2026-03-10T14:35:57.295Z / CNN
知情人士向CNN透露，司法部检察官正在牵头调查前中央情报局局长约翰·布伦南，司法部高层正面临越来越大的压力，要求对其提起刑事指控。此前，司法部在试图惩罚特朗普总统眼中的敌人时屡屡受挫。
迈阿密美国检察官办公室的检察官一直领导着对布伦南的调查，该调查与这位前情报主管2023年向国会提供的证词以及多年前的俄罗斯调查有关，已发出两轮传票传唤几名证人。
然而，推进指控的努力遇到了佛罗里达州南部职业检察官的反对，一些人认为这一潜在案件相对薄弱。
广告反馈
布伦南的律师几个月来一直为可能的起诉做准备，但起诉尚未实现。
知情人士称，司法部官员和美国检察官杰森·雷丁·基尼奥内斯在1月份曾推动对布伦南提起诉讼，但佛罗里达州南区的一些职业检察官抵制了这一压力。
消息来源之一称，这些职业检察官现在正面临新一轮压力，正努力推迟将案件提交大陪审团。
去年年底，检察官们从布伦南和其他前情报官员那里收集了文件。传票特别要求提供2017年关于俄罗斯干预选举的情报报告的相关信息，布伦南参与了该报告的工作，并在2023年的国会证词中谈到了这份报告。
最近有两位知情人士告诉CNN，1月份发出的第二轮传票传唤了几名前政府官员，并要求提供多年的文件，包括他们不再能接触到的2016年俄罗斯调查的政府记录。一位消息人士称，至少有一名前情报界官员已在调查中接受采访。
尽管布伦南仍可能面临大陪审团的调查，但调查也可能失败。
他的律师表示，例如，伪证指控毫无根据。
司法部发言人拒绝置评，称不评论正在进行的调查。
过去一年，在提交给大陪审团的情况下，针对总统政治对手的多项调查均以失败告终。其他调查已启动，但尚未提出刑事指控——让目标人物数月来一直处于悬而未决的状态。
但即使案件最终未形成指控，也可能对相关人员的生活造成干扰，因为那些认为自己正在被检察官和大陪审团调查的人担心其公众声誉受损。
律师费用不断增加，不过据华盛顿特区法律界几位消息人士透露，在特朗普最受政治关注的刑事案件中，一些人获得了低成本或免费的法律援助或财务支持。
虽然任何政府都存在这种情况，但特朗普领导的司法部更积极地起诉民主党政治人物或特朗普及其他高级官员公开表示希望起诉的人。
11月，特朗普在社交媒体帖子中（科米被起诉后不久）称布伦南、前联邦调查局局长科米及其他几人是“奥巴马的俄罗斯骗局叛国俱乐部”成员。
联邦调查局局长卡什·帕特尔也发表了类似的公开声明。
“我们将继续让科米、布伦南、克拉珀、佩奇、斯特佐克等许多人以及其他人士为我认为的其犯罪行为负责，”帕特尔在最近的一次播客中表示，点名的这些人目前都未面临任何指控，但特朗普曾多次公开抨击他们。（前联邦调查局特工彼得·斯特佐克、律师莉萨·佩奇和国家情报总监詹姆斯·克拉珀是调查特朗普2016年竞选活动的关键人物。）
在一些涉及政治问题的地区，备受尊敬的职业调查人员和检察官被大规模解雇，取而代之的是更愿意配合但经验不足的一线调查人员。
起诉特朗普希望成功的悬而未决的案件或调查，对检察官或司法部其他律师来说有其自身的后果。
弗吉尼亚州联邦检察官曾两次试图对科米提起刑事指控，三次试图起诉纽约州总检察长莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯，这些指控要么被法官驳回，要么被大陪审团拒绝。
大陪审团拒绝起诉在历史上是非常不寻常的结果——尽管在特朗普希望推进的政治案件中这种情况越来越频繁。
华盛顿特区的一个大陪审团最近拒绝了司法部对民主党参议员马克·凯利和其他五名国会议员提起刑事诉讼的请求，原因是他们录制了一段视频，提醒军方和情报官员可以拒绝他们认为违法的命令。
另一名被司法部试图起诉但未成功的国会议员艾丽莎·斯洛特金众议员表示：“这是一个由匿名美国公民组成的大陪审团，他们维护了法治，认定此案不应继续。” “（美国检察官让娜·皮罗）是否成功不是重点。重点是特朗普总统继续将我们的司法系统武器化，针对他眼中的敌人。”
其他几位特朗普的政治对手也成为调查的对象，但尚未提起诉讼。
据几位人士透露，近几周，联邦执法部门正在重新审查前检察官的工作，这些工作最终成为特别检察官杰克·史密斯针对特朗普的案件的一部分。帕特尔还发表了一份重要公开声明。
CNN此前曾证实，司法部正在调查众议院议员亚当·希夫和联邦储备委员会理事莉萨·库克的财务文件，以及联邦储备委员会主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔的参议院证词。
