"Crushing rejection!" Jeanine Pirro gets BRUTAL NEWS in court

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, yeah, 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. You're watching the legal breakdown, Glenn. That was Jeanine Pirro, who is. the US Attorney in Washington, D.C., which is the office that you worked at. for decades, uh basically losing it. after Judge Boasberg blocked her uh. subpoenas that would target Jerome. Powell. So, can I have your reaction to. this effort, this failed effort now by. Jeanine Pirro? Yeah, Brian, Jeanine. Pirro was pretty angry, but why was she. angry? Because she got caught. Because.

the rule of law rose up today and the. chief judge in Federal District Court in. D.C. threw out subpoenas she tried to. issue to investigate Jerome Powell when. Jerome Powell had committed no crime. I. mean, this is really an important. development and a really good day for. the rule of law. She was standing there. all full of sanctimony saying, "Well, the grand jury deserves to look into.

cost overruns of a construction project. at the Federal Reserve and they need to. know whether Jerome Powell might have. lied to Congress when he briefly talked. about those cost overruns." Um and she. so was kind of using the the power and. the authority and the importance of the. grand jury. um that was being thwarted by this. judge's ruling. And, >> [clears throat]. >> you know, one of the reporters, it was. hard to hear the question he was asking, but it sounded like it had to do with. well, you keep going into the grand jury.

and trying to indict innocent folk, folk. who have committed no crime. And the. grand jury keeps throwing you out on. your you know what? Plus, you can't even. win these cases at trial when you bring. them as misdemeanors and she exploded. Why? Because first, she lost and was. embarrassed by a really important. judicial ruling today and then she got. called out on her garbage about the way. she was using grand juries and try using.

and abusing grand juries and trial. juries. Not a good day and not a good. look for the United States Attorney for. the District of Columbia, but if we back. it up to what kind of started her, you. know, her fury, it's that Donald Trump. has been calling Jerome Powell every. name in the book literally for years. And so, when he couldn't get Jerome. Powell to bend to his his will and. either reduce interest rates or quit so.

he could install somebody in the job. that would bend to his will, what. happened? He expressed to his US. Attorneys that you're not moving fast. enough on Jerome Powell and Brian. literally the next day, we see these. subpoenas issued even though there was. no evidence of a crime. So, it was. prosecutorial. um abuse and overreach and misconduct to. issue these subpoenas to to the Fed. What did the Fed do? They used the rule.

of law and they moved to quash, a fancy. word for throw out, the subpoenas. because they were unlawfully issued by. Jeanine Pirro. And today, we got a. 22-page ruling from the chief judge, um. Judge James Boasberg of District Court. in DC. Let me just read the money line. here. He says, quote, there is abundant. evidence that the subpoenas dominant if. not sole purpose is to harass and. pressure Jerome Powell either to yield.

to the president or to resign and make. way for a Fed chair who will and then. the judge added, on the other side of. the scale, the government, meaning the. DOJ, the prosecutors, offered no. evidence whatsoever that Powell. committed any crime other than. displeasing. the president. And no matter what Donald. Trump would have us believe, displeasing. dear leader is not a crime. So, no grand.

jury subpoena can issue." This was a. crushing and resounding rejection of the. abuse of the rule of law, prosecutorial. power, and the grand jury's subpoena. power. Um that and that is what really, I. think, had Jeanine Pirro so angry. She. got caught and she was made to look not. only foolish but unethical. I'm especially interested in. consequences here because.

as I'm sure our audience is, too, because we're seeing these people. get positions of power where they have. the ability to really destroy someone's. life if they want to and abuse those. positions with abandon. And so, I don't. like the idea of the Jeanine Pirros of. the world, just to name one. I mean, there's Lindsey Halligan, there's. there's all of these these US attorneys, these prosecutors that are under Trump's. thumb who continue to abuse their. positions. But I don't like the idea of. them being able to do it with with. complete impunity. So, I want to ask you.

about any legal exposure that Jeanine. Pirro might shoulder. Um but before you. answer that, a quick reminder for those. watching, Glenn and I do these legal. analyses every single day. So, for those. who want to stay on top of this stuff, the best way to do that is to subscribe. to both of our channels. I'm going to. put those links. uh in the post description of this. video. It's completely free to. subscribe, but a great way to support. our work, a great way to stay up on. legal news, and it's 100% free. So, if. you're not yet subscribed, please go. ahead and subscribe. So, Glenn, can you. talk about any consequences for Jeanine. Pirro or the Jeanine Pirros of the world.

as they continue to abuse their. positions here, or is it just, you know, they they've got they've got these these. spots atop the US Attorney's offices, and if they want to just destroy. people's lives with abandon and. impunity, they can? Yeah, well, first of. all, the accountability that will come. for Jeanine Pirro is the same. accountability that just came for Ed. stop the steal Martin, who. coincidentally was the interim US. Attorney in that very job before Jeanine.

