Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara stops by The Ben Shapiro Show to discuss his new book, Doing Justice: A Prosecutor s Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law. He also talks about how he got his start as a lawyer, why he decided to become a podcast host, and why he resigned from the US Attorney s office in 2017 after being fired by President Trump. He also discusses why he thought it was the right thing to do to leave the job, and how he handled the fallout from being asked to resign from the job. And, of course, he talks about his new podcast, Stay Tuned With Preet, which is a must-listen for anyone who s ever been fired from a job they thought was going to be good, or wanted to be hired by someone who was good, and what he learned along the way. Also, Preet talks about why he thinks the podcast should be called a podcast and why it s better than a regular podcast. You won t want to miss this one! Ben Shapiro is a standup comedian, standup comic, podcaster, and podcaster. His work can be found on Comedy Central and Comedy Central. His music is also available on SoundCloud, and his book is available on Amazon and Podchaser, which you should definitely check out! If you like what you're listening to, go buy a copy of Doing Justice on Audible, if you haven't already listened to it on the podcast and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever else you get your copy of the book is good, you'll get a discount code for 20% off the book, "Doing Justice." by Preet's book is out now! Do you have a book recommendation? Preet also has a free copy of his book on amazon? Want to support the book? Do it! It's also be sure to subscribe to the book and review it? Subscribe to his podcast? Check out his podcast: Doing Justice? or review it out on Apple Books and more! Subscribe on Apple Music is available in Kindle, Podcharts and Audible? Download it on Podchronicity? Subscribe to my podcast on the App Store and subscribe to my Podcasts? Learn more about Preet s Insta-Friendship? I'm giving away $5,000 and get 5 stars for 5 stars?
00:00:19.000This is the Ben Shapiro Show Sunday special.
00:00:21.000I'm super excited to welcome to the show former U.S.
00:00:23.000Attorney for the Southern District of New York, host of Stay Tuned with Preet and the author of his new book, Doing Justice, Preet Bharara.
00:00:29.000Preet, thanks so much for stopping by.
00:00:43.000So the book is Doing Justice, A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law, and it really is first rate.
00:00:49.000For folks who only know you on the right from the big blow up with President Trump, firing you or resigning you from the Southern District of New York, what's been your career path to get to now being a podcast star?
00:01:10.000I don't know if you appreciate this, because we move in different circles, but my book came out the same day your book did.
00:01:16.000And I was very excited when the New York Times bestseller, everyone loves the New York Times when it comes to the bestseller list, right?
00:01:21.000Whether you think it's fake news or not, or failing or not.
00:01:24.000And I was very excited to tell my family when it first came out and I got first dibs at seeing it, this book debuted at number four on the nonfiction bestseller list.
00:02:10.000And the dream for him, like it may be in a lot of immigrant families from that part of the world, not to overly stereotype, but was for his kids to become doctors.
00:02:24.000But my path was towards the law, because I thought that would be the best way to make a contribution.
00:02:29.000And then the kind of law I wanted to practice after being in private practice for six years was to be a prosecutor, because I thought it's the best use of whatever skill set I had as a lawyer to do good and to protect the community.
00:02:41.000And uniquely, I think, among sets of lawyers, I have great respect for lots of different kinds of practices that people engage in, or even when they leave the law.
00:02:50.000But unlike a lot of lawyers, you don't have to make an argument you don't agree with.
00:02:53.000You don't have to take a position that you think is not just.
00:02:56.000Your job every day is to either bring a case, if you think it's appropriate to do so, and if you don't think it is, then you don't do that.
00:03:02.000I had an interim period of time where I worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee from about 2005 to 2009.
00:03:10.000And then, as you have alluded to, The election went away.
00:03:16.000A lot of people didn't think it was going to happen.
00:03:18.000President Trump got elected, and I assumed I was going to be out of a job at some point through a normal transition process.
00:03:25.000And then I wasn't, because through Senator Schumer, he asked me and then asked to meet with me personally at Trump Tower on the 26th floor, personally asked me to stay on for whatever reason.
00:03:35.000We can talk about it or not talk about it.
00:03:36.000Some months later, in March of 2017, Lots of people were asked to resign.
00:03:41.000I wanted to make sure that I was being fired.
00:03:43.000I refused to resign for reasons we can also discuss.
00:03:47.000And then the question is, you know, you're a lapsed lawyer, too.
00:03:50.000Do you go do the normal thing that people do, which is go to a big law firm, which pretty much everyone in my position as a U.S.
00:03:56.000attorney in the Southern District goes and does?
00:03:59.000Based, I guess, a little bit on the circumstances of my departure, and for some other reasons.
00:04:05.000People were interested in having me write a book, which is really not about the circumstances of my firing at all.
00:04:09.000I mean, I think Trump appears less in the book than a lot of other people, most other people.
00:04:16.000And I thought, you know, I could take this period of time while I'm writing my book.
00:04:18.000I don't know how long it took you to write yours.
00:04:20.000For me, it was really hard, and I didn't think I could do too much else while I was doing the book.
00:04:25.000And I thought, my brother—it's good to have a brother who is also a lapse lawyer—and started this media company, and he had the possibility of being able to support a podcast.
00:04:35.000And this was around the time that it seemed to be clear that there was a constitutional requirement For people formerly in government to have a podcast.
00:04:52.000As you know, it's a lot harder than it looks.
00:04:55.000And I thought I could write the book and spend some time doing that and also speaking, you know, around the circuit, around the country about things that I care about, and also talk about issues I care about and have guests, and I found it to be a very rewarding thing.
00:05:06.000Bassem Youssef, who's this guy who you may know, who had been one of the leading comedians, although he's a doctor, by training in Egypt.
00:05:16.000And he was being harassed a lot for being this outspoken person exercising his right to free speech, which was not the same as we have here when he was in Egypt.
00:05:26.000And at one point he had even more followers than you.
00:05:28.000I think he had 30 to 35 million viewers a week to his comedy show.
00:05:33.000And he leaves, and then for a period of time he was doing a podcast with our company.
00:05:37.000And it occurred to me, to go back to your original question, why are you doing what you're doing?
00:05:42.000The arc of justice is long, but it bends towards podcasts, I think.
00:05:50.000It certainly bends towards social media fame.
00:05:59.000Because that's obviously the headline.
00:06:01.000So what exactly transpired between the time when President Trump talked to you and asked you to stay on and the time when he asked everybody to resign, you among them?
00:06:12.000It was an extraordinary thing to be asked to meet with the president-elect of the United States, particularly at that time.
00:06:19.000It was, I think, the call that he made to Senator Schumer came eight days after the election, when presumably other things were going on, and he was still trying to figure out what his cabinet was going to look like.
00:06:31.000And then he asked me to come meet with him, which I did, at a time when he still hadn't picked his Secretary of State.
00:06:35.000That was the week when, I think a day or two before, John Kerry had met with him and they had that famous dinner where the president has his normal, I think, well-done steak with A1 sauce or ketchup and a Coke.
00:06:51.000So it was an extraordinary thing that you've not seen before, because usually these things are handled out of the Justice Department.
