2026-06-19T16:47:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
撰稿
更新于：2026年6月19日 / 美国东部时间下午6:15 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯——一名联邦法官周五暂时阻止司法部向一家保守派智库提供前总统乔·拜登与其传记作者马克·兹沃尼策十余年前谈话的编辑版笔录和录音。
美国地区法官达布尼·弗里德里希批准了拜登的禁令申请，以便让联邦上诉法院有机会就该案采取行动，实际上推迟了她当天早些时候作出的裁决。她表示，禁令将持续三周。
弗里德里希周五早些时候曾驳回拜登阻止司法部向传统基金会披露相关材料的请求。法官称，司法部的“大量编辑删减”减轻了拜登在本案中的隐私利益。
政府原本同意将向传统基金会披露材料的时间推迟至周五下午5点。
“在本案中，拜登并未指出若不下达禁令将造成任何公开损害，”弗里德里希在一份长达26页的裁决书中写道，“正如上文讨论的司法部《信息自由法》平衡原则所示，拜登被削弱的隐私利益所受损害，远不及公众对兹沃尼策相关材料的兴趣以及《信息自由法》‘广泛披露政府文件以确保公民知情——这对民主社会的运转至关重要’的政策所代表的公共利益。”
就在弗里德里希作出裁决后，拜登的律师提起紧急动议，请求法官阻止向传统基金会披露笔录和录音，直至其对该裁决提起上诉——弗里德里希随后批准了这项动议。
“本法院应当批准上诉期间的禁令，以防止现状发生不可逆转的改变，”他们写道，“总统的初步禁令动议提出了严肃的法律问题，而披露其私人谈话的行为无法被挽回。由此对其隐私和重大执法利益造成的损害将是永久性的。”
这场围绕拜登谈话的争议源于传统基金会2024年3月提交的一份《信息自由法》申请。该团体索要前特别检察官罗伯特·赫尔撰写的关于拜登处理敏感政府文件报告中特定部分所依据的记录，其中包括提及前总统2016年和2017年与兹沃尼策的录音谈话的段落。
这些访谈被用于拜登2017年的回忆录《应许吾父》。
赫尔的报告提及兹沃尼策的录音中展现出的前总统“官能衰退和记忆缺陷”，并称拜登与其代笔人的录音谈话“ painfully slow，拜登先生努力回忆事件，有时甚至费力阅读和转述自己笔记本中的内容”。
司法部最初以《信息自由法》的某些豁免条款为由，扣留了录音磁带和大部分书面笔录，但特朗普政府时期的司法部表示打算向国会和传统基金会披露相关材料。
拜登介入此案，请求法院发布初步禁令阻止披露。他上月还提起了另一项诉讼，试图阻止向众议院司法委员会披露音频文件。负责该案的法官尚未就拜登阻止向议员披露的请求作出裁决。
在针对传统基金会一案的裁决中，弗里德里希写道，司法部“自此前反对披露的立场以来，已对音频和笔录进行了大量编辑删减”。
她说，相关材料未提及疾病或死亡等敏感话题，也未涉及包括拜登家庭成员在内的任何私人人士。弗里德里希表示，本案涉及公众对披露谈话内容“异乎寻常强烈的兴趣”。
“简而言之，本案汇集了多项重大公开议题：检察官决策的披露、对特定记录的明确依赖，以及一位高调公众人物的言论，以支持司法部的决定，”她写道。
这位前总统辩称，他与兹沃尼策的谈话从未打算被广泛传播。他表示，司法部之所以持有这些录音，完全是因为赫尔的调查，而该调查最终未提起任何指控。
赫尔在报告中称，尽管调查发现拜登“在副总统任期结束后故意留存并披露了机密材料”的证据，但现有证据无法排除合理怀疑地认定其有罪。
“司法部放弃保护包含敏感个人信息的执法记录的职责，转而将其提供给政治机构，这种情况并不常见，”拜登的律师在5月的一份文件中写道。
Judge blocks DOJ from releasing Biden’s conversations with biographer for 3 weeks
2026-06-19T16:47:00-0400 / CBS News
By
Updated on: June 19, 2026 / 6:15 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Justice Department from giving a conservative think tank a redacted transcript and recordings of former President Joe Biden’s decade-old conversations with his biographer, Mark Zwonitzer.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich granted Biden’s request for an injunction to give a federal appeals court a chance to decide whether to take action on the case, effectively delaying her own order from earlier in the day. She said her order will remain in place for three weeks.
Earlier Friday, Friedrich had denied Biden’s bid to stop the Justice Department from disclosing the material to the Heritage Foundation. The judge said Biden’s privacy interests in the case are mitigated by “extensive redactions” by the Justice Department.
The government had agreed to delay the release of the material to the Heritage Foundation until 5 p.m. Friday.
“Biden has not identified any public harm that would arise absent an injunction in this case,” Friedrich wrote in a 26-page decision. “And, as with the Department’s FOIA balancing discussed above, the harm to Biden’s diminished privacy interest is outweighed by the public’s interest in the Zwonitzer materials and FOIA’s ‘policy of broad disclosure of Government documents in order to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society.’”
On the heels of Friedrich’s decision, Biden’s lawyers filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the disclosure of the transcript and tapes to the Heritage Foundation while it appeals her decision — a motion Friedrich later granted.
“This Court should grant an injunction pending appeal to prevent an irreversible change in the status quo,” they wrote. “President Biden’s motion for a preliminary injunction raises serious legal questions, and the disclosure of his private conversations cannot be undone. The resulting damage to his privacy and to weighty law enforcement interests will be permanent.”
The dispute over Biden’s discussions stems from a Freedom of Information Act request that the Heritage Foundation filed in March 2024. The group sought records that former special counsel Robert Hur relied on to write specific portions of his report on Biden’s handling of sensitive government records, which included passages referring to the former president’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer in 2016 and 2017.
The interviews were used for Biden’s 2017 memoir, “Promise Me, Dad.”
Hur’s report referenced the former president’s “diminished faculties and faulty memory” shown in Zwonitzer’s recordings, and called Biden’s recorded conversations with his ghostwriter “painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”
While the Justice Department initially withheld the audio tapes and most of the written transcripts, citing certain FOIA exemptions, the department under President Trump said it intended to disclose the material to Congress and the Heritage Foundation.
Biden moved to intervene and asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the disclosure. He also filed a separate lawsuit last month that seeks to block the release of the audio files to the House Judiciary Committee. The judge overseeing that case has yet to rule on Biden’s effort to prevent the disclosure to lawmakers.
In her decision in the Heritage Foundation case, Friedrich wrote that the department “made substantial redactions to the audio and transcripts since its earlier stance in opposition to release.”
The material, she said, does not mention sensitive topics like illness or death, nor any private people, including members of Biden’s family. Friedrich said the case involves an “unusually strong public interest” in the release of the conversations.
“In short, this case presents a confluence of significant public disclosures of prosecutorial decision-making, explicit reliance on particular records, and the statements of a high-profile public figure to support the Department’s decision,” she wrote.
The former president had argued that his conversations with Zwonitzer were never intended to be shared broadly. He said the Justice Department has the recordings only because of Hur’s investigation, which resulted in no charges.
Hur said in his report that while the investigation uncovered evidence that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified material” after his vice presidency, the evidence didn’t establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“It is not ordinary for the Department to abandon its duty to protect law enforcement records containing sensitive personal information, instead offering them up to political operatives,” Biden’s lawyers wrote in a May filing.
发表回复