Name: 爆料：檢察官Jeanine Pirro施壓起訴民主黨議員，竟因一支影片？ (Report: U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro applied pressure to indict Democratic lawmakers over video)
Uploaded: 2026-02-21T23:05:03.000Z
Duration: 7 min 58 s

關係子句

There's brand new reporting in the New York Times this afternoon about the turmoil inside the Department of Justice when it came to that failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers who released a video reminding the men and women of the military that they do not have to obey any illegal orders.

紐約時報今天下午有全新報導，關於美國司法部在起訴六名民主黨籍國會議員失敗的行動中所發生的混亂，這些議員曾發布影片提醒軍隊裡的男男女女，他們不必服從任何非法命令。

進階被動語態

According to that reporting in the New York Times in mid January, the inquiry into the lawmakers had no sense of urgency and that when lawyers for the lawmakers were contacted by federal prosecutors, they were told that they were not told of any law that had been broken, according to six people familiar with the matter.

根據紐約時報一月中旬的報導，對這些議員的調查並沒有任何急迫感，而且根據六位知情人士透露，當聯邦檢察官聯繫議員的律師時，他們被告知沒有被告知任何觸犯的法律。

Times goes on to report that everything changed two weeks later when, quote, Jeanine Pirro abruptly instructed her team to seek an indictment of the lawmakers.

紐約時報接著報導說，一切在兩週後改變，當時 Jeanine Pirro 突然訓示她的團隊尋求起訴這些議員。

Her prosecutors then faced a decision that many in the department under Trump have confronted.

她的檢察官接著面臨一個在川普領導下的美國司法部許多人曾面對的決定。

That attempt to indict, of course, failed last week, but

當然，這次的起訴行動上週失敗了，但是

as the New York Times notes, it stood, quote, as an example of the chaos that has voiled the department as it has grappled with the president's increasingly erratic demands, even in the face of little evidence.

正如紐約時報所指出的，這「成為了美國司法部在面對總統日益古怪的要求時所陷入的混亂的一個例子，即使證據很少。」

I want to bring in New York Times investigative reporter Mike Smith, who's bylined on that reporting we read from.

我想請到紐約時報調查記者 Mike Smith，他就是我們剛才讀到的那篇報導的署名作者。

Also joining us, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department, Mary McCord.

同時加入我們的還有美國司法部國家安全部門前代理助理總檢察長 Mary McCord。

Mike, first take us through what you and your colleagues are reporting today.

Mike，首先請你跟我們說說你和你的同事們今天報導了什麼。

Basically what we're trying to show is that when this investigation started, these prosecutors reached out to the defense lawyers for the six lawmakers and said, look, we're in the early stages.

基本上，我們想呈現的是，當這個調查開始時，這些檢察官聯繫了這六位國會議員的辯護律師，說，看，我們還在早期階段。

We're not even sure if we're in the first inning yet.

我們甚至不確定是不是在第一局。

We're not even sure what law we're investigating this under.

我們甚至不確定我們在調查什麼法律。

甚至不確定這是不是一項調查。

You know, could one of the lawmakers come in and talk, you know, would one of the lawyers want to come in and talk to sort of get this thing going?

你知道，有沒有可能讓一位國會議員進來談談，你知道，有沒有律師想進來談談，讓事情有個開始？

That is as informal a way of starting an investigation as possible, especially after the president of the United States has called for them, you know, essentially called for them to be investigated for this and raised the possibility that it could be punished.

這是一個盡可能非正式的啟動調查的方式，尤其是在美國總統已經要求他們，你知道，基本上要求他們被調查這件事，並提出了可能受到懲罰的可能性之後。

You know, up, you know, up to, you know, seditious conspiracy, seditious conspiracy and execution.

你知道，最高，你知道，最高，你知道，煽動叛亂罪，煽動叛亂罪和執行。

So it had a very, very informal feeling to it.

