英语故事三分钟演讲（精选3篇）
The Rabbit and The Wolf’
One day a rabbit was walking near the hill. He heard someone crying,‘Help! Help!’It was a wolf. A big stone was on the wolfs back. He cried, "Mr. Rabbit, take this big stone from my back, or I will die."
The Rabbit moved the stone from the wolfs back. Then the wolf jumped and caught the rabbit.
“If you kill me, I will never help you again.” Cried the rabbit . “Ha,ha!You will not live, because I will kill you." said the wolf.
‘I helped you. How can you kill me? It’s unfair. You ask Mrs. Duck. She will say that you are wrong." said the rabbit. “I will ask her,” said the wolf.
So they went to ask Mrs. Duck. The duck listened to their story and said,” What stone? I must see it. Then I can know who is right. “So the wolf and the rabbit and the duck went to see the stone.
"Now, put the stone back," said Mrs. Duck. So they put the stone back. Now the big stone is on the wolf’s back again.
That’s all for my story. Thanks for listening.
兔子和狼
一天，兔子先生正在山坡附近遛哒，他听到有人在呼救：“救命呀!救命呀!”他这边瞧瞧，那边望望，他发现了可怜的狼先生，一块大石头掉下来压在狼先生的背上，他起不来了。他喊道：“兔先生，把这块大石头从我背上搬开，要不然我会死的。”兔子好不容易把大石头从狼背上搬开，这时，狼跳起来，把兔子叼在嘴里。“如果你吃了我，”兔子叫喊着，“只要我还活着，我再也不帮你的忙了。” “你不会活了，”狼说，“因为我要吃了你了。” “好人是不会杀救过他命的恩人的，”兔子说，“这很不公平，你去问鸭子夫人，她很胖，她样样事情都通晓，她一定会说没有一个好人会干出这种事情来。” “我去问她”，于是，狼和兔子到了鸭子家。狼说：“当兔子先生在山坡附近坐下时，我抓住了他，因此，我要吃掉他。现在你来谈谈你是怎样想的吧。” “我从他的背上搬开好大的一块石头，”兔子说，“因此，我说他不应该吃掉我，因为我救了他。现在你说说你的看法吧。” “什么石头?”鸭子夫人问。“山附近一块石头，”兔子说。“我必须去看看，”鸭子说，“如果我连那块石头也没有看见，那我怎么说得出我的看法?”于是，狼、兔子和鸭子一起去看那块石头。现在你知道结果是什么了。
justice story: "impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." we know about the huston plan. we know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. we know that there was absolute complete direction on september 3rd when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in dr. fielding's office, after having met with mr. ehrlichman and mr. young. "protect their rights." "rescue their liberties from violation."
the carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 beginning shortly after the watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the president has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. moreover, the president has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. these assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."
james madison again at the constitutional convention: "a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution." the constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the president has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution."
if the impeachment provision in the constitution of the united states will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.
has the president committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the constitution will not tolerate? that's the question. we know that. we know the question. we should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman.
hi everyone：
common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. congress has a lot to do: appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. so today we are not being petty. we are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.
this morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the cia by the president is thin. we're told that that evidence is insufficient. what that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the president did know on june the 23rd, 1972.
the president did know that it was republican money, that it was money from the committee for the re-election of the president, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on june the 17th. what the president did know on the 23rd of june was the prior activities of e. howard hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included howard hunt's participation in the dita beard itt affair, which included howard hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the kennedy administration.
we were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the president of the united states. there has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the president. the committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the president wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. the fact is that on yesterday, the american people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the supreme court of the united states.
at this point, i would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the president has engaged in. impeachment criteria: james madison, from the virginia ratification convention. "if the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
we have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. the president had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. we know that the president met with mr. henry petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information mr. petersen was receiving. the words are: "if the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."