2026年10月25日 美国东部时间下午12:06 / CBS新闻
以下是2026年10月25日美国司法部长托德·布兰奇参加《与玛格丽特·布伦南一同面对国家》节目访谈的文字记录。
玛格丽特·布伦南：我们首先连线美国司法部长托德·布兰奇。早上好，先生。
美国司法部长托德·布兰奇：早上好。
玛格丽特·布伦南：距离选举还有9天，你的同事哈米特·迪隆的办公室负责监督选举诚信案件，她在接受《60分钟》节目采访时表示，“除非出现意外的突发状况，各州计票和认证选举结果的常规流程不会被打断。”你是否认同这一观点？
布兰奇司法部长：是的，当然认同。除非有需要我们另行处理的事实，否则根据特朗普总统和司法部的立场，我们当然不希望涉及选举的法律被卷入此事。但这并不意味着司法部在任何情况下都不会介入，如果事实和法律要求的话，我们也应当介入。
玛格丽特·布伦南：看起来你已经在阿拉斯加采取了行动。为了让观众理解，阿拉斯加的选票上有两位丹·沙利文。一位是现任共和党参议员丹·S·沙利文，另一位是挑战者丹·J·沙利文。司法部正在阿拉斯加提起先发制人的诉讼，要求阻止参议员沙利文败选后的结果认证。有人问特朗普总统对这起诉讼的看法，他说，“是我下令这么做的。”他让谁去做这件事了？他是让你去做的吗？
布兰奇司法部长：首先，我要纠正你。你描述的情况往好了说是具有误导性，往坏了说就是在对观众撒谎。阿拉斯加并非有两位分别作为现任议员和参选者的丹·沙利文。这不是事实。阿拉斯加州选举委员会负责人——不是特朗普总统，也不是我——表示，第二位丹·沙利文参选的唯一目的是混淆选民，分散现任参议员的选票。这是我们正在处理的问题。阿拉斯加选票上并非只有两位丹·沙利文参选，这不是事实。其次，特朗普总统谈论这件事是一个“长期存在的闹剧”，司法部也已就此事调查了很多个月，这是我们根据联邦法律应当做的。大家也看到了我们本周早些时候、上周晚些时候采取的行动。这并非要让联邦政府接管阿拉斯加选举参议员或确定参议员人选的制度。我们是请求法院介入阿拉斯加最高法院未处理的事项，也就是依据联邦法律，必要时为阿拉斯加提供一个确定谁应当被认证为获胜者的程序。
玛格丽特·布伦南：阿拉斯加最高法院维持了下级法院在这一问题上的裁决。他们认为，“沙利文先生试图混淆或误导选民的说法缺乏充分证据支持。”阿拉斯加最高法院确实处理了这一事项。我还要向观众展示选票样式，我们有一张图片。
布兰奇司法部长：不，他们没有这么做。那是州法律的规定。
玛格丽特·布伦南：请澄清一下——
布兰奇司法部长：那是州法律的规定。
玛格丽特·布伦南：——在这个国家，选举由各州管理，各州如何处理选举问题、如何应对任何可能的混淆。观众现在看到的是排序复选制选票。
布兰奇司法部长：你的说法不符合事实。你对选民不诚实。
玛格丽特·布伦南：观众现在就能看到这张选票。选票上写着丹·S·沙利文是现任参议员。为什么这还不够？
布兰奇司法部长：我不确定是否足够，但我可以告诉各位：阿拉斯加选举制度负责人表示，这很可能会造成混淆。你可以继续按照你想陈述的事实来讲述，但这与实际情况不同。阿拉斯加最高法院并未就每一次选举中涉及的联邦法律作出裁决。确实，这类情况并不常见。但请大家退一步，理解这里发生的事情。毫无疑问，第二位丹·沙利文参选的唯一原因是以令人困惑且不当的方式分散现任丹·沙利文的选票。阿拉斯加最高法院作出了一项裁决，但还没有公布判决意见。我们正在等待判决意见，与此同时，司法部的所有努力都是为了确保联邦法律——
玛格丽特·布伦南：是的。
布兰奇司法部长：在选举后必要时得到执行和维护。
玛格丽特·布伦南：选票已经印发了。阿拉斯加有很多邮寄选票。选票样式和我们刚才展示的一致。两位丹·沙利文都在选票上。回到我问你的问题，我问的是特朗普总统是否指示你采取这一行动。当总统说，“是我下令这么做的”，他让谁去做的？
布兰奇司法部长：我永远、永远、永远不会谈论我与美国总统的沟通内容。我过去没有，将来也不会。
玛格丽特·布伦南：不，美国总统是在镜头前说这番话的。
布兰奇司法部长：但请务必明白，这并非——
玛格丽特·布伦南：他说，“我让他们这么做的。”他是对你说的吗？
布兰奇司法部长：不是，这不是你的问题。不，他没有在镜头前说这话。
