David J

Does not meet the smell test! Powell and his allies are using the language of “independence” to turn a basic oversight dispute into a political morality play, and it looks increasingly like an attempt to delegitimize any legal scrutiny of the Fed. This has all the elements of a hoax. What Powell actually did •Powell chose to go public with a dramatic video statement saying DOJ subpoenas “threatened a criminal indictment” over his testimony on the Fed’s multibillion‑dollar building renovations. •He explicitly framed the subpoenas as “pretexts” and cast them as retaliation for the Fed setting rates independently of the president, elevating a renovation/cost‑overrun inquiry into an existential attack on central bank independence. The framing of criminal indictment came from Powell! In what look liked a scripted response, all of the Fed acolytes on Wall St cried foul, they bought in hook line and sinker!!! What the U.S. Attorney is saying •The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. has stated they contacted the Fed “on multiple occasions” about cost overruns and Powell’s congressional testimony, were ignored, and therefore resorted to formal legal process, which they stress “is not a threat.” •Jeanine Pirro has been explicit that “the word ‘indictment’ has come out of Mr. Powell’s mouth, no one else’s,” and that “none of this would have happened if they had just responded to our outreach.” “Above the law” behaviour. •Powell now publicly insists “no one is above the law,” even as the record shows the Fed disregarded informal outreach and only engaged once grand jury subpoenas landed, which is the opposite of transparent cooperation. Recall Choke Point 2.0 and the unbanking of individuals. •By recasting a straightforward question of cost overruns and possible misstatements to Congress as an illegitimate “criminal indictment threat,” Powell is effectively demanding a special zone of immunity wrapped in the rhetoric of independence. Why central bankers are “charging the hill” •Former Fed chairs and global monetary grandees have rushed out statements condemning the probe as an attack on Fed independence, treating any prosecutorial look at a central banker as inherently out of bounds. The former Fed officials’ statement is doing exactly what the “51 intel officials” letter did on the Hunter Biden laptop: using elite signatures to launder a political narrative into institutional dogma and declare scrutiny itself illegitimate. Powell and his allies are recasting a narrow DOJ inquiry into cost overruns and testimony accuracy as an existential assault on “independence,” and an all‑too‑willing media is once again treating the letter as revealed truth instead of asking hard questions •This closes ranks around the idea that central banks sit on a higher plane than normal agencies, immune not only from political pressure on rates, which is legitimate, but also from standard legal and fiscal oversight, which is not. MSM and the death of the 4th estate •Much of legacy media has adopted Powell’s framing almost verbatim: “unprecedented attack on independence,” “monetary policy under assault,” while relegating the core factual dispute,ignored outreach, cost overruns, accuracy of testimony, to secondary status. Powell and the central banking crowd are behaving in a way that is frankly odd: they stonewall basic oversight, scream “independence” the moment anyone reaches for legal tools, and act as though they stand above the law—while a compliant MSM gladly carries their narrative, proof the fourth estate has checked out. All of this does not meet the smell test. Is the Fed above the US Constitution? Why did Powell go public and choose the framing that he did? Why did MSM and so called objective pundits not do any objective analysis. Smells like elements of a Russia Russia Russia hoax strategy to me.