President Trump's Justice Department has been looking with a narrowed gaze at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Following the president's eyes, they were specifically interested in the costly renovations of the Fed's offices. To that end, as part of an investigation being carried out by the DOJ, a grand jury has subpoenaed records having to do with those renovations.
On Friday, we learned that a federal judge has quashed those subpoenas, and you'll never guess who it was.
"A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning," Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge on the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., wrote in a court filing.
Boasberg continued: "On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual."
"The Court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them," the order states.
Well, what do you know. Turns out that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has some thoughts on all this as well.
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, said in a press conference on Friday that the judge’s order wrongly exonerated Powell and others.
“No one is above the law, but for the first time a judge’s ruling that a grand jury subpoena -- on its face legal in all regards -- can be ignored, because the judge thinks the subject is beyond reproach. This is a decision that is untethered to the law," she said.
It does seem a tad unusual — a federal judge overturning a subpoena issued by a grand jury? It's an unusual move, to say the least. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17, states in part:
(1) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.
(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
The subpoenas issued in this case were for spending records associated with a renovation; it doesn't seem as though that should be considered unreasonable or oppressive, unless one is an activist judge seeking to throw as much grit in the Trump administration's gears as can be managed.
Now, at least one Republican Senator, Thom Tillis (R-NC) is threatening to hold up the confirmation of Powell's proposed replacement, Kevin Warsh, if the Trump administration appeals this decision.
The post continues:
We all know how this is going to end and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on. Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair.”
Tillis has threatened to hold up (the) Warsh nomination until (the) Powell matter is resolved.
Of course, he has.
As of this writing, there has been no indication as to whether the ruling will be appealed. Stay tuned, because it's a safe bet this isn't over. Not by a long shot.