Last week, Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. Boasberg declared the investigation overtly political and coercive, without any criminal predicate. The decision is a rare rejection of a duly issued grand jury subpoena at this stage of an investigation. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. U.S.
I have previously expressed skepticism about the investigation into Powell and share concerns about the alleged use of the criminal justice system to pressure the Federal Reserve Board. However, the question is when a court can make such a judgment at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors are generally entitled to make their case and these subpoenas sought potential evidence of waste or corruption.
Boasberg has long been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump on the bench, including a series of orders to stop the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador and, recently, an order for their return. He was also the subject of an ethics complaint by the Administration over statements made at a judicial conference that portrayed President Trump as a threat to the rule of law. (For the record, I opposed the effort to impeach Judge Boasberg).
In the latest controversy, Boasberg rejected the premise of the criminal investigation of Powell:
“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”
Judge Boasberg quotes Trump’s personal attacks on Powell after he continued to refuse to lower interest rates. These include signature all-caps attacks from the President:
“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS …. Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!”
Boasberg noted over 100 such postings, including “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government …. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!”
He also noted a menacing statement by the President that, if the Fed does not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”
This is not the first time that the President’s social media postings have been used as evidence against Administration policies in federal cases. Many of us have criticized the President over personal attacks on judges or other officials. However, courts generally do not impute an unlawful motive to criminal investigations or prosecutions if there is an otherwise valid purpose or allegation.
Judge Boasberg dismisses any such possibility of a valid purpose, writing:
“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.
On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash. It will also grant the Board’s Motion to Partially Unseal the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion….”
Once again, I do not fault the court for skepticism, but I do have serious concerns over his timing and his own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.
The Administration has an active but still early criminal investigation into the massive spending on renovations to the Federal Reserve building. To that end, the Justice Department served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, seeking records about the renovations of the Board’s buildings as well as Powell’s prior congressional testimony on those renovations. The Board filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are a raw play to force Powell to resign or to bend to the will of the President.
After reading the Boasberg opinion, my concerns only increased. At every juncture, Judge Boasberg ends his analysis with conclusory statements about his perception of the real motivation behind the case. That is a dangerous propensity for an Article III judge who must separate the politics from the merits in such challenges. In this case, Boasberg simply concluded that politics was the merits.
The court notes, correctly, that there are prior cases where grand jury subpoenas have been found improper if they are simply “fishing expeditions” or targeting “targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.” They can also be quashed if prosecutors are seeking to meddle with an official’s duties. Such cases are very rare and the cited cases do not seem dispositive or even particularly helpful in the instant case.
The problem is that the main precedent relied on by the court suggests that this opinion is not just premature but itself an example of bias.
The court relies on Trump v. Vance to support the authority to quash an indictment. However, that case involved state prosecutors using grand-jury subpoenas of financial records of President Trump and his businesses. Without actually ruling on whether the subpoenas were proper, the Court warned that state DAs cannot use grand-jury subpoenas to “interfer[e] with a President’s official duties.”
That case presented a threshold problem of state officials using the grand jury to target a president with obvious concerns over the Supremacy Clause. Judge Boasberg rightly noted that the clear import is that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly ….”
However, this is not something that the Justice Department is “barred from doing directly.” It has stated that the over-budget renovations raise concerns over fraud and wrongdoing. That is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.
Judge Boasberg cited cases such as NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024) as an example of the bar on doing indirectly what you are barred from doing directly. However, like Vance, that case only makes this opinion stand out more. The case involved a New York state official using her powers to pressure banks and other companies not to do business with the NRA. That is manifestly different from the context in which prosecutors seek to enforce duly issued subpoenas to investigate possible fraud or waste in the criminal system.
Judge Boasberg then veers significantly from these cases with a series of conclusory remarks. He virtually mocks the suggestion that the Administration is acting in light of the massive costs and overruns, noting “buildings often go over budget.” Yet that does not mean federal officials are therefore barred from launching investigations into such matters.
