Preet Bharara:
From Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.
Soledad O’Brien:
I think, when it comes to civil rights, people like to … people are made uncomfortable by the story of real aggression and real fighting and real strategy. It’s just a nice, easier story, and it makes a lot of White people very comfortable when it’s just a little old lady whose hair was in a bun who was a secretary who just one day was tired.
Preet Bharara:
That’s Soledad O’Brien. She’s a journalist, documentary filmmaker and author. You may know her as a former longtime CNN Morning Show anchor or as the current host of the weekly public affairs TV program, Matter of Fact Soledad O’Brien. Her provocative and often unsparing commentary about media coverage has also made her a firebrand of sorts on social media, especially Twitter, where she has over 1.3 million followers.
Preet Bharara:
O’Brien joins me to discuss how to improve political journalism in 2022, her new documentary about the civil rights icon, Rosa Parks, and its lessons for today, and why she doesn’t feel the need to make new friends in her 50s. That’s coming up, stay tuned.
QUESTION AND ANSWER:
Preet Bharara:
Now, let’s get to your questions. This question comes into tweet from Barbara Jean 9999, who asks, “What should we be watching for in the hearings?”
Obviously, Barbara Jean, you’re referring to the much anticipated, at least much anticipated for a lot of people, public hearings, the first of which will be in prime time, brought to you by the members of the 1-6 committee. As you know, hundreds and hundreds, up to potentially 1,000 witnesses have been interviewed behind the scenes largely by staff. Millions of pages of documents and communications have been turned over. We tend to focus on the people who have been obstructionist like Peter Navarro, who has just indicted and some other folks.
Preet Bharara:
But the vast, vast majority of people whom the committee has contacted have been cooperative and have provided information, documents and testimony. Now, in many ways, the hearings have been hyped up. As we’ve mentioned on the podcast before, Representative Jamie Raskin has suggested that these public hearings will blow the roof off the House. That’s promising a lot. You don’t tend to see people overhyping their hearings. You want to under promise and overdeliver.
Preet Bharara:
Now, the main thing you want to see is how they connect the dots, how they put together the puzzle of information that they’ve gleaned over the course of all their investigation, their interviews of witnesses and reviewing of communications. Remember, for us, it’s been coming out in drips and drabs, and it hasn’t really been put together in comprehensive format. In some ways, I don’t think of these things as a hearing as much as a closing argument, based on all the evidence that they put together that is being brought to you through those witnesses and through images and videos and charts that summarize their evidence.
Preet Bharara:
One of the things I’ll be watching for is to see if they present the evidence in Matter of Fact fashion. In other words, not overstatement, not exaggeration, not too much rhetoric, not gilding the lily. It seems to me the facts speak for themselves, and as much as possible, through witnesses and documents and visuals, they present a picture of what really happened and let those facts and let those witnesses speak for themselves. I think the other thing that’s important that’s a little bit unfortunate, but it’s just the nature of how these kinds of investigations done by Congress unfold is I’ll be watching for new information.
Preet Bharara:
Now with respect to the Mueller report, when that came out, greatly anticipated, not quite the same as this, but also greatly anticipated, one of the reasons I think it didn’t have as much of an impact on public opinion and didn’t have as much momentum for the Congress and for the public is that, not all, but a large amount of the information contained in the ultimately released Mueller report that was delayed because of Bill Barr, much of that, if not most of that, was already known to the public and was digested and understood.
Preet Bharara:
Though it remains appalling some of the conduct detailed, particularly the obstructive conduct in the Mueller report, it was old news and for the public and for the press and for members of Congress and others who might be persuaded to take action. Then some people anticipate, make a referral whether it matters or not to the Justice Department for prosecution, I think you want to see new material, new information, new revelations. Now, it seems to me that the 1-6 committee has done a good job of being thorough and comprehensive.
Preet Bharara:
Have they done a good enough job keeping some confidential, highly revelatory, sensational conduct and communications private and under seal? We’ll see. But I tend to think people as smart as Jamie Raskin would not make predictions about how sensational the hearing would be unless they know they have dynamite evidence that hasn’t been seen before. This is a related question in a tweet from David, who says, “Is there any chance the DOJ case against the conspirators of 1-6 is far enough along that the June 9th hearings will also cause a wave of DOJ arrests?”
Preet Bharara:
Well, David, I appreciate your question. I think that’s a little bit of wishful thinking based on I think what’s been going on and what has been reported to have gone on. The important thing to remember is that these hearings about January 6th begin the day this podcast drops, Thursday, June 9th. That’s a completely separate inquiry done by a completely separate branch of government from whatever DOJ is doing. As we mentioned here before, it’s only recently it seems that DOJ has made a formal request for the transcripts of the interviews totaling up to 1,000 people that the 1-6 committee has spoken to.
Preet Bharara:
To date, there has not been reporting or disclosure that those transcripts have been turned over. The likelihood that there will be some simultaneous massive or any action for that matter by the Department of Justice with respect to the 1-6 higher-ups to coincide with the public hearings seems very unlikely to me. I do think that everyone at DOJ will be watching the hearings very, very closely. The people who are focusing, not just on the folks who invaded the Capitol in January 6th, but as Merrick Garland put it, people at whatever level, whether they were present or not, and what their complicity might have been.
Preet Bharara:
This question comes in a tweet from @MuellerSheWrote, who tends to ask good questions. Here she asks, “If Navarro is convicted on two counts of contempt, would he be able to serve his 230-day sentences concurrently or would he have to serve them consecutively?” Now, obviously, the question is about Peter Navarro, former trade advisor to President Trump, who was indicted by the Justice Department in the last several days after a referral for contempt of Congress was made by the 1-6 committee.
Preet Bharara:
As was the case with Steve Bannon, Navarro was charged with two counts. One is contempt of Congress with respect to refusing to testify, and the other is contempt of Congress with respect to refusing to provide documents. They’re related to each other. Obviously, it’s part of the same inquiry. But there’s a separate count for one and a separate count for the other. That allows prosecutors to have some leeway.