国会共和党人还通过推荐一名曾在特朗普特别检察官办公室工作的前检察官和1月6日事件中的一名前明星证人可能面临刑事指控，增加了司法部可能调查的对象范围。
这些人都没有被起诉。
鲍威尔在收到刑事传票后发表视频声明时表示：“这一前所未有的行动应放在政府威胁和持续压力的大背景下看待。” 他指出特朗普对美联储控制的贷款利率不满。
他补充说：“这一新的威胁与我去年6月的证词或美联储大楼的翻新无关，这些只是借口。”
公开谴责
美联储主席在回应公开刑事调查时的公开表态，已成为华盛顿宣传大陪审团审判的策略之一。
在过去的政府中，司法部和政府官员不太愿意就未被起诉的事项或可能被调查的人发表评论。案件可能悄无声息地持续数年。
现在情况不同了。特朗普本人在社交媒体上多次公布他希望司法部起诉的人的名字，司法部长和其他司法部高级官员也多次就正在进行的调查发表评论。
CNN此前报道，1月份特朗普在白宫会见美国检察官时，抱怨对包括前政府官员和民主党官员在内的一些人的调查进展缓慢，称他们不公平地针对他。此后不久，鲍威尔公开表示检察官的传票已送达美联储。
另一个最近的例子是，司法部一名高级官员告诉CNN，检察官正在调查前白宫助手是否使用自动签名笔进行未经授权的行动。这一消息发布不到一天后，《纽约时报》称对拜登使用自动签名笔的调查可能结束。
该官员表示，拜登本人并未受到调查，因为根据2024年最高法院扩大总统豁免权的裁决，总统在任期间的行为受到广泛保护。
一名有明显政治动机的司法部官员埃德·马丁推动了最近针对政治对手的多项调查，包括自动签名笔使用调查。
马丁明确表示，他认为即使主题人物未被指控犯罪，也应该公开谴责他们。
“有一些真正的坏家伙，有些人确实对美国人民做了坏事。如果可以起诉，我们就起诉。但如果不能起诉，我们就公开点名。”马丁去年表示。“在一个重视耻辱的文化中，他们应该感到羞耻。”
一些由马丁等官员支持的调查似乎已失败。例如，对科米新提出的伪证指控前景更加黯淡。
前检察官亚伦·泽林斯基最近告诉CNN，他曾是特朗普的告密者，并在去年受到马丁的询问。“提出证据和进行审判很麻烦。宣布调查更容易……更容易利用司法部的公信力来抹黑人们。过程本身就是惩罚。”
持续的未决调查也助长了辩护策略。
知名辩护律师阿贝·洛厄尔（Abbe Lowell）表示：“效仿特朗普本人那种不良和不道德的风格，他领导的司法部已经成为一个愿意的政治武器，急于在任何证据收集之前或甚至在提起指控之前，就点名和羞辱总统的敌人和目标。” 洛厄尔曾为可能面临特朗普司法部政治指控的高调客户辩护。
洛厄尔目前代表几名受到特朗普司法部调查、起诉或试图起诉的高调人士，包括纽约总检察长詹姆斯、美联储的库克、众议员杰森·克劳（曾是大陪审团拒绝起诉的国会议员之一）、记者唐·莱蒙以及特朗普第一任期的国家安全顾问约翰·博尔顿。
洛厄尔也采取了更积极和公开的方式，为他认为可能面临调查的客户辩护。
他还经常暗示可能要求驳回刑事指控，因为他声称司法部不公平地针对某些人提起指控。这类试图驳回案件的做法在法庭上极难胜诉，但近几个月在一些法官面前得到了更多支持。
佛罗里达州南部美国检察官杰森·雷丁·基尼奥内斯自去年上任以来一直试图成为特朗普的忠实支持者，而起诉布伦南（前中央情报局局长）的努力正是他为建立自己在特朗普阵营中的地位而进行的更广泛努力的一部分。
布伦南的律师在圣诞节前夕采取了不寻常的行动，致信迈阿密首席法官，指控大陪审团活动不公。律师们表示，他们认为基尼奥内斯试图通过佛罗里达州皮尔斯堡的大陪审团调查布伦南，而该大陪审团由特朗普任命的法官艾琳·坎农领导。坎农此前曾驳回针对特朗普的刑事案件。
然而，据知情人士透露，如果布伦南被起诉，可能会在华盛顿特区进行。在那里，检察官将面临一个可能不太愿意起诉特朗普公开批评的前政府官员的大陪审团。
检察官们关注的是共和党国会议员的指控，即布伦南在2017年和2023年关于情报界评估的证词中作了虚假陈述。
布伦南作证称，中央情报局并未参与现已被证实不可靠的斯泰尔档案（指控特朗普竞选团队与克里姆林宫勾结赢得2016年选举），也未参与该档案在情报界评估中的包含。共和党议员声称，布伦南实际上知道该档案被纳入了报告。
布伦南否认有任何不当行为。
