更新时间：2026年10月26日 美国东部时间下午6:45 / CBS新闻
法庭记录显示，司法部本月早些时候采取行动，试图以泄露信息为由起诉前联邦调查局局长、特朗普宿敌詹姆斯·科米，这是司法部第三次尝试对其提起刑事指控。
检察官 seeking 以两项违反《间谍法》的罪名起诉科米，罪名是他向无权接收的人员传输国防信息。大陪审团尚未对他提起公诉，也未通过刑事申诉对他提出指控，而是选择通过提交刑事信息书的方式将其列为目标。
司法部发言人表示，提交该案件的信息书是为了在诉讼时效到期前保留时效期限。这位官员补充道：“这是一项正在进行的刑事调查，我们不会发表进一步评论。”
科米的律师帕特里克·菲茨杰拉德表示，科米“坚称自己无罪”。
司法部的最新努力源于2016年10月科米向一名未具名人员提供国防信息，供其在报纸上披露的指控。
根据案件中的法庭文件，《纽约时报》于2016年10月5日发表了一篇题为《雅虎据称通过调整垃圾邮件过滤器协助美国进行电子邮件监控》的文章。文章援引了两位匿名发言的政府官员的话。
司法部声称，已掌握证据表明科米试图“纠正路透社前一天报道中出现的虚假信息”，并且科米“指示其工作人员”就路透社报道的准确性与《纽约时报》记者沟通。
菲茨杰拉德表示，该信息“意图指控科米先生犯下他并未实施的罪行”，并补充说，在特朗普首届政府期间，调查人员曾两次调查此事，“认定不应追究任何人的责任”。
在一段单独的视频声明中，科米表示，“他们又回来了”——这指的是此前两次试图起诉他的行动，包括一起被驳回的指控他向国会撒谎的案件，以及一起仍在审理中的指控他通过社交媒体帖子威胁特朗普的案件。
“如果这不是对司法部如此骇人听闻的滥用，几乎会是一件有趣的事，我们不能对此麻木不仁，”科米说道，“我本人没有任何改变。我仍然是无辜的，我仍然不怕这些人，我仍然相信独立的联邦司法机构。”
司法部在社交媒体上发布的一份声明中表示：“为延长诉讼时效而提交刑事信息书是联邦法院广泛认可的做法，且已获得多个联邦巡回上诉法院的批准。”
前检察官和辩护律师告诉CBS新闻，他们此前从未见过以这种方式在重罪案件中提交刑事信息书，并表示此举极不寻常。
前司法部监察长、现任辩护律师迈克尔·布罗姆维奇告诉CBS新闻，他从未遇到过为暂停诉讼时效而提交刑事信息书的情况。通常，此类指控文件是在被告计划放弃大陪审团审议指控的权利并选择认罪时提交的。
“我从未听说过通过提交信息书来延长诉讼时效。你所接触过的大多数检察官也从未听说过这种做法。这似乎是一种绕过诉讼时效、让一个本该在9年前结案的案件继续存续的手段，”布罗姆维奇表示，“这完全是荒谬的行径。”
这些指控文件于10月初以密封形式提交，并于周一应科米的请求由美国地区法官特雷弗·麦克法登下令 unsealed。
本月大部分时间里，科米的律师团队和联邦检察官就司法部起诉他的努力是否应被驳回展开了幕后斗争。
在10月9日提交的法庭文件中，科米的法律团队辩称，政府“以密封形式提交了一份存在瑕疵的信息书……意图延长适用的诉讼时效期限”。政府试图指控科米所依据的罪行有10年的诉讼时效，将于今年10月到期，但这位前联邦调查局局长的律师表示，诉讼时效适用于公诉，且政府提交刑事信息书并不能延长时效。
他们还称，科米“有理由相信政府计划最早在今日寻求逮捕令，这可能导致在工作日结束后实施逮捕，从而确保科米先生在长周末期间被关押在狱中”。
“科米先生有理由相信，在整个一周内，多名联邦执法人员在他前往家属住所期间以及在其住所附近对他的行踪进行了监视，”科米的律师在10月9日哥伦布日周末前夕写道。
在一次紧急法庭听证会上，科米的律师后来表示，政府同意延迟30天寻求公诉。
司法部辩称，科米要求驳回刑事信息书的做法为时过早，因为尚未作出公诉决定。
政府称：“目前并非他提交审前动议或试图削弱指控文件的恰当时机，除非他本人接受法院管辖。”
此外，司法部表示，相关法律允许政府推进，因为法律规定如果“公诉已作出或信息书已提交”，检察官即可在期限内采取行动。
司法部此次提交的刑事信息书采取了不同寻常的做法，由两名高级官员签署——代理副司法部长特伦特·麦科特和常务副司法部长助理阿卡什·辛格——以及数名并非来自华盛顿特区联邦检察官办公室的特别助理美国检察官。
由特朗普提名、负责此案的法官麦克法登于周一下令公开法庭案卷，他在命令中写道：“针对一名前联邦调查局局长在任期内行为提出的刑事指控具有重大公共利益。”
他还表示，科米“知晓该刑事信息书，并已主动提出自首”，因此无需为协助政府逮捕他而对案件保密。
法官未就案件的实体问题作出裁决。
DOJ takes steps to charge James Comey again
Updated on: October 26, 2026 / 6:45 PM EDT / CBS News
The Justice Department took steps to charge James Comey with leaking information earlier this month, court records show, in its third attempt to bring criminal charges against the former FBI director and Trump foe.