Preet Bharara:
If a jury thinks that someone has been contemptible with respect to one, but not with respect to the other, it’s a common practice of prosecutors to charge more than one count for what’s essentially similar or overlapping conduct. Now, a reminder of what the charges are. This particular statute that allows a charge for contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor. That means the maximum prison sentence is one year, but it also has a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days.
Preet Bharara:
Presumably, if Navarro was convicted on both count one and count two, he would be eligible for a 30-day sentence on each count. The question is a good one. Can those be served concurrently, meaning 30 days total, or must they be consecutive or can they be consecutive meaning 30 plus 30 equals 60? As a general matter in federal court, sentencing is up to the individual judge in the case.
Preet Bharara:
Generally speaking also, when the conduct related to separate counts of conviction overlaps in a particular way or relates to the same course of conduct, judges in their discretion can group that conduct as the sentencing guidelines suggest and allow for those sentences to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. I’ll give you an example. If someone is engaged in a high stakes insurance fraud scheme or healthcare fraud scheme to the tune of a million dollars, prosecutors may charge multiple accounts.
Preet Bharara:
They might charge wire fraud, which is a federal statute, they might charge mail fraud, which is a separate federal statute, and as a third, they might charge healthcare fraud. There’s three statutes which each carry high statutory maximums, and then you can imagine if someone was convicted on all three counts, a judge might decide in his or her discretion to sentence that person concurrently on each of those counts, because it’s basically the same conduct.
Preet Bharara:
Now, there’s a wrinkle thrown in when there’s a mandatory minimum sentence, and there’s some statutes including the drug context and the gun context, and also in this contempt of Congress context where there’s a mandatory minimum. What happens then? Well, I think by and large, it’s generally up to the court, depending on how the court in consultation with the sentencing guidelines thinks about the conduct relating to the separate counts. Now, sometimes the statute itself is highly punitive and makes it clear that the sentencing must be consecutive.
Preet Bharara:
A good example of that is a particular firearm statute that’s found at 18 USC 924(c), that’s carrying or brandishing a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence or a drug crime. For example, with respect to that gun statute, the law says, “No term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” That says, on its own terms, that if you’re convicted of multiple counts of that gun charge, they have to be consecutive.
Preet Bharara:
That’s more punishment for that person. The contempt of Congress statute that we’re discussing here doesn’t have such a provision, doesn’t foreclose concurrent sentences. In this case, this is a long-winded answer to the question that was very well put, with respect to Peter Navarro, if he’s convicted on both counts, it’ll be up to the judge as to whether to sentence to a minimum of 30 days or 60. This question comes in a tweet from RJ, “How many Springsteen shows would you like to attend during the upcoming tour?” The answer is all of them.
Preet Bharara:
I would like to attend all of them and would like to be in the front row for all of them. Now, the problem is I have a job. I actually have multiple jobs, so that’s not going to be possible, and the dates that have been announced so far are all international. I did promise my son, and I think he’ll hold me to this, that we can go see him in Amsterdam because it seems to be at a convenient time when he’ll be done with the school year at college. That’s in May. Come to Amsterdam. Once we find out what his tour dates are going to be in the US, I’m going to be all over it.
Preet Bharara:
I do regret, by the way, folks may have seen this, that I did not go see Coldplay in concert this past weekend where Bruce Springsteen, as I was informed the next morning by my son, Bruce Springsteen made a surprise appearance at Coldplay. Had I known, I would’ve been there front and center too. We’ll be right back with my conversation with Soledad O’Brien.
THE INTERVIEW:
Preet Bharara:
Soledad O’Brien is a longtime TV news and talk show anchor. She was a familiar face to millions as co-anchor of CNN’s flagship morning program.
Today, she hosts her own talk show, reports on a regular basis for HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, and frequently weighs in on social media about the problems with contemporary journalism. Soledad O’Brien, so good to have you on the show. Thanks for being on.
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s my pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Preet Bharara:
This is long over … Years ago, not that many years ago, my wife and I watched you every morning.
Soledad O’Brien:
Oh my gosh. It was years ago. Long, many years ago.
Preet Bharara:
This is how many years ago?
Soledad O’Brien:
I have been running my own production company. We’re in year nine. Yeah.
Preet Bharara:
Wow.
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s at least nine years ago. But I started-
Preet Bharara:
I don’t know know how that can be, because I’m 25.
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah, it was 19 years when I started at CNN, so it might have been as much as almost 20 years ago when that happened. Yeah, I think that’s a long time. Every-
Preet Bharara:
Was your co-host Miles O’Brien?
Soledad O’Brien:
Miles was my co-host the second go around. There’s a guy who’s on Fox, Bill Hemmer was my co-host at the beginning.
Preet Bharara:
Yes. Yes.
Soledad O’Brien:
But then Miles was … Miles was my favorite co-host in the whole world and people would … He used to-
Preet Bharara:
Did they assume … Did people think you were related to each other?
Soledad O’Brien:
All the time. Married, yes, and partly because Miles would say we are married but to different people. But they only heard the first part. Then everyone would say, “So you and Miles are married.” But he’s a dear friend and a smart guy. Gosh, that guy.
Preet Bharara:
Well, he talked about space a lot. We loved it when he talked about NASA.
Soledad O’Brien:
But he’s smart on everything. A really interesting smart guy, and as a co-anchor, a very generous person. He would say to me sometimes, when they do a space walk, and he’d say, “Do you want to jump in on this?” Right? Because when you’re anchoring, it’s a lot about territory. Who’s talking? Who gets time on air? He’s so smart and so good and so knowledgeable.
Soledad O’Brien:
I was like, “Literally, I’m going to sit here and just keep my mouth shut and try not to get in anybody’s way.” But an incredibly generous gesture to say how do you want to get in on this story that obviously he owns and is so good at, that he should just lead and do it. But most people aren’t like that, to be honest.
