Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge Blocks Subpoenas Against Fed Chair Jerome Powell Citing Zero Evidence; Pirro: Ruling Blocking Fed Chair Subpoenas Will be Appealed. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired March 13, 2026 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: ... from even obtaining, let alone hearing evidence, he has neutered the grand jury's ability to investigate crime. As a result, Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve. This is wrong and it is without legal authority.

In June of 2025, Jerome Powell testified before the Senate Banking Committee, making quote, questionable statements that did not comport with publicly available documents, and that was regarding the atrocious cost overrun of more than $1 billion. I didn't say million. I said billion in renovations to his headquarters.

This from the man who says that he is the steward of our public funds. In November, the United States attorney's office began an inquiry. Prosecutors from my office gathered information from months before we served two grand jury subpoenas.

On December 19th, we sent an e-mail to the Federal Reserve to have a conversation, a meeting, or even a phone call to discuss our concerns. There was no response. On December 29th, we sent an e-mail to have a conversation, a meeting, or even a phone call to discuss our concerns.

Again, we were ignored. We, in fact, asked to meet the first week in January. We were ignored.

It was at that point that two grand jury subpoenas were issued to the Federal Reserve, not even to Jerome Powell. Again, no response, no compliance, but instead a woe is me video by Mr. Powell falsely claiming that he was being threatened with criminal indictment. In claiming victim status, Powell proceeds to call his political friends in D.C. and around the world to gin up support for himself. All the while refusing to produce simple documents.

Now enter local district court judge James Boasberg whose written decision on his face makes clear his antipathy toward President Trump and this administration. He quashes both subpoenas, thereby prohibiting us from reviewing any records and precluding us from submitting records to the grand jury.

That grand jury of course, comprised of ordinary people, ladies and gentlemen, 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 a judge thinks the subject is beyond reproach, this is a decision that is untethered to the law. It creates chaos where any defendant who wishes to evade an investigation, guilty or not, can allege I'm a victim, I'm being targeted, and therefore you cannot investigate me.

And if you find the right judge, he'll buy it. This is the antithesis of American justice. Exonerating anyone without any records, without an investigation or question is not how our criminal justice system works.

This judge has put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut irrespective of the legal process and thus preventing the grand jury from doing the work that it does. So what is the law? What is the law?

[15:35:00]

According to the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, certainly higher than the court that Boasberg is on, a grand jury, every grand jury has broad discretion to, quote, investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, merely on suspicion the law is being violated, or because it wants assurance that the law is not being violated. In fact, the court says a grand jury may act on tips and rumors. Right here are the cases and the citations from the highest court in the land, and yet this judge is shockingly requiring the government to show something akin to probable cause.

And those are his words, probable cause in order to justify the issuance of a grand jury subpoena. Folks, probable cause is not and never has been the standard that prosecutors in this country need in order to go into a grand jury. This is not and has never been the law of the land.

And so this decision today by Judge Boasberg runs directly afoul of our highest court's admonition that courts and judges must not and cannot saddle grand juries with many trials and preliminary showings that impede a prosecutor's investigation and thus frustrate the public's interest in the fair and expeditious administration of justice. No one folks is above the law, and this outrageous decision will be appealed by the United States Department of Justice. Go ahead, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that the, your office's failure to attempt to prosecute six members of Congress?

PIRRO: I'm not here to talk about six members of Congress. I'm here to talk about the fact that the grand jury has a job. They look at evidence.

They decide whether they want to indict. If they don't indict, so be it. And if you want to know what the judge thinks, go ask him.

Next question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I get your reaction to statements from Senator Thom Tillis, you know, has been blocking and vowed to continue blocking?

PIRRO: You know, honestly, I don't know. And I don't care. And I'll tell you why.

I am in a legal lane. All of the rest is white noise. I don't care what they say.

I have a job. I have the ability to go into a grand jury. There are questions that the American public and people in D.C. are entitled to know where a billion dollars has gone. And that's my focus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But he is asking for an assurance that the investigation into Powell has, this is, this has ended it. Are you willing to concede?

PIRRO: Did you hear what I just said? I just said that this decision will be appealed by the United States Department of Justice. That's the answer to your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

PIRRO: We're looking at a thousand one, and we're also looking at a statute having to do with fraud, but it's up to the grand jury to make that decision. We're a billion dollars over in cost overruns. Are you kidding?

