一名前司法部官员称这些言论可作为不利于民主党的证据，而一名法学教授则称其“氛围糟糕”
作者：伊莱恩·马龙 | 福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年10月31日 美国东部时间下午5:36
前司法部官员阿比·坎布利表示，民主党呼吁追究特朗普团队成员责任的做法，可能会让未来的调查看起来像是出于惩罚目的，而非立法职能需要，进而可能抑制国会的监督。
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/0c37f794-d199-4529-9ad7-dcbef0abea78
密歇根州民主党众议员艾莉萨·斯洛特金警告美国年轻人不要加入特朗普政府，此举可能适得其反——特朗普的官员们可利用这一言论作为法律依据，阻挠民主党若重新掌控国会就希望启动的调查，一名前联邦检察官警告。
这位来自密歇根州的新任民主党议员上个月表示，她希望本党对曾效力于特朗普政府的官员提起“标志性诉讼”，理由是这会阻止美国年轻人考虑加入特朗普政府的工作。
“我希望传递这种威慑信息，”斯洛特金在10月13日于芝加哥大学举行的活动上表示，并指出年轻毕业生可能会因担心“给自己惹来一大堆麻烦”而不愿加入特朗普政府。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
但曾在特朗普政府司法部担任副助理司法部长的阿比谢克·坎布利表示，如果民主党在中期选举中重新掌控参众两院任一议院、扩大对国会调查的控制权，斯洛特金的言论可能会产生反效果。
“如果他们只生硬套用‘这是出于立法目的’的套话，任何对这些传票提出质疑的人都能拿出全部记录，证明传票绝非出于立法目的，”霍尔茨曼·沃格尔律师事务所合伙人坎布利在接受福克斯新闻数字频道采访时表示。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/trump-on-south-lawn.jpg
众议院民主党人计划若掌控多数席位就对特朗普展开调查攻势
尽管国会拥有开展调查、传唤证人和审查政府运作的广泛权力，但最高法院已裁定，议员不能仅以惩罚个人为目的行使这些权力。
2020年，当众议院民主党人试图通过国会传票获取特朗普的个人财务记录时，最高法院就曾面临此类权限限制问题。
在“特朗普诉马扎尔案”中，大法官们确立了四项标准，要求法院审查国会是否证明其对相关记录有合法立法需求、请求是否足够狭窄、信息能否通过其他途径获取，以及传票会给总统带来多大负担。
最高法院将这一争议发回下级法院审理，未裁定这些传票符合上述标准，也未解决该框架如何适用的相关问题。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
“所以，仅附加一个‘立法目的’的标签是不够的，”坎布利称，并主张法院必须超越国会对调查的既定理由，判断其要求是否符合宪法规定。
坎布利表示，如果未来的传票受到质疑，民主党的公开言论可能会成为不利于他们的证据。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/elissa-slotkin-senator-democrat-2025.jpg
美国密歇根州民主党参议员艾莉萨·斯洛特金于2025年10月23日周四在国会大厦出席会议时投票。（汤姆·威廉姆斯/盖蒂图片社）
斯洛特金希望通过起诉共和党人，阻止年轻人加入特朗普政府的工作
“他们不必对情况视而不见，”坎布利在谈及法院时表示，“我认为他们必须审视案件事实，以及这些事实如何与他们发表的更广泛言论相契合。”
若民主党重新掌控国会，众议院民主党人已在为调查特朗普家族企业交易及潜在利益输送奠定基础。来自康涅狄格州的民主党参议员理查德·布卢门撒尔还誓言，若民主党重新掌控参议院，将扩大对为特朗普白宫宴会厅提供资金的捐赠者的调查。
但另一位宪法法律专家质疑，民主党的言论是否具有足够的法律分量，不会破坏未来的国会调查。
佛罗里达州立大学法学院教授迈克尔·莫利表示，法院通常承认政客在国会调查中带有党派动机，且不会仅仅因为煽动性公开言论就倾向于推翻传票。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
“我认为，国会调查可能带有党派动机这一事实，最终不会成为拒绝遵守传票的有效依据，”莫利在接受福克斯新闻数字频道采访时表示。
“归根结底，法院会非常不情愿地仅依据一名或多名议员可能存在的主观动机，就认定国会缺乏调查的宪法权力，”莫利称。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Supreme-Court-at-dusk.jpg
美国最高法院为特朗普政府在大法官们对该政策的法律挑战期间继续实施第三国驱逐政策扫清了道路。（盖蒂图片社）
斯洛特金对保守派的“威胁”言论出现新转折：学生要求追究其责任，称“令人震惊”
他还强调，“特朗普诉马扎尔案”专门针对针对总统个人记录的传票，主张将同样严格的法律标准适用于针对其他政府官员的传票是一种延伸。
但莫利表示，当传票的法律依据本身就不确定时，斯洛特金的言论可能会让法官犹豫不决。
“这是氛围糟糕，”他表示，并补充说此类言论可能会让法院“更难”以有利于民主党的方式解决疑问。
斯洛特金否认自己只想针对为共和党人工作的美国人，她告诉美国有线电视新闻网，自己谈论的是那些违法或滥用纳税人资金的官员，称相关批评是“制造出来的愤怒”。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
但坎布利警告称，后果可能不止于民主党的传票能否在法律挑战中幸存，即使没有刑事指控，调查也可能造成经济和声誉损害。
“存在这样一种观念：诉讼程序本身就是惩罚，毫无疑问，一些国会议员打算利用诉讼程序让那些无力承担法律代理费用的人破产，”坎布利称。
他还表示，虽然特朗普政府的司法部不太可能因民主党控制的国会提出的民事藐视法庭指控而起诉政府官员，但未来的民主党政府掌权时情况可能会改变。
莫利也批评恐吓可能无力自保的年轻政府雇员的做法。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用
“这绝不是我们希望政治纠纷的处理方式，”莫利表示。
伊莱恩·马龙是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的记者，负责报道全国政治。
How House Democrats’ ‘deterrence message’ on Trump jobs could backfire
One former DOJ official calls the statements evidence against Democrats while a law professor calls them ‘bad atmospherics’
By Elaine Mallon | Fox News
Published October 31, 2026 5:36pm EDT
Former DOJ official Abhi Kambli says Democrats’ calls to hold Trump staffers accountable could make future investigations look punitive rather than for legislative functions, potentially chilling congressional oversight.
