Our senior justice correspondent, Evan Perez, has the details.

本臺資深司法記者埃文-佩雷斯（Evan Perez）為您報道詳情。

Evan, so these are DOJ employees who investigated the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6th, led to many prosecutions, they've been fired.

埃文，這些都是司法部的員工，他們調查了1月6日對國會大廈的暴力襲擊，導致了許多起訴，他們已經被解僱了。

Any justification offered?

有任何理由嗎？

Well, the justification that's being offered by the Justice Department is that they were converted to stay on after those cases ended, and the new leadership says that that is tying their hands, and they don't want them there anymore.

司法部提出的理由是，這些案件結束後，他們被轉為留任，而新的領導層說，這束縛了他們的手腳，他們不想讓他們再留在那裡了。

And so what this is, is more than a dozen prosecutors, Jim, who were brought on temporarily because there was a surge of activity and cases that were being handled, and near the end of the Biden administration, they were converted to stay on inside the U.S.

吉姆，這就是十多名檢察官，他們是臨時上任的，因為當時活動激增，案件正在處理中，在拜登政府快結束時，他們被轉為留在美國境內。

Attorney's Office in Washington.

華盛頓檢察官辦公室。

And I'll read you just a part of what Emil Bove, who's the acting Deputy Attorney General, says.

我給你讀一下代理副檢察長埃米爾-博夫說的話。

He says that the matter in which these conversions were executed resulted in the mass purportedly permanent hiring of a group of AUSAs, these are Assistant U.S.

他說，在執行這些轉換的過程中，出現了大量據稱是永久性聘用的美國助理檢察官。

Attorneys, in the weeks leading up to President Trump's second inauguration, which has improperly hindered the ability of the acting U.S.

在特朗普總統第二次就職典禮前的幾周內，他的律師不恰當地阻礙了美國代理檢察官的能力。

Attorney to staff his office.

律師為其辦公室配備工作人員。

So what they're saying is that this is subversive personnel actions by the previous administration that they want to stop.

所以，他們的意思是，這是上屆政府的顛覆性人事行動，他們要阻止。

Now separately from this, we also know that FBI agents are expected to also be targeted as part of this purge.

除此之外，我們還知道聯邦調查局特工也會成為這次清洗的目標。

Now, these are agents who worked the January 6th cases, as well as the cases, the investigation of Donald Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents.

現在，這些特工負責1月6日的案件，以及調查唐納德-特朗普涉嫌不當處理機密文件的案件。

Now, the difference, as you know, Jim, is that agents really have no choice on what cases they're assigned, right?

吉姆，你也知道，不同之處在於，探員們無法選擇被指派的案件，對吧？

They are told what cases to work.

他們被告知要處理哪些案件。

And so there's a lot of consternation inside the FBI as to why these people would necessarily been targeted for doing simply their jobs.

是以，聯邦調查局內部有很多人感到困惑，為什麼這些人僅僅是為了工作就一定會成為目標。

But let me ask you, those FBI agents, they were not temporary hires, right, for this particular case.

但我要問你，那些聯邦調查局探員，他們不是臨時僱傭的，對吧，是為了這個特殊的案子。

So the justification offered for firing the Justice Department officials does not hold up for firing the FBI officials.

是以，解僱司法部官員的理由在解僱聯邦調查局官員時是站不住腳的。

Right.

對

Those are career agents and analysts.

這些都是職業經紀人和分析師。

And so the question now, Jim, becomes whether, you know, obviously whether these firings and if any reassignments, any of that holds up in court if these people decide to challenge and file lawsuits over the handling of their careers.

是以，吉姆，現在的問題是，如果這些人決定就他們的職業生涯處理方式提出質疑並提起訴訟，這些解僱和重新安排是否會在法庭上站得住腳。

Evan, thanks so much.

埃文，非常感謝。

Please stay with us.

