司法 · 联邦调查局官员起诉案遭驳回
司法部对两名前联邦调查局官员的指控未能通过首轮证据检验
原语言视频
译自英文原文。
当一项指控前联邦调查局前官员向国会撒谎的起诉，连最初的证据门槛都无法通过，这意味着什么？对妮基·弗洛里斯和布拉德利·贝纳维德斯来说，这意味着针对他们的刑事控告被驳回。对司法部来说，这留下了一个更棘手的问题：它能否拿出调查人员在提出指控前未能确立的证据。3
美国治安法官齐娅·法鲁基于2026年11月2日星期一，在为期三天的证据听证后，驳回了针对这两名前官员的原始刑事控告。他们各自面临一项指控，被指在涉及亨特·拜登的联邦调查局调查相关事项上向国会撒谎。政府未能确立合理根据——这一门槛远低于定罪所需的排除合理怀疑的证明标准。3
这一差别说明，这不只是一起因文件有缺陷而遭遇的法庭挫折。法鲁基认定，他审查的每个要件都存在缺陷：陈述是否虚假、被告是否明知且故意行事，以及这些陈述对国会调查是否具有实质性。他的裁决撤销了现有控告，但这并非经过审判后的无罪判决，也不代表未来的指控必然被禁止。3
“没有动机，没有直接证据，我就什么都没有。这根本谈不上接近。什么都没有。”
在一场约一小时的口头裁决中，法鲁基将这项起诉称为“武器化”。他质疑调查人员留下的工作缺口，也质疑检察官为何在相关证词出现约三年后，随着11月3日中期选举临近，突然感到紧迫。司法部驳斥了他的评估，并表示调查仍在进行。1
始终未能拼凑起来的证据
弗洛里斯和贝纳维德斯于2023年7月和9月自愿出席众议院司法委员会听证。检察官指称，他们在涉及亨特·拜登的调查中，就自身参与程度和所知情情况误导议员，其中包括与其笔记本电脑有关的信息。一项调查重点是“圆河行动”，这是由联邦调查局外国影响力特别工作组负责的一项反情报行动。3
政府称，该行动收集了有关亨特·拜登等人的负面线报，并将其标记为俄罗斯虚假信息。这是检方的说法，并非驳回裁定确认的既定阴谋。弗洛里斯从2019年年中到2022年年中担任该工作组副助理局长；贝纳维德斯从2019年年中到2020年大选期间担任该组组长。他们在2020年8月向参议员查克·格拉斯利和罗恩·约翰逊作出的防御性简报，促成了后来举行的国会听证。3
听证暴露出调查实质性问题时一个尤为基础的缺口：据称的虚假陈述是否与国会调查相关。联邦调查局特工布莱恩·维特作证说，由共和党控制的委员会不允许特工采访那些曾在被告作证时在场的工作人员。3
维特最终获准采访的唯一人士是委员会共和党方面的总法律顾问史蒂夫·卡斯特。卡斯特承认，他既没有亲眼听到贝纳维德斯作证，也没有查阅其证词记录。维特没有采访任何代表委员会民主党方面的人士。检方要求法院认定有充分证据证明存在实质性虚假陈述，却没有充分调查这些陈述对国会程序的意义。3
职业检察官在提出指控前就已发现问题。在一段向辩方披露的录音谈话中，卡尔顿·戴维斯承认了这个错误；他是政治任命官员，担任华盛顿特区联邦检察官珍妮·皮罗的特别顾问。法鲁基质疑，政府为何没有在内部检验自己的案件，而是要在“公开法庭上让全世界围观”时才处理这些问题。3
故意与否是另一个核心问题。法鲁基说，没有任何证据表明任一被告有意就这些调查作出虚假陈述。他提到缺乏动机和直接证据，描述的是本案的薄弱之处；不应将其误解为一条普遍规则，即刑事故意绝不可能通过间接证据确立。4
法官还在听证过程中作了一项耐人寻味的比较。维特作证时说错了一些话，但法鲁基表示，他不认为那些错误构成犯罪，因为他不相信维特有意撒谎。错误与明知不实的陈述并不能等同——检方需要证据来弥合这一区别。3
三年之后，突然加速
起诉宣誓书盖有2026年10月20日的提交日期戳。这个日期不同于随后有关起诉的报道以及10月27日的听证：它们是同一起诉的不同阶段，并非针对另一对官员的独立案件。20
从控告到驳回
试图扩大指控与周一的驳回是两项独立的失败。检察官在10月27日听证前的午夜过后提交了替代控告。法鲁基因其缺乏适当的司法审查而将其驳回，并称这种做法不当且闻所未闻。随后，他听取了支持原始指控的证据——并认定这些证据同样不足。3
更广泛的时间安排问题贯穿他的裁决。被指控的陈述发生在2023年，但指控却在中期选举前约两周才提出。法鲁基没有发现任何迫在眉睫的起诉时限、逃跑风险或需要立即采取行动的危险。刑事控告可以合法启动起诉；他反对的是，政府没有解释为何此处必须紧急采用这种途径，而不是先向大陪审团提交证据。1
维特作证说，联邦调查局局长卡什·帕特尔在7月中旬总统唐纳德·特朗普发表电视讲话的第二天，下令启动调查；特朗普在讲话中再次散布有关2020年大选的虚假说法，并敦促采取调查行动。帕特尔和联邦调查局高级官员查看了调查进展。维特承认，他担心此案看起来可能带有政治色彩，并表示他在堪萨斯城外勤办公室的同事担心这是一场政治迫害。3
法鲁基引用了《司法部手册》中禁止旨在影响选举的调查或起诉措施的规定。他说：“除了中期选举之外，日程上根本没有其他事件。”问题并非投票日前后绝对禁止起诉，而是法官认定，这项起诉的时间、紧迫性和证据缺陷无法合理地割裂开来考量。3
驳回不等于结束
但法鲁基并未给予豁免。他的认定涉及支持这些指控的证据，而非高级官员是否通常需要为虚假陈述负责。追究责任需要案件达到适用的法律门槛；诉诸问责之名并不能补上缺失的证据。
在法庭外，弗洛里斯哭了起来，拥抱了前同事，之后又拥抱了贝纳维德斯。前联邦调查局和司法部高级官员到场支持。弗洛里斯的一名律师玛格丽特·多诺万说：“这个案子本不该被提起。政府根本没有案子。”1
法鲁基警告说，后果不只会影响被告：愿意加入联邦调查局的合格新人会减少，自愿在国会作证的意愿会降低，更多证人会援引宪法第五修正案。这些是预测，并非经过衡量的影响。他担心，这起诉讼可能让公共服务和配合国会看起来像负担，而不是责任。3
检察官仍可寻求大陪审团提出起诉书，或向该地区的首席法官提起上诉。司法部尚未宣布会选择哪条途径（如果会采取行动的话）。现有控告已不复存在，调查却没有结束。任何试图重启起诉的行动，都将面对法庭上暴露出的同一个核心问题：指控不能取代证据。1
来源23
2篇早期文章作为背景资料参阅。5家媒体未注明日期：
按媒体查看所有来源
来自 23 家媒体的 27 个来源· 引用最多的优先
ABC Newsabcnews.com1
Anchorage Gazetteanchoragegazette.com1
Central Florida Heraldcentralfloridaherald.com1
CNBCcnbc.com1
Common Dreamscommondreams.org1