00:06:59.000I never had a solo meeting with him ever during the seven and a half years that I served under him, seven years I served under him.
00:07:05.000So, you know, it was a compliment, I thought, to the office.
00:07:08.000I thought it was a compliment to the work that we had been doing and his appreciation of the work that we had been doing.
00:07:12.000The weird thing that happened that I've talked about on Stay Tuned, my own podcast, is he began calling me from time to time, which is odd.
00:07:19.000In the middle of the meeting, by the way, I made this very clear, he was very gracious, he was very warm, he was very nice about everything.
00:07:27.000Said he'd followed the work of the office.
00:07:50.000So, you know, the four of us, an odd group of four people, in retrospect, if you think about it, you know, talking about the office.
00:07:58.000And at some point, Donald Trump, the president-elect, pushes a Post-it pad over across the desk and asked me to put my phone number on it, my cell and my office number.
00:08:11.000So I'm like, the president-elect is asking me for my digits, which is kind of strange.
00:08:16.000And I'm thinking, someone must have my phone number because someone arranged the meeting through a phone call.
00:08:22.000So I didn't quite get what that was about.
00:08:36.000And maybe that's OK, and maybe that's more normal when you're talking about certain agencies of the government.
00:08:41.000You're talking about a private business.
00:08:42.000It's a little bit different to be on notice that, well, the president himself, soon to be the president himself, has a direct line and cell phone number of the city of the United States attorney in the Southern District, who has, by the way, not for nothing, Jurisdiction, and we see in hindsight that that, you know, was used over things like the Trump Foundation, the Trump Organization, various properties, all sorts of things, business associates and business interests in New York, right?
00:09:09.000So I didn't think that much of it until a few weeks later in December.
00:09:29.000And, you know, when you're in my line of work and you're a trained lawyer, you know, your spidey sense, you know, tickles a little bit and you want to make sure that you're not going to get yourself in trouble.
00:09:38.000And by the way, you want to make sure you're not going to get the other person in trouble.
00:09:42.000It's the case that when an elected official or a person who's about to take over some office of a political type is making a phone call to someone who's responsible for enforcement of the law, the person who's doing the bad thing or who look like they're doing the bad thing or crossing some line or maybe giving the appearance of impropriety is the politician.
00:10:01.000It's usually not the—it's not the prosecutor, although it can be.
00:10:04.000So I talked about it with some people in my office, my top deputy.
00:10:07.000I notified the head of transition for the Department of Justice for Trump and let them know that this has happened.
00:10:12.000And we agreed that, for various reasons, including that he wasn't yet the president—the last meeting had gone without incident and he hadn't mentioned anything—that I could call him back.
00:10:23.000But I made sure I had a pad and a pen in case something weird happened.
00:11:08.000And I thought, I hope this ends, and I hope he doesn't keep calling me, because it's sort of awkward.
00:11:13.000I made the notifications at the time as well, and I sort of put to the side the issue of what I would do if he actually called me when he was the President of the United States.
00:11:22.000And I also thought, well, it's not as much of an egregious violation, potentially, because there's no Attorney General to go through.
00:11:29.000The ordinary protocol would be For everyone's protection, and for good appearance purposes, is if there's some reason for there to be a communication that's appropriate, and not about a case, and not saying, like, lay off somebody, and not saying go after somebody, which would be inappropriate and potentially criminal, and not saying that was, you would try to route that through proper channels, you know, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, to talk to the local United States Attorney in Manhattan.
00:11:59.000My assistant was gone for the day, and I got a message from the president's personal assistant—now he's the president of the United States—saying, would you please return the call of President Trump?
00:12:09.000So now I'm thinking this is a little bit different.
00:12:16.000The attorney general has not looped in at all.
00:12:19.000There have been all sorts of reasons to be concerned, you know, from an appearance perspective, of what it would look like if you have somebody who a lot of people thought should be investigated for various things having direct, you know, off-the-record, behind-the-scenes, unprecedented conversations with the United States Attorney with jurisdiction in those places.
00:12:40.000And I know it may seem odd to a lot of people, and I've had these arguments with folks, so it takes a little bit of length of time to explain.
00:12:59.000I wasn't trying to be rude, and I wasn't trying to be disrespectful.
00:13:02.000But you have to consider a couple of things.
00:13:04.000You know, I had a worry that I think has been borne out, at least from my perspective—not everyone of your viewers and listeners will agree with this—that he does not tell the truth about interactions he's had with people.
00:13:15.000And it turns out, you know, I was never in the Situation Room with him.
00:13:18.000But it turns out, like, everyone who's had an interaction with Donald Trump, including his closest allies, like his personal lawyer and staff members, take some precaution and want to make sure that they create their own record of an interaction with the president.
00:13:31.000I had the concern going on, even if it's an innocuous conversation, for five or ten minutes, and it later came out that the sitting president was talking to the local United States attorney with jurisdiction over various things.
00:13:42.000At the same time, the people were filing their emoluments clause, civil suit, and calling for investigation of other things, whether they had merit or not.
00:13:50.000If it later came out that Preet Bharara and Donald Trump were having these side conversations that are really not usual or typical at all, And there was no documentation of what the conversations were about.
00:14:05.000So we consulted with Protocols and thought, well, in the absence of knowing what it's about, probably we shouldn't—I shouldn't speak to him.
00:14:13.000And what also is lost on a lot of folks who just say, you know, you're a fired, disgruntled guy and you're obnoxious and rude not to return the call to the president, I called Jeff Sessions' office.
00:14:22.000Before I made a final decision, and he wasn't there, and I talked to his chief of staff, Jody Hunt, and I had a frank conversation with Jody Hunt.
00:14:30.000It was very clear to me that no one else at the Justice Department, no one in the Justice Department knew that the president was calling me or why he was calling me.
00:14:37.000And that's also weird, and should, for a normal person, raise red flags.
00:14:41.000And he agreed with me that, not knowing what's going on—again, again, for the protection of the president and the White House.
00:14:48.000Probably best to say, unless you know what it's about, unless it can be, you know, arranged through proper channels, and when Jeff Sessions is back in town, it's a wise thing not to talk directly to the president.
00:14:58.000And the other thing that's hanging over all of this, which people maybe forget, When they say, well, the president doesn't know protocols and he's just being the kind of guy he is, he does.
00:15:06.000And you know how you know he knows about protocols and why it's damaging and potentially disastrous for politicians and law enforcement people to talk offline when there's a pending case?
00:15:18.000Because he campaigned on that issue again and again and again, at rally after rally after rally, ringing in my ears, when he kept making the point that Loretta Lynch Sitting on an airplane on the tarmac at an airport, got a surprise visit from then former President Bill Clinton, whose wife, Hillary Clinton, was under investigation by the same Justice Department that Loretta Lynch was leading.
00:15:41.000It's—you know, the earth exploded, rhetorically and otherwise, when they had their meeting, and Donald Trump said—and a lot of people agree with this.
00:15:50.000You know, it's not a completely unfair point.
00:16:20.000For everyone's sake, don't return the call, even though I knew, at a minimum, that it was going to piss him off, because he'd think it highly rude.
