Judge Exposes Trump’s Case Against Powell as Harassment

Judge Reveals Lack of Evidence in Federal Reserve Probe

A federal judge has revealed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. admitted there was no evidence to support a criminal case against Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell. This admission came out during a closed-door hearing before Chief Judge Jeb Boasberg. The judge had previously quashed subpoenas against Powell, and now the reason is clearer: the investigation was launched in bad faith.

Investigation Started to Harass and Intimidate

Judge Boasberg found that the core of the investigation was meant to harass and intimidate Jay Powell, not to look into actual criminal activity. The prosecution claimed a $1.2 billion cost overrun on a Federal Reserve building project was reason enough for a fraud investigation. However, the head of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office admitted they had no specific evidence of fraud.

Project Costs and Comparisons

The project in question involves remodeling two 100-year-old Federal Reserve buildings and has faced significant cost overruns. While the exact amount is debated, it’s in the billions. The prosecution pointed to a $1.2 billion cost overrun as proof of fraud. However, similar projects often face large overruns.

For example, the Department of Homeland Security’s St. Elizabeth campus project was $1.5 billion over budget as of 2014 and is still not finished. The Capital Visitor Center and the Reagan Building also went over budget. Renovating old buildings with unexpected issues, like asbestos or old wiring, often leads to higher costs than initially planned.

Trump’s Role and Motivation

Donald Trump is seen as the driving force behind this investigation. The goal appears to be forcing Jay Powell to resign or step down as Federal Reserve chair. Trump also seems to want Powell to lower interest rates. The lack of evidence suggests this is more about political pressure than a legitimate criminal inquiry.

Legal Representation and Strategy

Both the Federal Reserve and Jay Powell have hired high-profile legal teams. The Federal Reserve has hired Robert Herr, who previously served as special counsel investigating Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents. Jay Powell has hired Gerson Sufac, formerly the general counsel for Fox News and News Corp, where Janine Pirro, who criticized the judge’s decision, also worked.

Why This Matters

This situation highlights concerns about the misuse of the justice system for political purposes. When investigations are launched without evidence, it can undermine public trust in institutions like the Federal Reserve and the Department of Justice. The judge’s strong language about bad faith and harassment suggests a serious issue with how this case was pursued.

Implications and Future Outlook

The failed investigation has political consequences. Republicans are blocking Trump’s pick for the next Federal Reserve chair due to the case against Powell. If Trump’s team appeals the judge’s decision, it could prolong the issue. However, the lack of evidence makes an appeal unlikely to succeed. The situation raises questions about how political pressure might influence economic policy and appointments.

Historical Context

Investigations into high-ranking officials are not new, but they typically require substantial evidence. The Federal Reserve, as the central bank of the United States, plays a crucial role in economic stability. Actions that appear to target its leadership for political reasons can create uncertainty. The judge’s decision to quash subpoenas based on bad faith is a significant event, suggesting a rare instance where the court intervened to stop what it saw as an improper use of investigative power.

The Legal Battle Unfolds

Judge Boasberg gave the prosecution a chance to present any evidence of fraud related to the cost overruns. They declined, relying solely on the cost overrun itself as justification. This lack of evidence is a major blow to the case. The judge’s ruling and the released transcript indicate that the investigation was an attempt to intimidate Powell, not to uncover a crime. Without evidence, the prosecution’s argument is severely weakened.

Janine Pirro’s Reaction

Commentator Janine Pirro criticized the judge’s decision, calling him an “activist judge” who “neutered the grand jury’s ability to investigate crime.” She argued that the judge gave Powell “immunity” and prevented her office from investigating the Federal Reserve. However, the released transcript shows the judge acted based on the prosecution’s own admission of having no evidence.

The Path Forward

Donald Trump now faces a choice: accept the judge’s ruling and end the investigation, or appeal it. If the investigation ends, it could clear the way for his nominee to be confirmed as the next Federal Reserve chair. Jay Powell has stated he would not leave his post until the investigation is over. The outcome of this legal battle could have lasting effects on the Federal Reserve’s independence and the political landscape surrounding economic policy.

Source: Judge CATCHES Trump IN THE ACT with ZERO EVIDENCE (YouTube)