Share and Follow
The Department of Justice, under President Trump, has been closely scrutinizing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Their focus has zeroed in on the expensive renovations of the Federal Reserve’s offices. As part of this investigation, the DOJ had a grand jury issue subpoenas to obtain records related to these renovations.
However, news broke on Friday that a federal judge has nullified those subpoenas. The identity of the judge might surprise you.
Interestingly, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has also weighed in on the situation.
It’s not every day that a federal judge cancels a grand jury’s subpoena, making this a rather unusual occurrence. According to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:
The subpoenas in question sought records of spending related to the renovations—requests that might not seem unreasonable or oppressive. Yet, some might argue that this decision is a deliberate attempt by a judge to challenge the Trump administration’s efforts.
“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.