A billion dollars. We're not talking about huge buildings here. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Warsh is Trumps pick, though --

PIRRO: I don't even know who he is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So isn't this just essentially holding up President Trump's pick or any forthcoming picks since Senator Tillis has said he will not vote.

PIRRO: OK. I don't know how to explain this, but I'm going to try. I've been a prosecutor, a judge, a DA, and now a United States attorney for well over three decades.

Politics is not the lane I'm in right now. And I have a charge and an oath to the Constitution. And my job is to present evidence, and I can do so where I can merely on the suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because I want assurance that it's not, I'm not in those lanes and I will not allow myself or my staff to be in those lanes.

And that's why we brought crime down in this jurisdiction.

[15:40:00]

We are focused on the law. We're focused on the people of the district. We are not focused on politics. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His opinion said that you, quote, promptly complied, end quote, with President Trump's apparent direction to prosecute Powell. Can you just state for the public record, how did you have the idea or, you know, the impetus to start this inquiry?

PIRRO: First of all, he's totally wrong in his assessment of the dates. And that's why we're doing a motion to reconsider because he got his dates wrong. And as far as I'm concerned, this was something that was a public interest.

It was something that the Senate Banking Committee wanted information on, and it is something within my jurisdiction and my charge, but I want to tell you a story. When I was a young prosecutor, I was one of the first people to investigate child abuse as a crime. Everyone thought it was a social problem and not a criminal justice problem. The kids are better off with their parents.

There was an organization and that organization didn't have a very good reputation, and it was one of the societies that was out there trying to prevent cruelty to children. And I set up a relationship where they would bring me cases and people were outraged that I would deal with this organization.

And my answer to them 30, 40 years ago, I'll deal with the devil. I'll take a case from the devil. If you can give me information that will lead me to possibly find a crime, it doesn't matter where a case comes from.

It doesn't matter. I can have a suspicion. I can read the newspaper.

I can just want to make sure he didn't commit a crime. So don't make the judges wrong on his dates. He is wrong.

That's why we're not only appealing, we're making a motion to reconsider. OK. I want to say one more thing.

And, and I think it's important that, that you guys hear this from me, that there's another way of looking at this. And that is that it's not just the public being fed up with this stuff, it's the fact that what we've got are grand jurors who are supposed to hear this and they haven't been able to hear any of this because someone has decided that they're not entitled to hear this.

Can you take this? Thanks.

This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an activist judge. We have a process. We have been asking for information about a matter that has raised questions in many people's minds, Senate banking, the public, the papers. It doesn't matter. So give me the information so I can assess it.

Give me the information. So the grand jury comprised of regular Americans can say, there's nothing here and I'll accept it the way I accept other cases. OK.

Whatever it is, we'll abide by it. What we don't accept is a judge standing in front of the door of a grand jury, blocking our access, a role that has never been envisioned, a role that will now be used by other defense attorneys around the country, who's going to come in with a client and say, Oh, my, my client is being targeted. Don't do dare go in the grand jury.

A judge says, yes, the guy's bathed and washed in immunity. And you can't go after him. The process should have been allowed to run its course.

And it wasn't and shame on them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

PIRRO: Oh, cut it out. Do you know how many convictions we've got? Cut it out. You're in one lane. We have cleaned up this city.

Oh yes. Historic. Really?

I'll tell you what's historic. What's historic is that I prosecute everything other than 10 percent of the cases where the United States attorney before me didn't prosecute 67 percent of the cases. That's what's historic.

I'm willing to take a not guilty. I'm willing to take a no true bill because I'll take all the crimes and put them in. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. That's all the time we have.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A combative Jeanine Pirro there, the U.S. Attorney for the District of D.C. reacting to the news that a federal judge has quashed subpoenas issued against Fed Chair, Jerome Powell. The federal judge essentially saying that the DOJ has not provided any evidence, zero evidence that Chairman Powell should be suspected of a crime saying the federal government's justifications are thin and unsubstantiated.

[15:45:00]

There Pirro calling the judge, an activist, saying that he's inserted himself into the case.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Yes, and interesting also too, and I want to bring in Paula Reid because she's following this as well. And Paula, I know you've got key details. In the judge's ruling that we've got here, it just says there is abundant evidence -- this is the judge -- the subpoena's 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.

And he goes on to just say there's no evidence here. What more are you taking from what we just heard from Jeanine Pirro?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, overall, I think what I take away from that press conference before we get into the particulars is the fact that Attorney General Pam Bondi, we know, is on thin ice with the White House and with the president. And that appeared to be based on what she said, the U.S. Attorney is a very smart lady. She knows what's in this opinion. That appeared to be an audition for the top job at the Justice Department. Because we know that President Trump is very frustrated. He's expressed frustration with prosecutors at the Justice Department.