玛格丽特·布伦南：是的，他说了。
布兰奇司法部长：他说他让他们这么做的。我说过我永远不会谈论——不，我说的是你刚才问的问题。我问你的是“他是不是让你这么做的？”我对你说，我不会谈论我与美国总统的沟通内容。我从未这样做过，将来也不会。但我可以告诉你：这是司法部依据法律自行开展的调查，民权司起草了这起诉讼，最终由我们提起。特朗普总统谈论这件事已经好多个月了。
玛格丽特·布伦南：是的。
布兰奇司法部长：这不是上周才出现的新情况，而是已经持续了很长时间。
玛格丽特·布伦南：为什么要在选举前11天才提起诉讼？
布兰奇司法部长：我们原本希望最高法院会出具判决意见并说明理由。我们从他们的裁决中得知，他们没有考虑联邦法律。我不是在评判他们，这只是事实。他们没有考虑联邦法律，所以我们希望建立一套程序，即使其他人在选举后可能因选民困惑提起诉讼，选票也会被妥善保存，以便阿拉斯加州选举制度而非联邦政府、而非特朗普总统、更不是我能确定准确的获胜者，而是根据法律规定由阿拉斯加制度来判定。
玛格丽特·布伦南：司法部的诉讼称，被告——即州选举委员会和选票计数审查委员会——“不得认证任何可能因选民混淆而受影响的选举结果”。这里的混淆是指“沙利文参议员没有获胜”，而且如果所有投给丹·J·沙利文的选票都算作投给沙利文参议员的，他本应获胜。你怎么——
布兰奇司法部长：这不是诉讼的内容。
玛格丽特·布伦南：我是在引用诉讼内容。
布兰奇司法部长：诉讼内容是，你可以判定——
玛格丽特·布伦南：你在告诉他们不要认证。
布兰奇司法部长：不，是你先提到的——
玛格丽特·布伦南：联邦政府有什么权利要求一个州不要认证或如何认证？
布兰奇司法部长：我们不是——你一直在说，你不让我回答问题，所以我无法回应。如果你让我回答，我就能回应你的问题。好的，我们的诉求是，由于阿拉斯加选票的设置，选民可以为多名候选人投票，那么存在一种潜在的可能——我们还不知道结果——从选票和投票结果中可以明显看出选民感到困惑，这可能体现在选民对丹·沙利文的排序上，或未在选票上列出丹·沙利文。目前我还不知道，因为还没有选举。但我们要做的是设立保护措施，一旦这种情况发生，就有一套保留选票的制度，以便确定是否存在混淆。这不是说不要认证，而是说如果法院最终认定选举结果因混淆而非选民意愿导致，那么我们认为州政府不应认证，这符合联邦法律，也符合阿拉斯加州的法律。
玛格丽特·布伦南：你明确表示不会谈论与总统的对话。当总统说，“是我下令这么做的”，他指的是谁？
布兰奇司法部长：我不知道他指的是谁，即使我知道，我也肯定不会谈论此事。总统所说的，以及他过去四五个月明确表示的，是这是一场“闹剧”，在我们国家，不应该出现同名参选来分散选票的情况。
玛格丽特·布伦南：是的。
布兰奇司法部长：顺便问一下，我们能不能谈谈这个问题？你不认同吗？你认为这是可以接受的？你认为这种情况应该在我们的政治制度中存在吗？阿拉斯加选举制度负责人表示，在任何情况下她都无法保证选民不会被混淆，并列出了很多原因——
玛格丽特·布伦南：对。
布兰奇司法部长：——这不是特朗普总统的问题，也不是我的问题。大家谈论的焦点是我们提起的诉讼，而不是阿拉斯加有一位美国参议院候选人，选举负责人表示他参选的唯一目的是混淆选民。这才应该是讨论的焦点，而现在不是，这很遗憾。但我们会让它成为讨论的焦点。
玛格丽特·布伦南：最高法院也表示，诚信要求并未载入宪法，无论是否有意造成混淆，他们都不再纠结于此。不管怎样——
布兰奇司法部长：是的，没错，事实就是如此。你完全正确。但他们没有考虑联邦法律。你说得对，阿拉斯加最高法院的裁决是，即使出于恶意——
玛格丽特·布伦南：是的。
布兰奇司法部长：——阿拉斯加州的法律出于他们无法控制的原因没有涉及这一点。但这与联邦法律不同，所以我们提起了联邦诉讼。
玛格丽特·布伦南：让我问问其他联邦行动。CBS报道称，司法部正在调查前国土安全部部长克里斯蒂·诺姆的前顾问科里·莱万多夫斯基利用其职位谋取私利的指控。特朗普总统对此作出了回应。
[录音开始]
