Listen to the article
Federal Prosecutor Admits No Evidence of Crime in Federal Reserve Investigation
The Justice Department’s investigation into a $2.5 billion Federal Reserve renovation project suffered a significant setback when a federal prosecutor privately admitted there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, according to a recently revealed court transcript.
During a closed hearing on March 3, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Massucco acknowledged under questioning from Chief Judge James Boasberg that prosecutors lacked concrete evidence of criminal misconduct by Fed Chair Jerome Powell or others involved in the renovation project.
“So what false statements did [Powell] make before Congress?” Judge Boasberg asked.
“Well, we don’t know is my first answer,” replied Massucco, who serves as criminal division chief in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s Washington office. “However, there are certain areas that he addressed that caused concern.”
When pressed about evidence of fraud related to the renovations themselves, Massucco again admitted uncertainty, stating, “Again, we do not know at this time. However, there are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it,” referencing the project’s substantial cost overruns.
Eight days after this hearing, on March 11, Judge Boasberg quashed government subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve, delivering a significant blow to the investigation. In his ruling, the Obama-appointed judge stated the government had produced “essentially zero evidence” suggesting Powell had committed any crime. He described prosecutors’ justification for the subpoenas as “thin and unsubstantiated.”
The investigation has centered on Powell’s testimony last June before the Senate Banking Committee regarding cost overruns for the Fed’s extensive renovations. Current estimates put the project at $2.5 billion, approximately $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion.
The case has taken on political dimensions, with the judge suggesting potential improper motives behind the investigation. “A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning,” Judge Boasberg wrote in his ruling.
Robert Hur, representing the Federal Reserve Board of Governors at the March 3 hearing, argued the subpoenas were part of a coordinated pressure campaign aligned with President Donald Trump’s public push for lower interest rates.
“He clearly has very strong political motives to try to get lower interest rates, but because of the safeguards that have been erected by Congress around the Federal Reserve’s independence when it comes to setting monetary policy, he can’t get it,” Hur told the judge.
The investigation has already impacted the nomination process for Powell’s potential successor. Senate consideration of Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s choice to replace Powell when his term ends May 15, has been delayed amid the ongoing controversy. Powell can continue serving as chair beyond that date if no replacement has been confirmed.
U.S. Attorney Pirro, a former Fox News host appointed by Trump to lead the nation’s largest U.S. Attorney’s office, has strongly criticized Judge Boasberg’s decision. At a news conference, she called him an “activist judge” who had “neutered the grand jury’s ability to investigate crime,” and vowed to appeal the ruling.
Massucco maintained during the sealed hearing that prosecutors were simply “trying to find the truth of the matter” and had a right to investigate. However, Judge Boasberg noted in his ruling that the Justice Department declined his offer to submit further evidence against Powell directly to him in a way that would protect their investigation.
“The Court is thus left with no credible reason to think that the Government is investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official,” the judge concluded.
The Federal Reserve has declined to comment on these developments, which come at a sensitive time for the central bank as it navigates monetary policy decisions amid inflation concerns and economic uncertainty.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This is certainly a curious turn of events in the Federal Reserve investigation. The prosecutor’s admission of a lack of concrete evidence is noteworthy, and it will be important to see if they can bolster their case or if the investigation ultimately falters. Transparency is crucial in such high-profile inquiries.
This is certainly an intriguing development in the Federal Reserve investigation. It seems the prosecutors are struggling to find concrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing, despite their concerns. I’m curious to see how this case progresses and whether any substantive charges will ultimately be filed.
The lack of clear evidence is concerning, but it’s good that the judge is pressing the prosecutor on the specifics. Transparency is crucial in such high-profile investigations. I hope they can either uncover solid proof of misconduct or confidently conclude no crimes were committed.
I agree, the judge seems to be doing a commendable job of holding the prosecutors accountable and pushing for more substantive evidence. It will be important to see if they can bolster their case or if this investigation ultimately fizzles out.
While the admitted lack of evidence is surprising, it’s encouraging that the judge is probing the prosecutors’ claims thoroughly. These types of investigations require a high bar of proof, and it’s good to see the process playing out transparently. I’ll be following this story closely.
This is an intriguing development in the Federal Reserve investigation. The prosecutor’s admission of a lack of concrete evidence is noteworthy, and it will be interesting to see if they can strengthen their case or if the investigation ultimately leads to a dead end. Transparency is key in such high-profile inquiries.
The prosecutor’s acknowledgment of the lack of criminal evidence is quite surprising. It’s important that investigations, especially those involving prominent figures, are based on solid proof rather than mere suspicions. I’ll be following this story closely to see if the authorities can uncover any clear wrongdoing or if the case ultimately fizzles out.
The concession by the prosecutor is quite remarkable. It’s crucial that investigations, especially those involving high-level officials, are based on solid evidence rather than speculation. I hope the authorities can either uncover clear wrongdoing or definitively conclude no criminal activity occurred.