众议院因爱泼斯坦调查 contempt 亿万富翁投资者莱昂·布莱克


2026-09-16T18:49:05.298Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/16/politics/leon-black-epstein-subpoenas

美国众议院周三以拒绝配合传票为由,裁定亿万富翁投资者莱昂·布莱克藐视国会,这一调查是国会对杰弗里·爱泼斯坦展开的调查的一部分。

目前由司法部决定是否对布莱克提起刑事诉讼。

这一举措是长期国会调查的最新升级,该调查已传唤至少19名知名证人,其中许多人此前从未因与爱泼斯坦的关联受到质询,但并未如众多议员和爱泼斯坦受害者家属所期望的那样披露关键信息。

全院众议院投票触发了向司法部的移交程序,此前监督委员会已于周二一致裁定布莱克藐视国会,因其拒绝提交保密协议并拒绝出庭作证。

布莱克目前正对该委员会与众议院监督委员会主席詹姆斯·科默提起诉讼,试图阻止议员获取他的文件和证词,但议员们辩称国会有权获取相关信息。

“我传唤莱昂·布莱克提供对我们调查至关重要的证词和文件。但他拒绝配合。莱昂·布莱克依法必须在监督委员会面前作证,并提交所有他作为缔约方的保密协议,”科默在周二的委员会会议上说道。

代表布莱克的律师谴责委员会采取这一行动,并表示他们已于周二向国会道德办公室提交了一份保密投诉,要求对科默展开调查。

“这一行为令人愤慨,无视了有关布莱克先生的事实和真相,”埃斯特里奇·戈尔丁律所的苏珊·埃斯特里奇和霍根·洛夫尔斯·卡德瓦拉德律所的亚伦·卡特勒在一份声明中表示。

“明确一下,我们的诉讼表明委员会和科默主席滥用了国会权力,违反了法律。我们相信,我们提交的保密道德投诉将进一步证明科默主席违反了众议院规则,”他们补充道。

律师们表示,布莱克已向委员会提供了“杰弗里·爱泼斯坦知情的唯一一份保密协议,作为布莱克先生配合委员会查明爱泼斯坦真相的努力的一部分”。他还就此事实作证。“我们还告知他们,吉斯莱恩·马克斯韦尔与任何此类协议绝对无关。”

“委员会仍坚持寻找不存在的信息。他们试图询问布莱克50年职业生涯中与商业伙伴签署的每一份保密协议,甚至包括与他从未见过面的人的协议。这太荒谬了。他们甚至要求他提供社交圈中签署过保密协议的人士的姓名,”律师们在发给CNN的声明中说道。

“此次投票是迈向正义和问责的重要一步。莱昂·布莱克持续违抗国会的两次传票,我们需要知道他为何向杰弗里·爱泼斯坦支付1.8亿美元。我们将继续以受害者为中心,努力追究这些可怕罪行的责任人。我们才刚刚开始,”加西亚在一份声明中说道。

布莱克最初于6月接受了自愿采访,但当科默发出两份传票后采访突然中断,议员们称布莱克拒绝回答一系列问题。布莱克并未出庭作证,而是于本月早些时候提起了诉讼。

自司法部公布数百万份爱泼斯坦相关文件以来,包括布莱克在内的众多与爱泼斯坦有过过往交往的有影响力的富裕人士受到了更严格的审查。

根据布莱克法律团队分享的开场发言副本,在6月闭门自愿采访中,布莱克告诉国会议员,他并不清楚爱泼斯坦罪行的严重程度——且他本人从未虐待女性或与未成年人发生性关系。

“布莱克先生一再表示,他为爱泼斯坦的受害者感到难过,并后悔曾与爱泼斯坦做生意。他从未虐待过女性,从未与未成年女性交往过,从未参与过人口贩运,从未为了接触女性而向爱泼斯坦付钱,也从未被爱泼斯坦勒索。布莱克先生对爱泼斯坦的任何可恶行径都毫不知情,”他的律师在声明中说道。

在本月早些时候CNN获得的一封致委员会的信中,布莱克的律师辩称,委员会要求获取的保密协议范围过广,与爱泼斯坦案无关,且无视了第三方的隐私权益。

House holds billionaire investor Leon Black in contempt over Epstein probe

2026-09-16T18:49:05.298Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/16/politics/leon-black-epstein-subpoenas

The House of Representatives held billionaire investor Leon Black in contempt of Congress on Wednesday for refusing to comply with subpoenas as part of the congressional investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

It is now up to the Justice Department to consider whether to pursue criminal prosecution against Black.

