跳到内容
现在

政治 · 爱泼斯坦案信息披露持续报道 · 第 3 篇，共 3 篇

218个签名使爱泼斯坦案记录执法法案迈上众议院表决之路

众议院多数成员打开了一条绕过共和党领导层的通道。拟议法律将允许幸存者和调查人员就被扣留的爱泼斯坦案记录提起诉讼，但签名并不等于法律生效。

文字 阅读需 7 分钟 · 63 个来源

HeyDex

原语言视频

译自英文原文。

自上次报道以来的变化

97 天后

当时

爱泼斯坦档案之争持续一年，配合问题成为争议焦点

当时尚无定论

  • 资料中没有独立来源核实克里希纳穆尔蒂在 C-SPAN 上的引述或白宫的配合程度。
  • 没有其他来源确认共和党人也表达了他对白宫的这项具体批评。

我们说过将关注的

  • 法院是否会在8月13日听证会后下令公开文件，或接受删节。
  • 科默是否会以刑事移送结束众议院调查。
  • 透明法案是否会取得进展，以及特朗普是否会签署该法案。

现在

众议院多数成员打开了一条绕过共和党领导层的通道。拟议法律将允许幸存者和调查人员就被扣留的爱泼斯坦案记录提起诉讼，但签名并不等于法律生效。

218个签名——达到众议院多数——为绕过共和党领导层推进一项法案打开了通道。该法案将允许爱泼斯坦案幸存者、州检察官和议员就被扣留的记录起诉美国司法部长。这是众议院议程控制权的一项重大变化，但尚未意味着获取档案的努力取得胜利。⁠33⁠3

托马斯·马西众议员发起的解除委员会审议请愿于2026年11月11日达到门槛，加利福尼亚州民主党人约翰·加拉门迪提交了第218个签名。华盛顿州民主党人亚当·史密斯前一天提交了第217个签名。众议院书记官公布的正式名单共有218个签名：214名民主党人和4名共和党人。⁠33

签署请愿的共和党人是肯塔基州的马西、南卡罗来纳州的南希·梅斯和拉尔夫·诺曼，以及宾夕法尼亚州的布莱恩·K·菲茨帕特里克。ABC新闻称四人均为任期即将结束的议员。他们签名支持将提案提交审议，但并未因此承诺投票支持最终通过。众议院尚未安排表决。⁠33⁠3

该提案的核心理念很直接：寻求记录的人不应完全依赖掌握记录的部门来执行其自身的信息披露义务。《爱泼斯坦档案透明法案II》将赋予幸存者和调查人员自身的法律工具，以质疑涉嫌不合规行为；同时要求国会在规定期限内采取行动，并赋予其起诉权。这些权力仍须等待法律生效。⁠61

2026年8月8日，我们报道了拉贾·克里希纳莫提众议员的评估：总统唐纳德·特朗普在爱泼斯坦案调查中的配合程度未达到议员们的期望。我们还报道了皮特·塞申斯众议员的说法：国会已将此事交给司法部处理，使其成了一个“政治足球”。这些是议员的评估，并非法院认定。如今发生的具体变化是：众议院多数成员已签署一项程序性文件，以寻求加强执法。这并未解决此前有关行政部门配合情况的指控。

幸存者也有权获取记录

这并非首次设立信息披露要求。2025年11月，国会以压倒性多数通过了最初的《爱泼斯坦档案透明法案》；当时马西利用解除委员会审议请愿迫使众议院进行表决，特朗普随后签署了法案。新措施将修订该法（公法第119-38号），而不是首次设立披露记录的义务。⁠3⁠61

7月15日，马西与加利福尼亚州民主党人罗·卡纳及新墨西哥州民主党人特蕾莎·莱格·费尔南德斯共同提出单独法案H.R. 9694。该法案已提交司法委员会审议。参议院版本由俄勒冈州参议员杰夫·默克利和新墨西哥州参议员本·雷·卢汉牵头。⁠61⁠30

提出法案时，马西指称司法部非法扣留了300多万份爱泼斯坦相关档案，并对其进行大量删节。这是他7月提出的指控，并非11月新近核实的档案清单，也不是法院对哪些记录被非法扣留所作的认定。请愿成功证明的是签名数量，而非这项指控。⁠30