Crime Talk Networkcrimetalknetwork.com1
Defaultlawfaremedia.org1
El-Balad.comel-balad.com1
播出原貌
- A judge dismissed criminal charges against two former FBI officials accused of lying to Congress.
- The prosecution failed even at the preliminary evidence test, and the judge called its handling weaponization. The Justice Department is keeping its investigation open. Whether prosecutors can overcome the evidence gaps and bring the case back is unresolved.
- Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides each faced one count of lying to Congress. U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui dismissed the original complaint against both on Monday, November second, finding no probable cause that either committed the charged offense.
- The ruling followed three days of evidentiary testimony in federal court in Washington. Prosecutors couldn't clear probable cause, a much lower threshold than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt needed for conviction.
- Faruqui delivered his decision over about an hour. He said this was the first time on the bench he'd found the government had failed that preliminary test. His criticism reached from the evidence itself to the investigation's leadership and election timing.
- Faruqui examined three requirements. Prosecutors needed evidence of false statements, knowing and willful conduct, and materiality, meaning relevance to the congressional inquiry. He found they hadn't met the probable-cause threshold for any of them.
- He said there was “simply nothing” showing either official intended to lie. He contrasted the complaint with false-statement prosecutions involving Michael Flynn and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, where the offense requirements had been met. In this case, the lack of motive and direct evidence featured prominently in his reasoning.
- “Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing,” Faruqui said. “It's not close. It's nothing.” Those words followed testimony exposing how little investigators had done to test whether the statements mattered to Congress.
- FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt testified that the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee wouldn't let investigators interview staff members present for the testimony. The only person he was ultimately permitted to interview was Steve Castor, general counsel for the committee's Republicans.
- Castor acknowledged he hadn't witnessed Benavides' testimony or reviewed its transcript. Witt also interviewed nobody representing the committee's Democrats. Prosecutors needed to connect the alleged falsehoods to the congressional inquiry, and those interviews left that work unfinished.