The move is the latest escalation in the long-running congressional probe, which has brought in at least 19 high-profile witnesses, many of whom had never been questioned about their ties to Epstein, but has failed to produce the kind of revelations many lawmakers and Epstein survivors had hoped for.

The vote by the full House triggers a referral to the Justice Department and came after the oversight committee unanimously held Black in contempt on Tuesday for refusing to turn over nondisclosure agreements and appear for a deposition.

Black is currently suing the panel and House Oversight Chair James Comer to try to block the lawmakers from obtaining his documents and testimony, but lawmakers have argued that Congress is entitled to the information.

“I subpoenaed Leon Black for testimony and documents critical to our investigation. But he has refused to comply. Leon Black is legally required to appear for a deposition in front of the Oversight Committee and required to turn over all nondisclosure agreements to which he was a party,” Comer said at the committee meeting on Tuesday.

Attorneys representing Black admonished the committee for taking this step and said they have filed a confidential complaint on Tuesday with the Office of Congressional Conduct requesting an investigation into Comer.

“This an outrageous action that ignores the facts and the truth about Mr. Black,” Susan Estrich, of Estrich Goldin, and Aaron Cutler, of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, said in a statement.

“To be clear, our lawsuit shows the Committee and Chairman Comer’s abused their Congressional power and broke the law. We believe that our confidential ethics complaint will further show that Chairman Comer violated the rules of the House,” they added.

The attorneys said that Black provided the panel “with the only confidentiality agreement that Jeffrey Epstein knew about as part of Mr. Black’s cooperation with the Committee’s efforts to ferret out the truth about Epstein. He also testified to this fact. We also told them that Ghislaine Maxwell had absolutely nothing to do with any of the agreements.”

“The Committee has continued to insist on looking for information that does not exist. They are looking to ask questions about every NDA Mr. Black ever signed including with business partners over his 50 year career and also with individuals who he never met. This is absurd. They even asked him to give the names of individuals in his social circle who have NDA’s,” the lawyers said in their statement provided to CNN.

“This vote is an important step towards justice and accountability. Leon Black has continued to defy two congressional subpoenas and we need to know why he gave Jeffrey Epstein $180 million dollars. We will continue to center the survivors in our fight to hold those responsible for these horrific crimes. We are just getting started,” Garcia said in a statement.

Black initially appeared for a voluntary interview in June, but that ended abruptly when Comer issued two subpoenas as lawmakers said that Black refused to answer a series of questions. Instead of appearing for his deposition, Black filed the lawsuit earlier this month.

Black is one of many influential and wealthy individuals whose past relationships with Epstein have come under further scrutiny since the Justice Department’s release of millions of Epstein files.

In his voluntary closed-door June interview, Black told members of Congress that he did not know the extent of Epstein’s crimes — and that he himself never abused women or had sexual relations with minors, according to a copy of his opening remarks shared by his legal team.

“Mr. Black has repeatedly said that he feels terrible for Epstein’s victims and that he regrets ever doing business with Epstein. He never abused a woman. He never was with an underage woman. He never engaged in sex trafficking. He never paid Epstein for access to women. He was never blackmailed by Epstein. Mr. Black had no knowledge of any of Epstein’s heinous conduct,” his lawyers said in the statement.

In a letter to the committee obtained by CNN earlier this month, Black’s attorneys argued that the nondisclosure agreements the panel was seeking were too broad, had no connection to Epstein and disregarded the privacy interests of third parties.

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

湘ICP备2026001899号-2