2026年7月1日 / 美国东部时间下午3:00 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
前中央情报局局长约翰·布伦南于周三起诉美国司法部及特朗普政府高级官员，寻求法院命令要求相关方保全针对他的 ongoing 联邦调查中的相关记录。
此次诉讼对布伦南而言是非同寻常的举措。作为总统特朗普的长期政治对手，自特朗普第二任期伊始，布伦南就成为了两项司法部刑事调查的目标。
其中一项调查围绕2023年布伦南就美国情报界对2016年大选俄罗斯干预的评估向国会撒谎的指控展开。另一项则是规模庞大的“重大阴谋”调查，旨在查明奥巴马和拜登时期的官员是否参与了长期阴谋，以阻止特朗普入主政坛。
布伦南的法律团队在周三向华盛顿联邦法院提交的一份46页诉状中写道：“本届政府采取了一项政策，利用刑事程序和起诉来惩罚总统眼中的对手。正是在这种背景下，前中央情报局局长约翰·O·布伦南遭到了报复性的针对性调查和起诉。”
布伦南的法律团队辩称，任何针对他的“最终起诉”都将在法庭上被质疑为“违宪的报复性和选择性起诉”，而相关记录的丢失将“损害甚至致命地破坏法院审查布伦南先生抗辩的能力——法院需要完整的同期通信和材料记录，才能查明检察官做出决定和采取行动的真实意图”。
布伦南请求华盛顿特区的一名联邦法官下令代理司法部长托德·布兰奇和司法部，以及白宫、国家情报总监办公室和中央情报局，“保全与布伦南先生针对未来任何刑事指控提起的法律和宪法抗辩可能相关的材料和通信”。
布伦南的案件已分配给拜登提名的美国地区法官贾·科布。
诉状还点名提及了佛罗里达南区联邦检察官杰森·雷丁·基尼奥内斯，以及代理司法部长的顾问约瑟夫·迪杰诺瓦。在负责该调查的职业检察官被调离案件后，迪杰诺瓦被指派领导针对布伦南的一项司法部 ongoing 刑事调查。
哥伦比亚广播公司新闻此前曾报道，执法界资深人士深切担忧，特朗普政府司法部针对布伦南的刑事调查正系统性地任用带有政治动机的人员，这些人员意图进行党派性起诉。
据直接了解相关人事任命消息的人士透露，参与此次调查的还有库尔特·奥尔森——他最近担任特朗普总统的选举安全与诚信事务主任，以及约翰·柳——前司法部高级官员，曾在乔治·W·布什总统任期内撰写了反恐战争中颇具争议的“酷刑备忘录”。
奥尔森正是向联邦调查局提交富尔顿县选举案件 referrals 的人，促使特工们在今年早些时候执行搜查令，从2020年大选相关物品中查获了数十箱选票和其他材料。
迪杰诺瓦告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻，约翰·柳将为调查人员提供宪法法律问题方面的建议，并协助处理动议和上诉事宜。
司法部发言人在一份声明中表示：“我们无法评论某项调查是否存在，但约翰·布伦南指责他人开展‘报复运动’，这无疑是五十步笑百步。”
布伦南的诉状呼应了近期代表司法部调查目标的律师们采取的其他行动，这些律师在辩称司法部行为非法方面取得了一定成效。
上周，明尼苏达州一名联邦法官驳回了特朗普政府向明尼苏达州州政府和地方政府办公室发出的六份大陪审团传票，其中包括州长蒂姆·瓦尔茨和明尼阿波利斯市市长雅各布·弗雷，裁决这些传票具有报复性且非法。
今年3月，华盛顿特区的一名联邦法官驳回了联邦储备委员会收到的一对大陪审团传票——该传票是一项已结案的刑事调查的一部分，法官裁决这些传票仅仅是为了向主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔施压，迫使其投票支持降息或辞职的借口。
去年，前联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米和纽约州总检察长莱蒂夏·詹姆斯辩称，针对他们的起诉应以“报复性和选择性起诉”为由被驳回。最终，这些案件之所以被驳回，是因为法官发现负责提起起诉的临时美国检察官的任命存在违法行为。
Former CIA Director John Brennan sues Justice Dept., Trump officials over criminal probes
July 1, 2026 / 3:00 PM EDT / CBS News
Former CIA Director John Brennan sued the Justice Department and top Trump administration officials Wednesday, seeking a court order to force the preservation of records in the ongoing federal investigations targeting him.
The lawsuit represents an unusual step for Brennan, a longtime political opponent of President Trump who has been the focus of two Justice Department criminal probes since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s second administration.
One is centered on allegations that Brennan lied to Congress in 2023 about the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The second is a sprawling “grand conspiracy” probe examining whether Obama- and Biden-era officials were part of a long-running conspiracy to keep Mr. Trump out of political office.
“This Administration has adopted a policy of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the President’s perceived adversaries,” Brennan’s legal team wrote in a 46-page complaint filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington. “It is against this backdrop that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John O. Brennan, is being vindictively singled out for investigation and prosecution.”
Brennan’s legal team argues that any “eventual indictment” against him will be challenged in court as “unconstitutionally vindictive and selective,” and the loss of any relevant records would “impair, perhaps fatally, the ability of the court reviewing Director Brennan’s challenges to do so on the full record of contemporaneous communications and materials that is needed to divine the true intentions behind the prosecutors’ decisions and actions.”
Brennan is asking a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to order Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department, as well as the White House, ODNI and CIA, to “preserve materials and communications potentially relevant to Director Brennan’s legal and constitutional challenges to any future criminal charges.”
Brennan’s case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden nominee.
The complaint also singles out the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, and Joseph DiGenova, a counselor to the acting attorney general who was tapped to lead one ongoing DOJ criminal investigation into Brennan after the career prosecutor overseeing the probe was removed from the case.
CBS News previously reported that law enforcement veterans are expressing deep concerns that the Trump Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Brennan is being systematically stacked with politically motivated personnel who are intent on a partisan indictment.
Also involved in the investigation is Kurt Olsen, who most recently served as President Trump’s director of election security and integrity, as well as John Yoo, the former senior Justice Department official who authored the controversial “torture memos” in the War on Terror during President George W. Bush’s presidency, according to sources with direct knowledge of the hires.
Olsen was the person who made the Fulton County election case referral to the FBI, prompting agents to execute a search warrant earlier this year where they seized dozens of boxes of ballots and other materials from the 2020 election.
DiGenova told CBS News that Yoo will be on hand to advise investigators on constitutional legal questions and assist with motions and appellate issues.
A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement, “While we cannot comment on the existence, or lack thereof, of an investigation, it is certainly rich that John Brennan is accusing anyone of a ‘retribution campaign.’”
Brennan’s filing echoes other moves by lawyers representing targets of recent Justice Department investigations who have had some success in arguing the department was acting unlawfully.
Last week, a federal judge in Minnesota quashed six grand jury subpoenas the Trump administration served against Minnesota state and local government offices — including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey — ruling the subpoenas were retaliatory and unlawful.
In March, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. quashed a pair of grand jury subpoenas sent to the Federal Reserve Board as part of a since-closed criminal probe, ruling they were merely a pretext to pressure Chairman Jerome Powell into voting for lower interest rates or resigning.
And last year, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James argued the indictments against them should be dismissed on the grounds of a “vindictive and selective” prosecutions. Instead, the cases were dismissed because a judge found that the interim U.S. attorney who had secured the indictments had been unlawfully appointed to the role.
发表回复