Preet Bharara:
Is there anything about that gig that you miss, doing daily television?
Soledad O’Brien:
There was a time when I did like to know what was going on very deeply and fully. But when I left doing morning television, it’s a little bit like being on a treadmill. When you hop off, you miss it at first and then you look back and you’re like, “Oh my God, I was just on a treadmill.”
Preet Bharara:
You’re like, “I’d rather have a margarita.”
Soledad O’Brien:
A little bit. Or you’d realize that there were so many random stories that you know certainly in cable news really well. Oh my gosh, this horrible story about this terrible, weird thing. Hey, there’s a guy who has a tiger in his apartment in Harlem. Hey, there’s a … Random. It takes up a lot of brain space and you’re just super knowledgeable about all of it because you’ve covered all of it. I used to anchor probably four hours a day, three or four hours a day, five days a week.
Preet Bharara:
That’s a lot of time.
Soledad O’Brien:
A lot of time. I don’t miss it. I did love the travel, but it was also exhausting and really hard to have a normal life when you’re traveling all the time. I did love galloping around the globe, but it’s super hard to be a reliable mom and friend when you’re constantly jumping on a plane.
Preet Bharara:
No, I’m sure that’s right. I want to talk about a new project of yours that I’m very interested in and excited about. It’s called The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks, famous civil rights icon that people think they know a lot about, but most people just know, I’m guessing, the story of how she wouldn’t go to the back of the bus. First basic obvious question, why this story?
Soledad O’Brien:
I was surprised that no one had done a doc on Rosa Parks. I literally-
Preet Bharara:
How can that be?
Soledad O’Brien:
See, it’s insane. It seems wrong, right?
Preet Bharara:
There’s a documentary about everything.
Soledad O’Brien:
Right. Rosa Parks, really, that seemed like someone would’ve checked that box. I think when we start with things people don’t know, that’s one of the things people don’t know. Actually, no one had done a doc on Rosa Parks. There’ a great book by the same name written by a woman named Jeanne Theoharis. We read that book. It was brought to me by the directors of this documentary, and I think what I loved about the title was that it really helped explain another thing that people don’t know about Rosa Parks, which was she had a very rebellious life.
Soledad O’Brien:
She was your classic badass lady and we were very interested in, number one, what was her life really? What were the facts of the matter? I think that’s consistent with all the work that we do, trying to dig into the truth of something. Then number two, who benefited, who gained from people not actually knowing the real story? Why was the narrative about one day she was just tired and her feet hurt and she just wouldn’t get up? Well, that’s just not accurate.
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s not really the story of Rosa Parks. But it was leveraged and leaned into very heavily for a reason, and so we wanted to explore that reason too. For all those reasons, we thought it would be a great story. But when our directors first brought the project to me, I remember thinking, “Let me double check.” I feel like there should … I think maybe I-
Preet Bharara:
Let’s Google this.
Soledad O’Brien:
Exactly. There must have been a-
Preet Bharara:
Someone has to have done … That’s unbelievable. I want people to see it, but in a nutshell, what’s the gist of the reason why this very simplistic story and storyline gets told about the bus?
Soledad O’Brien:
One, I think it’s just out of ease a complicated story. Number two, I think when it comes to civil rights, people like to … people are made uncomfortable by the story of real aggression and real fighting and real strategy. It’s just a nice, easier story, and it makes a lot of white people very comfortable when it’s just a little old lady whose hair was in a bun who was a secretary who just one day was tired, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
It doesn’t sound like here’s a person who was at her dining room table, having meetings about how to undermine a lot of systems, whether it was around criminal justice, whether it was around civil rights, wherever she was living. She was really, really interesting. There’s a chunk in the dock where someone is telling the story about Rosa Parks forgetting to serve dinner at a meeting that they’re having. The person says there were so many guns on the table because she made people take the guns off their holsters and put them on the table.
Soledad O’Brien:
So many guns on the table that she forgot to put out the food. You’re like, “No, no, Rosa Park?” She’s a little old lady with her hair in the bun who was too tired. But I think there’s a benefit when she was awarded by President Bush. Again, I think it’s a very easy person to say we support civil rights when it’s packaged like this. Look how easy it is, just a sweet little old lady-
Preet Bharara:
Unthreatening.
Soledad O’Brien:
Absolutely.
Preet Bharara:
Rosa Parks was not Malcolm X. People [inaudible 00:18:56]
Soledad O’Brien:
We know that when it comes to selling something, unthreatening is often very useful.
Preet Bharara:
Was it the case that her righteous defiance that day on the bus, was it in facts spur of the moment or was it premeditated and planned?
Soledad O’Brien:
A little bit of both. I think it was waiting for the right moment. Premeditated, and then the right moment came. Not premeditated. But she had worked as a secretary for the NAACP and had been involved in so many protests and so much thinking around agitating and civil rights. It certainly wasn’t as it has been described. One day, my feet just hurt and I thought I can’t do it. I think-
Preet Bharara:
I didn’t have my sensible shoes on-
Soledad O’Brien:
I thought I’m not [inaudible 00:19:38].
Preet Bharara:
… and I can’t take it anymore.
Soledad O’Brien:
When my kids were little, and they were really little, probably second grade, I think it was my boys who came in and informed me that they were learning about Rosa Parks who wouldn’t get on the bus. She just wouldn’t get … Her feet were sore and she wouldn’t get on the bus. I’m like, “Wait, no. No, no, no. I think you’re getting it …” But in a way, when you water down these stories and you make them very palatable, right? They become this one little nugget that you just memorize and it makes everybody quite comfortable.