- Career prosecutors spotted the problem before charges were filed. A recorded conversation disclosed to the defense captured Carlton Davis acknowledging the mistake. Davis was a political appointee serving as special counsel to Washington's U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro.
- Faruqui quoted Davis saying, “I have one issue that I'm getting hammered on over here.” The judge questioned why prosecutors hadn't tested the case internally. Instead, he said, they worked through its problems “in open court for the whole world to watch.”
- Witt himself made misstatements while testifying. Faruqui said he didn't believe Witt intended to lie, so he regarded those errors as mistakes. Intent was also central to the charges against Floris and Benavides.
- Floris and Benavides appeared voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in July and September 2023. Prosecutors alleged they misled lawmakers about their involvement in, and knowledge of, FBI investigations concerning Hunter Biden, including information associated with his laptop.
- One focus was Round River, a counterintelligence operation run by the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. Prosecutors alleged it collected derogatory informant information about Hunter Biden and others to flag that information as Russian disinformation.
- Floris served as the task force's deputy assistant director from mid-2019 through mid-2022. Benavides was its section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election. Both had also held senior intelligence or counterintelligence positions elsewhere in the bureau.
- Floris had been a top intelligence analyst at the Washington Field Office. Benavides had been a deputy assistant director in the Counterintelligence Division. In August 2020, they gave defensive briefings to Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson. Those briefings helped lead to the later congressional testimony.
- The charging affidavit was filed October twentieth, 2026, about three years after the testimony. Charges arrived about two weeks before the November third midterm elections. Faruqui questioned why prosecutors needed to act urgently after waiting that long.
- He found no looming filing deadline, flight risk or danger requiring immediate charges. He questioned using a criminal complaint before presenting the evidence to a grand jury. Complaints can lawfully begin criminal cases, but he saw no urgent need for that approach here.
- Prosecutors also tried adding obstruction-of-Congress allegations after midnight before the October twenty-seventh hearing. Faruqui struck that unsigned, unsworn replacement complaint because it lacked proper judicial review. He then allowed the hearing on the original complaint to continue.
- He called the attempted expansion improper and unheard of. He also identified numerous errors and differences between the charging documents. “It's clear to me the rushed investigation had a goal,” he said. “It was a rush to charge — and that is a problem.”
- Witt testified that FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the inquiry opened. That happened the day after President Donald Trump's televised address in mid-July, when Trump repeated false claims about the 2020 election and urged investigative action.
- Trump accused intelligence officials of concealing Chinese interference. Patel and senior FBI officials, including the bureau's deputy directors, checked the inquiry's progress. Witt acknowledged worrying that the case could appear political. He said colleagues in his Kansas City field office feared it was a witch hunt.
- Faruqui called the prosecution “weaponization.” He pointed directly to the election calendar, saying, “There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections.” He also challenged the government's apparent reluctance to seek grand-jury scrutiny.
- He quoted the Justice Department Manual's prohibition on investigative or prosecutorial action intended to influence an election. His criticism also invoked the department's longstanding practice of restraint in politically sensitive cases during the sixty days before voting.
- “I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend I cannot read a calendar,” Faruqui said. The department's election-period practice allows case-specific decisions, while its manual forbids acting with the purpose of affecting an election.
- Faruqui also faulted Patel, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Pirro for public statements maligning the defendants despite the evidence problems. He warned that the prosecution could damage confidence in the Justice Department and discourage qualified people from joining the FBI.
- He predicted another consequence for Congress. Witnesses could become less willing to testify voluntarily and more likely to invoke the Fifth Amendment, protecting themselves against self-incrimination. He expressed sympathy for the defendants and for career prosecutors and agents drawn into the case.
- Floris cried and embraced former colleagues outside the courtroom before hugging Benavides. Former senior FBI and Justice Department officials attended in support, including former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and former Washington Field Office chief Steve Jensen.
- Margaret Donovan, one of Floris' attorneys, said, “This case should never have been brought. The government had no case.” She called the complaint slapdash and said facts and truth still matter in a courtroom.
- The Justice Department disagreed, saying the ruling appeared to suggest senior officials were immune from accountability for materially false statements. Faruqui's finding concerned the evidence supporting these charges. The department said its actions would follow facts, evidence and law rather than politics.
- Prosecutors can still seek a grand-jury indictment or appeal to the district's chief judge. The dismissal came before trial, and those routes remain open. The department hasn't announced which, if any, it will pursue.
- The original complaint against Floris and Benavides is gone. To revive the prosecution, the department would have to confront the evidence failures exposed at the hearing. It says it's evaluating all options and continues to describe the investigation as ongoing.
译文更新于
