{"id":"qd74096dc8bcb31bd3d86","batch_id":"batch-000138","seq":450,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:50:09.766Z","text":"他按照法律行动就不会这样","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":"q6dc28098c21473aa34ac","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd74096dc8bcb31bd3d86","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6dc28098c21473aa34ac","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000138","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000138","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd74096dc8bcb31bd3d86","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd74096dc8bcb31bd3d86/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qd74096dc8bcb31bd3d86","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q6dc28098c21473aa34ac","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:49:02.352Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6dc28098c21473aa34ac"},{"id":"qfea77a6ec1cbc0778c96","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:49:31.860Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfea77a6ec1cbc0778c96"},{"id":"qc34f9bffe0947398b7a9","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:49:43.709Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc34f9bffe0947398b7a9"},{"id":"qd802aec17ffdb1215b58","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:50:22.469Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd802aec17ffdb1215b58"},{"id":"qf6e65f4c38c7487da827","speaker":"nin***","date":"2026-07-22T20:50:36.791Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf6e65f4c38c7487da827"},{"id":"q632d1d73e0888c4b9386","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:51:44.150Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q632d1d73e0888c4b9386"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q6dc28098c21473aa34ac","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-22T20:49:02.352Z","text":"3. 上诉法院为什么驳回他的请求？\n7月21日，华盛顿特区的美国联邦巡回上诉法院的三名法官（组成的三人法庭）一致裁定维持原判 [1.1.4]。主审法官给出了几个非常致命的理由：\n “没证据表明特朗普保了你”： 法官指出，纳瓦罗拿不出任何文件或证据，证明特朗普当年真的指示他行使“行政特权”（这是总统用来保密内部沟通的一项权力） [1.1.3]。\n “擅自做主”： 纳瓦罗是在收到传票不到3分钟、甚至还没看清传票内容的情况下，没有跟特朗普沟通，也没有咨询律师，就自己单方面宣布了“行政特权” [1.1.1]。\n “你都已经写进书里卖了”： 国会索要的很多信息，纳瓦罗早就写在自己出版的回忆录里，还在播客上到处炫耀 [1.1.1, 1.1.2]。既然已经是公开信息，自然就不存在“总统保密特权”这一说了 [1.1.1]。\n “不能彻底无视程序”： 法官表示，就算特朗普真的动用了特权，纳瓦罗也不能连面都不露、文件也不交就直接把国会拒之门外，你至少得走个流程去申辩 [1.1.3]。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6dc28098c21473aa34ac"}}