00:16:28.000And then 22 hours later, The phone call came in from the acting deputy attorney general asking me to resign and saying that he had been asked to call all of the holdover Obama U.S.
00:17:05.000So until I knew specifically, because I do think whatever you think left or right, there's a decent amount of incompetence at the White House in rolling out new measures.
00:17:13.000Whatever you think of the Muslim ban, the travel ban from that eighth day in the presidency, they had not thought it out.
00:17:19.000Someone woke up and goes to a meeting and says, we're going to announce a travel ban.
00:17:23.000And nobody had thought about certain things like, well, what if you have a green card and you're on your way back to the country?
00:17:45.000That the person who asked me to stay, Donald Trump, personally, face-to-face, which ordinarily wouldn't happen.
00:17:50.000In the absence of that, I would have been on my way.
00:17:52.000But I wanted clarity that the person—given, you know, having been around the block, and I wanted just the record to be clear—the person who asked me to stay invited me into his office and looked me in the eye and said, you know, implored me to stay, that he wanted me gone, and if he wanted me gone, I'll go.
00:18:06.000It took 24 hours, you know, to get that clear statement, and then I went.
00:18:11.000So in a second, I want to ask you about whether you believe that President Trump's behavior here is an exhibition of corruptness, or is it just an exhibition of he doesn't know what he's doing?
00:18:55.000eToro is smart crypto trading made easy.
00:18:57.000eToro's social trading platform has over 11 million active traders and facilitates over a trillion dollars in trading volume per year globally.
00:19:04.000You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.
00:19:06.000They've got 15 different coins available.
00:19:10.000They've got advanced charting features for smart strategy building.
00:19:13.000And, most important, you can try before you trade.
00:19:15.000They'll give you a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget so you can see how the whole thing works.
00:19:19.000Never miss a trading trend with charts, pricing, alerts, social feeds.
00:19:22.000Sign up today at So, one of the things that I've experienced, just as a person who's watching both the Obama administration and the Trump administration from the outside, is a feeling that these are obviously administrations that operate incredibly differently.
00:19:44.000People will say things to me like, well, you know, if Obama had said X and Trump says this, then you would have been up in arms.
00:19:51.000And sometimes I think that's true because, you know, Barack Obama was a much more serious human being than Donald Trump.
00:19:58.000Meaning that Barack Obama was a person who actually considered through the things that he said.
00:20:01.000And then when he said them, he usually meant them.
00:20:03.000Whereas Donald Trump is a person who has impulses and then he just speaks the impulse.
00:20:07.000And then the impulse sometimes doesn't mean anything at all.
00:20:10.000And sometimes it's just him sounding off.
00:20:11.000And so coming from the legal world, you know, not nearly to the same extent that you are, but obviously, but I am a lawyer.
00:20:19.000I understand that the focus on protocol.
00:20:21.000I understand everything that you're saying about the weirdness of a person breaking protocol and that looking suspicious and creating the appearance of suspicion.
00:20:30.000Do you think that actually this is attributable Trump's behavior here?
00:20:33.000Was attributable to actual corruption or do you think that it or attempted corruption or do you think that it's attributable to the fact that He literally does not know what he was doing, especially at the beginning of his job, but even now he violates protocol on a regular basis.
00:20:47.000I think it's actually a complicated question because those things are not necessarily mutually exclusive, right?
00:20:53.000In lots of cases, whether you're talking about political corruption or you're talking about bank robbery or anything else, there can be a combination of actions that people take That are, you know, with intended purpose, corrupt purpose, and also a lot of incompetence that goes on, and so you can read things into people's behavior that are maybe, you know, unfair to read into their behavior.
00:21:11.000If you're asking with respect to me, I've never made any accusation or allegation at all that anything with respect to my dismissal was untoward or corrupt or to, you know, stop any investigation or anything else.
00:21:25.000What I do believe to be true, as I said in relating the story about Loretta Lynch, is that You know, I think we give Donald Trump not enough credit when we say, well, he's new, he doesn't know what he's doing, because he knew to attack Loretta Lynch for doing precisely what he was essentially asking me to do, which is to have separate conversations with him.
00:21:43.000The second thing we know is, in hindsight, if you credit it, which I do, is that on more than one occasion he met alone with Jim Comey.
00:21:51.000And one of the times that he met with Jim Comey, then the FBI director, what did he do first?
00:21:55.000He kicked everyone else out of the room.
00:21:57.000And he said, again, if you believe it or not, I leave it to other people to decide that.
00:21:59.000But the allegation is, he takes everyone out of the room.
00:22:03.000Because, you know, common sense tells you because you don't want them to hear the thing you're saying, because maybe you have some consciousness that it's a bad thing to do.
00:22:10.000And says, can you lay off Michael Flynn?
00:22:12.000Or can you offer me your personal loyalty?
00:22:15.000To that extent, I think when we ask the question, does he know what he's doing, I think in some regard he does.
00:22:19.000The other thing I'll say about his interactions with me, and I don't want to make this about me, and the book has nothing to do with that stuff, because there are bigger issues in the world, and I bear no ill will to anyone based on my departure.
00:22:31.000I did that job longer than I had any reasonable expectation to do it.
00:22:34.000Dream job of a lifetime, seven and a half years.
00:22:37.000But he operates in a certain way in business, transactionally.
00:22:42.000And based on what I've seen and how he deals with other folks, I don't know that he was going to say anything untoward in that call.
00:22:49.000What I believe in, and it's my reasonable speculation, that had I indulged it, right, and taken the call and said, hey, what's going on, and developed a personal, separate, odd secret relationship, so to speak, because we're not going to be doing a press conference on the fact.
00:23:03.000We're going to do a readout of my call with the president of the United States, like leaders of countries do.
00:23:07.000But if I continue that, and based on what I've seen for two and a half years since that time, what's the likelihood?
00:23:15.000What is the likelihood that six months later, seven months later, when someone's looking at Michael Cohen, and he's not going to call because he's like, I'm a team player.
00:23:33.000And months later, when I'm looking at something or he has someone that he's unhappy with, Would he think to make sort of an odd remark and say, you know, what's going on with that case?
00:23:44.000And by that time, by the way, what does it look like?
00:23:46.000You know, you've taken four calls from the president.
00:23:49.000Maybe you met with him in the Oval Office.
00:23:51.000Maybe you had dinner, if you're the U.S.
00:23:53.000Attorney or the FBI director or whatever.
00:23:54.000And now you say, Mr. President, now you've gone too far and you sound the alarm bells and you go to the inspector general or whatever and take whatever precaution you need to take, you don't have a lot of credibility then.
00:24:06.000It's really important to have distance and independence, I think, in these matters so people have some faith and confidence.
00:24:12.000So, yeah, on the one hand, I think he blunders forward.
00:24:15.000On the other hand, I think he's more cunning and conniving than people think.
00:24:18.000And whether or not that's true, you still have to protect yourself and your own credibility in your job.
00:24:24.000The Mueller report, we can talk about that also.
00:24:25.000There's lots of things people like and don't like in it.