The court further stresses that budget overruns “standing alone, hardly suggests that a crime occurred.” The question, again, is whether the required threshold is showing. The costs of the federal building are breathtaking and arguably unprecedented in terms of square foot expenditures. The court does not explain what showing is necessary to commence a criminal investigation. This is an early subpoena seeking basic documentary evidence.
The court notes that inspectors general have authority to investigate overruns and waste, adding that there was no such finding in this case. However, once again, the question is why that is relevant to the question before the Court. The IG may indeed be a better avenue for investigation, but there is nothing legally that forestalls an investigation by the Justice Department.
Once again, Judge Boasberg has voiced concerns shared by many on the basis of this criminal investigation. However, that is speculation in commentary. Judge Boasberg is not a talking head. He is a federal judge who must decide whether, despite such personal suspicions or inclinations, the court can bar otherwise valid grand jury subpoenas issued in an early stage of investigation.
The irony is that, while castigating the prosecutors for a lack of evidence, Judge Boasberg relies on dubious evidence to establish that political harassment is the dominant motivation. Quoting all-caps postings of the President does not offer evidence of a sole or dominant motive in an investigation. It is itself speculative and presumptive.
While Judge Boasberg notes that, “[w]ith varied improper purposes popping up on different occasions, it is clear that such purposes cannot be reduced to a fixed and exhaustive list,” he does not offer any clarity on when an investigation into fraud or waste would be demonstrably valid in its earliest stages. The court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held there is no need for the Government to establish probable cause as the basis for issuing a grand-jury subpoena. So that is the standard here other than Judge Boasberg’s suspicions based on public statements from the President?
The court merely states
“What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”
That dominant purpose is far from evident. There is no evidence that Powell will yield to the pressure to lower rates, and many of us have noted that this would be a particularly ham-handed effort to get him to do so. From what we have seen, Powell has little to fear from this inquiry on a personal level. If anything, the improper purpose would seem like raw retaliation. However, there is also the pesky claim in the grand jury and captured in these subpoenas that the Administration believes that there is fraud or waste – and the possibility of false testimony. How would the court know at this stage that such claims are meritless or fraudulent? More importantly, what would stop future courts from rendering the same inferential judgment on presidents that they oppose?
Rather than answer that question, Boasberg returns to all-caps posts about how much the President despises Powell and wants him gone. The problem is that both positions could be true. The President could want Powell gone while the Justice Department could want to investigate waste and fraud.
For example, Boasberg quotes Trump as saying “we’re thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, what’s called a gross incompetence lawsuit, it’s gross incompetence, against Powell . . . I’d love to fire him. Maybe I still might.”
The problem is that Trump could believe that Powell is grossly incompetent and that he allowed massive overruns on this project. Boasberg just assumes that Trump wants Powell gone and even makes a veiled analogy to King Henry II signaling to his henchmen to kill Thomas Becket: “In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair.” (In this modern remake, apparently the murderous King is Trump, the saintly Becket is Powell, and the henchman is Pirro).
What is particularly disturbing is how the court dismisses the independent ethical duty of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to have a good-faith basis for seeking such subpoenas. Judge Boasberg writes:
“True, most of the evidence above speaks to the motives of the President, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Yet judges ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 785 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). The U.S. Attorney was appointed by the President and can be fired by him. Her peer one district over was recently pushed out for refusing to prosecute the President’s opponents.”
This, for me, was the final abandonment of objectivity where assumptions become reality. By dismissing Pirro’s independent motivation, Boasberg leaves the weight of his own evidence as a string of social media posts. He ignores a major push by the administration to seek out government waste and fraud, which began with the DOGE efforts and was recently followed by the appointment of a “tsar” to root out fraud in federal programs. There is no serious debate that this Administration has made combating fraud and waste a priority and has taken unprecedented steps to investigate and prosecute such wrongdoing. Yet the court suggests that Pirro is merely clinging to her job by blindly carrying out the President’s demands.
None of this means that the court would lack the authority or a possible basis to dismiss this action at a later stage. My primary concern is the timing and the court’s presumptive analysis at this early stage. I fail to see a discernible standard in this case that would inform future courts or officials … other than presidents should not post in all caps or troll officials. While Judge Boasberg chastises the Justice Department for yielding too readily to its impulses, this opinion seems strikingly impulsive in critical aspects.