布伦南的律师在12月致佛罗里达州南区首席法官塞西莉亚·奥尔顿加的信中写道：“毫不奇怪，这种无情的总统压力——不顾法律和事实，追求政治目标——导致了前所未有的起诉行为不规范事件激增，尤其是在与总统感兴趣的政治问题相关的大陪审团调查和起诉决定方面。”
CNN的宝拉·里德对本文有贡献。
Justice Department’s brewing case against former CIA chief tests its efforts to prosecute Trump foes
2026-03-10T14:35:57.295Z / CNN
Justice Department prosecutors leading an investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan are facing increasing pressure from top Justice officials to bring criminal charges against him after the department has flailed in trying to punish President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies, people briefed on the matter told CNN in recent days.
Prosecutors in the Miami US attorney’s office have been leading the Brennan probe, which relates to testimony the ex-intelligence chief gave to Congress in 2023 and the Russia investigation years earlier, issuing two rounds of subpoenas to several witnesses.
Yet the push for charges has run into career prosecutors raising concerns in southern Florida, with some viewing the potential case as relatively weak.
Ad Feedback
Brennan’s lawyers have been bracing for a possible indictment for months now, which has not materialized.
Justice officials and US Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones made a push in January to bring a case against him, according to two people briefed on the matter, but some career prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida resisted the pressure.
Those career prosecutors are facing a new wave of pressure now, one of the sources said, and are struggling to delay bringing the case to a grand jury.
At first, the prosecutors gathered documents late last year from Brennan and other former intelligence officials. The subpoenas specifically sought information about a 2017 intelligence report on Russian meddling in the election that Brennan worked on, and which he spoke about in his 2023 congressional testimony.