对于幸存者而言，该法案将确立一项权利，使其能够申请获取与自己或所受伤害相关的完整、未删节记录，包括联邦调查局访谈报告，以及提及其父母、兄弟姐妹或法定监护人的记录。此项权利涵盖与该幸存者相关的记录或部分内容，并非不受限制地获取其他幸存者信息的权利。其他受害者的身份信息，以及受保护的个人或医疗材料，仍可继续删节。⁠61

若幸存者指称司法部长非法扣留、隐匿或延迟提供记录，未作回应，或作出无正当理由的删节，便可提起诉讼。州检察长、地方检察官及其他获授权的州官员也可代表本州或居民提起执法诉讼。可寻求的救济包括法院命令、金钱赔偿、诉讼费用和合理的律师费；法院还须在切实可行的范围内加快案件审理。⁠61

拟议的受害者定义涵盖因涉及杰弗里·爱泼斯坦、吉丝兰·麦克斯韦或其犯罪网络的虐待、人口贩运、强迫劳动、剥削或相关犯罪而直接受到伤害的人。联邦认定、调查记录或指称受到此类伤害的宣誓声明，均可证明规定的关联。通常会排除因某人自行参与犯罪或从中获益而产生的主张，但若其参与始于自身遭受人口贩运或虐待，则仍予以涵盖。这些是拟议的法律定义，并非对任何其他具名人士的认定。⁠61

新墨西哥州总检察长劳尔·托雷斯在7月15日支持该法案时，解释了调查所面临的利害关系：

幸存者等待答案的时间已经太久，而我的办公室等待联邦政府交出我们完成刑事调查所需的未删节记录，也已经太久。

劳尔·托雷斯 30

这反映的是他办公室7月所表达的关切，并非对该办公室目前持有什么材料的经核实描述。该立法将适用于法律生效时已在进行的州级调查，并补充其他可用的救济措施。其重要之处在于，调查人员将能通过一套明确的执法机制寻求获取记录，而不再只是提出请求、等待答复。⁠61

未删节不等于不受限制

该法案明确区分公开信息与向调查人员提供可供使用的材料。即使记录依法仍须对公众保密，州检察官也可取得未删节副本。根据保护受害者的保护令，他们可以持有、保留和使用这些记录，用于获授权的调查和诉讼程序。不得将访问限制为仅供法官私下查阅，以致调查人员无法持有和使用记录。⁠61

在法庭上使用的受保护部分仍须密封或以其他方式受到保护，除非依法公开时能够保护受害者的身份信息和隐私。联邦机构不得援引司法部有关信息提供的特定规则（通常称为Touhy规章），阻止、拖延或附加条件限制该法所要求的访问。⁠61

机密材料将另行处理：在安全设施内，按照经法院批准的程序进行完整、未删节的审查。司法部长可以申请有关存储、处理和提交的保护措施，但仅凭信息被列为机密，不足以成为拒绝或拖延所要求访问的理由。机密部分可在密封状态下使用，或由法官私下审查；必要时可不让对方当事人参与。这些条款本身不会授权公开机密信息。⁠61

国会将获得自己的执法机制。议员提出书面请求后，将触发7个日历日内提供完整、未删节访问权限的期限。书面通知指称存在违规行为后，将另行触发30个日历日的期限，要求补救或说明合规情况。相应期限届满后，指称存在不合规情况的议员可提起诉讼，寻求强制提供访问权限并制止继续扣留记录的命令。法院还可驳回实质上虚假或误导性的理由，并判给诉讼费用和合理的律师费。这些是拟议期限，并非请愿提交后即已生效的义务。⁠61

法案文本将要求对“每一处删节”作出说明，取代“所有删节”这一表述；并禁止以普通法特权为由扣留所涵盖的材料，包括审议过程特权、律师—当事人特权、工作成果特权和执法特权，但法规明确允许的情况除外。⁠61

法案还援引现有联邦刑法，涉及虚假陈述、妨碍司法，以及销毁或伪造记录，包括司法部和联邦调查局高级官员的不当行为。但记录未公开，并不自动意味着某位官员构成犯罪。是否罚款或监禁，取决于能否证明适用的罪行，包括该罪行所要求的主观心理状态。⁠61

签名仍需转化为选票

众议院的程序路径比直接将H.R. 9694提上议程更复杂。第27号解除请愿针对规则委员会的H.Res. 1430。该决议将提出一项立法载体H.R. 185，并以《爱泼斯坦档案透明法案II》取代其文本。解除对该决议的审议本身并不会通过该规则或法案。⁠33⁠62

