Jeanine Pirro has reportedly convened an extraordinary special grand jury in Washington, D.C.—and one legal analyst fears the unusual maneuver could be used to publicly damage a political target even if prosecutors cannot produce enough evidence to charge that person with a crime.

MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin raised the disturbing possibility Wednesday while examining why Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, would choose a special grand jury instead of relying on the conventional federal grand-jury process.

“Why would Jeanine Pirro want a special grand jury?” Rubin asked. “It might be in a circumstance where she can statutorily have that grand jury issue a report that might dirty somebody up.”

Rubin did not claim to know Pirro’s target or establish that the proceeding was created for an improper purpose. Her warning was an interpretation based on the unusual legal powers available to this particular kind of grand jury.

The crucial word, she explained, is “special.”

Follow @allchronology

Ordinary federal grand juries generally determine whether prosecutors have established probable cause to bring criminal charges. Their proceedings are conducted in secret, and the public typically learns about their work only if an indictment is returned.

A special grand jury can possess an additional and potentially explosive power: Under narrowly defined circumstances, it may submit a report concerning certain misconduct by a public official or employee.

Rubin said federal law permits such reporting in matters involving alleged “non-criminal misconduct, malfeasance or misfeasance in office” connected to organized criminal activity.

That distinction could allow prosecutors to place damaging allegations into the public arena without satisfying the evidentiary threshold required to obtain an indictment.

“Perhaps the reason for impaneling a special grand jury here has something to do with the permitted subject matter of the report,” Rubin suggested.

The implication is stark.

If prosecutors already believe they cannot prove that someone committed a chargeable offense, a report could potentially give them another avenue to describe that person’s conduct as improper. The target could suffer enormous reputational damage without receiving the opportunity to defend themselves in a conventional criminal trial.

Follow @allchronology

Host Alicia Menendez asked whether former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell might be the intended target. Although Powell no longer serves as chair, he reportedly remains on the central bank’s Board of Governors.

Rubin did not endorse that theory and emphasized that the range of possible targets remains broad. No publicly disclosed evidence in the supplied report establishes that Powell—or any other identifiable individual—is under investigation by this grand jury.

Nevertheless, Rubin argued that the decision to use this mechanism may indicate prosecutors are pursuing someone they do not expect to indict.

“It may be because you already understand that you’re not going to be able to meet the threshold for indicting someone,” she said, “but you want the public to know that that person has done something that we would consider, in a broader sense, wrong.”

That possibility alarms legal observers because the secrecy surrounding grand juries gives prosecutors tremendous control over the evidence presented.

Targets and their lawyers ordinarily do not attend the proceedings to challenge testimony, cross-examine witnesses or present a competing narrative. Grand jurors largely hear the version of events selected by the government.

An indictment must still be tested in open court, where the accused enjoys constitutional protections and prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A public report alleging misconduct could inflict many of the political consequences of a prosecution without offering an equivalent opportunity for vindication.

Rubin described such a use of the process as improper.

“That is not the proper purpose of a special grand jury,” she said.

But she added that the recent conduct of the Justice Department gave her little confidence that officials would avoid weaponizing an unusual legal procedure.

“It’s not beyond what they have done in prior situations or how they think necessarily,” Rubin warned.

Another detail intensified her concerns: Pirro reportedly selected top lieutenant Steven Vandervelden to guide the grand jury.

Rubin argued that Vandervelden does not possess the traditional federal prosecutorial background one might expect for an assignment carrying such unusual authority.

“He is not an experienced former federal prosecutor or federal prosecutor at all,” she said. “He’s not somebody who historically has that DOJ experience you would want in a special grand jury context.”

Follow @allchronology

Limited federal experience does not establish wrongdoing, nor does it prove that Vandervelden will mishandle the proceeding. But Rubin suggested his appointment could offer clues about how Pirro intends the grand jury to operate and why a more seasoned career prosecutor was not selected.

For now, the proceeding remains surrounded by unanswered questions.

The public does not know its precise subject, its intended duration or whether it will ultimately seek indictments, produce a report or quietly conclude without either. Pirro has not been shown in the supplied material admitting that she intends to damage anyone politically.

But the grand jury’s unusual structure has created an unsettling possibility: that its greatest power may not be putting somebody on trial, but placing accusations before the public when a trial was never achievable.

If Rubin’s interpretation proves correct, the mystery is no longer merely what crime Pirro may be investigating.

It is whose reputation she may be preparing to put on trial instead.