The Department of Justice is investigating whether any criminal conduct was involved in the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed Taj Mahal building renovation. A grand jury issued subpoenas in connection with that investigation, to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell among others. I have no idea whether a crime was committed–by default, I assume not–but from what I know of the insane Fed boondoggle, it is worth looking into. But my opinion is irrelevant; the grand jury thought it was worth investigating.
But Democratic Party activist James Boasberg, a district court judge in Washington who has done his best to frustrate the policies that Americans voted for in 2024, has inserted himself into the process:
A federal judge has quashed the Justice Department’s criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s Senate testimony regarding the central bank’s headquarters renovation, writing that the grand jury subpoenas were a “mere pretext” to pressure the Fed.
“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,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote. “The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President.”
Speaking of evidence, I have seen no evidence that Boasberg even referred to the issue before him, i.e., the Fed’s building boondoggle. The evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to cause them to issue the subpoenas, which is what counts. This is an investigation, not a prosecution.
And what is the point of Boasberg’s reference to conflicting views as to interest rates? They have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, the Fed’s building renovation. Jerome Powell is on his way out as the Fed Chairman. He will be gone in two months, so Boasberg’s theory makes little sense.
This is one of many instances of left-wing judges imputing invidious motives to the Trump administration, and ruling on that basis. But such speculation as to motives, inspired by Democratic Party talking points, is improper.
Another instance occurred just a few days ago, when a Democratic Party district court judge ruled that the Department of Homeland Security may not terminate the “Temporary Protected Status” of Haitian immigrants, which has been in effect since an earthquake in 2010. Obviously, that judge’s party wants the “temporary” status to be permanent. The judge’s rationale was that the DHS’s decision manifested an animus by President Trump and Secretary Noem against immigrants “of color.” Again, an inflammatory but wholly irrelevant consideration.
Any time a judge says that the Trump administration lacks the power to do something that would be perfectly acceptable if the president were a Democrat, based on the Trump administration’s alleged motivations, that judge is wrong and is acting as a partisan hack. I think the general public would be astonished at how often that happens.