Prosecutors are seeking to charge Comey with two counts of violating the Espionage Act by transmitting national defense information to a person not entitled to receive it. He has not been indicted by a grand jury or charged by criminal complaint, and was instead targeted through a criminal information filing.
In this case, the information was filed in order to preserve the statute of limitations before it expires, according to a Justice Department spokesperson. The official added that “this is an ongoing criminal investigation, and we will not comment further.”
Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said Comey “steadfastly maintains his innocence.”
The latest effort by the Justice Department stems from allegations that Comey gave national defense information to an unnamed individual for disclosure in a newspaper in October 2016.
According to court filings in the case, The New York Times published an article on Oct. 5, 2016, titled, “Yahoo Said to Have Aided U.S. Email Surveillance By Adapting Spam Filter.” The article cited two unnamed government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department alleges that it has uncovered evidence that Comey sought to “correct misinformation which had appeared in the press by way of Reuters the day before” and that Comey “directed staff” to speak with the Times reporter about the accuracy of the Reuters article.
Fitzgerald said the information “purports to charge Mr. Comey with crimes that he did not commit,” adding that investigators looked into the matter twice during the first Trump administration and “determined that no charges should be brought against anyone.”
In a separate video statement, Comey said, “well, they’re back again” — a reference to the two prior attempts to charge Comey, including a dismissed indictment accusing him of lying to Congress and a still-pending indictment accusing him of threatening President Trump via a social media post.
“It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to,” Comey said. “Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid of these people and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”
In a statement posted to social media, the Justice Department said: “Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals.”
Former prosecutors and defense attorneys told CBS News they had not seen a criminal information filed in a felony case in this manner before, and called the maneuver highly unusual.
Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general who is now a defense attorney, told CBS News that he has never encountered a situation where a criminal information was filed to pause the statute of limitations. Normally, such charging documents are filed when a defendant plans to waive their right to have a grand jury weigh charges and opts to plead guilty.
“I have never heard of proceeding by information to toll the statute of limitations. Most prosecutors you have ever dealt with have never heard of that. This seems to be a way to do an end-run around the statute of limitations and keep a case alive that deserved to die 9 years ago,” Bromwich said. “This is just absolutely bizarro world stuff.”
The charging documents were filed under seal in early October, and were unsealed by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden on Monday at Comey’s request.
For much of this month, Comey’s attorneys and federal prosecutors waged a behind-the-scenes fight over whether the Justice Department’s effort to charge him should be dismissed.
In an Oct. 9 court filing, Comey’s legal team argued the government “filed a faulty information under seal … in an effort to toll the applicable statute of limitations.” The crime that the government is seeking to charge Comey under has a 10-year statute of limitations, which would run out in October of this year — but the ex-FBI director’s lawyers say the statute of limitations applies to indictments and can’t be extended if the government files a criminal information.
They also said Comey had “reason to believe that the government plans to use that information to seek an arrest warrant as soon as today, which could result in an after-hours arrest that would ensure Mr. Comey sits in jail over a holiday weekend.”
“Mr. Comey has reason to believe multiple federal law enforcement officers have surveilled his whereabouts while traveling to a family members’ residence and around his own neighborhood throughout the week,” Comey’s lawyers wrote on Oct. 9, just before Columbus Day weekend.
In an emergency court hearing, the government agreed to hold off on seeking an indictment for 30 days, attorneys for Comey later wrote.
The Justice Department argued that Comey’s efforts to dismiss the criminal information was premature because no indictment has been returned.
“This is not the proper time for him to file pretrial motions or attempt to chip away at charging documents before he subjects himself to the Court’s jurisdiction,” the government said.
Further, the department said the law allows the government to proceed because it permits prosecutors to meet the deadline if the “indictment is found or the information is instituted.”
In an unusual move, the criminal information filed by the department were signed by two senior officials — acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh — as well as several special assistant U.S. attorneys who are not originally from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C.
McFadden, the Trump-nominated judge overseeing the case, ordered the court docket to be unsealed Monday, writing: “Criminal charges against a former FBI director for his conduct while in office are of significant public interest.”
He also said Comey “is aware of the criminal information and has offered to ‘self-surrender,’” so there is no need to keep the case secret in order to help the government apprehend him.
The judge did not rule on the merits of the case.
发表回复