The Justice Department is appealing this opinion. We may see greater clarity on the underlying standard as the case works toward the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: Boasberg Opinion
Powell’s term of office ends on May 23, so if on May 24 DOJ refiled whatever it might be they would need to refile, would Boasberg throw that out as well? It could not be a means of pressuring him to do something as Chairman if he is no longer Chairman. And in any event, the grand jury investigation wouldn’t be concluded and any subsequent charges, if any, would all be long after he left office even if Boasberg had not just thrown it out.
Everything Boasberg is doing is clearly happening on the basis of his own bias against Trump and for no other reason. When will Roberts step in to correct this? Boasberg should be forbidden from taking part in any case involving this Administration. The only alternative is to find a way to remove him from the bench.
A little levity, making fun of anti-ICE protesters who think it’s okay to bite, kick, and punch law-enforcement officers:
I never was the prettiest
And certainly not the wittiest
But I’m a useful idiot
I’m a cis-white woman on the ground
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/2033590262325293278
(cue the trolls with their incensed comments)
OldManFromKS,
HA!! Thank you for the laugh!!
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
The man is clearly a political hack. The system, where he is concerned, sorely begs for a good dose of Kaopectate. Time and tide will see if such a self-correcting remedy is obtained.
I wholeheartedly support Megyn Kelly telling the world that Mark Levin has a micropenis.
It’s the most deserved insult and I don’t care if it’s vulgar. And Trump’s gigantic defense of Levin only enraged the base more.
People are DONE.
MAGA destroyed by micropenis Mark Levin.
https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/2033523572228952562
Do they have a micropenis Signal group?
Is that how MTG knows …
Is there like a Penis Registry or something?
A website or blog?
Apparently, a micro penis is a MAGA prerequisite!!
Isn’t that why Trump prefers little girls?
They have nothing to compare him to.
Micropenises are destroying The World!
Boasberg has always appeared to me as one of those judges who plays retaliatory one-upmanship, particularly after being overturned on appeal. Another is Paula Xinis.
But if you want to chuckle this Monday morning, check out Substack’s “Leaked: DOJ’s Subpoena to Jerome Powell.”
It will make your day lighter, brighter, and righter.
.
https://stohl.substack.com/p/leaked-dojs-subpoena-to-jerome-powell
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
Let’s count the times Boasberg has decided in favor of the Trump admin…..
Bias? Everyone here has heard of TDS. What does everyone think the implications of TDS are?
THIS.
It is my understanding that congress made a possible criminal referral as to possible perjury to the justice department to look into his testimony. The justice department took the information to a grand jury and they came up with the subpoena. Therefore Trumps comments should be irrelevant.
Also, at a cost of $2.5 billion for a remodel/renovation a builder like Trump would question the validity of doing the work along with certain decisions for level of opulence for a government building. At 92 years old, there should have been a detailed study as to the viability of the structure, regardless of the historical aspects of the building. A new building with today’s knowledge would eliminate a lot of the issues plaguing the project. These issues, especially the hazardous waste aspects, are prime conditions for extensive overruns and markups on projects even smaller than this one.
Turley seems to love applying double standards. Turley has frequently called for immediate judicial or legislative intervention in other “early stage” investigations he deemed political. For example, he praised efforts to quash or block the Manhattan DA’s investigation into Donald Trump and supported sweeping oversight of the Biden family probe long before indictments were issued.
Also,
Turley ignores that Boasberg’s ruling was based on objective, public evidence—specifically over 100 public statements by the President demanding Powell be “forced” to lower rates or resign.
Labeling a judge “biased” for noticing a documented paper trail of harassment is a distraction. In other cases, Turley has argued that prosecutorial “pretext” (like a DA’s campaign promises) is a valid reason for a judge to intervene. He is now criticizing Boasberg for doing exactly what he has asked other judges to do.
