如果你问我，司法部试图以向国会撒谎为由起诉两名前联邦调查局（FBI）官员、指控其在亨特·拜登笔记本电脑一案上作伪证，这一失败的努力究竟更多是源于无能还是欺骗，我的回答是：何必二选一？这完全可能两者兼而有之。无论哪种情况，该部门竟愿牺牲前公职人员的人身自由，实属耻辱。
If you were to ask me whether the Justice Department’s failed effort to charge two former FBI officials with lying to Congress about Hunter Biden’s laptop was due more to incompetence or duplicity, my answer would be: Why choose? It could easily be both. In either case, the department’s willingness to sacrifice the liberty of former public servants is a disgrace.
周一，联邦治安法官驳回了10月23日提交的刑事诉状，该诉状指控妮基·弗洛里斯和布拉德利·贝纳维德斯——这两人属于现已解散的FBI外国影响工作组成员。法官齐亚·M·法鲁基罕见地当庭宣读裁决书，严厉抨击政府提起指控。“此处发生的一切，除‘武器化’外无法用其他语言形容，”他说。他的措辞构成了对FBI局长卡什·帕特尔的斥责，后者在宣布指控时曾表示“FBI绝不容忍武器化”。
On Monday, a federal magistrate judge dismissed a criminal complaint filed Oct. 23 against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, members of the FBI’s now-defunct Foreign Influence Task Force. Taking the rare step of reading his order from the bench, Judge Zia M. Faruqui blasted the government for filing the charges. “What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization,” he said. His choice of words stands as a rebuke to FBI Director Kash Patel, who said that in announcing the charges that “weaponization will not be tolerated at the FBI.”
所谓涉嫌行为发生在2023年，当时两名FBI官员就其参与调查拜登及其笔记本电脑一事，在众议院司法委员会作证。法鲁基认定，证据不足以证明该证词系明知故犯的虚假陈述。但他反对的不仅是指控的内容，更是提起指控的方式。
The alleged conduct occurred in 2023, when both FBI officials testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding their involvement in the investigation of Biden and his laptop computer. Faruqui found insufficient evidence that the testimony was knowingly false. But it wasn’t just the content of the charges that he objected to, it was the method of filing them.
指控是以一份称为“刑事诉状”的文件形式提出的，这种文件可用于逮捕嫌疑人，而无需经历向大陪审团申请起诉书所必需的延误。刑事诉状由联邦特工或检察官起草，并经推事法官批准，后者必须根据书面宣誓书认定存在合理根据。关键在于，检察官必须在提交刑事诉状后30天内获得起诉书，除非被告放弃相关权利，否则不能在没有起诉书的情况下将被告送上法庭受审。
The charges were filed in a document known as a complaint, which can be used to arrest a subject without the delay necessitated by going to a grand jury to obtain an indictment. A complaint is drafted by a federal agent or prosecutor and approved by a magistrate judge, who must make a finding of probable cause based on a written affidavit. The catch is that prosecutors must obtain an indictment within 30 days of filing a complaint, and they cannot take a defendant to trial without one unless he waives those rights.
为确保刑事诉状在事实上站得住脚，法官通常会在提交后14天内安排一次公开法庭的预审听证，届时将有证人出庭并接受交叉盘问。听证结束后，法官决定是否存在合理根据以继续推进案件。
To ensure that a complaint is factually sound, a judge usually sets a preliminary hearing in open court, complete with witnesses subject to cross-examination, within 14 days of its filing. After the hearing, the judge decides whether probable cause exists for the case to continue.
当案件以刑事诉状启动时，检察官通常会试图在14天期限届满前，通过向大陪审团陈述案情来获得起诉书。在这种情况下，预审听证会被取消。因此，在一般情况下，检察官于10月23日提交刑事诉状后，本可避免预审听证一直推迟到11月6日，或者在该日期前获得起诉书从而完全避免听证。
When a case begins with a complaint, prosecutors usually try to obtain an indictment before the 14 days expire by presenting their case to a grand jury. In such instances, the preliminary hearing is canceled. Thus, under ordinary circumstances, by filing a complaint on Oct. 23, prosecutors could have avoided a preliminary hearing until Nov. 6 or obtained an indictment before that date to avoid it altogether.
但该案异常的程序姿态透着操纵的意味。正如法鲁基在意见书中指出的，司法部自2023年起已掌握足够信息提起指控，却等到大选前夕才动手。这属于所谓的“非即时反应案件” —— 与“即时反应案件”形成对比，后者指有人犯下严重罪行、必须立即逮捕。在选民投票前不足14天采取提起刑事诉状这一非同寻常的步骤，使得检方能够公开宣布指控，却无需接受大陪审团或初步聆讯的审查。更令人费解的是，检方试图通过替代起诉书增加妨碍公务指控，并获得了治安法官批准。
But the unusual posture of this case smelled of manipulation. As Faruqui noted in his opinion, the DOJ has had sufficient information to file charges since 2023, but waited until the eve of the election to do. This was what is known as a non-reactive case — in contrast to a reactive case, where someone has committed a serious crime and must be arrested immediately. Taking the unusual step of filing a complaint in such a case, less than 14 days before voters go to the polls, allowed for the public announcement of charges without any need to face scrutiny by a grand jury or at a preliminary hearing. What’s more curious, prosecutors attempted to supersede the indictment to add additional charges for obstruction of an official proceeding getting approval from a magistrate judge.
奇怪的程序姿态导致法鲁基识破司法部的虚张声势，驳回了替代起诉的计数，并将初步聆讯定在上周举行，远早于通常的14天期限。他由此迫使检方在公开法庭上出示证据。经过为期三天的聆讯，法鲁基认定缺乏合理根据，驳回了案件。
The strange procedural posture caused Faruqui to call the DOJ’s bluff, dismissing the superseding count and setting the preliminary hearing for last week, well short of the usual 14 days. He thus forced prosecutors to show their evidence in open court. After a three-day hearing, Faruqui found probable cause was lacking and dismissed the case.
虽然司法部仍可将案件提交大陪审团，但其至今未这样做，表明其对能否获得起诉缺乏信心，尤其是在大陪审团近期采取不同寻常步骤、拒绝就涉及前白宫助理卡西迪·哈钦森以及六名民主党众议员的案件发出起诉之后。
While the DOJ may still present the case to a grand jury, its failure to do so already suggests a lack of confidence in its ability to obtain an indictment, especially after grand juries have taken the unusual step of rejecting indictments in recent cases involving former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson and six Democratic members of Congress .
若罪名成立，这两名前联邦调查局官员各面临最高八年监禁。该案让人联想到针对前奥运皮划艇运动员大卫·赫恩的指控 —— 他被控破坏华盛顿倒影池，指控同样被驳回。在这两起案件中，司法部愿以诚实的美国人为替罪羊、以推进总统的政治议程，都是令人震惊的滥用职权。芭芭拉·麦夸德关于司法部的更多文章：更多彭博观点文章，请订阅我们的新闻通讯。
If convicted of the charges, the former FBI officials each faced up to eight years in prison. The case is reminiscent of the charges against David Hearn , the former Olympic canoeist charged with vandalizing the reflecting pool in Washington. Those charges were also dismissed. In both cases, the DOJ’s willingness to use honest Americans as scapegoats to advance the president’s political agenda was a breathtaking abuse of power. More From Barbara McQuade on the Department of Justice: For more Bloomberg Opinion, to our newsletter.