00:24:27.000But the one thing that you see in the Mueller report over and over again, just continuing this theme of conversations, Donald Trump's own hand-picked lawyers and staff, you see in the report, tell him over and over again, Please don't call Jeff Sessions about that.
00:24:44.000Please don't have this meeting with Jim Cohn.
00:24:47.000So it's not like Preet Bharara, appointed by Barack Obama, who is now a critic of the president, saying, oh, it's a terrible thing he made those phone calls.
00:24:55.000We're telling him over and over and over again, there's some things you shouldn't do.
00:24:59.000So this raises a slightly different question, but I think more, but institutionally related.
00:25:04.000And that is, what should the relationship be like between the president and the DOJ generally?
00:25:08.000So there's been a lot of criticism of, for example, Bill Barr and his relationship with the president, particularly aftermath of the Mueller report.
00:25:14.000But people on the right, I think correctly, point out that Eric Holder declared himself Barack Obama's wingman as the attorney general.
00:25:22.000And there was this feeling that, I mean, obviously the president does get to appoint the attorney general, that under unitary executive theory, all these people work for the president.
00:25:30.000So how independent should the DOJ really be from the president of the United States, given the fact that that effectively means they're not answerable to anyone?
00:25:38.000I mean, if they're independent of the president and they're independent of the legislature, how does that work?
00:25:42.000So I think it's both complicated and also very simple, right?
00:25:46.000And I think people conflate two things.
00:25:48.000You have all these agencies in the government, and they're supposed to put forward the policy and the priorities of the president.
00:25:53.000That is the president's right, and he chooses the heads of those agencies with advice and consent.
00:25:58.000You know, the Senate has to approve, so it's not— Right.
00:26:00.000You know, you can't do end runs like he's trying to do with vacancies.
00:26:04.000So he doesn't get his full, unadulterated choice for every position in government, but he gets a lot of deference, and every president has.
00:26:11.000The problem is that the Justice Department doesn't have just a policy function.
00:26:15.000It has uniquely pretty much an enforcement function, right?
00:26:17.000So perfectly appropriate for the president of the United States, no matter who the attorney general is or who the FBI director is, to have regular contact about keeping the country safe, about talking about if there's an epidemic of gun violence.
00:26:30.000Hey, Mr. Attorney General, what's going on with this?
00:26:35.000Should we go to Capitol Hill and ask for more money?
00:26:38.000Should we be adopting different legislation?
00:26:40.000There's a lot of back and forth between subdivisions of the Department of Justice and the White House to talk about what laws they can both get together and support to make sure that we're being protected against outside threats, you know, national security, protecting the homeland.
00:26:53.000You know, there's an important reason why the president gets briefed every day.
00:26:57.000And the FBI and the Department of Justice are a part of that.
00:27:03.000I think that would be a disaster for public safety, for the country.
00:27:07.000On the other hand, What you cannot have, and what you should not have, is not just from a president, no senator, no governor, no mayor, no president should ever be able to pick up the phone and, with the weight of that office, direct, you know, I'm gonna make you a U.S.
00:27:24.000attorney Ben Shapiro, hey, I want you to prosecute that guy named X, because I don't like him.
00:27:29.000I mean, I'll just make a more extreme example.
00:27:31.000Everyone, I think, understands that if the president calls up and says, go prosecute that person, which, you know, you see echoes of that, That's bad, or to be inquiring as to the timing of cases because it might help them for political reasons, or to say to lay off somebody.
00:27:46.000Listen, can you see your way clear, like you did with Michael Flynn, which whether or not that's an indictable offense of obstruction, I don't know anybody who thinks that's okay, that's a good thing to do, and certainly puts him in a bad light.
00:27:59.000So there's a separation between sort of policy and resources and overall, you know, rowing in the same direction.
00:28:05.000If a president decides that He thinks that his Department of Justice should be, I think, more aggressive on opioid enforcement.
00:28:37.000Everyone understands that the first thing is okay, increasing enforcement priorities, and the second thing is absolutely not.
00:28:43.000And, you know, there's some gray, I guess, in the middle of those two things, but not that much.
00:28:48.000And that's where the violations take place.
00:28:49.000So that raises a slightly separate question, which is, as a prosecutor, how do you decide which crimes to prosecute?
00:28:56.000And this goes more to the theme of your book, because, you know, obviously, What comes to mind in the sort of Trumpian context is there were statements that were made upon the election of New York's Attorney General Letitia James, where she was stating that her first priority was to go after the Trump Organization, or it was a high priority to investigate the Trump Organization.
00:29:14.000And I thought to myself, well, shouldn't you actually just be uncovering the crime and then figure out exactly who it is that you're targeting?
00:29:21.000How do you make the decision, what is a case worth targeting?
00:29:24.000And are you targeting the case, or are you targeting somebody who you suspect of criminality?
00:29:29.000So, it depends on the circumstance, but generally speaking, and in the vast majority of cases, prosecutors are supposed to be investigators that they work with, are supposed to be looking at crimes.
00:29:39.000So, some guy is dead on the street, there appears to be a bullet hole, you investigate, because a crime, it seems, has been committed.
00:29:47.000I mean, it was on 5th Avenue, it was President Trump, and no one comes in.
00:29:49.000Yeah, and it's totally fine, and he gets away with it, right.
00:29:52.000Thanks for reminding us about that, Ben.
00:29:54.000Or, again, a more complicated situation, which we encounter all the time, Out of the blue, the CEO of a company, a financial institution, resigns.
00:30:03.000And there's suddenly a restatement of earnings.
00:30:12.000You know, folks in my office would jump on it immediately and start issuing subpoenas or making some phone calls to see if a crime has been committed, and if so, what crime and who is responsible for those things.
00:30:41.000You know, we had a much bigger organized crime problem in America than we've had recently, although they're still out there.
00:30:46.000We were still doing mob cases, including traditional La Cosa Nostra Italian mafia cases.
00:30:51.000Once upon a time, in New York at least, there was a separate squad for each of the five traditional Italian mob families.
00:30:57.000We don't have five anymore, but there are still agents who work every day on trying to combat the crimes they're committing.
00:31:03.000Now, in that circumstance, because there has been evidence over time gathered by law enforcement that particular people, identified people who were members and associates and took an oath of a murder and everything else, within families, there's a targeting of them.
00:31:18.000And, In fact, I didn't explore this so much in the book because I ran out of space.
00:31:22.000But that presents actually an interesting question as to the principle, right?
00:31:25.000Do you look at a crime and see who committed it?
00:31:27.000Or is it appropriate in certain circumstances, like with the mob, if you're going to make any effort that's going to be successful, to get rid of them and to stop their bad conduct and their harassment of people and their terrorizing of people in their communities?
00:31:41.000Sometimes, so long as you have evidence that there's reason to believe that it is in fact a racketeering enterprise.
00:31:47.000Then, like, you know, like they did during Prohibition, you look at the person, and then you start, you know, following them, and you do surveillance of them, and you find out who their associates are.
00:31:58.000And you have people, one of whom I describe in the book, Kenny McCabe, one of the best mob investigators, detectives of all time.