A second round of subpoenas went in January to several former government officials and sought years of documents, including government records on the 2016 Russia investigation the people would no longer have access to, two people familiar with the investigation told CNN recently. At least one former intelligence community official has been interviewed in the probe, one source said.
Though Brennan could still face grand jury activity, the investigation also could fall apart.
His lawyers have said accusations of perjury, for instance, are without any merit.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment for this story, saying it does not comment on ongoing investigations.
Several of the probes launched into the actions of the president’s political foes have failed when presented to a grand jury over the last year. Other investigations have been opened but have yet to result in criminal charges — hanging for months over the heads of their targets.
But even cases that never materialize can be disruptive to subjects’ lives, as people who believe they are being investigated by prosecutors and a grand jury are fearful of harm to their public reputations.
Lawyers’ fees add up, though some people in Trump’s most politically charged criminal cases are receiving low- or no-cost legal help or financial backing from others, according to several sources in the legal industry in DC.
While that’s true in any administration, the Trump Justice Department has more aggressively pursued Democratic political figures or individuals Trump and other top administration officials have said publicly they’d like to charge.
Trump in November called Brennan, Former FBI Director Comey and several others part of “Obama’s Russia HOAX Treason Club”, in a social media post shortly after Comey was indicted.
And FBI Director Kash Patel has co-opted a similar public message.
“We’re going to continue to make people like Comey and Brennan and Clapper and Page and Strzok and so many others answer for what I believe are their acts of criminal conduct,” Patel said on a recent podcast, naming a group who are not facing any charges at this time, but yet whom Trump has publicly attacked repeatedly. (Former FBI agent Peter Strzok, lawyer Lisa Page and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were key figures in the investigations into Trump’s 2016 campaign.)
In a handful of districts with politically charged cases, well-respected career investigators and prosecutors have been fired en masse and replaced with more willing but less experienced line investigators.
Closing lingering cases or probes that Trump wants to succeed has its own set of consequences for prosecutors or other Justice Department lawyers.
Federal prosecutors in Virginia attempted to bring criminal charges twice against Comey and three times against New York Attorney General Letitia James, and those charges have either been tossed by judges or rejected by grand juries.
A grand jury refusing an indictment is historically a highly unusual outcome — though it’s happening more frequently in politically charged cases Trump wants to pursue.
A grand jury in Washington, DC, recently denied the Justice Department’s attempt to criminally charge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly and five other members of Congress because of a video they taped reminding military and intelligence officers they are allowed to refuse orders they believe go against the law.
“It was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, another member whom the Justice Department tried and failed to charge. “Whether or not (US Attorney Jeanine) Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies.”
Several other Trump political foes have been the subject of investigative inquiries that haven’t materialized into charges.
In recent weeks, federal law enforcement has been revisiting the work of former prosecutors whose work ultimately became part of the cases against Trump under special counsel Jack Smith, according to several people and a critical public statement from Patel.
CNN has previously confirmed investigative activity by the Justice Department around the financial papers of Rep. Adam Schiff and Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, and into Senate testimony by Federal Reserve by Chair Jerome Powell.
And Republicans on Capitol Hill have added to who the Justice Department may consider investigating next, by referring a former special counsel’s office prosecutor of Trump and a former star witness after January 6 for possible criminal charges.
None of those people have been charged.
“This unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure,” Powell said in a video statement after receiving a criminal subpoena, pointing out Trump’s unhappiness with the Fed-controlled loan interest rates.
“This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings,” he added. “Those are pretexts.”
Naming and shaming
The Fed chair’s public messaging in response to an open criminal investigation has become part of the playbook in Washington to publicize a grand jury inquisition.
In past administrations, Justice Department and administration officials have been less willing to comment on uncharged matters or people who could be subject to an investigation. Cases could linger quietly for years.
That is not the case now. Trump himself has posted names on social media repeatedly of people he’d like to see his Justice Department indict, and the attorney general and other senior leaders of the Justice Department have repeatedly commented on ongoing investigations.