Preet Bharara:
Well, I guess it’s that. But as you talk about, it’s also the case … I don’t know how deliberate this was. It’s very relatable. The average person, White or otherwise, who you’re trying to persuade to your side for the cause of civil rights understands the predicament of someone who’s a little bit older and tired and is just trying to do what everyone else wants to do, which is to get home. Fair?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. Narratives are about that. Right? You find the most identifiable person. Remember, of course, Rosa Parks wasn’t the first person to try to push back against bus segregation, but she was a great candidate. She was a good candidate because, as you know, often in the narrative sense, the idea of the bad candidate coming forward, we know that … I think it was Claudette Colvin, if I’m not mistaken, who was a 15-year-old girl who was actually … did a similar thing before Rosa Parks.
Soledad O’Brien:
She just wasn’t … I’m using air quotes, right? A good candidate in terms of the narrative. I think they needed someone who’s going to help use that narrative to inspire people. I think it worked on one side, and then also for people who wanted to be made comfortable by the moment.
Preet Bharara:
It occurs to me to ask you, could that Rosa Parks’ relatable narrative exist today? Imagine Rosa Parks gets on the bus and we are in the climate that we are now, divided as we are. Of course, we were divided back then also. But one difference is we have social media. Anytime anybody does anything, they get vilified and people try to undermine them. What would the posts have been about Rosa Parks and the attempts to delegitimize her if we had had the kind of social media back then that we have now? In other words, could Rosa Parks be Rosa Parks today?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. I think actually what often becomes problematic in social media and movements is that everybody knows everything about everybody. I always dread the idea that if I rob a bank or something, I’m going to have my ninth grade boyfriend say, “I dated Soledad O’Brien.”
Preet Bharara:
Is that the thing … You heard it here, folks. That’s the thing that keeps Soledad from robbing a bank.
Soledad O’Brien:
That is the thing. Also-
Preet Bharara:
It’s the ninth grade boyfriend.
Soledad O’Brien:
I’m not sure I could do it effectively and well. But you really-
Preet Bharara:
Your 12th grade boyfriend might think it was cool.
Soledad O’Brien:
I didn’t have a boyfriend in 12th grade. Next we have to go up to college. I do think that her … It’s just what people know about people, to me, seems to come forward. Right? I think she actually just had an interesting past. In some ways, what happened after the bus boycott was so fascinating that I think that social media today could have served her well. You remember she was honored obviously in her later years before her death, but what actually happened after she did this on the bus was she was fired from her job.
Soledad O’Brien:
She received death threats. She had to leave where she lived and move to Detroit. There was a real cost to pay, and you don’t even hear about that piece of it, how Rosa Parks suffered in the immediate aftermath. Maybe social media could be good for that. I have found, for example, in the wake of this horrible Texas school shooting story, to hear the deeper dive into, for example, the mom who was arrested, right? Then Cuffed and then got out and ran into the school to rescue her children.
Soledad O’Brien:
Understanding that, which I’m getting all that information from social media, has been fascinating. Maybe it would’ve been a plus and a minus. Yeah, I think she would’ve still existed because I think a lot of what Rosa Parks did was because she truly believed in a system. I don’t think it was Rosa Parks who was trying to push the narrative of I don’t want anybody to know, I’m just going to pretend I’m a tired seamstress. I think she long did the work, but it made a lot of people more comfortable that way.
Preet Bharara:
Any particular lesson from this program you produced for today?
Soledad O’Brien:
I think the big lesson from this program, and on Wednesday, we’re doing a special from the show that I do, Matter of Fact.
Preet Bharara:
We’re recording this in advance. Wednesday, June 8th.
Soledad O’Brien:
Right. Wednesday, June 8th, we’re going to do … We do these listening tours, and they’ve been really wildly successful for Hearst Television. We do them digitally and then they rerun in prime time. We’ve talked to a lot of civil rights legends as well there. I think the message from all of these folks has been to lean into this idea that these things take a lot of work and a lot of time, right? It’s actually … Media loves the narrative of one individual, one day, a single act, it’s very clean, it’s very clear. There was Rosa. She did this thing. Here we go. We chatted with her. Watch it at 11:00. But the actual story-
Preet Bharara:
Equality for everyone.
Soledad O’Brien:
Exactly. Hashtag. But the actual story is often about systems, it’s often over a very long time. Systems that are being worked and pushed on for years and years and years. When in this special we’re talking, for example, to Brian Stevenson, and you really see when it comes to criminal justice, understanding what has to be done is not one day Brian did this thing and then they made a movie and some great … a really super handsome actor played him in the movie and then hashtag success.
Soledad O’Brien:
That’s not really how it works, although everybody loves the story of the individual doing a thing. The process of civil rights is actually understanding the role of systems and trying to figure out how to best dismantle systems from various directions using the law, using the media, using individuals, using the power of pressure on politicians. I think that it paints a much more accurate picture of how these things actually happen. I think that would be the takeaway, that this (beep) is hard. That’s the takeaway.
Preet Bharara:
I like that better. That would’ve been an alternative title.
Soledad O’Brien:
Absolutely, right?
Preet Bharara:
This (beep) is hard. But it makes me wonder if you agree … I’m trying to assess your level of pessimism and optimism. There’s a lot to be both pessimistic and optimistic about. I’m going to ask you about some of those things, but do you believe in the saying, I think attributed to King-
Soledad O’Brien:
Oh, the arc-
Preet Bharara:
… and the arc of the moral universe is long, but bends towards justice? Do you believe that?
Soledad O’Brien:
There was a great guy from Stanford, I’m trying to remember his name, who said, “Yeah, it doesn’t really.” That’s me paraphrasing him.
Preet Bharara:
That’s not very hopeful.
Soledad O’Brien:
But I think it can, if there’s a lot of people working on it. Sure. Like anything. I think when you say the arc of the moral universe spins toward justice, it’s a sense of, you know what? At the end of the day, good people win out and it all works out. Then sure, but let’s look at some places where good people did not win out, or a lot of bad stuff happened in between that little arc coming back. I’ll give you Germany 1940s. I think I would slug someone who would, at the start of that war, say, “Well, listen, the arch of the moral universe” like it’s all good. Eventually-
Preet Bharara:
It depends on how long your timeframe is, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
Right.
