一名联邦法官向美国司法部律师发出严厉警告：司法部正阻挠公开杰弗里・爱泼斯坦相关卷宗，若拒不遵守法院裁定，相关律师将面临藐视法庭追责，彻底断送职业前途。
华盛顿特区联邦地区法院法官埃米特・沙利文要求司法部作出解释，说明为何迟迟不公开这名已故性犯罪者相关调查卷宗。周四庭审中，法官表示司法部目前给出的说辞（包括当庭陈述）不足以服众，还援引了当年一桩针对在职联邦参议员、检方操作严重失当的知名刑事案件作为警示。
“公众有权弄清楚这桩案子到底藏着什么内情，受害者有权知情，法庭同样有权知情。” 沙利文在听证会上冷静地质问司法部律师，要求对方给出更多合理解释，“法律条文依旧具备完整效力，法庭只是要求你们依法执行裁定。”
本案由记者凯蒂・庞提起诉讼，诉求是强制公开联邦调查局留存的爱泼斯坦相关档案，并解除部分涉案往来人员姓名的涂黑屏蔽处理。沙利文提出质疑：司法部此前已公开数百万页卷宗，为何其中没有联邦探员多年前问询证人时手写的原始笔录？
法官同时指出司法部两处违规行为：一是拒不公开卷宗内外文版本文件；二是国会明确要求司法部需在《联邦公报》中公示卷宗内容屏蔽处理的理由，但司法部至今未公布相关说明，也未给出公示时间表。
此前沙利文已下达法庭指令，要求司法部说明扣留部分爱泼斯坦档案的原因，并解释无法完整公开卷宗的依据。
司法部律师安德鲁・布洛克周四当庭答复法官：“我没有更多信息可以提供。”
随后庭审出现罕见转折，沙利文给在场司法部律师回顾了司法部史上最不堪的一桩丑闻，该案正是他近二十年前主审。
法庭座无虚席，全场安静，沙利文脱稿讲述近半小时，复盘当年阿拉斯加州共和党参议员泰德・史蒂文斯贪腐案：当年他裁定多名司法部检察官构成民事藐视法庭罪。彼时检方刻意隐瞒关键证据，一名内部举报人向法官揭发了检方违规办案行为。
这起案件后果极其严重，自此彻底改变了沙利文对待政府律师、华盛顿联邦法院与司法部的审判尺度。
2008 年，史蒂文斯贪腐罪名成立，同年他竞选连任参议员失利。后续沙利文查实，庭审前司法部刻意扣押了本该交付史蒂文斯辩护律师的关键证据，最终撤销全部有罪判决。（史蒂文斯于 2010 年因飞机失事离世。）
周四，沙利文对着辩护席上三名司法部律师说道：“我当时告诉那些检察官，我别无选择，只能裁定所有人藐视法庭。我没有别的办法，除此之外，我还能如何保障司法公正落地？”
沙利文称，过往只要认定司法部律师拒不执行法庭指令，他会毫不犹豫作出处罚，并将涉事律师移交律师协会启动职业惩戒程序。
法官补充道，一旦被认定藐视法庭，这份污点会伴随律师整个职业生涯，永久影响从业。
“这不是威胁，是客观后果。目前没人遭到追责，我只是把利害告知各位。” 沙利文反复强调，本案几名司法部律师当下 “并未涉案受罚”。
“我只是统一所有人的认知，单纯和大家沟通清楚。” 说完，法官示意司法部律师当庭作出回应，现场无一人起身发言。
Epstein judge： ‘The public has a right to know what the hell is going on’
A federal judge gave a chilling warning to Justice Department lawyers fighting the further releases of documents tied toJeffrey 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．
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．