In January, Trump hosted US attorneys at the White House, where he complained about the slow pace of investigations into a number of people, including officials from previous administrations as well as Democratic officials who he said unfairly targeted him, CNN has previously reported. Shortly after, Powell made public that prosecutors’ subpoenas went to the Federal Reserve.
In another recent example, a senior Justice Department official told CNN that prosecutors are probing whether former aides in the White House may have used an autopen for actions not authorized by then-President Joe Biden. The message came less than a day after the New York Times said an investigation into Biden’s use of autopen was likely over.
Biden is not under investigation himself, the official said, as presidents have broad protections for the actions they take while in office following a Supreme Court decision in 2024 broadening presidential immunity.
One particularly politically motivated Justice official, Ed Martin, has pushed for several of the recent investigations against political foes, including one over autopen use.
Martin has specified he believes subjects should be named and shamed, even if they are never charged with a crime.
“There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people. And if they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them,” Martin said last year. “And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed.”
Some of those investigations that officials like Martin once championed have appeared to fall apart. A renewed perjury charge against Comey, for instance, faces an even more difficult future.
“Putting on evidence and a trial is messy. It’s just easier to announce an investigation … It’s easier to use the integrity of the department to slime people,” Aaron Zelinsky, a former prosecutor who has been a past whistleblower about Trump and received an inquiry from Martin last year, recently told CNN. “The process is the punishment.”
The lingering open investigations are also fueling defense strategies.
“Taking a page from Trump’s own unsavory and unethical style, his DOJ has become a willing political weapon eager to name and shame the president’s foes and targets before any evidence is gathered, or even charges filed,” Abbe Lowell, a prominent defense lawyer who has collected high-profile clients who could face politically charged cases under Trump.
Lowell currently represents several high-profile people this Trump Justice Department has investigated, charged or attempted to charge. They include: James in New York; the Federal Reserve’s Cook; Rep. Jason Crow, who was among the members of Congress a grand jury declined to charge; journalist Don Lemon; and John Bolton, the national security adviser in Trump’s first term in office.
Lowell, too, has taken a more aggressive and public approach defending clients he has who believe they may be investigated.
He’s also regularly teased the possibility of asking for criminal charges to be dismissed because he alleges the Justice Department has unfairly singled out people to charge. Those types of attempts to have a case dismissed are exceedingly difficult to win in court, but have gotten more traction in front of some judges in recent months.
The push to charge Brennan, the former CIA director, for his official work in 2016, is part of a broader effort by Quiñones, the US attorney in the Southern District of Florida who has sought to establish himself as a Trump loyalist since taking office last year.
Brennan’s attorneys just before Christmas made the unusual move of writing to the chief judge in Miami with their accusations of unfair grand jury activity. The lawyers said they believed Quiñones was attempting to investigate Brennan through a Fort Pierce, Florida-based grand jury, under the direction of Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon. Cannon in Ft. Pierce previously dismissed the criminal case against Trump.
Yet if Brennan were to be charged, it may be in Washington, DC, according to people briefed on the matter. There, prosecutors would face a grand jury that may be much less willing to indict a former administration official that Trump publicly criticizes.
Prosecutors have focused on allegations from congressional Republicans that Brennan made false statements in testimony to Congress in 2017 and 2023 about the Intelligence Community Assessment.
Brennan testified that the CIA was not involved with the now-discredited Steele dossier — which alleged that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election — and its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Republican lawmakers have claimed that Brennan was in fact aware of the dossier’s inclusion in the report.
Brennan has denied any wrongdoing.
“Not surprisingly, this unrelenting presidential pressure to pursue political targets without regard to the law or facts has resulted in an unprecedented spike in the incidence of irregular prosecutorial conduct, especially in relation to grand jury investigations and charging decisions relating to matters of political interest to the President,” Brennan’s attorneys wrote in the December letter to Southern District of Florida Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga.
CNN’s Paula Reid contributed to this report.