Boasberg’s actual ruling noted that the government offered “essentially zero evidence” of a crime. Turley’s own standard for other investigations—like those into Alvin Bragg—is that a “novel legal theory” or a “lack of evidence” makes a case a “political prosecution”.
Turley has called these kinds of investigations “lawfare” and in this case he seems to be very supportive of it. Just as long as it’s done by Trump it’s ok.
Why does TDS only have an effect on losers?
In my view, once there is clear, objective evidence that an investigation is reasonable to pursue, a district court judge should not be able to stop that process based on perceived intent. Here we have an approved federal renovation whose budget has blown up and sworn testimony by Powell about that very project. Those facts alone justify an executive‑branch investigation into possible waste, fraud, abuse, or false statements, just as they would in any other department. By disallowing subpoenas in the face of that factual predicate, Judge Boasberg has effectively immunized Powell, the Fed, and potentially contractors from executive oversight and, at the same time, set a precedent that shifts the judiciary into the role of the executive when it comes to federal oversight. That is not how separation of powers is supposed to work. Oversight of the Executive action here should come from the Legislative branch, as the investigation unfolds and the factual record develops, not from a front‑end judicial veto on the investigative process.
Olly, While you argue for the Executive’s right to investigate, doesn’t separation of powers also mean the Judiciary must stop the criminal justice system from being weaponized for improper purposes? If the court cannot veto a subpoena that lacks a criminal predicate and serves only to harass an official, what is left to protect the ‘independence’ of any federal agency from political retaliation?
” Judiciary must stop the criminal justice system from being weaponized for improper purposes?”
X, that’s your side’s WHOLE platform now. That’s ALL you got: Lawfare.
Find someone in authority and claim his opinion is more important and more correct for ‘reasons’.
Everyone knows Boasberg & powell have incurable TDS and vote against America. Commie Collusion goings on.
Every single bad guy Trump destroys claims the same thing: “He’s only going after me cause I said bad things about him.”
well they’re still getting trampled, years to go.
X, I think you are blurring two different thresholds.
A grand jury subpoena does not require a full “criminal predicate” in the sense of already having probable cause that a specific crime was committed. Its whole purpose is to help determine whether probable cause exists. What it does require is a reasonable investigative predicate: concrete facts that make it sensible to look for a crime, and not simply to harass someone.
In this case, that investigative predicate appears to exist. There is a very large, undisputed cost overrun on a federal project and sworn testimony from Powell about that project, plus formal criminal referrals from Congress alleging that parts of that testimony were materially false. That is exactly the type of factual foundation DOJ is ordinarily expected to examine. Once you reach that point, the separation-of-powers concern begins to run the other direction. The Constitution assigns investigation and prosecution to the executive branch. If a district judge can veto subpoenas at the investigative stage based primarily on his reading of presidential motive, then the judiciary is not simply preventing abuse of process. It is stepping into the executive’s investigative role and shielding particular officials from the ordinary mechanisms of criminal oversight.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized how broad investigative authority must be at this stage. In United States v. Morton Salt Co. the Court explained that law-enforcement authorities may investigate on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because they want assurance that it is not. That principle reflects the basic function of investigative subpoenas. They exist to determine whether probable cause exists, not to prove it beforehand.
If courts begin blocking subpoenas based primarily on inferred political motives rather than the existence of a legitimate investigative predicate, the risk is that judicial speculation replaces executive investigation. That would not only reshape the grand-jury process. It would also alter the balance of authority among the branches that the Constitution was designed to maintain.
OLLY,
Another great comment. You are on a roll today!
Olly, You’re right that a grand jury doesn’t need probable cause, but it does require a ‘proper purpose.’ The Supreme Court in United States v. R. Enterprises made it clear that subpoenas can be quashed if they are ‘unreasonable or oppressive.’ When a judge finds over 100 documented threats from the President to ‘force’ a Fed Chair out, and the DOJ can’t point to a single specific lie in Powell’s testimony, the ‘investigative predicate’ isn’t a foundation—it’s a smokescreen.
