- 起诉背景： 两名曾协助调查推翻2020年总统大选努力的前FBI特工周四提起诉讼，质疑自己被突然解雇，称解雇“完全”是因为参与了该调查。
- 身份与指控： 这两名特工仅被确认为John Doe 1和John Doe 2，他们指控FBI局长卡什·帕特尔（Kash Patel）和司法部长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）因他们在2020年大选案件（内部称为“北极霜”行动）中的工作而对其进行政治报复，尽管他们在调查中仅扮演了短暂且主要是行政性的角色。
- 诉讼理由： 诉讼称解雇违反了FBI政策以及宪法第一和第五修正案赋予特工的权利。两名前特工均寻求重返该局，并要求法院宣告其解雇行为非法。
- 法律声明： “对特朗普总统的政治支持不是原告在联邦调查局内有效履行各自职责的合法或恰当要求，”诉讼称，“因此，对特朗普总统缺乏政治支持不能成为解雇原告联邦调查局工作的理由。”
- 解雇时间线： 根据诉讼，两名特工去年秋天在五天内先后被解雇，此后不久，与“北极霜”调查相关的未编辑内部文件被分享给国会成员。
- 解雇细节： 诉讼称，FBI局长帕特尔在10月底和11月初“未经证据”、“未进行内部调查、通知或听证”即“立即”解雇了两名特工。
- 官方回应： FBI和司法部未回应福克斯新闻数字版就其解雇或新诉讼的置评请求。然而，在周四众议院听证会上，FBI局长帕特尔驳斥了民主党人对该局内部解雇行为的批评。
- 局长回应： “联邦调查局有36,000名员工，”帕特尔告诉议员们，“我完全拒绝这样的说法，即只有那些滥用执法权的人才能完成使命。”
- 违反政策指控： 诉讼称解雇违反了FBI政策，该政策规定非试用期的特别探员只有因事由（如不当行为、国家安全关切或无法履行基本职责）才能被解雇。诉讼指出，两名特工均因工作表现受到赞扬，获得了“优秀”的绩效考核和其他外部认可。
- 调查合规声明： “在‘北极霜’行动及其他所有指派给他们的调查中，原告完全遵守了司法部的政策和程序，包括适用的法律和监管要求，并在无偏见或政治动机的情况下履行了执法职责，”他们在华盛顿特区联邦法院提起的诉讼中表示。
- 与确认听证会承诺矛盾： 特工的律师还辩称，解雇行为与帕特尔去年参议院确认听证会上的言论相悖，当时他誓言不会因案件分配解雇特工，并强调人事决定“应基于绩效和对法律的遵守”。
- 类似诉讼增多： 这起诉讼增加了近几个月前FBI特工提起的非法解雇诉讼名单，其中包括一些辩称自己仅因被认为的政治观点或参与某些政治敏感调查而被解雇的前特工。
- 司法部官员担忧： 前司法部官员担心，此次调查或由此引发的报复措施可能对FBI的工作产生寒蝉效应，包括其超过52个外地办事处。
- 特工协会批评： 代表超过14,000名现役和前特别探员的自愿组织FBI特工协会（FBIAA）严厉批评了解雇这两名特别探员的行为，称帕特尔“无视法律，发起了一场反复无常且任意的报复运动”。
- 协会呼吁： “特工仅因被指派调查并依法适当进行调查不应成为解雇理由，”该组织表示，“FBI探员以事实为依据，我们敦促帕特尔局长也这样做。”
Two former FBI agents who helped investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election sued Thursday to challenge their abrupt firings from the bureau, arguing that their terminations were “solely” due to their involvement in the probe.
The two agents, identified only as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, accused FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi of politically retaliating against them for their work in the 2020 election case, known internally as “Arctic Frost,” despite having played brief and largely administrative roles in the investigation.
The lawsuit argues that the firings were a violation of FBI policy as well as the agents’ rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Both former agents are seeking reinstatement to the bureau, and a declaration from the court that their terminations were unlawful.
“Political support for President Trump is not a legal or appropriate requirement for the effective performance of plaintiffs’ respective roles within the F.B.I.,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, perceived lack of political support for President Trump is an impermissible basis for termination of plaintiffs’ F.B.I. employment.”
According to the lawsuit, the two agents were fired last fall, within a five-day period, and shortly after, unredacted internal documents related to the Arctic Frost probe were shared with members of Congress.
FBI Director Kash Patel proceeded to “summarily” fire both agents in late October and early November, the lawsuit says, “without evidence,” and without “internal investigation, notice, or hearing” to precede their terminations.
Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on their removals, or the new lawsuit. During House testimony Thursday, however, FBI Director Kash Patel dismissed criticism raised by Democrats about terminations within the bureau.
“There’s 36,000 people employed at this FBI,” Patel told lawmakers.
“And I reject the notion wholeheartedly that the termination of those that were weaponizing law enforcement are the only ones that can do the mission,” he added.
The lawsuit argues that the terminations run afoul of FBI policy, which states that non-probationary special agents may be removed only for cause, such as misconduct, national security concerns, or an inability to perform the essential duties or responsibilities of their roles. Both had been lauded for their work at the bureau, it notes, and had received “exemplary” performance reviews and other outside recognition.
“In Arctic Frost, as in all other investigations to which they were assigned, Plaintiffs fully adhered to DOJ policies and procedures, including applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and executed their law enforcement duties without bias or political motives,” they said in the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.
Lawyers for the agents also argued the removals break with Patel’s remarks last year during his Senate confirmation hearing, in which he vowed that agents would not be fired based on case assignments, and stressed that personnel decisions “should be based on performance and adherence to the law.”
The lawsuit adds to a growing list of unlawful termination lawsuits filed by ex-FBI agents in recent months, including former agents who have argued they were removed solely for their perceived political views, or for their involvement in certain politically sensitive investigations.
Former Department of Justice officials have cited concerns that the probe or any retaliatory measures carried out as a result could have a chilling effect on the work of the FBI, including its more than 52 separate field offices.
The FBI Agents’ Association, or FBIAA, a voluntary agents’ group that represents more than 14,000 active and former special agents, sharply criticized the removals of the two special agents, saying in a statement released at the time that Patel “has disregarded the law and launched a campaign of erratic and arbitrary retribution.”
“An Agent simply being assigned to an investigation and conducting it appropriately within the law should never be grounds for termination,” the group said.
“FBI Agents deal in facts, and we urge Director Patel to do the same.”
发表回复