特朗普总统：我只知道，我希望我的人诚实，如果他们不诚实，就必须被起诉。我不太清楚具体情况，因为我认为如果有人不诚实，就是在窃取我作为总统的利益，窃取我的东西。所以我希望我的人诚实，如果他们不诚实，我会让司法部采取必要行动。
[录音结束]
玛格丽特·布伦南：你是否就这项调查的任何部分向总统做过简报？你是否会查办政府内部的腐败问题？
布兰奇司法部长：CBS的报道就是你消息的来源，我不知道具体情况。我不会就泄密和消息来源发表评论。我完全同意总统刚才说的每一句话。但除此之外，我不会就上周几家新闻媒体泄露的关于国土安全部前雇员的消息发表评论，也不会评论是否会查办“政府内部的人”。我同意总统的看法。每一位政府成员，无论哪届政府，都应当秉持正直和诚实的原则行事，做正确的事。如果他们不这样做，司法部当然会展开调查。
玛格丽特·布伦南：好的。说到这里，如果民主党人在11月获胜并掌控局面，他们就会调查特朗普政府的官员。我的同事托尼·多库皮尔日前就这种情况询问了副万斯，他表示会“当然”遵守收到的任何国会传票。而是否指控有人蔑视国会传票，最终由司法部决定。作为司法部长，你会不会起诉特朗普政府中不遵守传票的人？
布兰奇司法部长：你刚说副总统说“我们当然会遵守传票”，然后问我会不会起诉不遵守传票的人——
玛格丽特·布伦南：是的。
布兰奇司法部长：——我对相关事实一无所知。我真的不知道。你这一连串的假设问题。如果犯罪事实成立，我们当然会展开调查。
玛格丽特·布伦南：副总统已经回答了他会遵守传票，但对于那些蔑视国会传票的人，民主党人是否应当继续相关调查？
布兰奇司法部长：“那些人”是谁？谁在蔑视传票？
玛格丽特·布伦南：我是问你是否持开放态度？
布兰奇司法部长：你这是在编造信息试图从我这里得到答案。谁？
玛格丽特·布伦南：副总统的发言非常明确。
布兰奇司法部长：对谁明确？
玛格丽特·布伦南：你要不要和副总统一样明确表态？
布兰奇司法部长：当然，我们会遵守传票。和以往一样，我们当然会遵守传票。是的。本届政府有哪张传票我们没有遵守吗？有任何关于蔑视国会的指控或认定吗？不，当然没有。所以我完全同意副总统的看法，我们不会蔑视传票。当然会遵守传票。
玛格丽特·布伦南：司法部长托德·布兰奇，感谢你今天抽出时间。《面对国家》节目一分钟后继续，敬请关注。
Transcript: Attorney General Todd Blanche on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 25, 2026
October 25, 2026 12:06 PM EDT / CBS News
The following is the transcript of the interview with Attorney General Todd Blance that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Oct. 25, 2026.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we begin with U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. Good morning to you, sir.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So we’re nine days out. Your colleague Harmeet Dhillon, whose office would oversee election integrity cases, told my colleagues over at 60 Minutes that, quote, “absent some shocking contingency that’s unexpected, there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying the results in the states.” Do you share that view?