You mention cost overruns and referrals, but Judge Boasberg’s ruling noted the government provided ‘essentially zero evidence’ linking Powell to any fraud. In our system, ‘we want to make sure the law isn’t being broken’ is a valid reason for an audit; it is not a valid reason to use a criminal grand jury to harass a head of an independent agency who is currently defying the President’s interest rate demands.
You call the judge’s findings ‘speculation,’ but the Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v. New York (the census case) explicitly ruled that judges can and should look behind ‘pretextual’ justifications when there is evidence of bad faith. Citing 100+ public attacks isn’t speculation; it’s reading the room.
Olly, At what point does an ‘investigation’ lose the presumption of regularity when the person ordering it is publicly bragging about the political result he wants to achieve?
President’s tweets and fiery rhetoric about the Fed chair do not invalidate the presence of a legitimate investigative predicate, and the President has a far more direct constitutional role in overseeing the Fed chair than any district judge has in second‑guessing how that oversight is executed.
Olly, the district judge is not “second-guessing” oversight; he is performing his Article III duty to ensure executive actions do not violate the Constitution or federal law. If a court cannot quash an abusive or harassing subpoena, then no citizen or official is safe from politically motivated prosecution
Also, The Fed is more independent from the President than most agencies to ensure monetary policy remains less political. The President’s oversight role is limited by law to for-cause removal, not the right to use the criminal justice system as an enforcement tool for policy disagreements.
Plus the President’s “fiery rhetoric” or tweets does not exist in a vacuum; Judge Boasberg cited over 100 public statements as a “mountain of evidence” that the investigation’s dominant purpose was to harass and pressure Jerome Powell into resigning or changing interest rates.
OLLY,
Seems Boasberg is obstructing an investigation in favor of fraud, waste and abuse.
I think we have seen that movie before, i.e. USAID.
Upstatefarmer, nope. The government has provided zero evidence of fraud. None.
Upstate, that is exactly how it looks to me. When you have a real federal project and a real, documented blowout in costs, the idea that a district judge would step in to block subpoenas aimed at finding out whether there was fraud, waste, or abuse feels backwards. It is one thing to guard against a president using DOJ as a blunt political weapon. It is another thing entirely to treat any politically inconvenient investigation as presumptively illegitimate and then use the courts to shut it down before the facts are even gathered. In that sense, yes, it looks a lot like protecting the very kind of conduct that “fraud, waste, and abuse” laws are supposed to ferret out.
Olly, the government has provided zero evidence of fraud. None. You even provided the very reason why the subpoena is frivolous. They have yet to produce any evidence.
The court didn’t shut the case down because it was “inconvenient”; it shut it down because the DOJ failed to provide a criminal predicate. When asked to show why they were investigating, the DOJ couldn’t point to a single specific lie in Powell’s testimony. A grand jury isn’t a “magic wand” that allows the government to bypass the Fourth Amendment just to see what they can find.
The law gives the Federal Reserve statutory independence. If any President could trigger a criminal investigation into a Fed Chair simply by alleging a “budget overrun” on a construction project, that independence would vanish. The court’s “veto” isn’t stopping a legitimate investigation; it’s stopping the weaponization of the DOJ to bypass federal law.
Olly, The Supreme Court ruled in Department of Commerce v. New York that judges must intervene when the government’s stated reason for an action is a “pretext” for an underlying, improper motive. When the President posts over 100 times that he wants to “force” Powell out over interest rates, the “investigation” into a building renovation becomes a transparent pretext for harassment.
Running over budget is not evidence of fraud. If that were the case the DoD would be the biggest fraudulent agency in the country.
X- you clown. Powell is not being investigated for “running over budget.”
Stop lifting paragraphs from AI and mixing them with your own conclusions. That gives you away.
So pray tell, why is he being investigated?
Did you find out why a state tax is a pass through yet?
Mr. Gambini (X), that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection… Overruled.
What you are really doing is asking the grand jury to do the job that only a trial jury can do. The point of a grand jury is to bridge the gap between we have some evidence and we have enough to indict, and subpoenas are how it builds that bridge. If DOJ already had all the proof it needed of fraud or perjury, it could go straight to an indictment and skip most subpoenas entirely. In the real world, you start with an investigative predicate, not a finished case. Here that predicate is a massive overrun on a federal project plus detailed sworn statements and referrals about that project. The ask at this stage is not indict Powell, it is let the grand jury see the documents so it can decide whether an indictment is warranted. As the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Morton Salt Co., investigators may proceed on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because they want assurance that it is not. That is the purpose of investigative subpoenas.