請和我們在一起。

I want to bring in CNN senior legal analyst, Ellie Honig.

有請CNN高級法律分析師埃莉-霍尼格。

Evan, it feels like we're witnessing a Saturday Night Massacre times.

埃文，感覺我們正在見證一場 "週六之夜大屠殺"。

Well, pick your multiplier there.

好吧，那就選擇你的乘數吧。

You just wrote a piece, Ellie, for New York Magazine about how Trump has already changed the Justice Department.

埃莉，你剛剛為《紐約雜誌》寫了一篇文章，談到特朗普如何改變了司法部。

I'm quoting you to yourself here.

我在這裡引用你自己的話。

Imagine working at the Justice Department right now and discovering some investigative thread that might lead to the president or someone close to him or some administration big wig.

想象一下，你現在在司法部工作，發現了一些調查線索，而這些線索可能會牽扯到總統或他身邊的某個人，或者某個政府要員。

What are your choices?

你有什麼選擇？

Follow up and get fired or look away and keep your job.

跟進就會被炒魷魚，或者睜一隻眼閉一隻眼就能保住飯碗。

Either way, the case goes nowhere.

無論如何，案件都不會有結果。

I wonder, is that the result of these decisions in your view, Ellie, or perhaps the goal as well?

我想知道，在你看來，這就是這些決定的結果嗎，埃莉，或許也是目標？

Well, I think it's absolutely the result of these decisions.

我認為這絕對是這些決定的結果。

Jim, and what we are seeing here is completely abnormal.

吉姆，我們現在看到的情況完全不正常。

And here's why.

原因就在這裡。

Within the Justice Department, there are a very few handful of positions that are political appointees, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, and a handful of others.

在司法部內部，有極少數職位是政治任命的，如總檢察長、副總檢察長和其他少數幾個職位。

It is completely normal and appropriate for a new presidential administration to fire and replace those people.

新一屆總統政府解僱和替換這些人是完全正常和恰當的。

This is why Merrick Garland is no longer the attorney general.

這就是梅里克-加蘭不再擔任司法部長的原因。

But the vast majority of prosecutors, like I once was, FBI agents who work at DOJ, 99 plus percent are non-political appointees or people who get hired based on their qualifications and their job is to just do the work, to follow the facts.

但絕大多數檢察官，比如我曾經是的檢察官，在司法部工作的聯邦調查局探員，99%以上都是非政治任命的，或者是根據資歷被聘用的人，他們的工作只是完成工作，遵循事實。

That is the very essence of DOJ.

這正是司法部的精髓所在。

When you come in and start firing those non-political appointees, as Donald Trump has been doing, you send a message that simply cannot be missed, that if you do something that threatens the power structure here, you could lose your job.

當你像唐納德-特朗普（Donald Trump）所做的那樣，上任後就開始解僱那些非政治任命的官員時，你就傳遞了一個不容忽視的資訊：如果你做了威脅到這裡權力結構的事情，你就可能丟掉工作。

And Evan, you've covered these agencies, the FBI and the DOJ for some time.

埃文，你報道這些機構，聯邦調查局和司法部已經有一段時間了。

And while Trump may claim that this is deep state or some sort of partisan operation, just explain the variety of viewpoints, if that's the correct way to describe it, that operate in those agencies.

雖然特朗普可能會聲稱這是 "深層國家 "或某種黨派行動，但只要解釋一下在這些機構中運作的各種觀點（如果這是正確的描述方式的話）就可以了。

But also just the broader rule, or what used to be the rule, right, were that these were civil servants who served administrations, whether Democrat or Republican.

但是，更廣泛的規則，或者說過去的規則是，這些公務員為政府服務，無論是民主黨還是共和黨。

Right, exactly.

沒錯，就是這樣。

I mean, most of these people, you know, some of them get hired during Republican administrations.

我的意思是，這些人中的大多數，你知道，他們中的一些人是在共和黨執政期間被僱傭的。

They stay on during Democratic administrations.

