Posted on 03/13/2026 9:25:44 PM PDT by Bobbyvotes
Jeanine was on fire during the press interview regarding DOJ wanting to summon grand jury to investigate $1 Billion cost overrun by the FED to renovate office building. Jeanine really schooled the reporters about this being a prosecutors discretionary activity as established by SCOTUS and nothing to do about politics.
I wouldn’t bet against Judge Jeanine prevailing.
It is heartening to know we have people fighting for us.
Pirro is a pit bull and her mind is like a steel trap.
Yes. Great respect for her!
Arrest his daughter for taking bribe money for her father the judge.
His daughter? Whose daughter?? Link?
The object of Jeanine Pirro’s ire, James Emanuel Boasberg, has been held up for impeachment, but given the political climate of these times, stands never to be removed. Beyond the probability that some or many of his decisions may be reversed on appeal, there is no serious way of reining him in.
That individual is utterly devoid of any judicial restraint or temperament. TDS is a ruling emotional factor in most of his rendered decisions, and has colored virtually every aspect of his life. He is the poster child for judicial term limits.
I would. This is the same ole Justice department showing they don’t know what they are doing. She/ her attorneys couldn’t define what crime they were investigating. In other words they couldn’t name a single “crime” Jerome committed that should be investigated. If she loses she should be fired.
Pirro explained that SCOTUS has ruled that DOJ prosecutors can summon a grand jury to determine if crime is committed. The district judge has no authority to stop grand jury installed according to SCOTUS. NO NEED OF PROOF OF CRIME IS NEEDED TO SUMMON A GRAND JURY per SCOTUS.
1 billion dollars worth of change orders?
A quick summary of the opinion:
FACTS: the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office has recently
opened a criminal investigation into Powell. It has served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors, seeking records about recent renovations of the Board’s buildings and
testimony that Powell delivered to Congress that briefly discussed those renovations. The Board
has now responded with a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are merely part of the
gameplan to pressure Powell to bend to the President’s wishes or to get rid of him. The case thus
asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did
not.
STANDING: The caselaw on standing to quash a grand-jury subpoena is admittedly thin.
What cases do exist suggest that a party has standing if it has some interest in the subpoenaed
Case 1:26-mc-00012-JEB Document 23 Filed 03/11/26 Page 8 of 27
9
documents — say, a property interest or a privilege. Grand Jury, 111 F.3d at 1074 (collecting
cases). The Board clearly does: after all, the subpoenas seek its documents.
STANDARD of LAW: While the grand jury’s subpoena power is broad, it is accordingly
not unlimited. As relevant here, a unanimous chorus of sister circuits agrees that courts may
quash subpoenas that the Government issued for an improper purpose (the D.C. Circuit has yet to
weigh in)...a subpoena might have been issued for multiple reasons, some proper and
others not. Where should courts draw the line? Almost all our sister circuits agree that a
subpoena should be quashed if its “sole or dominant” purpose is improper...To be sure, the Supreme Court has held that the Government need not establish probable
cause before issuing a grand-jury subpoena.
DECISION FACTORS: What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other
words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? ...the Government
counters with only a tenuous assertion of a legitimate purpose. In its briefing, the Government’s
sole justification for investigating the renovation is that it went “far over budget, raising the
specter of fraud.”...As for Powell’s testimony, the Government vaguely intimates that it “contained possible
discrepancies” and was “possibly problematic.”
CONCLUSION: 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. 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. It will also unseal redacted versions of the Motion to
Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion.
Where is goes, we shall see. The Gov’t knows very well when going in front of Boasberg they have to be prepared. It seems they weren’t prepared.
Boasberg will lose in appeals court.
He has no authority to stop a grand jury formed to investigate if crimes exist.
SCOTUS has already ruled on installing grand jury to investigate any matters. No evidence is needed of crime to start grand jury.
Are you confusing him with Judge Boasberg? Or Judge Merchan? Or James Comey?
Wait, I thought you were referring to Powell. But lawyer daughters of those other Democrats come from the same mold.
Boasberg is elevating Trump’s first amendment protected speech as disqualifying, while minimizing Powell's sworn testimony under oath to Congress for perjury prosecution.
-PJ
Yes, I believe we will get some clarification on that. The appellate outcome may depend less on whether Boasberg’s reasoning is correct and more on whether the D.C. Circuit believes judges should exercise this degree of interventionism at the grand jury stage. The practical impact on Powell may be moot — his term expires in May — but the institutional precedent regarding prosecutorial power against independent agency heads will endure far longer.
You are missing the point. No reasoning is needed for DOJ prosecutors to call grand jury investigation. Sometimes it is just to make sure no crime exists. Grand jury has subpoena powers and that helps prosecutors determine if evidence of crime exists. Only after the Grand jury has finished their job, the case goes to court for a judge to get involved. No district judge can stop grand jury creation. Boasburg is an activist judge and he jumped the starting line because of he is anti-MAGA & has TDS.
I agree, Powell will be long gone before grand jury finishes investigation. The main reason prosecutor Pirro wants grand jury is to determine why there was $1 BILLION cost overrun to renovate FED building. Was there some shenanigans or not.
No, all the Judge did was quash 2 subpoenas that were directed to the Fed Board. He did not shut down the GJ. And, while somewhat rare, GJ subpoenas can be quashed for several different reason, which seemingly includes, “improper purpose.” The Board, not Powell, asked for relief. Usually there would be negotiation between the Gov’t and the receiving party if the subpoena is too “broad” and there would be an agreement as to what would be provided. Here each party decided to litigate. Boasberg used years of Trump’s statements about the Board and Powell as evidence of prosecutorial bad intent/improper purpose and, also, the Government couldn’t describe the “crime” of an individual board member likely acting in accordance to his duties as to a “crime” and so the subpoena quash.
The opinion could be overturned by an appeals court as there is some uniqueness to the case, misapplication of law/fact, and first impression to this Circuit, but Powell’s term could be over by then so aspects of the appeal would be moot if they are “really” seeking his removal. The idea of using prosecutorial power and court proceedings against independent agency heads would be a different matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.