Preet Bharara:
If your timeframe is a million years-
Soledad O’Brien:
Maybe.
Preet Bharara:
… you may not be around and maybe that’s good. I don’t know.
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. I think that’s exactly right. I think what I don’t like about that quote is that it removes the obligation of people to keep working at things, and I think you have to actually opt in to being loud and sometimes obnoxious and sometimes aggressive and sometimes put yourself in your livelihood at risk in order to help that arc of the moral universe to keep bending. It’s just going to work out, because … What do they say? I have a lot of friends who will say things like, “I think you have to just put it into universe. The universe works to help you.”
Soledad O’Brien:
I’m like, “The universe, I don’t think works to help anybody.” I don’t believe that. I don’t think the universe weighs in at all on what Soledad’s doing. I think there are systems that if I can help put pressure in certain ways, I can probably increase my odds of being successful, and if I put pressure in other ways, I can increase my odds of being unsuccessful, and that’s what you’ve got to figure out. I guess I don’t like that quote so much because I’m not sure it’s true without the asterisk.
Preet Bharara:
No, I think that makes a lot of sense. All this is making me think about one of the great, important and troubling issues of the day, and that’s mass shootings, gun violence, particularly in schools, mass shootings. You mentioned Uvalde already. It’s interesting when you talk about the arc of the moral universe, whether you think this is a moral question or not, people look at moments like Rosa Parks, as you were mentioning, and they look at a moment like the massacre at Uvalde, and I feel that on the part of some folks and I’m guilty of this too sometimes, they think, “Well, that’s a …”
Preet Bharara:
I don’t mean to compare it to Rosa Parks, but it’s a defining moment and inflection point after which people think, “Well, there has to be massive change right at this moment because how can there not be? If there’s not, then there never will be.” How do you think about the future of these things based on moments like Uvalde and Parkland and Newtown?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. It’s a big mistake because we’ve seen over and over again, having covered Parkland and having covered Newtown as a daily reporter. Yeah, it’s moments … Again, I think reporters do a lot of moments and it’s the moment that brings the cameras and it’s the moment that engages everybody. But the actual work is done afterward.
Soledad O’Brien:
The actual movement is done in the aftermath where you … Everybody knows that a lot of these politicians … I think I tweeted this actually after it happened, which is lay low, try not to say anything quotable, thoughts and prayers and just wait until the media dies down and you’ll be-
Preet Bharara:
Yeah, let it pass.
Soledad O’Brien:
… be booked right back on Meet the Press in three weeks. Literally, just do nothing. Say those right things. Because I think often in journalism we don’t hold people accountable to lies or to the last thing they said that was either not good leadership or just weird, you end up having this idea that if you just wait long enough for the news cycle to end, then everything slate is clean and you can jump back in. Years ago when I covered the Romney campaign, I remember his guy, I forget the guy’s name, the person who was leading his campaign would talk about the Etch A Sketch. It’s just an Etch A Sketch, just shake it, right?
Preet Bharara:
Oh yeah.
Soledad O’Brien:
An Etch A Sketch. It’s Etch A Sketch, you just shake it and move on and everyone will forget. They weren’t wrong about that. Th probably ignorant thing was to say that out loud on camera, but it was this idea that it is … Everyone will just move on if you just Etch A Sketch and wait long enough. That’s hugely problematic.
Preet Bharara:
Does that mean there’s some people who should not be interviewed again if they’ve lied or if they’ve taken some terrible position or they have hidden from public view in the aftermath of a shooting like this? In other words, what should people do with those people to avoid the Etch A Sketch problem?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. I think the issue is not in them being interviewed. The issue is in giving them a live mic, right? Somehow we believe that you get invited on a show and you can just talk about anything you want versus an actual … I interview people all the time. Some of them are live. A lot of them are not. You sit down and you actually press them over and over and over. It might take an hour and a half. Usually when I do a doc, our first interview is maybe two and a half hours, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
Because you’re actually trying to get to an answer. It’s much easier to manipulate and manage people, as the interviewee, when you’re in a live interview because you’re hitting times. They have four minutes, maybe four and a half, maybe six possibly, but really not much more than that. You’re well aware if you can just filibuster, if you can just say things to get through it, you’re going to be fine. I would say anybody who lies to me, I absolutely positively do not invite them back to be a guest, if I don’t have to.
Soledad O’Brien:
Now, if they’re a news maker and I actually need them on the air because they’re now part of a story, I will absolutely go interview them, but I’ll ask them the questions that I need answered. I’m not going to allow them to, as I’ve seen on CNN as a good example, interview a white supremacist who basically does a recruiting message at the beginning because they have the mic, right? They can do … That’s how they manage the interview.
Soledad O’Brien:
I feel like we’ve allowed people to come on the show and basically just say stuff that’s not true. You’re promoting misinformation and disinformation or you’re promoting a person who spews misinformation and disinformation. Yes, people should not be invited on if they haven’t managed to give an answer to something that’s important and relevant. They should be asked that.
Preet Bharara:
What is confusing to me sometimes, and I’ve commented on this before, you’ll have a journalist, they’ll have four or six minutes, whatever the case may be, and they want to hit three topics, and they get to topic one and the interviewee, the guest, lies or obfuscates in a pretty obvious way, and maybe there’ll be one follow-up and it may not be particularly strong.
Preet Bharara:
Then instead of sticking with that first topic, because they want to get to three topics, and I don’t know if this is because of a producer or some other reason, they’ll just move on. The same thing happens with topic two and the same thing happens with topic three. I wonder, why don’t journalists, from time to time, just throw the playbook out and do six minutes on the one topic to expose the deceitfulness or to expose the emptiness of the argument?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. What you’re describing is very accurate. You see it all the time. I think there’s this pressure to make news, right? You push back once and then there is a real pressure to say, “Well, I can’t get this person answer,” and also a sense that you don’t want to be combative. You don’t want to fight with the person. You need them to come back. Right? Part of, I think this is very much for our political press, a lot of your ability to do your job at the level you want to is to have access.