AG BLANCHE: Well, yes, of course. Absent- absent some facts that require us to do otherwise, there’s President Trump, the Department of Justice- we don’t want to have to get a law involved in elections, of course not. But that doesn’t mean that at times any Justice Department doesn’t do that and shouldn’t do that if the facts and the law require it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it seems you already are taking action up in Alaska. Just for our audience to understand, there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot there. There’s the incumbent senator, a Republican, Dan S. Sullivan, and then there’s a challenger there, Dan J. Sullivan. The Justice Department is suing Alaska preemptively to block the certification of the results if Senator Sullivan loses. Now, President Trump was asked about this lawsuit. He said quote, “I’m the one that said do it.” Who did he tell to do this? Did he tell you to do this?
AG BLANCHE: Well, first of all, let me correct you, okay. You describe facts that were just simply either at best misleading, but really a lie to your viewers. It is not two Dan Sullivans, one an incumbent and one running. That’s not true. The head of the Alaska Election Commission, not- not President Trump, not me, has said that the second Dan Sullivan is running solely to confuse voters, solely to pull votes away from the incumbent senator. Okay, so that is something that we’re dealing with. It’s not just two Dan Sullivans running on the ballot in Alaska. That is not true. And second, President Trump has been talking about what a travesty this is for many, many, many months, and the Department of Justice has been looking at it for many, many, many months, as we should under federal law. And you saw what we did earlier this week- late last week. And it was not- it’s not to let the federal government take over the Alaska system of selecting their next senator or certifying who’s going to be senator. It’s asking the court to step in where the Alaska Supreme Court didn’t, which is to look at federal law, and if necessary, to allow a process for Alaska to decide who should be who should be certified as a winner.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Alaska Supreme Court did uphold lower court’s ruling on this matter. They found the assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by preponderance of evidence. The Alaska Supreme Court did take on this matter. I also want to show our viewers what the ballot will look like. We have a picture of it.
AG BLANCHE: No, they didn’t. That’s the state law. That’s the state law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to make clear here–
AG BLANCHE: That’s the state law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –this is how the state- in this country, the states administer the elections- this is how the state came up with the issue and how to handle any confusion. Our viewers are seeing it right now. It’s ranked choice voting.
AG BLANCHE: I mean, you’re not- you’re not telling the truth. You’re not being honest with the voters.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They can see that Dan- I’m showing the ballot to the viewers right now.
AG BLANCHE: You’re not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s on the screen. It says Dan S. Sullivan is listed as the incumbent. Why is that- it says incumbent. Why is that not sufficient?
