极 其罕见、甚至可以说有些魔幻的大事。 当地时间2月2日，面对藐视国会的表决压力，美国前总统比尔· 克林顿和前国务卿希拉里·克林顿终于低头，同意接受众议院监督委员会的问询。问询的主题，正是那 个让整个美国精英阶层闻风丧胆的名字——杰弗里·爱泼斯坦。但前总统时隔40多年再次被调查，绝不 是美国司法的胜利，更不是迟到的正义，而是一次精心策划的权力斗争。今天，咱们《日新说》就来说 说美式民主精心织就的道德帷幕之下，藏着怎样血腥的一幕。（@北京日报 评论员 庾子山 美编 温辉） ...

Group 1: Trade Policies and Economic Impact - The trade war initiated by Trump in 2018 has significantly impacted US-China economic relations, with tariffs being raised to 20% by March 2025, leading to increased costs for US businesses and consumers [2] - The ongoing tariff negotiations continue to affect supply chain adjustments, with Chinese exports shifting to other markets and US companies seeking alternative sources [20] Group 2: TikTok and Regulatory Changes - The TikTok incident marked a pivotal moment, with the US Congress passing a law in 2024 requiring ByteDance to sell its US operations or face a ban, leading to a series of extensions and negotiations until the deal was finalized by the end of 2025 [4][6] - The establishment of a new joint venture in January 2026, where ByteDance's stake was reduced to 19.9%, highlights the political motivations behind US regulatory decisions rather than purely rule-based enforcement [6] Group 3: Visa Policies and Educational Landscape - The visa policy changes under Trump's administration have created uncertainty for international students, with significant scrutiny and mass visa cancellations announced in May 2025, although the actual issuance of visas remained relatively high [6][17] - The perception of studying in the US has shifted from a prestigious opportunity to a risky choice, prompting many to reassess the value of pursuing education in the US [8][13] Group 4: Political Appointments and Influence - Trump's appointments of ambassadors with familial ties and questionable backgrounds have revealed the intertwining of family and political relationships in US diplomacy, diminishing the previous ideal of meritocracy [10][20] - The influence of political funding on decision-making has become more apparent, with policies often favoring specific interest groups, reflecting a shift in public perception regarding the motivations behind political actions [10] Group 5: Public Perception and Societal Issues - Social media comparisons between Chinese and American lifestyles have highlighted common struggles, such as the need for multiple jobs to maintain living standards and the disparities in education and healthcare systems [12][13] - The discussion around education and healthcare has deepened understanding of systemic issues, leading to a growing emphasis on developing models that are more suitable for local conditions [23]

同意就爱泼斯坦案接受国会调查问询的美国民主党籍前总统克林顿及其妻子、前国务卿希拉里接连发 声，要求进行公开听证会，从而避免"由惊慌失措的共和党人主导的闭门'袋鼠法庭'中上演政治闹剧"。 "袋鼠法庭"是西方法律术语，指无视公平正义和司法程序的法庭，或者说为了实施迫害目的而拼凑起来 装装样子、其实未审之前就先认定了受审者有罪的法庭。使用如此严重的词汇，近乎直接指控，足见在 爱泼斯坦案撕出的这波新番里，党争烈度已到了何等程度。 几天前，面对藐视国会罪的表决压力以及可能的刑事处罚，克林顿夫妇态度180度大转弯，从"拒不配 合"到"乖乖就范"。这背后，显然是共和党手里的权力机器不断施压。此时，克林顿夫妇的公开呼吁， 即便看似拥有"呼唤真相"的政治正确，仍然显得相当被动。毕竟，公开与否的决策，掌握在众议院监督 与政府改革委员会主席、共和党人詹姆斯·科默手上。他在4日接受采访时表示，闭门问询内容将以音 频、视频和文字记录形式公开。 更可能的"绞索"，在于共和党并没有完全撤销藐视程序，只是暂停投票。换言之，一旦做证稍不留神， 克林顿夫妇不排除面临更严厉的追责，多半只能束手束脚；而在即将到来的中期选举中，民主党选情还 会"顺理 ...

白宫南草坪的风还带着早春的料峭，特朗普面对记者的追问爆发出的怒斥，却打破了平静。 "你太糟糕了！完全不诚实！"他指着CNN的记者柯林斯，语气里满是不屑，"CNN没收视率，就是因为 有你这种人！"而这场突如其来的"嘴炮"，不过是他为接下来的"表演"铺垫情绪。 当被问及克林顿夫妇将因爱泼斯坦案赴国会作证时，他立刻换上一副痛心疾首的表情，慢悠悠吐出两个 字："遗憾"。 这声"遗憾"，可以堪称美式政治的经典名场面了。 "坦白说，我觉得很遗憾。我一直很喜欢他（克林顿）。至于她（希拉里）？是的，她是个很有能力的 女人，辩论能力比其他一些人强得多，更聪明"。 特朗普一边说着"不愿看到这种情况"，一边反复强调自己"清白无罪"，与爱泼斯坦案毫无关联。这番阴 阳怪气的表态，像极了猫爪按住老鼠前的假意温柔，看似同情对手，其实真实目的是为了看民主党陷入 丑闻泥潭。 时间倒回到2月2日，这场政治大戏迎来关键转折点。 此前还硬气十足、声称国会传票"在法律上无效"、拒绝作证的克林顿夫妇，突然服软。他们的律师在邮 件中表示，两人将"在双方同意的日期出席作证"，并请求众议院搁置原定于4日的藐视国会动议投票。 从"拒不配合"到"乖乖就范"，这1 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the unprecedented situation where former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, marking the first time a former president has faced such scrutiny since Gerald Ford in 1983 [1] - The investigation is seen as a political maneuver by the Republican Party to shift focus from Trump and his administration's handling of the Epstein case to prominent Democratic figures who had connections with Epstein [1][3] - The release of 3 million pages of documents, 2,000 video segments, and 180,000 images related to the Epstein case has implicated numerous elite figures, including business leaders and former advisors to Trump, highlighting the pervasive corruption within the American elite [3] Group 2 - The political landscape surrounding the Epstein case has become a battleground, with Democrats aiming to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration while Republicans seek to limit exposure of their own party's involvement [4] - The ongoing party conflict has overshadowed the pursuit of truth, turning the scandal into a political tool and sacrificing judicial integrity and social justice in the process [5] - The article emphasizes that the Epstein case reveals the decay of the American judicial system and the absurdity of political infighting, while also drawing parallels to recent incidents of violence involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [6][9]