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/0c37f794-d199-4529-9ad7-dcbef0abea78
Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s warning to young Americans not to join the Trump administration could backfire by handing Trump officials legal ammunition to derail the investigations Democrats hope to launch if they retake Congress, a former federal prosecutor warned.
The freshman Michigan Democrat said last month that she wants her party to pursue “signature cases” against officials who helped Trump, reasoning that it would discourage young Americans from considering jobs in his administration.
“I want that deterrence message sent,” Slotkin said during an Oct. 13 event at the University of Chicago, describing how young graduates might fear “buying myself a ton of problems” by joining the administration.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
But Abhishek Kambli, a former deputy associate attorney general in Trump’s Justice Department, said Slotkin’s remarks could backfire if Democrats retake either chamber of Congress in the midterm elections and gain greater control over congressional investigations.
“If they just throw in boilerplate language that this is for legislative purpose, anyone challenging those subpoenas will have that entire record to demonstrate that it’s anything but that,” Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel, told Fox News Digital.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/trump-on-south-lawn.jpg
HOUSE DEMS PLOT TRUMP INVESTIGATION BLITZ IF THEY SEIZE MAJORITY
While Congress has broad authority to conduct investigations, subpoena witnesses and review government operations, the Supreme Court has ruled that lawmakers cannot use those powers solely to punish individuals.
The Supreme Court confronted those limits in 2020, when House Democrats attempted to obtain Trump’s personal financial records through congressional subpoenas.
In Trump v. Mazars, the justices established a four-factor test requiring courts to examine whether Congress demonstrated a legitimate legislative need for the records, whether its requests were sufficiently narrow, whether the information could be obtained elsewhere and what burden the subpoenas would impose on the president.
The court sent the dispute back to lower courts without ruling that the subpoenas satisfied those standards, leaving unresolved questions about how the framework would be applied.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
“So it’s not enough just to tack on a legislative purpose,” Kambli said, arguing that courts must look beyond Congress’ stated reasons for an investigation to determine whether its demands are constitutionally justified.
Democrats’ public remarks could become evidence against them if future subpoenas are challenged, according to Kambli.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/elissa-slotkin-senator-democrat-2025.jpg
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., votes during a session in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025.(Tom Williams/Getty Images)
SLOTKIN WANTS GOP PROSECUTIONS TO DETER YOUNG PEOPLE FROM TRUMP ADMINISTRATION JOBS
“They don’t have to bury their head in the sand,” Kambli said of the courts. “I think they have to look at the facts of the case and look at it in terms of how they fits into the broader comments that they made.”
House Democrats are already laying the groundwork for investigations into Trump’s family business dealings and potential conflicts of interest if they regain control of Congress. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has also vowed to expand his investigation into donors funding Trump’s White House ballroom if Democrats retake the Senate,
But another constitutional law expert questioned whether Democrats’ remarks would carry enough legal weight to undermine future congressional investigations.
Michael Morley, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, said courts generally recognize that politicians bring partisan motivations to congressional investigations and would be reluctant to invalidate subpoenas merely because of provocative public remarks.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
“I don’t think that the fact that there might be partisan motivations for a congressional investigation would ultimately be a valid basis for refusing to comply with a subpoena,” Morley told Fox News Digital.
“At the end of the day, a court is going to be very reluctant to conclude, based on one or more members’ possible subjective motivations, that Congress lacks constitutional authority to investigate,” Morley said.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Supreme-Court-at-dusk.jpg
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue third-country deportations while the justices consider a legal challenge to the policy.(Getty Images)
SLOTKIN’S VIRAL ‘THREAT’ TO CONSERVATIVES TAKES NEW TWIST AS STUDENT MOVES TO HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE: ‘SHOCKING’
He also emphasized that Trump v. Mazars focused specifically on subpoenas for the president’s personal records, arguing that applying the same heightened legal standards to subpoenas targeting other administration officials would be a stretch.
But Morley said Slotkin’s language could give judges pause when the legal basis for a subpoena is already uncertain.
“It’s bad atmospherics,” he said, adding that such statements could make courts “marginally less likely” to resolve doubts in Democrats’ favor.
Slotkin has rejected accusations that she wants to target Americans merely for working for Republicans. She told CNN that she was talking about officials who break the law or misuse taxpayer dollars, calling the criticism “manufactured outrage.”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif
But Kambli warned the consequences could extend beyond whether Democratic subpoenas survive legal challenges, saying that investigations could inflict financial and reputational damage even without criminal charges.
“There is the idea that the process is the punishment, and there is no doubt that some members of Congress intend to use the process to bankrupt people that can’t afford legal representation,” Kambli said.
He also said that while Trump’s Justice Department would be unlikely to prosecute administration officials over criminal contempt referrals from a Democratic-controlled Congress, that could change under a future Democratic administration.
Morley also criticized the prospect of intimidating young government employees who may lack the resources to defend themselves.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“That’s just not how we want our political disputes to be handled,” Morley said.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
发表回复