00:32:05.000First arrest, I think, of John Gotti was done by Kenny McCabe.
00:32:08.000He's the guy that you sometimes see in movies who would go to the funerals and he would go to the weddings and the christenings and take pictures of people to show the association.
00:32:17.000So just to be fully frank, there are those limited circumstances in which, based on good faith understanding of criminal activity in a criminal enterprise, you do target the person.
00:32:28.000Like John Gotti was targeted by law enforcement based on his identity and belief that he was involved in things.
00:32:35.000Not just, you know, somebody that John Gotti didn't like winds up dead.
00:32:41.000So I think a lot of critics on the right who look at, for example, the Mueller report and the Mueller investigation, what they would say is that this was—Annie McCarthy has suggested this.
00:32:52.000Annie McCarthy, by the way, was my—I don't know if you know this.
00:32:54.000who I disagree with on a lot of things in our old age, he was one of my first supervisors at SDNL.
00:32:59.000Yeah, I think you told me that at one point.
00:33:01.000And he said he's made the case that the Trump-Russia investigation was initiated in bad faith, that it was basically initiated in an attempt to dig up material on Trump's team, and that it was out of control.
00:33:15.000Now, he and I actually disagree on some of this.
00:33:16.000Now, he and I actually disagree on some of this.
00:33:18.000I've suggested that I think that it was probably initiated in good faith and that even if there is evidence that the FISA warrants were later exaggerated for purposes of going after Carter Page, for example, or if I feel that the obstruction investigation that was an outgrowth of the Trump-Russia investigation became the center of the investigation as opposed to the original counterintelligence, or if I feel that the obstruction investigation that was an outgrowth of the Trump-Russia
00:33:38.000But the overall right-wing critique is that this was an attempt to go after Trump on a personal level, not an attempt to go after a particular crime and that the obstruction and the focus on obstruction is in effect a secondary crime.
00:33:52.000It was Trump if it was a crime at all.
00:33:55.000It was an attempt by Trump to kick back against the lack of presence of an original nexus of crime.
00:34:01.000Meaning that the first half of the Mueller report is all about Trump-Russia.
00:34:04.000There's no real allegation in that half of the report that criminal activity took place.
00:34:08.000There's a lot of ugly activity and stuff you wouldn't like.
00:34:13.000Just more precisely, there was a conclusion, there was insufficient evidence to say that the crime had been established.
00:34:31.000No, but by implication, he actually sort of is exonerated in the criminal law sense of the crimes that are being investigated in volume one.
00:34:45.000So if you didn't say it in principle of construction from law school, If you can say exonerated in two and you didn't say the same thing in one, essentially criminally exonerated, which does not mean it's excused or it's wonderful behavior and people should be proud of it.
00:34:58.000With respect to your question about the origins, I mean, I tend to agree with you.
00:35:02.000I think it was done in good faith because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the people who I think you don't have any great reason to suspect their motives would be going after the president for the sole reason of going after the president.
00:35:14.000And we have, I think, an Inspector General report And others that are looking at the origins of the investigation.
00:35:20.000So I want to prejudge that, and we can talk about that again when that comes out.
00:35:24.000Yeah, so I don't know that that holds a lot of water.
00:35:29.000What do you make of the final outcome of the Mueller report?
00:35:32.000But I will say, just further to your point, Bob Mueller himself, I don't think anybody has any basis to say that he was in it to sort of somehow destroy or demolish Trump.
00:35:45.000One, it's not the character of the person that I've known pretty well for a long time.
00:35:49.000Number two, I think in a lot of ways he bent over backward.
00:35:51.000I mean, look, a different special counsel, not a lot of people are upset who are Trump supporters with Bob Mueller, but a different special counsel.
00:35:58.000A Ken Starr, for example, would have written a completely different, I think, I'm not saying him in particular, but a Ken Starr-like person, or even Jim Comey for that matter, and any one of a number of other people who, if they wanted to, could have massively hurt Donald Trump in a way that a lot of Trump opponents wished could have massively hurt Donald Trump in a way that a lot of Trump opponents And he didn't do that.
00:36:21.000So it's an odd argument for people to say that the leader of this special counsel's office was really out to get Trump and all these angry Democrats, and yet at the end of the day, He didn't harm him in the way that people wanted, because I think he held back.
00:36:37.000People would ask me the question, and I would try to correct them, because I think you're right to worry about this issue, because too many people in the country, whether they don't like Hillary Clinton or they don't like Donald Trump, they will chant, lock him up and lock her up, because they want their prosecutors in these high-stakes cases To be substituted for, you know, a political result, right?
00:36:57.000They're relying—you know, what couldn't happen at the ballot box— It's a deus ex machina.
00:37:01.000They're looking for something different.
00:37:02.000Look, people—all the time, I say, you know, that's not what Mueller is in it for.
00:37:05.000People would ask me the question, do you think Mueller is going to get Trump?
00:37:09.000I said, I don't know what that means, but that's not his job.
00:37:12.000And if he's thinking about it in terms of getting Trump, then he shouldn't be in it.
00:37:16.000His job, going to what you're saying first, was to see what the truth is, see what the facts are.
00:37:21.000There was evidence, and I think nobody disputes this, and it's now been basically confirmed by everybody, although Trump seems not to like the conclusion, there was Russian interference in the election.
00:37:30.000That's like the dead body with the bullet in it.
00:37:46.000And if it's Russia, which people in Russia did it?
00:37:50.000You know, God forbid, were there any Americans involved?
00:37:52.000And among all the Americans in the country, the subset of people who were working on the Trump campaign, did they have anything to do with it?
00:38:09.000Because if he does, then he's prejudging something.
00:38:11.000And people would ask me, you know, I did a lot of high-profile investigations, some of which I talk about in the book, nothing on the scale Of investigating, you know, a presidential candidate like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
00:38:23.000But, you know, I investigated—my office investigated the mayor of the city of New York, Democrat, the governor of the state of New York, Democrat, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, Democrat, and the Senate Majority Leader in New York, Republican, right?
00:38:34.000We went after everybody—prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans over my tenure.
00:38:38.000Two of them got indicted and went to prison, and two of them didn't.
00:38:42.000And in all those circumstances, you just—the job is not to go after somebody.
00:38:48.000The job is to see what the evidence shows and then follow the facts where they may lead.
00:39:00.000And as I recite in the book, I have many sections on just the whole sort of exciting business of investigating something.
00:39:06.000And there are times in investigations, including one we did of the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, where early in the investigation, my team would come across some great evidence.
00:39:14.000They would come and they would talk about this evidence, and it would sort of make us think that the likelihood of charging this longtime, you know, essentially—ultimately, we were able to prove—corrupt party boss, Democratic Party boss in New York, The likelihood of charging him was growing.
00:39:31.000And then you would realize, you know what?
00:39:32.000I think we overstated the value of that evidence.
00:39:34.000Because we talked to some other people, and this is the process of coming to any conclusion about anything at all.
00:39:39.000And I presume that the Mueller team did something like this.
