By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s request for an inspector general review of a renovation project criticized by then-President Trump, Inspector General Pirro initially pursued a criminal probe. However, Pirro has now announced the closure of her investigation, stating she has directed her office to do so as the IG undertakes its inquiry. Pirro indicated she will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation if the facts warrant it, while the IG spokesperson confirmed the ongoing evaluation of the building renovation project and its subsequent public and congressional release.
Read the original article here
The Department of Justice has decided to drop its criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, a move that has been met with a mixture of relief and cynical commentary. This development suggests that the investigation, widely perceived as politically motivated, has reached its conclusion without any charges being filed, signaling a significant shift in the administration’s approach. The decision to cease the probe appears to be a strategic maneuver rather than an admission of wrongdoing or regret, particularly given the context surrounding the Federal Reserve and potential appointments.
It’s being widely suggested that this investigation was never truly about justice but rather a tactic to appease certain political figures and influence public perception. The initial purpose of such inquiries, from this perspective, was to generate headlines, cater to a specific base, and exert pressure on individuals who might not align with the administration’s agenda. The lack of a solid legal foundation for the probe has been a recurring theme in discussions, highlighting the perception that the investigation was a performative act designed for political gain.
A key factor driving this decision appears to be the leverage held by certain members of Congress. Specifically, Senator Thom Tillis had placed a hold on the confirmation of a new Federal Reserve nominee until the criminal investigation into Chair Powell was dropped. This congressional action effectively made the continuation of the probe a direct impediment to the administration’s broader personnel goals within the Federal Reserve, suggesting a quid pro quo was in play.
This development raises questions about Jerome Powell’s future at the Fed. He had previously indicated that he would not resign from his position as governor while an investigation was ongoing. The dropping of the probe might be seen as an attempt to create an environment where Powell feels comfortable stepping down, or it could be a signal that the administration is hoping for his departure. Many observers express a desire for Powell to remain in his role, valuing his perceived stability and reasoned approach to monetary policy during potentially turbulent economic times.
There’s a strong sentiment that this action is aimed at appeasing influential figures in Congress, thereby facilitating the smooth passage of other legislative priorities. The theory is that by removing this obstacle, the administration hopes to secure the necessary votes for a slate of upcoming bills. This suggests a pragmatic, albeit transactional, approach to governance, where political concessions are made to achieve larger objectives.
The question remains whether Jerome Powell will indeed step down now that the investigation has been terminated. Some hope he will stay his term, viewing it as a statement that the executive branch cannot unilaterally control the independent operations of the Federal Reserve. Others see this as a calculated move by the administration to install their preferred candidate for the Fed chair, someone who might be more aligned with their economic policies, potentially leading to a less independent and more politically influenced Federal Reserve.
The administration’s handling of this situation is being characterized by some as a display of incompetence and a willingness to weaponize government institutions for political ends. The dropping of the case, even if perceived as politically motivated, is seen by some as a victory of sorts, highlighting the administration’s inability to successfully prosecute cases that lack merit. This is juxtaposed with a belief that the DOJ is simply moving the matter to another internal body, such as the Federal Reserve’s Inspector General, rather than truly abandoning any scrutiny.
The idea that Powell can withstand pressure from the administration and remain in his position is a point of admiration for some. This resilience is seen as a positive sign, suggesting that individuals can, in some instances, resist political interference. The narrative suggests that while the administration may attempt to exert influence, it doesn’t always succeed, especially when faced with determined opposition or procedural roadblocks.
However, the broader implications of these actions are concerning to many. The perception that the DOJ is being used for political retribution, rather than impartial enforcement of the law, erodes public trust in institutions. The fact that such investigations can be initiated and dropped based on political expediency, without facing significant consequences for those who initiated them, is seen as a dangerous precedent. This is further amplified by the belief that the administration is willing to overlook or avoid investigating its own allies, while aggressively pursuing those it perceives as adversaries.
The effectiveness of the DOJ in fabricating evidence or securing convictions when cases lack a strong legal basis is also being questioned. There’s a cynical view that the longer this administration remains in power, the more adept such practices might become. This highlights a deep-seated concern about the politicization of the justice system and its potential degradation over time.
The ultimate outcome of this situation, particularly regarding Powell’s tenure and the future independence of the Federal Reserve, remains to be seen. However, the dropping of the criminal probe against Fed Chair Powell is a significant event that speaks volumes about the complex interplay of politics, law, and institutional integrity in the current climate. The debate continues regarding the true motivations behind the investigation and its subsequent dismissal, with many believing it to be a calculated move in a larger political game.