Soledad O’Brien:
The minute people start cutting you off from access, it gets harder to do your job, right? How are you going to staff Meet the Press if people are like, “Nope, I’m not coming on your show.” You actually could do a great job by having … There’s a zillion political people to talk about, probably many more interesting, but that’s not the way that they do that show. I think that it’s ridiculous that somebody who lies gets one weak ass pushback, and then is basically understands that if they just push back on the pushback one time, whether even if it’s just completely inaccurate or just a complete lie, that the anchor will move on.
Soledad O’Brien:
Because they sometimes don’t know how to fight that question, they don’t know how, and they don’t want to, right? They don’t want to get in a fight. They don’t want to have a battle. It would be amazing to say, “I’m going to stop right here because I actually need to dig into this. Why are you lying? It was a yes-no question.” It is like you have to be very well prepared for that, and I think that’s also part of it.
Preet Bharara:
Something you said made me want to ask you, generally speaking, who has the power and the leverage? Is it the journalist or the host, or is it the politician? Because you said a second ago, well, the journalist or host has to be careful because the politician cannot come back. But doesn’t the politician also need the oxygen of the media or are there so many outlets that politicians can pick and choose?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah, they need it less and they need it less and less. Also, know that a good soundbite that’s been teed up by the fill in the blank Sunday morning person can live on your website, can live on social media where the actual audience will be far, it has a potential to be far bigger than if in fact just looking at the audience of one of those shows. In fact, if they just rerun that chunk, the host says something, you answer back in a tough and sassy way. You might be lying, but you answer back in a tough way that makes you look good. Fox news might pick that up, and now that chunk actually goes to a much bigger audience.
Soledad O’Brien:
I think people have learned very quickly that using some of these hosts as a way to spew their ideas, because no one’s going to call them on it and say, “You’re lying,” it’s a really good business to be in. It’s incredibly frustrating, I think, to watch. One of the reasons when we started doing Matter of Fact, we don’t interview politicians. We actually wanted to educate our audience and explain things, so we really focused probably more on policy and how things work rather than finding two people who can fight with each other over the next four minutes.
Preet Bharara:
Are there particular people in the current or former administration or any administration, but people who have had high government office who you think should just not be interviewed on television?
Soledad O’Brien:
Well, again, I interviewed live. Yeah, I don’t think there’s any reason to put Kellyanne Conway on TV, about her book. Right? I think if she would agree to a very aggressive interview about her time in the White House with someone who was willing to be tough on her, that could be interesting. But clearly, when someone’s just on to talk about the fact that they’ve written a book, I think all of those people who have leveraged their way from doing things that were completely immoral, sometimes I would say probably possibly illegal into a book deal, and then they want to come on and use the very media that they vilify to pitch their book, it’s disgusting. I do think some people probably have something interesting to say. Would I give them a live mic? Absolutely not.
Preet Bharara:
What about someone like Bill Barr? Same with his book?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. I think he could be a very … I wouldn’t pitch his book. I would say, “Okay, congrats on writing your book. Here are the questions I want to ask you.” Right? Not the idea that … Who’s the woman in public health?
Preet Bharara:
Deborah Birx.
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah, Deborah Birx, right. Dr. Birx, right? When she could have said, at great tremendous risk to her career obviously, “I need to tell the American public please do not do that. Right? I need to. I have spent my life in public health. My mission is to help people. This person has just said, suggested that you should be injecting some kind of cleaning fluid,” and that probably would’ve ended her career, but she would’ve done the thing that was her mission in her life. When she’s interviewed, you know what she says? “Well, as I say in my book, as I say in my book, as I say in my book.” Why?
Preet Bharara:
They train you. When you write a book, they train you-
Soledad O’Brien:
Of course.
Preet Bharara:
… to say that phrase-
Soledad O’Brien:
Pitch the book.
Preet Bharara:
… as much as possible.
Soledad O’Brien:
It doesn’t really work. People should stop training people that way.
Preet Bharara:
I agree. I think it’s a bit silly.
Soledad O’Brien:
But here’s a woman, right? Who had a moment to be courageous, and in her interview … Some people did a good job in her interview, but she literally is the definition of a coward, and that actually would be interesting. Because if I were going to interview, I’d say, “I would like to talk to you about, I’d like to dig into that moment of cowardice.” Listen, I have had-
Preet Bharara:
She would come running to that interview, wouldn’t she?
Soledad O’Brien:
No, but I think … But she did talk about the mistakes that she made. Right? Then you could stop and say, “I don’t want to get now to page 25 where you talk about this and how each scarf represented a different bladah blah. I want to talk about what went through your mind? What went through your mind about your career? You work hard for this career. There are not a lot of women in the position that you’re in. I’d love to talk about this to the surge in general.” Right? When he said that (beep) line about he was in better shape than Trump. Here’s a man, I think he was in the army, who clearly is 30-something years old and fantastic.
Preet Bharara:
No. In other words, no, you mean he said that Trump was in better shape than him.
Soledad O’Brien:
Oh, I’m sorry. Forgive me. Yes. I said that backwards. He said that he … One of his quotes was, “The President’s in better shape than I.” You’re like, “Well, that’s just unmitigated lie. I’m so curious. What would make you say that?”
Preet Bharara:
It occurs to me, if you did a documentary about Deborah Birx, you know what you could call it?
Soledad O’Brien:
What?
Preet Bharara:
The Unrebellious Life of Mrs. Deborah Birx.
Soledad O’Brien:
Don’t Break A Sweat: The Story of Deborah Birx.Preet Bharara:
A story of non courage.
Soledad O’Brien:
But she is actually well-respected pre, I think, her tenure with President Trump. Well-respected by her peers. She’s not a … There’s a couple of folks, many folks in that administration who are complete absolute nutbags, but she was not that. Again, as much as I like to understand what makes a person in the moment be courageous, what made that person who was honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, what made them decide to go run down the hill and rescue all their colleagues? That’s insane. The same token-
Preet Bharara:
Well, it’s called character and integrity.