他們在民主黨執政期間繼續留任。

You know, they don't necessarily love the politics of whoever's president, but they carry out the work because a lot of what they do is not political.

你知道，無論誰當總統，他們不一定喜歡政治，但他們會開展工作，因為他們所做的很多事情都不是政治性的。

A lot of the cases that they work are criminal cases.

他們處理的很多案件都是刑事案件。

It's just, you know, the bread and butter of what is supposed to be law enforcement.

這只是，你知道，應該是執法的麵包和黃油。

And by the way, you know, some of the people that they've ousted, some of the people that they've pushed out are people who are actually brought on under Bill Barr or under Jeff Sessions, who were obviously not looking for leftists to be installing in the government.

順便說一句，你知道，他們趕走的一些人，推掉的一些人，其實是比爾-巴爾或傑夫-塞申斯手下的人，他們顯然不希望左派人士被安插進政府。

That's what the irony is, is that some of the people that they've removed are actually people who were Republican appointees at some point and have stayed on.

具有諷刺意味的是，一些被免職的人實際上是共和黨任命的人，他們曾在某個時候留任。

And so that's one of the interesting things about this level of purge that's been going on because it has touched not only people who are at the upper echelons, but they're starting to move way below.

是以，這也是這次大清洗的一個有趣之處，因為它不僅觸動了上層人士，也開始觸動下層人士。

And the goal apparently is to try to bring in more pro-Trump people into the government administration.

其目的顯然是為了讓更多親特朗普的人加入政府管理。

Ellie, is there any legal recourse for these individuals who have been fired?

埃莉，這些被解僱的人有任何法律追索權嗎？

Generally, yes, Jim.

一般來說，是的，吉姆。

So most of these people have some level of civil service protection, meaning ordinarily before you can be fired under the civil service rules, you have to be given administrative process and notice and a hearing and all that.

是以，這些人中的大多數都受到一定程度的公務員保護，也就是說，通常情況下，在根據公務員規則解僱你之前，你必須獲得行政程序、通知和聽證等等。

Donald Trump seems to want to flip that, where I fire you first and then you can take the time and expense going out and hiring an attorney and challenging this.

唐納德-特朗普似乎想反其道而行之，我先炒你魷魚，然後你再花時間和金錢去聘請律師，挑戰這一切。

So we could see challenges.

是以，我們可以看到挑戰。

And Jim, just to one important point that Evan made, when you are on the line, as we used to say, which I used to be, part of the reason you can do your job effectively is it doesn't matter who the president is.

吉姆，就埃文提出的一個重要觀點而言，當你站在一線時，就像我們過去常說的那樣，我過去也是，你能有效開展工作的部分原因是，總統是誰並不重要。

It happened in my experience that my first half of my experience at DOJ was under a Republican administration, switched over to the Obama administration.

在我的經歷中，我在司法部工作的前半段是在共和黨執政時期，後來轉到奧巴馬執政時期。

I had another second half under the Obama administration.

在奧巴馬政府執政期間，我又迎來了下半場。

It made zero difference to the work we did in New York.

這對我們在紐約的工作沒有任何影響。

It made zero difference to our pursuit of these criminal cases.

這對我們追查這些刑事案件毫無影響。

That's the way it ought to be.

就應該這樣。

But when you're firing people explicitly for political reasons, and the letter that went out earlier this week said the reason you're being fired is because you worked on the case against Trump.

但是，當你明確地因為政治原因而解僱人時，本週早些時候發出的信中說，你被解僱的原因是因為你參與了針對特朗普的案件。

That changes the very nature of DOJ.

這改變了司法部的性質。

And yet it's happening.

然而，它還是發生了。

For our eyes.

為了我們的眼睛

Evan Perez, Eli Honig.

埃文-佩雷斯、伊萊-霍尼格

Thanks so much.

非常感謝。