所以它給人一種非常、非常非正式的感覺。

And within two weeks, they there was a prosecutors before a grand jury trying to indict them like that is just such a highly unusual, irregular, you know, way for a department to operate, especially on political, you know, opponents of the president and appointees.

而且在兩週內，就有檢察官在陪審團面前試圖起訴他們，這對一個部門來說，尤其是在針對總統的政治對手和被任命者時，是極不尋常、不正規的運作方式。

And like, look, we're beyond, obviously, the point of trying to compare this to previous Justice Departments.

而且，你看，我們已經遠遠超過了，試圖將此事與過去的美國司法部做比較的階段。

But the idea, like a previous Justice Department looking at a member of Congress, there'd be all sorts of memos and back and forth up and down the chain about what to do and, you know, how would this survive on appeal and what, you know, what are the Article 1, you know, issues here and such.

但想像一下，過去的美國司法部在審視一位國會議員時，會有各種備忘錄在層層之間來回傳遞，討論該怎麼做，以及，你知道，這在訴訟上是否站得住腳，還有，你知道，這裡的憲法第一條條款，你知道，相關問題等等。

Eleven secret hearings before Judge Beryl Howell about the crime fraud.

在 Beryl Howell 法官面前進行了十一場祕密聽證會，關於犯罪詐欺。

I mean, to your point about how this should be special, I guess my question to you is if you compare it to Eric Adams case, when that was brought to very conservative prosecutors in The New York U.S.

我的意思是，回到你說的這應該是特別的，我想問你的是，如果跟 Eric Adams 的案子相比，當這個案子被帶到紐約美國檢察官辦公室非常保守的檢察官面前時，

Danielle Sassoon basically told Emil Bovet to shove it where the sun does not shine.

Danielle Sassoon 基本上告訴 Emil Bovet 滾得遠遠的。

Or is there no one left like Danielle Sassoon?

還是已經沒有像 Danielle Sassoon 這樣的人了？

These prosecutors went and tried to bring a case before aggression.

這些檢察官試圖在侵略發生前提起訴訟。

They tried to indict the six officers they tried to indict, just to do it slowly.

他們試圖起訴那六名軍官，只是想慢慢來。

It's not that they tried to do it slowly.

是川普打電話說要起訴他們嗎？

We know as much as we wrote today, which was that, you know, Judge Jeanine told the prosecutors to go and seek the indictment of it after the case had started in a very, very informal way.

我們今天知道的就這麼多，就是說，你知道，Jeanine法官用一種非常、非常非正式的方式告訴檢察官們，在案件開始後去尋求起訴。

So you're going from like 0 to not just 60 0, to like, you know, very, very, very fast.

所以你從零開始，不是到60，而是到，你知道，非常、非常、非常快。

And those prosecutors went in and the grand jury came back and swiftly said no, and

然後那些檢察官進去，大陪審團回來，迅速地說不，

The thing that, I wonder in the evolution of the Trump Justice Department, is that instead of quitting, is this the next way just failing, of just failing, Just quiet quitting.

在川普司法部的演變過程中，我好奇的是，他們沒有辭職，而是採取了另一種方式，就是失敗，單純的失敗，單純的安靜辭職。

And, you know, a very prominent litigator, someone who has been opposing the government in court on a lot of this stuff, said to me that what they wonder on a lot of the things at Justice Department is their pocket vetoing going on.

而且，你知道，一位非常著名的訴訟律師，一位在法庭上反對政府處理很多事情的人，他跟我說，他們在司法部對很多事情感到好奇的是，他們是否在進行口袋否決。

Are prosecutors being told to do things and not doing them or tanking them?

是不是有檢察官被訓示做某些事，但他們不做，或者讓事情失敗？

And I'm not saying we have evidence in this case that they purposely went in to tank it.