Soledad O’Brien:
Right, but-
Preet Bharara:
That’s what it’s called.
Soledad O’Brien:
… I’m so interested in the flip of that. What makes you decide at that moment to just sell yourself down the river, and in some ways, damage your whole entire career? I find that just so interesting. Yeah, I’m up for interviewing everybody. I really do like interviews, but there is a way to interview people.
Preet Bharara:
We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Soledad O’Brien after this. I’m still curious about the right balance that a journalist should strike if they have a particular beat. For example, let’s say you work for some outlet, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, whatever, and you’re the principal reporter who covers the Department of Justice, and more specifically, you cover the attorney general, who is now Merrick Garland, but has been many different people at many different times, and you know that to do your job, you a little bit have to have some access, although that’s a controversial word.
Preet Bharara:
You want, from time to time, the attorney general to talk to you, you want to be invited to the press breakfasts, you want people to be able to give you background about issues that are important to your coverage and to your outlet. What’s the appropriate level of aggressiveness to engage in? If you think that the attorney general of the Department of Justice is doing something bad, do you go all out? I’m not phrasing the question particularly elegantly.
Soledad O’Brien:
I understand what you’re saying.
Preet Bharara:
But how much do you have to worry because your job … Because you’re not doing a one-off article. Your beat for the next two years is to cover the particular attorney general and his agency.
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. That is a big piece of the dilemma, which [inaudible 00:43:33].
Preet Bharara:
How do you do it without compromising yourself?
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s challenging. I think there are some people for whom you want respect, you want to be able to have him respect you so that when you ask a tough question and you push, that person understands that you’re a good reporter and you’re doing your job. I think that it’s very easy to dip into either being so aggressive. Especially now, I think a lot of press people understand that there’s just less respect for the press.
Soledad O’Brien:
You can just decide the press can’t come in, or you specifically. There was a time when if one journalist wasn’t allowed in a room, people would say, “Well, if you’re not going to allow so and so in, we’re not going to come in either. We’re the press.” If it’s an unjustified banning of that person. Right?
Preet Bharara:
That solidarity is gone, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
So gone. Right? That’s piece of it. I think that it’s very easy to dig into, to be too aggressive, but I don’t think you always need access to be a good reporter. I’ve never had a specific beat. Maybe I’m not exactly the right person to ask about where is the line? Because I would do one interview with Merrick Garland and probably not another one. I’d have nothing to lose if I was doing a live interview.
Soledad O’Brien:
Often they get mad at CNN or whatever organization you were working with, but by then it was a little bit too late. But I personally never really felt the blow back. If you wanted to book somebody again and again and again, then, yeah, you have to tread carefully, and because there’s less solidarity. Because the press people understand, the PR people understand their power, I do think you get a lot of access journalism coming into play because you understand what side your bread is buttered on. Right?
Soledad O’Brien:
You know if you do a certain thing, that it’s going to be really hard to get a second interview. If this is your career, you might be in trouble. Now, you could break stories as people do and make news as people do by not having access, by actually reporting. There are ways to do that. Certainly, I’ve done a zillion docs where you go in, and in spite of people not giving you access and not telling you the truth and really not getting back to you ever at all, you can do a great story, you can break a lot of news, and eventually you force them into a position where they have to answer you back at some way.
Soledad O’Brien:
We did a piece the other day. This is not a perfect analogy. We did a piece for Real Sports about Deshaun Watson and we were trying to get his attorneys to talk to us really over a year, but hardcore requests over a couple of months and they just wouldn’t do it. Until the day, I think it was the day the show gets put to bed, where that was the last moment.
Soledad O’Brien:
But I think at the beginning they probably felt like, “Well, we don’t have to.” Then as we kept reporting, without any insider or information or a lot of access, we had a lot of conversations, but we really wanted it on camera interview. At some point, people decide, well, maybe it does behoove us to do that interview.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah. Look, I remember hearing from people and understanding from other folks that press secretaries and communications directors will say, “You should do interviews with the people whose job it is day in and day out to cover you or your team or your agency or your office.” The one-off person who’s coming to do a profile who doesn’t care about any blow back is a dangerous interview to do. Just ask Stanley McChrystal about Rolling Stone.
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I get it, right? Because it’s a better path. It makes a lot of sense. But journalists don’t have to do that.
Preet Bharara:
No, they don’t.
Soledad O’Brien:
I don’t think it’s either or, honestly. I think there’s a happy medium where … I’ve, again, done a number of documentaries where I’ve told people, “We’re going to have this very uncomfortable conversation about this big thing that’s an elephant in the room. I can’t interview you. I can’t interview you without asking this, obviously.” I’m not an ambush interviewer.
Soledad O’Brien:
I just don’t ambush people. I don’t like it and I really like people to be prepared in their answer. I’ll be prepared and they can be prepared. But I do think you have to … How do you write a book about Bill Cosby and not talk about people who’d made allegations about him? Right? I think it really-
Preet Bharara:
Yeah. I think that’s clear.
Soledad O’Brien:
It comes back to bite you later. I think there’s a middle ground though of being respectful and being hardworking and saying, “I need to ask you this question because this thing doesn’t make sense.” That’s very different than screaming at somebody over a four-minute interview, “Why are you lying to me?” Or something. I think people who respect journalists will sit and explain and push back and expect that journalist to reflect accurately what they said, right? It’s a two-way street.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah. You mentioned Kellyanne Conway in the fact that she has prevaricate, lied to use a simpler word. But the world heavyweight champion of lying and deception and deceitfulness was her boss, Donald Trump. I know you’ve talked about this before. What was the right way from the get-go for journalists to have dealt with the lies of Donald Trump?