Trump does not care one lick about wasted and fraud. He fired most of the people in the government who investigate waste and fraud.
The ruling was correct. The prosecutors could not articulate any evidence of a crime and Trump’s statements proved it was politically based. There used to be a “presumption of regularity” that courts gave the DoJ, but that has been pissed away.
Trump can either turn the DoJ into his personal attack lawyers, or have the “presumption of regularity”. He can not have both.
Danny, I do not dispute that Trump’s rhetoric and personnel decisions have helped drain the “presumption of regularity” that DOJ used to enjoy. But if we say intent is the only thing that matters, we are no longer talking about the rule of law, we are talking about who we like or dislike. In this case, there is a real project, a massive and undisputed cost overrun, and sworn testimony about that project, plus formal criminal referrals from Congress alleging that Powell’s statements were materially false. That factual predicate is exactly what an investigation is supposed to be built on; you do not start with proof of a crime, you start with evidence that reasonably raises the possibility of one and may lead to a criminal referral.
If judges can shut down an investigation at that point because they infer a bad motive from presidential statements, they are not just denying Trump a presumption of regularity; they are assuming the role of the Executive and effectively immunizing specific officials from ordinary oversight. The proper way to address an abusive president is for Congress and inspectors general to investigate misuse of DOJ and hold him to account, not for courts to preemptively block investigations that already have a clear factual basis.
Olly, criminal referrals? That’s the ‘evidence’? You cite “formal criminal referrals from Congress,” but these were primarily issued by a single partisan ally of the President, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna. Using a politically timed referral as the sole basis for a grand jury subpoena—without any independent FBI or IG finding of fraud—is the definition of a fishing expedition, not a “clear factual basis”.
You argue that intent shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. But when the only thing the government has is a “mountain of evidence” of the President threatening to “force something” if Powell doesn’t lower rates, and zero evidence of actual fraud, the judge isn’t “immunizing” Powell—he is preventing the criminal justice system from being used as a tool of official coercion.
Turley also ignored the evidence which is telling about his intent to paint this as a biased decision.
What I see you doing here is exactly what I think Boasberg did: assigning motive while brushing past the constitutional structure. Trump in the Executive Branch and Luna in Congress can bleat from their bully pulpits all day long. That speech may be ugly, but it is not itself the exercise of criminal power. What they cannot do is use their oversight powers to target an individual or agency with no underlying facts, simply “in search of” something to hang on them. And what they also cannot do, if we care about the rule of law, is ignore indisputable evidence that is potentially criminal in nature.
Here, the renovation overrun and the specific contested statements in Powell’s testimony are facts, not tweets. Once DOJ receives a referral from Congress pointing to particular statements and a real project that has gone badly off course, they have a duty to investigate and determine what actions may be necessary. That is not weaponization by itself; that is the Executive doing the job the Constitution actually assigns it. If later evidence shows that the real aim was only to coerce Powell on rates, then you will get no argument from me about shutting it down and holding the abusers to account. But you do not get there by treating partisan rhetoric as more constitutionally significant than the underlying factual predicate for an investigation.
OLLY,
Another great comment!!
“What they cannot do is use their oversight powers to target an individual or agency with no underlying facts, simply “in search of” something to hang on them.”
That sounds exactly like what the Biden FBI/DOJ attempted with their possibly illegal secret wiretaps of Republican Congress persons and some of Trumps staff.
Upstate, that is exactly why I keep hammering the structure instead of the personalities. When Biden’s DOJ (or the FBI under Arctic Frost) goes after Republicans with no clear underlying facts tied to a specific crime, I say the same thing: that is an abuse of oversight power, because they are targeting individuals first and then going hunting for a predicate.
But that is not what we have here.
