So I'm here to speak about the decision

that has been rendered

in the case

involving the board of governors of the

Federal Reserve system.

Now the American public is fed up with

public monies that seem to go into a

black hole, especially in DC where no

one is held accountable.

One of the age-old tools that all

prosecutors have to investigate any

crime, including cost overruns, is a

grand jury subpoena.

Today, however, in Washington,

an activist judge has taken that tool

away from us. By inserting himself and

preventing the grand jury 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 it 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 for months before we served

two grand jury subpoenas.

On December 19th, we sent an email 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 email 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

and claiming victim status. Powell

proceeds to call his political friends

in DC and around the world to jin up

support for himself.

all the while refusing to produce simple

documents.

Now, enter local district court judge

James Boseberg,

whose written decision on its 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 is

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, you'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?

According to the United States Supreme

Court, the highest court in the land,

certainly higher than the court that

Boseberg 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

Booseberg runs directly a foul 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.

>> Do you think that the your office's

failure to attempted attempt to

prosecute six members of Congress?

>> 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.

>> Can I get your reaction to statements

from Senator Tom Tillis, who you know

has been blocking and vowed to continue

blocking.

>> 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 DC are entitled to

know where a billion dollars has gone.

And that's my focus.

>> But he is asking for an assurance that

the investigation into Powell has this

is this has ended it. Are you willing to

concede?

>> 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.

>> Crimes in that area.

>> We're looking at a 101 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

dollar over uh co in cost overruns. Are

you kidding? a billion dollars. We're

not talking about huge buildings here.

Go ahead.

>> Kevin Marsh is Trump's pick, though.

President Trump.

>> I don't even know who he is.

>> So, isn't this just essentially holding

up President Trump's pick or any

forthcoming picks since Senator Patel

has said he will not vote?

>> Okay, 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 when 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. We are focused on the law.

We're focused on the people of the

district. We are not focused on

politics. Go ahead.

in his opinion said that you quote

promptly complied unquote 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 the

same?

>> 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 of 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 judge is wrong on his dates. He is

wrong. That's why we're not only

appealing, we're making a motion to

reconsider. Okay. I want to say one more

thing and and I 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

the the 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. Okay?

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 you 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.

>> 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. Historic? Really? I'll tell

you what's historic. What's historic is

that I prosecute everything other than

10% of the cases where the United States

attorney before me didn't prosecute 67%

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 cuz I'll

take all the crimes and put them in.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. That's all the time we have.