00:39:41.000And then later, some other evidence doesn't seem that important.
00:39:44.000And then it grows in value because you finally find a witness to corroborate what that person is saying.
00:39:48.000And ultimately, you sometimes build a case, you sometimes don't.
00:39:52.000And I don't have a basis for thinking, notwithstanding some evidence of the contrary, The bulk of evidence, I think, suggests that it began in good faith and it continued in good faith.
00:40:03.000And what do you make of the second half of the report?
00:40:04.000Because that's where, obviously, all of the fire has been focused, is on the obstruction half of the report.
00:40:09.000And I will say that I do agree with the critique that it's very bizarre to release a full 200-page report about all the things that somebody does wrong.
00:40:20.000Explicitly acknowledging from the very beginning that you have no capacity to recommend indictment or not.
00:40:26.000It's almost a parallel situation when James Comey came out and proceeded to read Hillary Clinton the riot act and then explain why he wasn't prosecuted.
00:40:43.000But there were some of us who were critical of Comey at the time for saying, like, you don't get to spell out all the reasons why you think somebody did all this bad stuff and then say, and we're not prosecuting, because you're not prosecuting.
00:40:55.000The prosecutor's job is to either prosecute or not prosecute.
00:40:57.000So that I talk about at some length in the book, this principle.
00:41:01.000That you have a binary choice as a prosecutor.
00:41:02.000As an ordinary prosecutor, you have a binary choice.
00:41:06.000And you can judge the actions of the prosecutor and the law enforcement investigative agency, NYPD, FBI, DEA, whatever, when they bring a case.
00:41:15.000And then the Ben Shapiros of the world and the Preet Bharara of the world can, in their leisurely way, pick at it.
00:41:21.000Because there's a public document, there's a public proceeding, there is a judge, there is an adversary.
00:41:27.000You know, under the Constitution, you're required to provide counsel if the defendant can't afford it.
00:41:32.000And everyone can make their arguments, whether they're lawyers or not, and they can go on television, they can write columns, and they can say.
00:41:37.000And then you can also make a judgment if the jury rejects the prosecution's case and acquits the defendant.
00:41:43.000More basis for saying it was an overreach.
00:41:45.000And everyone can have, I think, a pretty thoughtful, intelligent discussion about whether that case was fairly broad or not.
00:41:55.000The problem is, sometimes you don't bring the case.
00:41:58.000And in circumstances where you don't bring the case, but everyone knew you were looking at the case, like happened with some high-profile people in my state that we were looking at, Then there are a lot of questions, because you can't judge it in the same way.
00:42:10.000And because the prosecutor's hands are tied and their lips should be sealed, right, you haven't seen the grand jury material.
00:42:17.000So there's a person—you know, money has been paid or a hotel has been built, and people think, well, how did that person get favored treatment if it's a public corruption case?
00:42:27.000In other cases that are very fraught these days, there's a cop.
00:42:31.000He shoots an unarmed—turns out to be an unarmed young African-American kid.
00:42:55.000But the problem for the prosecutor is, When you decide to decline, not bring a case, there is an impulse.
00:43:01.000And clearly, Jim Comey, who I once upon a time worked for, and I have respect for, and I think he tells the truth, even though he's made mistakes.
00:43:09.000He was on the horns of a dilemma, not the way he describes a dilemma, but it was, in his mind, for good faith reasons, Hillary Clinton should not have been charged, based on how other similarly situated people have been treated under that particular statute over time.
00:43:25.000And he—I get this, because I had the same—trust me, I've gotten a lot of criticism for cases that I brought and for cases that I didn't bring.
00:43:31.000And he thought to himself, look, if people just understand that I'm a good-faith actor here, and the FBI, which I love and adore and appreciate and respect, revere even, They didn't do anything wrong.
00:43:43.000What bothered him, I think, and it's bothered me many times in cases that I have had to oversee, I don't want them to think that this was political.
00:43:50.000I don't want them to think they didn't do it by the book.
00:43:52.000So I'm going to say all this stuff and be open about it.
00:43:57.000When we close those cases, learning a little bit from that example, or confirming our view from that example, when you close a case that everyone knows has been opened, Especially when it involves a political figure, and people have views about that person—not based on the law, not based on some transgressions, but based on their view of whether or not that person should be in office or not, because they like their policies or not, or they trust them or not, or they voted for them or not—you've got to keep your mouth shut, because it causes a lot of problems.
00:44:26.000But it does lead to—unfortunately, I don't have a solution for this or an answer to this—it leads to this dilemma, where people can't fully trust the decision to decline.
00:44:36.000With all ordinary prosecutions, and the way I distinguish Mueller, a couple things.
00:44:40.000First, you know, remember Mueller didn't release the report.
00:44:44.000President Trump's, you know, alleged buddy, Bill Barr, released the report.
00:44:47.000You know, Bill Barr could have come up with some reason, because he doesn't seem to mind criticism too much, even though there was a full report that was written by Bob Mueller to Bill Barr.
00:44:57.000Remember, we've gone so far in this whole process that people have forgotten that one of the original worries that a lot of people had was, is any of the report going to become public?
00:45:22.000Mueller clearly may have expected that it becomes public or not, but his mandate, Bob Mueller's mandate, is a very odd thing, right?
00:45:28.000I guess my question is more about the mandate than it is about Mueller's activity, meaning at a certain point shouldn't Mueller, I mean at the very outset, if he really believed the DOG regulations prevented him from recommending or not recommending prosecution and that the president can't be prosecuted so long as he's in office anyway.
00:45:44.000Shouldn't you have just said, so what am I doing here?
00:45:55.000And those memos get written all the time.
00:45:57.000I have lengthy memos that I read all the time.
00:45:59.000The difference was, in the ordinary case—and we'll get to why that's not ordinary—in the ordinary case, you're absolutely right, and people should understand this.
00:46:06.000We're investigating, you know, the mayor of a town, for example, or a police officer or someone else, and there are considerations on both sides.
00:46:13.000And my team would put together a memo, and I would read it.
00:46:16.000And at the end, there would be a recommendation.
00:46:26.000And you either charge because you think you have enough or you go home and nobody ever sees that memo.
00:46:31.000There's no requirement for anybody to see that memo because you're talking about an ordinary citizen.
00:46:35.000And if the prosecutor can't do anything about that person, then that's the end.
00:46:40.000Although there are some circumstances in which you think the prosecutor can maybe refer that person for disciplinary action or something else.
00:46:48.000So because the president, uniquely among all human beings in the United States of America, is not, according to the OLC opinions, right, that I'm sure your listeners are now familiar with, is not subject to being criminally charged while still in office, But the principle still remains that no one is above the law, right?
00:47:06.000That there has to be some accountability.
00:47:07.000Well, unlike the random people that I'm talking about in my hypotheticals, who can't be subject to any other accountability, the president can be.
00:47:15.000On the one hand, he has this shield, which is the OLC opinion.
00:47:18.000On the other hand, he has to face the sword of potential impeachment.
