(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Trump's DOJ is still in disarray [1] ['Daily Kos Staff'] Date: 2026-03-18 Fam, is it good when a federal judge invents an entirely new rule just for you? Not really! James Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district courts in Washington, has ordered that judges in his district be notified every time a grand jury declines to indict—or no-bill—a case brought by the laughably bad U.S. Attorney for Washington Jeanine Pirro. Fam, is it good when your office has had more no-bills in one year than most offices get … ever? Nope! U.S. Attorney for Washington Jeanine Pirro Boasberg’s rule applies whenever Pirro’s office tries to indict someone via grand jury and fails, so her office has to tell the magistrate judge on duty—even if she ultimately decides not to charge the defendant at all. In sort of a belt-and-suspenders move—because honestly, who trusts the Department of Justice these days—the rule also requires the grand jury foreperson to “promptly, and in writing” report the grand jury’s lack of concurrence to the duty magistrate. This comes on the heels of Pirro’s failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers for the crime of telling servicemembers they have a duty to refuse illegal or unconstitutional orders—which is not actually a crime, so you see the problem with landing an indictment. Impressively, not a single grand juror voted to indict, and Pirro dropped the case shortly after. Judges in the district have also not been very fond of Pirro’s little trick of charging people in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, locking them up, and then quietly dropping the charges. As far as her office is concerned, that’s no harm, no foul. But in the meantime, people are named in criminal indictments and sometimes jailed until Pirro deigns to drop her unprovable, unwinnable cases. Fam, is it good when a judge thinks your office hasn’t met the lowest bar possible in your attempt to criminally charge someone? Not a chance! U.S. District Judge James Boasberg Boasberg is the same judge who quashed the DOJ’s subpoenas of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. This almost never happens, as prosecutors have a good bit of discretion in issuing subpoenas—and because it’s a very early stage in a criminal case. Nonetheless, Boasberg found that there was “abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ 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.” Oh, and also that “the government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the president.” Pirro’s office has already filed a motion asking Boasberg to reconsider the decision, whining that she would appeal to a higher court. Go for it, Jeanine. Pirro is handling this setback in her usual way: with a flailing attack on the judiciary. According to her, by not letting her office prosecute someone who has not committed a crime, Boasberg “bathed Jerome Powell in immunity.” Related | Why is this disgraced Trump lawyer still creeping around? First, Powell has no immunity whatsoever. Pirro’s office can issue new subpoenas anytime it wants, as long as it has information that shows that Powell may have committed a crime—an actual crime. Second, a complaint about immunity is pretty rich coming from someone who works for the only person who the courts have actually bathed in immunity. Mr. Bathed in Immunity himself, President Donald Trump, is—predictably—unhappy and demanded that Boasberg be removed from all administration cases and “suffer serious disciplinary action.” Sorry, buddy, but it’s not an ethical violation to rule against you. A cartoon by Mike Luckovich. Speaking of subpoenas, it’s Attorney General Pam Bondi’s turn to go before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on April 14 to address her office’s mishandling of the Epstein files. A DOJ spokesperson already issued a statement saying that the subpoena is “completely unnecessary” because lawmakers can view the unredacted files, which “the attorney general has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress.” Agreeing to chat with friendly Republicans is not the same as testifying under oath, sorry. The DOJ hasn’t said whether Bondi will appear, but good luck with that—the committee went to the mat to force the Clintons to testify. So good luck, Pam Bondi! Can’t wait to see the transcript from that hearing someday. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/3/18/2373616/-Trump-s-DOJ-is-still-in-disarray?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_10&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/