2026-08-13T21:53:54.989Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：凯特琳·波兰茨
发布时间：2026年8月13日，美国东部时间下午5:53
布伦丹·斯米亚洛夫斯基/法新社/盖蒂图片社
一名联邦法官向试图阻止进一步披露与杰弗里·爱泼斯坦相关文件的司法部律师发出严厉警告：如果他们不遵守法庭命令，藐视法庭程序可能会毁掉他们的职业生涯。
华盛顿特区联邦地区法院法官埃米特·沙利文已要求司法部解释为何未公开针对这名已故性犯罪者的调查中的部分记录。周四，法官警告司法部，其迄今给出的答复——包括周四在法庭上的答复——并不充分，并援引了一起臭名昭著的在任美国参议员刑事审判失败事件。
“公众有权知道这起案件到底发生了什么。受害者有权知道。法庭也有权知道，”沙利文在听证会上说道，冷静地追问一名司法部律师能否提供更多细节。“法律仍然完全有效。法庭只是在确保合规。”
这起由记者凯蒂·庞提起的诉讼，旨在迫使公开与爱泼斯坦相关的部分联邦调查局文件，并解除对与他有邮件往来人员姓名的编辑。沙利文质疑，为何联邦调查局特工多年前在一些证人采访中记录的手写笔记，未被纳入司法部此前公布的数百万页文件中。
沙利文还对司法部未披露以外国语言书写的与爱泼斯坦相关文件，以及未说明计划何时在《联邦公报》上公布其对爱泼斯坦档案进行编辑的理由提出异议，而这是国会要求的程序。
沙利文此前已下令司法部向其解释为何未公开部分爱泼斯坦相关记录，并说明为何无法提供更多细节。
“我没什么可说的了，”司法部律师安德鲁·布洛克周四对沙利文说道。
随后听证会出现了不同寻常的转折。沙利文给司法部律师上了一堂历史课，讲述了该机构历史上最黑暗的事件之一——这是他近二十年前主审过的一起案件。
相关报道：特朗普呼吁全国不要再纠结爱泼斯坦案，但一年后不满情绪正在爆发 阅读时长11分钟
沙利文在座无虚席但安静的法庭上即兴发言，用了近半小时描述他如何在针对时任参议员、阿拉斯加州共和党人特德·史蒂文斯的刑事案件中，裁定司法部检察官犯民事藐视法庭罪。当时检方不够透明，一名举报人向法官揭发了检方的不当行为。
当时的情况极其严重，以至于此后沙利文对政府律师、华盛顿特区联邦地区法院以及司法部的态度都受到了这一事件的影响。
2008年，史蒂文斯因腐败罪名被定罪。同年晚些时候他连任竞选失败。但后来，由于沙利文发现司法部在庭审前向史蒂文斯的辩方隐瞒了文件，有罪判决被撤销。（史蒂文斯于2010年死于一场飞机失事。）
“我告诉律师们我别无选择；我裁定他们每个人都犯有藐视法庭罪，”沙利文周四对坐在律师席上的三名司法部律师说道。“我别无选择……否则我要如何确保司法公正得以实现？”
沙利文此前表示，如果他认为司法部律师未遵守其命令，他愿意对他们进行处罚，并将他们移交律师协会纪律处分。
沙利文周四补充道，藐视法庭程序的不良记录可能会在律师的职业生涯中一直影响他们。
“这不是威胁。这是承诺。没有人陷入麻烦。我只是提请你们注意，”沙利文说道。
他数次重复表示，庞的案件中的司法部律师“并未陷入麻烦”。
“我只是想让所有人都明白，”沙利文说道。“我只是在进行一场对话。”
随后他开放法庭场地，让本案律师发表意见。无人起身发言。
Epstein judge: ‘The public has a right to know what the hell is going on’
2026-08-13T21:53:54.989Z / CNN
By Katelyn Polantz
PUBLISHED Aug 13, 2026, 5:53 PM ET
This photo illustration shows redacted documents from the Epstein Library files released by the US Department of Justice in Washington, DC, on February 18.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
A federal judge gave a chilling warning to Justice Department lawyers fighting the further releases of documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein: If they don’t comply with court orders, contempt proceedings could ruin their futures.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the DC District Court has demanded answers from the Justice Department as to why they haven’t released some records from the investigations into the late sex offender. On Thursday, the judge warned the department that the answers it has given so far, including in the courtroom Thursday, weren’t enough and invoked an infamous botched criminal trial of a sitting US senator.
“The public has a right to know what the hell is going on in this case. The victims have a right to know. The court has a right to know,” Sullivan said at the hearing, coolly pressing a Justice Department lawyer on whether he could provide any more answers. “The law is still in full force and effect. The court is just ensuring compliance.”
The case, filed by journalist Katie Phang, seeks to force the release of some FBI documents related to Epstein and to lift some redactions of names of people emailing him. Sullivan questioned why handwritten notes FBI agents took during some witness interviews years ago aren’t part of the millions of pages the Justice Department previously released.
Sullivan also took issue with the Justice Department not releasing documents related to Epstein that are in written in foreign languages, and for not saying when it plans to publish explanations for redactions it made in the Epstein files in the Federal Register, which is required by Congress.
Sullivan had previously ordered the Justice Department to explain to him why it hasn’t released some Epstein records and describe why it couldn’t say more.
“I have nothing else to say,” DOJ lawyer Andrew Block told Sullivan on Thursday.
The hearing then took an unusual turn. Sullivan gave the Justice Department lawyers a history lesson one of the darkest episodes in their agency’s history – in a case he presided over nearly two decades ago.
Related article Trump’s urging the country to move on from Epstein — but a year later frustrations are boiling over 11 min read
Speaking off the cuff to a silent but full courtroom, Sullivan described for nearly a half hour how he had held Justice Department prosecutors in civil contempt of court in the criminal case against then-Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican. The prosecutors hadn’t been transparent, and a whistleblower unearthed for the judge prosecutorial misconduct.
The situation was so severe that it has shaped Sullivan’s approach to government lawyers, the DC District Court and the Justice Department since.
In 2008, Stevens was convicted of corruption. He lost his reelection bid later that year. But later, the guilty verdict was wiped away because Sullivan discovered the Justice Department withheld documents from Stevens’ defense before the trial. (Stevens died in a plane crash in 2010.)
“I told the attorneys I had no choice; I was holding each one of them in contempt,” Sullivan said to the three Justice Department lawyers at counsel’s table on Thursday. “I had no choice … how else was I going to ensure that justice was administered?”
In the past, Sullivan said he was a judge willing to sanction Justice Department lawyers and refer them to bar discipline if he believed they hadn’t complied with his orders.
The black mark of a contempt proceeding, Sullivan added on Thursday, could hurt the lawyers for the rest of their careers.
“That’s not a threat. It’s a promise. No one’s in trouble. I’m just bringing it to your attention,” Sullivan said.
He said, repeating several times, that the Justice Department lawyers in Phang’s case were “not in trouble.”
“I’m just putting everyone on the same page,” Sulivan said. “I’m just having a conversation.”
He then opened the floor of the courtroom for responses from the lawyers in the case. No one stood up.
发表回复