AG BLANCHE: Well, listen. I don’t know if it’s sufficient, but I can tell you this: that the director of the Alaska election system has said that it will likely cause confusion, and so, you know, that- you- you can continue to talk and continue to state facts as you want them to be, but that’s different than the way that they actually are. The Alaska Supreme Court did not rule on the federal law that’s implicated in every election, and it is true that it is not often that we have to get involved. But just take a step back. Take a step back and understand what’s happening here. There is no dispute that the only reason the second Dan Sullivan is running is to pull votes away in a confusing and inappropriate manner from the Dan Sullivan incumbent. Okay? And the Alaska Supreme Court, when they issued a ruling, they didn’t issue a decision yet. We’re waiting for that decision to be- to- the opinion to be issued, but in the meantime, all that we are trying to do as the Department of Justice is make sure that federal law–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: –is enforced and upheld if it needs to happen after the election.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the ballots are out. There’s a lot of mail-in ballot voting in Alaska. The ballot’s going to look like what we just showed our viewers. They are both on there. In terms of the question I asked you, I asked if it was President Trump who told you to take this action. When the president said, “I’m the one that said do it,” who did he tell to do it?
AG BLANCHE: So I don’t- I will never, ever, ever talk about communications that I have with the president of the United States. I never have, and I never will.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, the president of the United States said this on camera.
AG BLANCHE: But make sure that you understand that this was not the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said, “I told them to do it.” Did he tell that to you?
AG BLANCHE: No, that wasn’t your question. No, no, he didn’t say it on camera.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he did.
AG BLANCHE: He said he told them to do that. I said I will not talk ever about- no, that wasn’t your question, I said. I said, what your question was to me is, did he tell me? And I said to you, I will not talk about communications I have with the president of the United States. I haven’t ever, and I won’t ever. But I will tell you this: this is the Department of Justice doing our own research under the law, the Civil Rights Unit in the Department of Justice drafting this lawsuit, and then ultimately we filed the lawsuit. President Trump has been talking about this for months and months and months and months.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
AG BLANCHE: This isn’t something new that just came up last week. This is something that’s been going on for a long time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did he file it 11 days before the election?
AG BLANCHE: Well, we were hopeful that- that the Supreme Court would actually issue an opinion and explain their reasoning. What we knew from their ruling is that they didn’t consider federal law. I’m not judging them for that; it’s just a fact. They didn’t consider federal law, so we want a procedure in place that if there is litigation, there may not be, but if there is litigation brought by others after the election because of possible voter confusion, that the ballots are kept in a way that the Alaska state- that the Alaska state election system can determine who the accurate winner is, not the federal government, not President Trump, not me, but the Alaska system as the law is required- as the law is set out for it to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the DOJ lawsuit says the defendants, who are the state election board and the ballot counting review board, quote, “not certify any election result that may be impacted by voter confusion.” The confusion is defined as Senator Sullivan not winning, and had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast as said for Senator Sullivan, then he would have won. How do you–
AG BLANCHE: –That’s not what it says, okay.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m quoting from it.
AG BLANCHE: What it says is the way- the way that you can determine–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are telling them not to certify it.
AG BLANCHE: No, no, but the way you- you started that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: What right does the federal government have–
AG BLANCHE: No, no we’re not saying- no we’re saying–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –telling a state not to certify or how to certify?
AG BLANCHE: We are not- we are- you know, if you talk the whole time, you’re not going to get answers out of me. But if you let me answer your question, I can address your question. Okay, so the- exactly what we want is that there are ways- because of the way that Alaska ballots are set up, where voters can vote for more than one candidate– there is a way, potentially- we don’t know what’s going to happen yet- where it will be obvious from the results and from the ballots that voters were confused, and that could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. I don’t know yet because there hasn’t been an election. But all we are doing is trying to put guardrails in place so that if that- this- that happens, there’s a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way so that we can determine whether there was confusion. It’s not saying don’t certify. It’s saying if a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify, and that’s consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve been clear in saying you won’t talk about your conversations with the president. Who was he referring to when he said, “I’m the one that said do it”?