00:47:22.000And so that's why a lot of people, myself included, although I think the language is more abstruse than it needed to be, in volume two, Bob Mueller seemed to be saying, although he doesn't say it forthrightly, and I agree with you on the weirdness of it, and it's totally bizarre on this score, but if he had written it differently and if he had said, I think we'd maybe have less of a debate, he said, look, we cannot charge the president for these reasons, because the OLC has found that to be unconstitutional to charge a sitting president.
00:47:48.000However, and he alludes to this, but he doesn't say it quite this way, however, We have uncovered serious misconduct.
00:47:55.000We have uncovered all sorts of things that happened with respect to obstruction.
00:47:58.000We cannot say that a crime has not been committed.
00:48:03.000It's called— Yeah, I mean, it's pretty clear that's what he was doing.
00:48:05.000Yeah, but if he had said— I mean, it was a road map for hostile impeachment.
00:48:07.000But I guess, just going back to your original question, which is a good one and a fair one, if he had said those things explicitly, Would you still have the same argument that he should have shut down on day one because what the hell is he doing?
00:48:20.000I mean, yes, because again, he's in the executive branch, meaning the Congress does have its own investigative tools and having the DOJ under the unitary executive theory.
00:48:31.000You have Trump who's presiding over the DOJ.
00:48:35.000Having the DOJ investigate the President on behalf of Congress is a very weird situation.
00:48:40.000I mean, usually the DOJ is investigating on behalf of the DOJ.
00:48:43.000It's not investigating on behalf of the legislative body with its own separate and unique capacity to investigate.
00:48:49.000And if you want to investigate President Trump for a crime he commits while in office, well, again, he's subject to impeachment.
00:49:00.000But the problem is, this was not a discreet thing about whether or not Donald Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, and there are no other actors, no other participants, and you could make—in that circumstance, I think you have a more valid point, right?
00:49:12.000They're like, well, what the hell are we going to do here?
00:49:15.000Because we can't charge the president.
00:49:16.000We're not going to do this as a proxy for Congress or someone else.
00:49:30.000This was the farthest thing from a contained universe.
00:49:32.000There's millions of things they're looking at.
00:49:33.000There's lots and lots of people, both on the Russia side and on the obstruction side.
00:49:37.000There's lots of people who might have been implicated.
00:49:38.000There's lots of people who have been charged.
00:49:40.000And in the course of doing this investigation—not of the president, I think it's not the right way to look at it—in the course of doing this very broad, I think, appropriate investigation that began, I believe, in good faith, About interference in our election and looking at all sorts of people, including Roger Stone and everyone else.
00:49:54.000And in the course of looking at all this stuff, which we write about in volume one and in volume two, some of the stuff relates to the president.
00:50:03.000And it would be kind of an awkward thing to close your eyes to what the president was doing while you're trying to tell the story and figure out all the things that are going on.
00:50:13.000And then secondly, once you have all this information and you gained all this evidence, You know, to write a report that you're supposed to give to the Attorney General talking about everybody except the President on the basis that, at the end of the day, you can't charge the President.
00:50:42.000You may not even know that your data is exposed.
00:50:44.000I didn't know my data was exposed until somebody hacked my credit card and proceeded to buy NFL tickets.
00:50:48.000Well, that's why I started using ExpressVPN.
00:50:51.000ExpressVPN is an app I use to stay secure online.
00:50:54.000Why should you care about encrypting your data?
00:50:55.000Well, it's often easy for a hacker to bypass Wi-Fi security and steal your information by exploiting flaws like crack.
00:51:02.000That's crack with a K in case you want to Google it.
00:51:04.000It's hard to know whether your device or network is vulnerable, and if you ever use Wi-Fi or a hotel or a shopping mall, you're sending data over an open network, meaning no encryption at all.
00:51:12.000The best way to ensure that all of your data is encrypted and can't be read by hackers is to use ExpressVPN.
00:51:17.000All you need to do is download the ExpressVPN app on your computer or smartphone, tap one button to secure 100% of your network data, and then just use the internet the way you normally would.
00:51:26.000ExpressVPN is incredibly reliable, it's the fastest VPN service I've tried, Okay, so let's talk about your actual record as a prosecutor.
00:51:31.000So you were an incredibly famous, high-powered prosecutor.
00:51:33.000There's rumors that the Paul Giamatti character in Billions is based on you.
00:51:37.000So if you want the best in online security and privacy protection, head on over to expressvpn.com slash ben for three extra months free with a one-year package.
00:51:44.000Again, that's expressvpn.com slash ben to get started.
00:51:47.000Okay, so let's talk about your actual record as a prosecutor.
00:51:51.000So you were an incredibly famous high-powered prosecutor.
00:51:54.000There's rumors that the Paul Giamatti character in Billions is based on you.
00:51:58.000Do you know if that's true, by the way?
00:51:59.000There's a very fine Indian-American actor, Paul Giamatti.
00:52:05.000For a lot of reasons, both professional and personal, I don't think there's a lot of resemblance between Paul Giamatti and if you've watched the show, people, my home life is different from his home life.
00:53:45.000And I think part of the reason people paid a lot of attention to them is People get very upset, and it resonates with them when they see people of privilege and wealth, which a lot of these people were, if not all of these people.
00:53:55.000I mean, there was a billionaire named Raj Rajaratnam.
00:54:21.000With respect to what kinds of proof you need, to the extent people have said that it's sort of murky and the rules are unclear, in the criminal system, I think it's very important to make sure that your cases are clear, that you have clear proof of intent, you have clear proof of the trades that you're saying were illicitly done, and that you have essentially smoking gun proof of those things.
00:54:42.000And there are a lot of insider trading cases that couldn't be brought.
00:54:44.000I mean, in the buildup to some of these cases we were bringing, because word got out that things were going on for reasons that are not good, Without reading the complaints, without reading the indictments, some people thought, well, you're sort of overreaching.
00:54:57.000Attorney's Office is going too far, and they're going after the gray area.
00:55:00.000I don't think, if you look at any of the cases we brought, and we brought scores and scores of cases, it was often really clear, common-sense evidence, right?
00:55:08.000Because remember, and this is sort of parallel to some of the things we've been talking about with the Mueller investigation and arguments made on behalf of the president.
00:55:15.000You see a dead body in the street, bullet in the heart, and if you can quickly rule out the person didn't, you know, die by suicide, then it's almost certainly a homicide unless it's self-defense.
00:55:26.000But you pretty much ruled everything out.
00:55:28.000So you know a crime has been committed because you're not supposed to shoot people on the street.
00:55:32.000But lots and lots of criminal activity.
00:55:34.000It consists of acts that are by themselves completely lawful.
00:55:38.000Not only completely lawful, but part of the obligation of the actor.
00:55:41.000So, for example, it is part of the obligation of a sitting legislator to vote.
00:55:46.000It is part of the business plan, a perfectly legitimate capitalist business plan, for a hedge fund to trade, to buy a stock, to sell a stock, to go long, to go short.
00:56:12.000People would say, how do you know, a version of the question you just asked me, how do you know when you have enough to bring a case?
00:56:17.000And one I talk about in the book, we had a guy who, in the wake of this big Wall Street Journal article that broke on a Friday evening, Where the reporter in that story said that the U.S.