Group 1 - The article discusses the unprecedented situation where former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, marking the first time a former president has faced such scrutiny since Gerald Ford in 1983 [1] - The investigation is seen as a political maneuver by the Republican Party to shift focus from former President Trump to prominent Democratic figures associated with Epstein, highlighting the ongoing political tensions surrounding the case [1] - The release of a large volume of documents related to the Epstein case, including 3 million pages of materials, 2,000 video segments, and 180,000 images, has implicated numerous elite figures, raising public outrage over the perceived moral decay within the American elite [3] Group 2 - The article highlights two recent incidents in Minneapolis where ICE agents shot and killed two American citizens, drawing parallels to previous instances of police violence and raising concerns about the use of excessive force by law enforcement [4] - The expansion of ICE's enforcement powers under the Trump administration, particularly in Democratic-led states, is seen as a strategy to create social division and undermine the governance of the Democratic Party [4] - The article argues that the politicization of law enforcement has eroded public trust in its impartiality, as agencies become tools for political agendas rather than serving justice [6] Group 3 - The narrative emphasizes the irony of elite figures and violent institutions being able to conceal their wrongdoings while ordinary citizens remain at risk, illustrating a deepening divide in American society [7] - The article critiques the failure of scandals to prompt judicial reform and the inability of tragedies to lead to accountability in law enforcement, suggesting that the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" have become hollow in the current political climate [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent presidential election in Honduras, highlighting the controversial election of Nasry Asfura, who won with a narrow margin of 0.74% over his opponent, Salvador Nasralla. The election is portrayed as heavily influenced by U.S. interests, particularly under the Trump administration, which is accused of manipulating the political landscape in Honduras for its own geopolitical gains [1][2][20]. Group 1: Election Results and Context - Nasry Asfura, representing the right-wing National Party, won the presidential election with a vote share of 40.27%, while his opponent Salvador Nasralla received 39.53%, a difference of approximately 28,000 votes [1]. - The election process was marred by significant delays and controversies, including accusations of U.S. interference and manipulation [1][2]. Group 2: U.S. Influence and Political Manipulation - The article emphasizes the role of the U.S. in Honduran politics, suggesting that Asfura's victory was largely due to American backing, particularly from Trump, who is depicted as using Honduras as a pawn in a larger geopolitical strategy [2][8][20]. - The release of former President Juan Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking, just before the election is highlighted as a strategic move to bolster Asfura's campaign [4][5][7]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Latin America - The situation in Honduras is presented as a microcosm of broader trends in Latin America, where U.S. influence is seen as undermining democratic processes and sovereignty [2][8][20]. - The article draws parallels between historical U.S. interventions in Latin America and current events, suggesting that the region remains under the thumb of American geopolitical interests [18][20]. Group 4: Taiwan's Position - The article notes that both Asfura and Nasralla promised to sever ties with China and restore relations with Taiwan, indicating Taiwan's role as a player in this geopolitical game [13][14]. - The relationship between Honduras and Taiwan is characterized as one of political maneuvering rather than genuine partnership, with Taiwan being used as a tool against China [15][16].

Core Points - The U.S. federal government is experiencing its longest shutdown in history, now entering its 40th day, with a temporary funding bill only providing resources until January 2026 [2][3] - The shutdown has significant impacts on the economy and public welfare, with millions affected as political disputes overshadow the needs of ordinary citizens [2][9] Political Dynamics - The shutdown began on October 1, following a failure to pass a temporary funding bill in the Senate, with both parties blaming each other for the impasse [2][4] - The Republican Party is using the shutdown to push for cuts to government employment and programs supported by Democrats, while Democrats are trying to maintain their political stance ahead of upcoming elections [4][5] Legislative Challenges - The current political polarization has made it increasingly difficult for Congress to complete budgetary processes, with no fiscal year starting without a completed budget since the 21st century [6][8] - The Senate's "filibuster" rules complicate the passage of funding bills, requiring a supermajority for closure on debates, which has become a significant hurdle [7][8] Economic Impact - The shutdown is projected to reduce the U.S. GDP growth rate by 1-2 percentage points in Q4, with estimates suggesting a loss of approximately $15 billion for each week the shutdown continues [11] - Essential services and welfare programs are being severely affected, including food assistance for 42 million people and heating subsidies for low-income families [9][10] Public Sentiment - Polls indicate that a majority of Americans feel disconnected from both political parties, with nearly 80% expressing dissatisfaction with Congress's performance [11]

Core Points - The U.S. federal government has entered a shutdown that has lasted for 37 days, breaking the previous record of 35 days [2] - The shutdown has resulted in numerous federal employees being furloughed, significant flight delays and cancellations, and air traffic controllers working without pay, severely impacting daily life for American citizens [2] - The ongoing political strife between the two major parties in the U.S. has hindered efforts to address the resulting hardships faced by the public, highlighting both the self-serving nature of political agendas and the systemic flaws within American democracy [2]