“Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powellsaid Sunday the Department of Justice has served the central bank with subpoenas and threatened it with a criminal indictment over his testimony this summer about the Fed’s building renovations.
The move represents an unprecedented escalation in President Donald Trump’s battle with the Fed, an independent agency he has repeatedly attacked for not cutting its key interest rate as quickly as Trump prefers. The subpoena relates to his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June, Powell said, regarding the Fed’s $2.5 billion renovation of two office buildings, a project that Trump criticized as excessive.
Powell on Sunday cast off what has up to this point been a restrained approach to Trump’s criticisms and personal insults, which he has mostly ignored. Instead, Powell issued a video statement in which he bluntly characterized the threat of criminal charges as simple “pretexts” to undermine the Fed’s independence when it comes to setting interest rates.
“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation,” Powell said.”
The reason so many Trump prosecutions are failing to get indictments is because he is charging people with weak evidence and for political reasons.
“Grand juries have emerged as a major stumbling block for Trump’s drive to use the criminal courts to exact retribution on his perceived political foes.
Federal grand juries operate in near-total secrecy and decide whether prosecutors can bring a criminal indictment in the first place. Unlike trial juries, they don’t need to be unanimous; rather, a majority of their 16 to 23 members must agree to return an indictment. And their only job is to determine if the Justice Department has brought a plausible case — a relatively low standard which led to the cliche that prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
But in the Trump era, grand juries are no longer a rubber stamp. Instead, they’ve become a headache for prosecutors trying to advance controversial Trump policies like mass deportations and militarizing law enforcement. Dozens of recent cases in Washington, D.C., have been met with so-called “no bills” — the shorthand for a grand jury declining to return a bill of indictment. And grand juries in other jurisdictions have turned down high-profile cases that Trump has prioritized.
…
The administration also seems to be losing because it’s pushing for indictments in cases with weak evidence, and due to the unpopularity in some parts of the country of tough tactics against protesters and of policies like Trump’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants. and
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan recently marveled at the “apparent prosecutorial machinations” at work, emphasizing the “unprecedented” actions prosecutors have taken to bring cases — even when grand juries have rebuffed them.
“Most troubling, prosecutors have rushed to charge cases before properly investigating them,” the Washington-based Biden appointee lamented.
…
The Constitution’s requirement that a grand jury approve serious criminal cases was adopted as a safeguard against executive power and political prosecutions. The move stemmed from what many revolutionaries regarded as political trials instituted by British authorities.”
“Trump may have pardoned Cole last year as part of the sweeping clemency that he gave to Jan. 6 offenders on his first day back in office.
…
Trump’s proclamation commuted the sentences of 14 individuals and also granted “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” This immediately covered roughly 1,500 people, including hundreds of defendants who were charged with assaulting or resisting law enforcement officers.
Lawyers for Cole did not respond to a question about whether they intend to argue that Cole is entitled to a pardon if convicted. But there are several legal and factual points that are worth zeroing in on if they pursue that strategy.
For starters, it does not matter whether Trump specifically intended to pardon the person who planted the pipe bombs. Under the law, it is the text of the pardon that matters — not the subjective intention of the president or the DOJ’s interpretation of it.
…
Cheerleaders of the sweeping Jan. 6 pardon did not bat an eye when Trump knowingly freed people like Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio — leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, respectively, who were convicted at trial of a seditious conspiracy to prevent the transfer of power to Joe Biden. And they have remained silent as some of the people that Trump pardoned have gone on to commit more alleged crimes — a predictable development given the empirical evidence on recidivism rates among convicted felons. Some of these crimes have been explicitly political in nature, including threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
For all that’s happened in the last year, Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon remains one of his most stunning acts since he returned to office.”
Multiple law firms gave in to illegal, autocratic demands by the president. When it came down to it, big law firms didn’t want to risk resisting an aggressive president. Democracy is vulnerable and we won’t keep it unless people defend it.
“The Trump administration is using a law against impeding federal law enforcement to threaten and arrest people who are recording and protesting immigration officers. However, an unprecedented number of those cases are falling apart once they go to court, according to media investigations, think tank reports, and voluminous court records and video evidence.
…
“On their own, yelling, protesting, honking a horn, blowing a whistle, following, and recording are all clearly First Amendment–protected activities, even if done during law enforcement operations,” Bier wrote. “Of course, it is possible to follow an officer in a dangerous manner or physically interfere while recording an operation or protesting, but following and recording by themselves without physical interference are clearly protected.”
…
It would be tempting to call these cases failures, and they are in a legal sense, but the administration’s real goal isn’t to win cases. It’s to intimidate American citizens into giving up their First Amendment right to peacefully oppose and monitor the police.”
“The administration’s tactics with U.S. attorneys — bypassing the Senate or sidestepping federal judges to keep unvetted prosecutors in place — are a crucial component of Trump’s effort to deploy the Justice Department against his perceived enemies. He has relied on loyalist U.S. attorneys to pursue what critics call baldly political investigations and prosecutions, including those against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.”
“As Trump sees it, broadcasters have a legal obligation to treat him fairly. And if they fail to do so, he thinks, they should lose the licenses that allow them to transmit programming over “free airwaves from the United States government.” That position reflects Trump’s general antipathy toward freedom of the press, which he seems to view as a privilege subject to government approval rather than a right guaranteed by the Constitution.”
“The lawmakers note that “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” Although “we know this is hard,” they say, “your vigilance is critical,” and “we have your back.”
That stance is legally uncontroversial. According to the Judge Advocate General’s Operational Law Handbook, “soldiers have a duty to disobey” orders that are “manifestly illegal.” Examples include intentional targeting of civilians, torture of prisoners, looting of property, and suppression of constitutionally protected protests.
Trump nevertheless claims reiterating this well-established principle amounts to “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS,” which he says is “punishable by DEATH!” Yet the video plainly does not qualify as sedition or treason.”
Trump brags about deals that will save Medicare money by negotiating drug prices. He could do this due to a law signed by Biden that no Republicans supported.