That they have not been able to successfully prosecute his political adversaries. So here, Pirro was attacking the federal judge for quashing two subpoenas that were issued as part of its criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Now, they sent two subpoenas.

These were related to renovations at one of the Fed buildings and testimony that he gave about those renovations. She alleged that this judge was, quote, protecting Powell from the law. But the judge said, no, I'm quashing these subpoenas because you have provided, quote, zero evidence that Powell may have committed a crime.

She also called the judge a, quote, activist. Now, this judge was appointed by former President Barack Obama. But the judge in this opinion accuses the U.S. Attorney's Office of using this subpoena to pressure Powell to either resign or comply with the president's desire for lower interest rates. In fact, this opinion starts with a series of social media posts by President Trump where he expresses his frustration with Powell. And even in one, one of the references said that he wants him out. So here, the Justice Department is expected to appeal.

But all of this is happening amid these larger concerns about the weaponization of the Trump Justice Department. And here you saw her come out defiant, scolding reporters for asking some very reasonable questions. And that is the kind of prosecutor that President Trump wants to see in his Justice Department.

But I will note, overall, they have not been successful. Cases against James Comey, Letitia James, at least six lawmakers, they recently tried to charge. None of these have been successful.

It's unlikely this will be successful either. But there she's showing the boss. She's at least trying.

SANCHEZ: Yes, she said she's willing to take no guilty as a verdict. Paula, please stand by. We also have Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst with us, as well as Phil Mattingly.

Let's go to you first, Elie, because there was a lot there that she said that needs to be fact-checked.

ELI HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Boris, so first of all, that press conference in itself was extraordinary. Ordinarily, whenever you see a U.S. attorney call a press conference and address the cameras, it's because there's been an indictment or a conviction or a sentence. I don't think I've ever seen a U.S. attorney or an attorney general call a press conference to complain about a ruling that he or she did not like. That was essentially a public temper tantrum. I want to start with that. Second of all, you heard Jeanine Pirro say that this judge, Judge Boasberg, is a, quote, activist judge. Now, as Paula said, this judge was elevated to the district court by Barack Obama. But before that, he was put on the local D.C. Superior Court by George W. Bush.

And in this judge's past, he has actually denied a motion years ago to try to get Donald Trump's tax returns. He ruled in favor of Donald Trump on those tax returns. And then finally, most fundamentally, we just heard Jeanine Pirro complain that the grand jury subpoena is an important tool of prosecutors, which it is.

You heard Jeanine Pirro say that the judge, quote, has taken that tool away from us. That's not quite right. Now, the bar is very low here.

But what the judge has said is you don't have absolute free reign to issue whatever grand jury subpoenas you want. The judge was right about that. There is a very low bar that prosecutors have to clear. Very low.

However, in this case, Judge Boasberg said you simply have not cleared that. And in the opinion, Judge Boasberg says there is a mountain of evidence that there's bad faith behind this investigation intended to pressure the Fed.

And on the other hand, there is, quote, essentially zero evidence of a crime. So that's really important to keep in mind when we're digesting Judge Pirro's comments right there.

DEAN: Elie, just to follow up on that, she said specifically this is the first time ever a judge has done this. Is that true?

HONIG: I'm not exactly sure what she's talking about. Judges have not uncommonly quashed subpoenas, essentially blocked subpoenas. I mean, that is uncommon, but it absolutely has happened many, many times over.

So I'm not sure how narrowly or broadly she's drawing the lines of saying this has never happened before. But do judges quash subpoenas? Absolutely yes.

In civil cases, absolutely yes. In criminal cases, it's uncommon.

[15:50:00]

But sure, this happens.

SANCHEZ: Phil, it strains credulity that you hear Jeanine Pirro say that she is fully focused on a legal lane that has nothing to do with politics. When for years Donald Trump has tweeted or posted on social media about wanting Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. In fact, he did so yesterday.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yesterday.

SANCHEZ: At about 3 p.m. So about 24 hours ago, he was trying to send a message. MATTINGLY: Yes, there's usually like, there's a kind of shot chaser effect with the president where he does something that might have an effect on the economy. Like in this case, the Iran war that's ongoing. And then when he gets concerned about the economy, he just attacks Jerome Powell.