我並不是說我們有證據顯示他們在這起案件中有意要搞砸。

But if you're a prosecutor and you have decided that you believe in the Trump Justice Department and you want to work there, is it easier to just go to the grand jury, seek the indictment, and

但如果你是一位檢察官，你決定你信任川普的司法部，而且你想在那裡工作，那麼是去大陪審團尋求起訴，然後

blame the rigged system than it is to stand up, say no and quit?

指責這個被操縱的系統，會比你站出來說不然後辭職來得容易嗎？

And it certainly seems like there was some sort of phone call made, a directive that either came directly from the White House or, or potentially from the Attorney general's or the deputy attorney general's office to Jeanine Pirro to speed this up.

而且看起來確實有某種電話聯繫，一個直接來自白宮，或者，或者可能是來自總檢察長或副總檢察長的辦公室給 Jeanine Pirro 的訓示，要加快處理。

But, you know, to Mike's point about prosecutors going, and

不過，你知道，回到 Mike 關於檢察官的說法，

he can, he can please correct me if this is wrong, but

他可以，他可以糾正我，如果我錯了，但是

the reporting I have read were that the two prosecutors who went into the grand jury, these were not career prosecutors in the D.C.

我讀到的報導是，進入大陪審團的兩位檢察官，他們不是 D.C.

美國檢察官辦公室的職業檢察官。

One had been a longtime assistant district attorney in Westchester county up in Connecticut when Jeanine Pirro was there, and

其中一位曾在康乃狄克州韋斯特切斯特郡擔任長期的助理檢察官，當時 Jeanine Pirro 也在那裡，而且

she had worked with him and is now apparently a dance photographer.

她曾與他共事，現在他似乎是一位舞蹈攝影師。

Well, now I guess he's a special counsel to Jeanine Pirro.

嗯，現在我想他成了 Jeanine Pirro 的特別檢察官。

And then another was a longtime Republican staffer who had almost no prosecutorial experience and also now is a special counsel to Jeanine Pirro, the U.S.

另一位則是長期的共和黨幕僚，幾乎沒有檢察經驗，現在也是 Jeanine Pirro，美國

So this seems to me, unless that's wrong, like a case that was never really even given to the career prosecutors or was given to them, and

所以在我看來，除非我錯了，這像是從來沒有真正交給職業檢察官處理的案子，或者交給了他們，而且

And so I do think that might have something to do with why these two were willing to go in on such a completely, not just baseless, but

所以我認為這可能跟為什麼這兩個人願意參與一個完全，不只是毫無根據，而且

it would be unconstitutional to indict these six members of Congress for conduct that is clearly protected by the First Amendment and as Mike said, raises serious speech or debate issues given their status as members of Congress.

起訴這六位國會議員，因為他們的行為明顯受到美國憲法第一修正案的保護，而且就像 Mike 說的，考慮到他們國會議員的身份，這會引發嚴重的言論或辯論問題，這是不符合憲法的。

And I would refer us all also to Judge Leon's decision in the case that Senator Kelly brought against Secretary Hegseth to try to prevent the demotion in rank and pay.

我也想請大家參考 Leon 法官在參議員 Kelly 對抗 Hegseth 祕書，試圖阻止降級和減薪的案件中的判決。

And Judge Leon, in no uncertain terms, said, this, you know, flagrantly violates the First Amendment.

而 Leon 法官明確表示，這，你知道，公然違反了第一修正案。

And you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

And I'm glancing over to make sure I get the quote right.

So, you know, it's not just me saying this would be unconstitutional, but, you know, to try to retain that was, of course, not a criminal prosecution.

所以，你知道，不只是我說這不符合憲法，而且，你知道，試圖保留，當然，這不是刑事起訴。

But still, this type of retaliation for First Amendment protected speech, especially by elected officials who are elected in order to speak on matters of policy.

但即便如此，這種針對受第一修正案保護的言論進行報復，尤其是由民選官員進行，他們當選的目的就是為了就政策問題發聲。

I can't imagine a career prosecutor in that office taking to this to the grand jury.

我無法想像那個辦公室的職業檢察官會把這個提交給大陪審團。