据ABC新闻11月11日对程序的报道，解除审议动议必须在议程上至少保留7个立法日，签署者之后才能提出动议。随后，议长有两个立法日采取行动。立法日依照众议院议事进程计算，并非普通的7天倒计时。⁠3

众议院仍需通过该决议和法案。该决议规定辩论1小时，由司法委员会多数党和少数党平均分配，并允许提出一项退回委员会的动议。如果法案获得通过，书记官须在1个日历日内将通过法案的通知送交参议院。参议院采取行动并使法案生效，仍是必要步骤。⁠62

ABC新闻指出，感恩节休会结束后的12月2日或3日可能是最早进行全院行动的日期，但这并非已确认的日程。支持者已经获得推动审议所需的签名。更难的考验在于，这个程序性多数能否转化为一项法律，让幸存者和调查人员获得可依法执行的访问权。在此之前，218个签名意味着通往更强权利的道路，而非已经拥有这些权利。⁠3

时间线

第 98 天 · 3 篇报道

事件时间线

  1. 我们的播报 · 第 1 次更新

    国会下令公开爱泼斯坦档案八个月后，司法部仍将其扣留

  2. 我们的播报 · 第 2 次更新

    爱泼斯坦档案之争持续一年，配合问题成为争议焦点

  3. 25天后

  4. 最先报道

  5. 16天后

  6. 我们的播报 · 第 3 次更新当前位置

    218个签名使爱泼斯坦案记录执法法案迈上众议院表决之路

来源28

在此处引用的来源中，disputeindex.com最先发布，比本报道播出早5天。 随后还有10家媒体发布。
  1. disputeindex.com
  2. CBS Los Angeles
  3. Clash Report
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Edit USA
  6. Roll Call
  7. 2paragraphs.com
  8. Washington Examiner
  9. 另有+3家媒体
  10. HeyDay News

9篇早期文章作为背景资料参阅。12家媒体未注明日期：congress.govGovInfoaxios.comThe HillC-SPAN.orgCRS Reports