Olly, You’re not hammering anything. You’re stuck in a circular logic trap of your own making. It doesn’t make sense to you because you cannot accept the fact that there’s no evidence presented.
Olly, this has nothing to do with constitutional structure. Your argument is legally flawed. You keep asserting there’s a factual predicate when there is absolutely none. Zero. It does not exist. You assert “indisputable evidence,” but Chief Judge James Boasberg’s ruling explicitly stated the government produced “essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime”. While a budget overrun is a fact, the DOJ could not specify a single discrepancy or false statement in Powell’s testimony that would justify a criminal probe.
A criminal referral from a partisan ally in Congress does not override the Fourth Amendment or the requirement that grand jury subpoenas have a proper purpose. The court found the referral’s basis—a 2021 planning document—was irrelevant because Powell had already testified that those plans had evolved and been scrapped before his 2025 testimony.
The law allows a court to quash a subpoena immediately if it is “unreasonable or oppressive” or issued for an improper purpose. Waiting until an official is forced to resign under the weight of a pretextual investigation is a failure of judicial oversight, not an exercise of it.
Your arguments show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the judicial system works and how the law is applied.
a non-lawyer know-it-all who gets all his info from AI and the Inet, telling Ollie that “Your argument is legally flawed,” is pretty damn funny..
Not just bad motives. Also lack of any evidence of a crime. Also the proper oversight of the DoJ lawyers is the AG.
“He fired most of the people in the government who investigate waste and fraud.”
Cause they were doing such a great job of finding fraud that there was none? So, how did we find so much fraud AFTER they were gone?
No, they weren’t finding fraud but enabling it. Your criminal gravy train is over. deal with it. talk about telling on yourself…
They were finding plenty of waste. They found the MN issue. Problem is that there are so few of them and so many things to look at. It makes it even worse that anyone who sends potential waste or fraud to the investigators risks their own job due to retaliation.
They didn’t find the fraud in Mn, a freaking YouTube podcaster found and disclosed it. The State bureaucracy thwarted the checks and balances to root out fraud and corruption. Where do you come up with your absurdity?
Elon Musk and his team exposed the Democrats grift, Trumpfired the useless goalongs that have manifested themselves into perpetual corruption and failure.
Eight Ball,
There were numerous whistleblowers who tried to bring the fraud to light in MN, but the Walz admin and the MN AG both turned a blind eye to it.
USF
Those were State whistleblowers, players that have nothing to do with the Feds. That’s what State bureaucracy thwarted means…
Let me know if you can spot Judge James Boasberg in this short video clip.
Turley is using a lot of legal jargon to say, “Let the investigators keep digging.” The problem is that in America, the government isn’t allowed to harass people with criminal investigations just because they don’t like their job performance.
The judge didn’t just “guess” there was a political motive; he looked at a mountain of public evidence where the President literally said he wanted to “force” the Fed to change its mind on interest rates. By blocking the subpoenas, the judge was simply saying that if the government wants to use the power of a grand jury, they need a real reason—not just a grudge.
The Judge claims that Trump’s prior pronouncements make this a political issue and yet Boasberg’s prior pronouncements don’t?? Hypocrisy your name is X…or George.
Hullbobby, It’s hilarious that you think a judge pointing out a documented, all-caps paper trail of harassment is the same thing as the harassment itself. That’s like blaming a smoke detector for the fire.
If Boasberg is ‘political’ for noticing that the DOJ suddenly found a ‘criminal’ interest in a building renovation the second the President called the Fed Chair a ‘total loser,’ then reality itself must have a partisan bias. But hey, keep pretending that a legal ruling based on evidence is the same as a Twitter tantrum based on a grudge. It’s a great look if you’re trying to ignore that the government literally provided ‘zero evidence’ of a crime.
X doesn’t seem to be able to distinguish between the precision of well written legal arguments that are required to discuss technical points of the Law and ordinary “jargon”. I am left wondering if he understands the thrust of Turley’s post.
You can call it ‘precision’ all you want, but most of us recognize circular logic even when it’s wearing a tuxedo. Turley isn’t ‘discussing the law’; he’s just frustrated that a judge actually read the First Amendment and the President’s own feed at the same time.