Pirro. Where is he now? You know, his. big old unethical butt is sitting in. front of the DC Bar Council for an. ethics investigation. And if the. evidence is what the evidence appears to. be about how he threatened Georgetown. University because they were teaching. and promoting DEI, a gross abuse of. prosecutorial discretion. He's going to. find himself disbarred just like nearly. half a dozen Trump lawyers before him. So, I was going to say that the the the. Trump White House to disbarment pipeline.

is strong these days. It it is. And you. know, maybe that's a perk on the resume. You know, I want to be in the Trump. administration. Look, I was disbarred. Hire me. Uh but here's the thing, Jeanine Pirro. will suffer the same fate. So, there. will be some consequences. There will be. some accountability. And it's probably. too early to start talking about the. possibility of criminal consequences or. culpability. But, you know, to me, when. especially and this is one of the. pleadings I would urge our viewers to.

read front to back because it is in. layman's terms, it's beautifully laid. out, and the judge sets out how Donald. Trump, I mean, just intimidated and. harassed and demeaned and threatened and. insulted. Jerome Powell literally for years. Just. listen to a little bit of what Judge. Boasberg put in the opinion. Donald. Trump said, "Jerome Powell is a total. loser. He's costing our country hundreds. of billions of dollars. He's the.

dumbest, most destructive person in. government. He's an American disgrace. He's stupid. He's a total disaster. He. doesn't have a clue who's the bigger. enemy, Jerome Powell or Chairman Xi?". And on and on and on. And it caused. Judge Boasberg to say, "For years, Trump has berated Powell, threatened him, ordered him to lower. interest rates, or done all three of. those things at once." And so, when.

Donald Trump's frustration with Jerome. Powell hit its zenith, and he said, "Why. aren't my prosecutors, my attorneys. doing something?" The next day, you have. Jeanine Pirro issuing lawless grand jury. subpoenas. The judge said, "The pattern. here is so clear and unmistakable. because the law says you cannot issue a. grand jury subpoena for an improper.

purpose. And there are sort of endless. improper purposes. There's not just like. three improper purposes. You know, for. example, if somebody has committed no. crime. and you have no evidence they committed. a crime, but you issue a subpoena, first. of all, that's improper all day long. because it's a violation of the the. grand jury subpoena power. But even if. there is some lingering hint that maybe. somebody ran a foul of the law, you. still, if your purpose, the dominant.

purpose, is to harass, intimidate, or to. coerce political action by somebody like. lower interest rates or resign, um. that's improper and that results in a. subpoena being quashed, thrown out. So, when you read this 22-page ruling by. Judge Boasberg, you know, it so clearly. sets out the MO of the Trump. administration, the the modus operandi, the method of operating because he.

references how Donald Trump essentially. directs his Department of Justice to. misuse the power of DOJ to get after his. perceived enemies and the next day, bang, they do it. Listen, this is the. rule of law continuing to stand up, continuing to hold strong, and setting. up the disbarment proceedings in the. future for people like Jeanine Pirro. And it's worth asking here, recognizing.

that this is not going to be the last. time that Trump engages in a vindictive. prosecution, and frankly it's not going. to be the last time that one of his his. henchmen or lackeys does it for him or. falls over themselves to uh to to do. exactly that, does each subsequent failed effort at. vindictive prosecutions. make it less likely that one of these. things will ever succeed? Because we've. seen them fail from everybody from you. know, I think Tim Walls and and Jacob. Frey to Letitia James, James Comey, Adam.