持续报道 · 第 3 篇，共 3 篇

按媒体查看所有来源

来自 28 家媒体的 63 个来源· 引用最多的优先

播出原貌
  1. A House majority signed the Epstein files petition, opening a route around Republican leaders. The proposed law would let survivors and investigators take the attorney general to court over blocked records. Can supporters turn those signatures into enforceable access?
  2. The petition reached 218 signatures on November 11. That gives supporters of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II a way to force House consideration. The House still has to vote on the legislation.
  3. On August 8, we reported Raja Krishnamoorthi's criticism that President Trump wasn't cooperating as fully as lawmakers wanted. We also reported Pete Sessions's argument that Congress handed the matter to the Justice Department and made it a “political football.”
  4. Those were lawmakers' assessments. Now supporters have secured a concrete tool for controlling the House agenda. A discharge petition lets a majority bring a measure forward without the cooperation of leadership or the committee holding it.
  5. Thomas Massie, Nancy Mace, Ralph Norman and Brian K. Fitzpatrick supplied the four Republican signatures. All 214 House Democrats signed. The four Republicans are lame-duck members, but signing the petition doesn't commit anyone to voting for final passage.
  6. California Democrat John Garamendi supplied signature number 218. Washington Democrat Adam Smith had added number 217 the day before. The coalition has enough support to pursue a vote, while the outcome of that vote is still open.
  7. Eight discharge petitions had succeeded in the 119th Congress by November 11. Massie used the same approach to force the first Epstein disclosure vote. Congress passed that law overwhelmingly in November 2025, and Trump signed it.
  8. Massie introduced the new bill on July 15 with California Democrat Ro Khanna and New Mexico Democrat Teresa Leger Fernández. It went to the Judiciary Committee. Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico lead the Senate version.
  9. Supporters must wait at least seven legislative days on the discharge calendar. Then a signer must offer the motion. The speaker would have two legislative days to act. A successful discharge vote would lead to consideration of the measure.
  10. Legislative days follow House proceedings, so that waiting period won't automatically end after an ordinary week. The petition targets a resolution in the Rules Committee. That resolution would replace another bill's text with the Epstein Files Transparency Act II and bring it before the House.
  11. The stand-alone proposal is H.R. 9694. The petition's route runs through H.Res. 1430 and a vehicle called H.R. 185. The resolution allows one hour of debate, equally divided between the Judiciary Committee's majority and minority, and one motion to send the bill back.
  12. If the House passes it, the clerk would have one calendar day to send the passage message to the Senate. Senate action and enactment would still be necessary before anyone gains the proposed new powers.
  13. Subscribe to this channel to follow whether this petition delivers enforceable access for survivors and investigators.
  14. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez backed the proposal in July. He said survivors had waited too long for answers, and his office had waited too long for unredacted records needed to finish its criminal investigation.
  15. Massie said in July that the Justice Department was unlawfully withholding more than three million Epstein files and maintaining heavy redactions. The bill would give survivors and state officials their own way to challenge alleged violations of the existing disclosure law.
  16. A survivor could request full, unredacted records about themselves and the harm they suffered. Covered material includes FBI interview records and references to their parents, siblings or legal guardians. Other survivors' identifying information and private medical material could remain protected.
  17. The survivor's entitlement would cover the portions relating to that survivor. If the department unlawfully withheld, concealed or delayed them, failed to respond, or couldn't justify a redaction, the survivor could sue the attorney general.
  18. The definition covers people directly harmed by abuse, trafficking, forced labor, exploitation or related crimes involving Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell or their network. Federal recognition, an investigative record or a sworn declaration could supply the required connection.
  19. Claims arising from someone's own participation in or benefit from the crimes would generally be excluded. Coverage would remain when that involvement began through their own trafficking or abuse. The network definition reaches people who knowingly enabled, financed, concealed, profited from or obstructed investigation of the crimes.
  20. State attorneys general, district attorneys and other authorized state officers could also sue for their states or residents. Both groups could seek court orders, monetary relief, costs and reasonable legal fees. Courts would be directed to move the cases as quickly as practicable.
  21. The proposal recognizes harms such as blocked investigations, harassment and difficulty corroborating reports to police or obtaining victim statements. It also covers loss of information and financial harm exceeding one hundred dollars. These enforcement powers would reach investigations already underway and add to other available remedies.
  22. State prosecutors could obtain unredacted copies even when records properly remain hidden from public view. They could keep and use them for authorized investigations and court proceedings, under protective orders safeguarding victims. Access couldn't be confined to a judge's private inspection.
  23. Protected portions used in court would stay sealed or otherwise protected unless lawful disclosure preserved victims' identifying and private information. Federal agencies also couldn't use the specified Justice Department information-production rules, often called Touhy regulations, to block, delay or impose conditions on the required access.
  24. Classified records would be reviewed in a secure facility under court-approved procedures. The attorney general could request handling and storage protections, but classification alone couldn't justify refusing or delaying access. The proposal would preserve restrictions on public release.
  25. Classified portions could be used under seal or reviewed privately by a judge, with the opposing party excluded where necessary. Investigators would gain a controlled way to use the material while protecting it from unrestricted disclosure.
  26. A member's written request would start a seven-calendar-day deadline for unredacted access. A written notice alleging a violation would start a separate thirty-calendar-day deadline to fix it or explain compliance. These deadlines would take effect only if the proposal becomes law.
  27. After the applicable deadline, a member alleging noncompliance could sue in Washington or a federal district covering part of the area they represent. Courts could order compliance, stop continued withholding, reject materially false or misleading explanations, and award costs and reasonable legal fees.
  28. The bill changes “All redactions” to “Each redaction,” requiring explanations for individual cuts. It would also bar common-law privileges from being used to withhold, delay or redact covered records, except where the statute expressly allows it.
  29. Those privileges include protections for internal deliberations, attorney-client communications, lawyers' work product and law-enforcement material. The bill also ties misconduct involving records to existing federal criminal laws covering false statements, obstruction, falsification and destruction or removal of government records.
  30. The provisions cover Justice Department, FBI and federal prosecutors' personnel, including the attorney general and FBI director. Any fine or imprisonment would depend on proving the applicable offense and its required state of mind. An undisclosed record alone wouldn't automatically make someone a criminal.
  31. The text would also treat congressional compliance proceedings as proceedings covered by the obstruction law. It places compliance within federal-agency jurisdiction for the records-destruction law. Those provisions are part of the enforcement system supporters still need Congress to approve.
  32. Possible earliest House action falls after the Thanksgiving recess, on December 2 or 3. A floor vote hasn't been scheduled. Supporters have secured the signatures needed to pursue consideration; survivors' proposed access and enforcement rights still depend on enactment.

译文更新于

近期播出