AG BLANCHE: I have no idea who he was referring to and even if I did have an idea, I would most certainly not talk about it. He’s not- what- what the president is saying, and what he clearly has said for the past four months, five months, is that this is a travesty, and this- in this country we should not have a system of elections where it’s okay for somebody who is only running with the same name to pull votes away.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: And by the way, how about we talk about that? I mean, do you disagree with that? Do you think that that’s okay? You think that should be allowed in- in our system of government? Someone that the- the head of the Alaskan system of voters has said that there is no scenario under which she can certify that voters will not be confused, and she lists a number of reasons why–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
AG BLANCHE: –that wasn’t President Trump and that wasn’t me. And the fact that the conversation is about this lawsuit we filed, and not the fact that there’s a person running for Senate in the United States, in Alaska that- that the head of the elections has said is- is only running to to confuse voters. That should be the conversation, and it’s not, and that’s- that’s unfortunate. But we’re going to make it–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: –the conversation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Supreme Court also talked about the fact that the good faith requirement does not appear in the Constitution, so whether it was intended to be confusing or not, they sort of put that aside. Anyway–
AG BLANCHE: Right, correct, and so- and that’s that. You know, you’re totally- you’re totally right about that. But that’s where they did not consider federal law. You’re- you’re right that what the Alaska Supreme Court said is even if it’s bad faith–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: –our laws in Alaska, for reasons that, you know, that- not up to them, don’t- don’t address that. But that’s different than federal law, which is why we brought a federal lawsuit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about other federal actions. CBS is reporting that DOJ is looking into allegations that Corey Lewandowski, the former advisor to then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, used his position for financial gain. President Trump said this.
[START SOUND ON TAPE]
PRESIDENT TRUMP: All I know is I want my people to be honest, and if they’re not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted. I don’t know about specifically, but- because I view if people are not honest, they’re stealing from me as president. They’re stealing from me, so I want my people to be honest, and if they’re not honest, I’ll have my DOJ go and do whatever they have to do.
[END SOUND ON TAPE]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you briefed the president on any part of this investigation? Are you willing to go after corruption within the administration?
AG BLANCHE: Your source for that- I don’t know what it is, it’s CBS’s reporting. I don’t. I will not comment on leaks and sources. I very much agree with every word the president just said. And- but beyond that, I’m not commenting on some leak that several news outlets supposedly got last week about- about the former employee at DHS and whether I would quote “go after people in the administration,” I agree with the president. Everybody in this administration, in any administration, should operate with integrity and honesty, and- and- and do the right thing. And if they don’t, yes, of course, the Department of Justice will investigate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well, to that point, Democrats, if they do win in November, are talking about- when they are in control- investigating Trump officials. Vice President Vance was asked by my colleague Tony Dokoupil the other day about this scenario, and told him he will, “of course,” abide by any congressional subpoenas he receives. It is the Justice Department that ultimately would decide whether to charge someone for defying a congressional subpoena. Would you, as AG, charge Trump officials for not adhering to them?
AG BLANCHE: Wait. So you just say the vice president says, “Of course, we’re going to comply with the subpoena,” and then ask me if I was if I’m going to prosecute–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
AG BLANCHE: –somebody who doesn’t. I have no idea what the facts are around that. I have no idea. I mean, you’re talking about hypothetical after hypothetical. If a crime has been committed, yes, of course we will investigate it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The vice president answered the question and said he would. But- but for- for those who defy congressional subpoenas, should the Democrats go ahead with some of these investigations?
AG BLANCHE: Who’s the “those?” Who’s defying a subpoena? Who’s defying a subpoena?
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m saying, would you be open to it?
AG BLANCHE: I mean, you’re literally making things up to try to get an answer out of me. Who?
MARGARET BRENNAN: The vice president was very clear in his remarks.
AG BLANCHE: To who?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you like to be as clear as the vice president was?
AG BLANCHE: Yes, of course. Of course, we comply with subpoenas. That we will comply with subpoenas as we always have, of course. Yes. Is there any subpoena you can identify in this administration that we haven’t complied with? Has there been any allegation or any contempt of Congress finding? No, no of course not. So, I very much agree with the vice president, and we’re not here to not defy subpoenas. Of course, we comply with subpoenas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Attorney General Todd Blanche, thank you for your time today. Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.
发表回复