00:56:30.000Attorney's Office and the FBI together were bringing massive insider trading cases in the future.
00:56:35.000A guy who had been engaging in insider trading decided, Don Longill, decided that he was going to take the flash drive in which he had insider information and smash it to pieces and get rid of it.
00:56:48.000We had no idea that that happened, and we never had any idea that that happened, except for the fact that later, as I describe in the book, there was another guy who was his best man who decided to flip when approached by an FBI agent who was leading these investigations.
00:57:04.000And when that guy flipped, months later, he went to the apartment of the person who destroyed the evidence wearing a wire.
00:57:12.000And the other person trusted him, shouldn't have, and basically got him to confess that on the night the Wall Street Journal article came out, he took his flash drive, he bashed it to pieces with pliers, he walked out of his apartment at midnight or one o'clock in the morning in New York City, found multiple garbage trucks who were in the streets, and deposited the remains of various bits of the flash drive in those garbage trucks.
00:57:34.000We indicted that guy and we were able to secure a guilty plea from him because of this other.
00:58:32.000There's not a lot of policing of the conveyance of that inside information.
00:58:36.000And people don't think there's been enforcement actions either by the SEC or by prosecutor's offices.
00:58:41.000They engage in the behavior because there's no punishment.
00:58:44.000And so I like to think, you know, that enforcement Especially when you're talking about people who are privileged and smart and can do a legitimate cost-benefit analysis, it brings the conduct down.
00:58:54.000On sort of a policy level, as a prosecutor, what do you do when the law is just a law you don't like?
00:59:00.000You saw this with President Obama in DACA, for example, just saying, I don't want to prosecute illegal immigration crimes for DREAMers.
00:59:07.000There are a lot of libertarians out there who are looking at insider trading laws, as you suggest, and they're saying, OK, well, now you just have freer flow of information to the market.
00:59:15.000The market now prices in a bunch of information that was going to get priced in anyway.
00:59:22.000What do you think the obligation is to prosecute violations of laws that you find foolhardy?
00:59:28.000So I don't think that's up to individual sort of line prosecutors to make as a general matter.
00:59:33.000You should not go into that job unless you have a generalized comfort with enforcing the laws, you know, within proper discretion and with respect to what justice requires.
00:59:46.000And I have a whole chapter on this also, right?
00:59:47.000It does not mean that with respect to every case and every law and every statute, no matter how broadly written and how unenforced up to that time, that that means you do everything possible that a prosecutor is capable of doing legitimately.
01:00:04.000And I say, and I think this is true, if every prosecutor did everything they could possibly do and threw the book at everyone they could possibly do it at, and had infinite resources, we'd be living in a hellscape.
01:00:11.000And lots and lots and lots of people would be—if you think mass incarceration is a problem now, it'd be multiple times worse.
01:00:27.000But I had the luxury, being in the federal system, where we had a lot of resources, and we could pick and choose our cases, and we could decide what our priorities were.
01:00:35.000In some ways, we had more resources than your average DA's office.
01:00:38.000In some ways, we had less, because we had the resources of the FBI.
01:00:41.000But, you know, we didn't have as many people as, for example, the Manhattan DA's office.
01:00:44.000There were more assistant district attorneys in the city of New York, by far, than there were assistant U.S.
01:00:51.000And we tried to pick off the big fish.
01:00:53.000So, you decide to pursue what you think is in the interest of justice based on the resources you have and the threats to the public.
01:00:58.000So, for example, on the issue of organized crime, we talked about that.
01:01:04.000As enforcement actions started to yield some success and the mafia problem began to become a little bit less and fewer bodies were turning up in the Hudson River, you could reduce resources.
01:01:13.000You could have fewer people working dedicated to that.
01:01:15.000And I was one of the people who was dedicated to that when I was a line prosecutor back in the early 2000s.
01:01:27.000Not that many people were expert in it.
01:01:28.000Not that many people knew how to prosecute it.
01:01:31.000Not that many people had, I think, the technological expertise and the amount of resources that were expended on that.
01:01:38.000Those laws have been on the books for a long time.
01:01:40.000It's just that you've started to see much, much greater bad actions by nation-states, by Lilzek and these other, you know, the hacktivists, as they call them, and other people who are just trying to make a buck by stealing money out of your bank account from a laptop in Latvia.
01:01:57.000So you decide how you're going to balance your resources.
01:02:18.000I'll give you another area that's less easy to sort of understand.
01:02:22.000It's more controversial because it goes to the immigration debate.
01:02:25.000So I don't think of it as you can just sort of forget about a law because you don't like the law.
01:02:29.000You have to think about, given the resources you have, should you be expending time and energy in a particular way?
01:02:35.000So there's lots of debate about the border and the separation of children from their parents, which I think is a terrible thing and doesn't have to be done that way.
01:02:43.000These laws have been on the books for a long time.
01:02:44.000People keep talking about there's a law 1325 and there's a law, USC 1326.
01:02:58.000And there's a debate among the Democrats, which a little bit is an idle debate, I will say, on whether or not you should repeal 1325 and should that be dealt with civilly or not.
01:03:07.000And then you have subsections of 1326, Which is the most relevant to our practice.
01:03:14.000You have a provision that says, if you have been in the United States, and you're undocumented, and you committed a crime, a felony, aggravated felony, and then you have been prosecuted for it, and then you were deported, and then you now come back into the country, You can be prosecuted for that.
01:03:30.000Now, when you're deciding, in New York City, where you have Wall Street crime and you have terrorism, which is a huge priority, and you have cybercrime and you have the mob, and you have political corruption, all those things, and you have only 165 assistant U.S.
01:03:43.000attorneys, how much energy are you going to expend prosecuting a human who literally did nothing other than come across the border?
01:03:52.000and expend the resources of the government, expend the resources of the Bureau of Prisons, as opposed to just kicking them back out of the country?
01:03:59.000How do you pick and choose among that category of person who's violating either the weakest section of the statute versus the strongest?
01:04:06.000And before I got there, this is under a Republican administration, the policy decision was made just in terms of proper exercise of resources and exercise of discretion that we would prioritize the prosecution of people who were in the country who had already been kicked out after committing a crime.
01:05:05.000But every agent I put, because it's the same amount of investigation often, I put an agent and an AUSA and a paralegal and a secretary on the $340 credit card fraud or bank fraud case.
01:05:17.000How many $1 million cases—because there's plenty of million-dollar cases—I can't do.
01:05:20.000So, in some ways, I think we over-politicize, because everyone is so into politics and about, you know, Trump and not Trump and about immigration and the border and everything else.
01:05:30.000I think we should allow local prosecutors, U.S.
01:05:32.000attorneys or otherwise, to exercise—as long as it's in good faith and it's based on reason and rationality, which I think we both like.
01:05:39.000To decide, are we going to spend our time going after turnstile jumpers, or are we going to spend our time going after domestic violence?
01:05:49.000Or in my office's case, going after people who just—their only potential crime is that they're in the country and they shouldn't be, and they have no record.