Schiff, all of these people were on his. list. Obviously, none of this has gone. through. Jam- Jam- Jerome Powell is the. latest here of a failed effort. And so, can all of this serve as, you know, if. not if not. binding precedent, at least some degree. of atmospheric precedent for every. subsequent case to say, "Look, this is a. pattern with this guy. He engages in. vindictive prosecutions. This is not. something new and he has never succeeded. in his efforts before. In fact, all of. these efforts have been and before. And.

so, recognize what he's doing and don't. let don't let it don't let him fool you. The answer to your question is. absolutely because it's contained in. this Judge Boasberg opinion. What does. he do to bolster his conclusion that. this is the Trump administration and. it's US attorneys, it's Department of. Justice misusing. the grand jury subpoena power? He. includes in this very ruling the other. instances where the Trump administration.

has misused the power of DOJ. That. becomes relevant evidence that informs. his decision that here we go again, they're vindictively going after another. Trump perceived enemy. So, you're right, they are. they are building into every case in the. future where they're going after one of. Donald Trump's, you know, perceived. enemies. a just a great mountain of evidence that.

each target of Donald Trump's wrath will. be able to use in court officially to. bolster their uh their cause. That no no. no no no, I committed no crime, he's. going after me the way he went after. Letitia James and uh James Comey and. Adam Schiff he wanted to go after. And. remember the six members of Congress who. he tried to prosecute though they. committed no crime. Now we can add. Jerome Powell to the mix, right? Over. and over and over again. The presumption. of regularity, which means that judges.

will presume a government the government. is acting in good faith, the DOJ is. doing the right thing for the right. reasons, is gone. It will no longer be. enjoyed by this Department of Justice. So, Donald Trump's weakness in his. ability to follow through on these. threats of prosecution against his. enemies, his weakness is becoming more. and more and more apparent every day, and you know, he's making it all but. impossible to misuse the Department of.

Justice to successfully prosecute the. people who piss him off. Okay, so Glenn, I want to zoom into this case in. particular as it relates to Jerome. Powell. What are next steps here? Two next steps and they've already been. announced by Jeanine Pirro. One is they're going to file what's. called a motion for reconsideration. That's something that we prosecutors. don't do all that often, but if we sort. of in good faith, now we're going to set. that aside because there is no good. faith in today's Department of Justice. But if in good faith, we think, you.

know, maybe the judge misapplied some. important precedent here and we want to. we want a second bite at the argument. apple. So, we can file a motion to. reconsider making some additional. arguments or maybe bringing some new. precedent to the judge's attention to. see if the judge might give it a second. thought. We do that every now and then, not all that frequently. Plus, simultaneously, they said they're going. to file an appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Court of Appeals for the District of. Columbia of Judge Boasberg's opinion. So, you know, here we go again up the. appellate chain. I have a feeling, I. mean, this is a strong, if not. bulletproof, judicial opinion. It is so. clear and let me just put this. exclamation point on why it is so clear. that this opinion should win the day on. appeal. Judge Boasberg said, "Okay, Department of Justice, Jeanine Pirro, please give me some.

evidence that Jerome Powell committed. any crime, which would make these. subpoenas at least arguably. appropriate." And in a hearing, DOJ, Jeanine Pirro and her prosecutors came. up with nothing. No evidence. And the. judge said, "Well, okay, I'm I'm going. to go you I'm going to give you one more. opportunity. I'm going to let you submit. ex parte, meaning just to me privately. in chambers. I'm not even going to let. your own Powell or his lawyers see it.

Any information, any scrap of evidence. you have that Jerome Powell committed a. crime, maybe you don't want to out it in. open court cuz you don't want to tip. Jerome Powell off as to the nature or. direction of the investigation. I get. it. I get it. Give it to me privately in. chambers and I will assess it. And guess. what they submitted in response to that. opportunity that they had to provide it. privately to judge. Bosberg. They had zero, nothing, nada, goose egg, bupkis. They have no evidence.

which exposes. their unethical behavior in issuing. these subpoenas. Well, we will of course. stay on top of this and all other legal. news. So, for those who are watching, if. you want to follow along, the best way. to do that is to subscribe to our. channels. I'm going to put the links. right here on the screen. It's. completely free to subscribe. >> Again, a great way to support us, a. great way to support independent media. more broadly. So, if you're not yet. subscribed, please go ahead and. subscribe. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. And. I'm Glenn Kirschner. You're watching the. Legal Breakdown.

>> [music].