It's kind of like a you can almost take it to the bank on some level. And look, I think you can joke a little bit about that, but I think Paula's point is at the top of this opinion from the judge is just tweet after tweet after tweet. And I think there's a lot of conversation in D.C. regularly when it comes to legal cases that Elie's kind of broken down, all 8 million of them over the course of the last couple of years. When are the occasions where the president's own tweets are really going to undercut his lawyers or his Justice Department? And this is very clearly, at least in the eyes of Judge Boasberg, the case here.

I think what's most fascinating about that press conference and the list, I think you could make a long one of fascinating elements of it, is there was a period before Jeanine Pirro started.

But after we got the filing where we're kind of sitting there in this limbo of Pirro could end this right now and Kevin Warsh, the president's pick to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve, will cruise through his Senate confirmation with no problems whatsoever. In fact, Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who's on the Senate Banking Committee, posted on Twitter in that glorious eight minutes between the filing and Jeanine Pirro coming out, "This ruling confirms just how weak and frivolous the criminal investigation of Chairman Powell is. And it is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence.

We all know how this is going to end in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on. Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair." They are appealing the ruling that will delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh because of one senator, Thom Tillis, who has made very clear this doesn't have legs.

This is political. Drop it. And your nominee is awesome.

This is the time to have certainty in terms of who the next Fed pick is going to be. If this is a stay in your lane moment for the U.S. Attorney of District of Columbia, the political and economic team at the White House right now is saying, please get out of your lane and come into ours and end this quickly. But there's obviously a lot of dynamics at play.

DEAN: Yes, and Tillis isn't moving off of that. That seems quite, quite clear.

Elie, I want to go back to you for one second with one more fact check on this, because Pirro kept saying that Jerome Powell is bathed in immunity where it was her phrasing. It would appear to me in reading, you know, a cursory reading of this that the judge's problem is there's no evidence. That this judge does not think there's enough evidence. And if there was proper evidence that this could move forward, that's not -- doesn't seem like it's being bathed in immunity.

HONIG: So that was the next item on my fact checklist. I'm glad you brought it up, Jessica. So, yes, this is not technically immunity for Jerome Powell.

That suggests -- immunity suggests that he cannot possibly be further investigated or prosecuted. In fact, what this ruling does is basically just block these specific subpoenas which were sent over to the Federal Reserve. Now, it could well be that without this information about what the costs were on this renovation, they won't realistically be able to put together a case.

But if they can put together a case through other means, Jeannie Pirro just talked about how expert she is at investigating. Well, if she can come up with the information she needs through other channels other than this direct subpoena to the Federal Reserve, then, yes, she can still attempt to indict Jerome Powell. I say attempt because, as Paula pointed out earlier, several of these vindictive cases, including the attempt to indict Senator Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and Letitia James, have all been rejected by grand juries.

But no, immunity is the wrong term that Judge Pirro just used. It does make an investigation substantially more difficult, but immunity, no.

SANCHEZ: Paula, over to you. The backdrop of this, of course, as we hear Jeannie Pirro cite Supreme Court precedent established on subpoenaing a grand jury, is the fact that the Supreme Court right now is weighing a decision on the independence of the Federal Reserve.

REID: No, that's a great point. One other thing I want to circle back to, though, is this larger concern about how the Justice Department is being used, because here you have this extraordinary circumstance where the president is personally pressuring prosecutors, expressing his frustration that they have not been successful in using what is traditionally an independent agency to pursue his political adversaries. This is a pet issue for him.

So when he sees something like this, the subpoena is being quashed, obviously he's not going to be happy.

[15:55:00]

But what will sort of make him happy is seeing his U.S. attorney out there attacking a judge, suggesting that this is somehow all political and vowing to fight. Now it's unlikely this is going to be successful if you can't meet this sort of minimum good faith threshold to get the subpoena passed this federal judge. It's unlikely this is going to succeed on appeal, but that doesn't appear to be the point by the U.S. attorney today.

DEAN: Yes, all right, Paula, thank you so much. Elie Honig, thank you. Phil Mattingly, great to have you all here with us again.

This federal judge just saying, quashing the subpoena against Jerome Powell and Jeanine Pirro coming out really swinging at that, but saying that they will be -- that the Justice Department will be appealing that decision.

SANCHEZ: Yes. We'll see how the president reacts. You can find out on CNN. "THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts after a quick break.

Jessica, always good to be with you.

DEAN: Thanks for having me.

END