X
Is Kamala still winning the election? Is Biden still mentally capable and at the top of his game?
But Powell has TDS so will always do the opposite of what would be good for America.
Everyone knows that as Powell has admitted it!
Lest there be any doubt Professor Turley is some kind of Partisan conservative. 😂
I disagree: at least philosophically, and as a justice who is supposed to represent impartiality, Boasburg and his ilk are indefensible. Obviously the details must be debated, but the left are pretty much a mutated monster on a blind and insane rampage at this point (see Kimmel or Lieu claiming first amendment violations because a private company had the temerity to fire poor performers. Sure guys, sure); Boasburg is one leading the pack, and it bodes nothing good for any of us.
PS – the Professor’s objectivity can be maddening, but it’s welcome. He and Fetterman might be the last two sane democrats on earth.
Objectivity? No. He’s applying a double standard.
He’s employing a “motive for me, but not for thee” double standard by advocating that courts ignore political intent in the Powell case while highlighting it in the Shapiro case. He argues for disregarding political “noise” to allow investigations against figures he supports, yet uses alleged political motivations to frame routine legal disputes involving opponents as corrupt.
Partisan huh? Did you speak with him about his politics? No? Oh, too bad.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio was reportedly in an irreversible coma on Monday after falling down several flights of White House stairs in an ill-fitting pair of Florsheim shoes.
According to witnesses, Rubio tumbled down the marble steps headfirst before braining himself on a newly installed statue of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Donald J. Trump, who had demanded that Rubio wear the hazardous wingtips, took the mishap in stride, telling reporters, “It is what it is.”
Briefing the media, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “We are confident that Marco Rubio’s coma will in no way affect his performance as Secretary of State.”
Anonymous, not clever. Yesterday you were defending Russia when Reagan said “Tear down this wall.”
You defended Gorbachev when you said that he was instrumental in removing the wall. On the one hand you defend Russia and on the other hand you continue with the worn out Trump is a Russian stooge crap. Since you’re willing to defend Russia it would seem that you would be happier if Trump was Putin’s best friend. Schizophrenic be thee Anonymous?
More AI fake news, just like the Iranian AI fake news.
Special Report Breaking
Anonymous was found in severe distress and comfort after this last post. Reportedly found unconscious from a severe blow to the head and rushed to the emergency room.
Doctors reviewing the cause of the injury report it was from a size 12 Florshiem shoe found far inserted in his ass…worst case ever documented of cranium rectal inversion.
Come On Man, its Boasberg Baby! How else can he audition for an Appeals Level Judgeship with the Democrat Illuminati unless he plows forward with ‘Everything Orange Man Bad is Illegal’ with reckless abandon? Boasberg don’t need no stinkin facts or precedent to make a ruling within his little Kingdom! Boasberg is a legend in his own mind! Bah haha! Be seeing that legal moron at Appeals it looks like!
Reminder for DEMOCRATS it is the PROCESS… They HARM you by the PROCESS!
Reminder Boasberg oversaw the FISA court spying on TRUMP!
He should be JAILED
Jailed? For what? Explain under what laws. You can’t.
for 100% BIAS! He has DISPLAYED his BIAS in ruling after ruling!
Bias huh? Is that in any law/code?
Folks, another MAGA fool. Can’t name the law.
Define woman.
How about a fraudulent prosecutiorial misconduct under color of law? Reportedly, he signed off on the FISA warrants that were rife with fraud, blatant fraud. Boasberg fell in line with his handlers in approval to subvert a duly elected President. Even if it was Trump, it was based on a lie and it’s a terrible path we are seeing play out here.
I agree, not jailed, institutionalized, at the new Donald J. Trump Institute for the Treatment of the TDS Afflicted (only for American citizens, no illegals allowed). it’s what we do to the criminally insane who are a danger to OUR society. Building huge AWFUL and “Mad Bomber” treatment wings as we speak. It’s HUGE, people are saying it’s the greatest institute ever. Like, they can’t believe how great it is, never seen anything like it.