Soledad O’Brien:
Again, I think the difference with Donald Trump was that he was a ratings-getter. Journalists just loved him on air. He just was a ratings-getter, and it was a win-win. A win-win, right? It was great for your own show, and I think that one of the challenges that journalists found very quickly, very early on was that he’s a hard person to interview because then I’ve interviewed him, not in his presidential run. He just rolls from thing to thing to thing, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
He doesn’t stay within a structure, and he’s willing to go there. Right? He’s willing to … What you like when you book people in a show where you’re going to have a dispute, conjure up Real Housewives, right? You want them to go there. This is why you pay them the money. You need the person who’s going to go there and the one who’s going to give it back. This is the entertainment aspect of it. He was very entertaining. But if you actually want information, if you need data, if you need to understand an issue, he’s not really helpful in that.
Soledad O’Brien:
I think journalists, some of them, just let him ramble, which meant just a ton of, a slew of just absolute crap would come out. Other people wanted to be his friend, and so they would be very jovial and suck up to him. I think you can think of lots of morning shows where that was the case, and I think people … But in terms of holding him to account, he’d be one of those people where you just would want to take one thing and spend 10 minutes on it. But you’ve said this, but you’ve said this, but let’s go back to what you’ve said.
Preet Bharara:
The power of repetition.
Soledad O’Brien:
People don’t want to do that. They want to make news.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah. I think of it sometimes as a well-respected, good journalist who is used to dealing with ordinary folks, you’re a well-trained and fit boxer ,and you’re expecting a boxer to come in and there are rules, punch below the belt. Instead of a fellow boxer coming into the ring, it’s an actual chicken who’s clucking around the ring going between your legs, and I think journalists didn’t know how to handle a person like Donald Trump.
Soledad O’Brien:
But remember, there’s also the guy outside the ring who says, “Listen, you might have the 10 most important minutes of TV. This could be very good for your career. You get something out of this chicken. Make sure this is huge. This could be huge. Also, I think I can get you a book deal about your time in with the chicken. You had better make sure you get to 20 questions. Do not come back with one question that’s a question based that he might not even answer.” Right? Literally, you have nothing.
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s like when tissue paper gets wet and goes through your fingers. I think there are lots of pressures on journalists, and I think, again, lots of examples of access journalism, where people just felt like to get information from Trump, you needed to be in his circle, you needed time with him, you needed FaceTime, and that means because he reads everything, you’d better make sure you’re writing in a way that he’s going to like. Otherwise, you’re going to be banned, and if you’re banned and your job is to cover him, that might be pretty problematic.
Preet Bharara:
You say a lot of things about how journalists can do a better job and media outlets can do a better job, and that’s what we’ve been talking about for some time. One of the things you talk about that we’ve touched upon is a pretty simple principle, which is just don’t elevate lies.
Soledad O’Brien:
Ye, right?
Preet Bharara:
I think we can agree with that. I think that’s pretty … You said it’s a simple thing and I think that’s true. Relatedly, you talk about the importance of journalists, whatever the answers they get might be, that it’s important for them to give context. What do you mean by that?
Soledad O’Brien:
Well, I think I give this example a lot and it’s not a real example, but it’s a pretty clear example. Right? If Donald Trump were to say something like, “The moon is made of cheese,” which it is not, people will often very uncritically and without any kind of context say, “So Donald Trump said the moon is made of cheese.” Well, that actually is helping to spread something we all know is not accurate, and that’s not a real quote of his, but there’s 100 zillion other things you could [inaudible 00:52:50].
Preet Bharara:
But you could imagine it, because you would say, “It’s not made of cheese. Well, how do you know? Have you been there? Do you like cheese?”
Soledad O’Brien:
Right. You could imagine that whole thing. I think one of the problems that people have, and I see this on social media a lot, is someone quotes uncritically without context, right? Without saying, “This thing is untrue, but here’s what he said.” You see that all the time. I think it’s a way to get clicks, to do a little bit of outrage manufacturing and to get clicks, because I think most things are complicated, and to say, “Hey, this person said this, the actual truth is a little more complicated,” or, “This is a lie, and we’re going to tell you the story of how such and such actually works,” is less sexy, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s not a tight tease. It’s not. “Moon is made of cheese,” says the president. I think that’s also just another iteration of misinformation elevation, right? It’s just, again, taking stuff that is (beep) and somehow putting it into the atmosphere and not framing it with the things I’m going to show you here are just not true. A lot of reporters will then look you in the eye and say, “But he said it. I’m just saying that he said.”
Preet Bharara:
Because he’s the president, it’s newsworthy and we’re repeating it.
Soledad O’Brien:
It is absolutely newsworthy. Sometimes when it’s a NBA star who says the earth is flat, right? Also, may be newsworthy. But again, I don’t think that anyone would say it’s really smart or useful or helpful or clarifying for your audience to say, “‘The earth is flat,’ says big NBA star.” I think it’s much more likely to say, “A person who knows nothing about science and is known for believing this thing that is false says this thing.”
Soledad O’Brien:
I think when you think for me, when I think about what my job is, what is my job? My job is to help my audience understand what is happening, and that actually requires context. That actually requires lots of framing and information. Well, why might the police chief in Uvalde say something like this? Because just quoting him without some context might actually just be furthering some misinformation.
Soledad O’Brien:
Shouldn’t we say, “These people have a dog in the fight too. Just know that this quote might be inaccurate or understand that this thing here we know now to be untrue?” Just quoting someone is a terrible way to send along misinformation and you’re not serving your audience, which to me is the final gauge.
Preet Bharara:
A big takeaway for me from this interview is the difficulty of doing all these things that you’re talking about in a live television interview. Maybe in a newspaper where you can quote from someone and then have a paragraph of context. But in the live television interview, whether it’s with Kellyanne Conway or Donald Trump or the police chief in Uvalde, it’s hard-
Soledad O’Brien:
It’s hard, but-
Preet Bharara:
… in real time, live to provide context.
Soledad O’Brien:
… you can help yourself by going into it knowing, well, then maybe we shouldn’t talk to Kellyanne live. Right? Here’s a person who we’ve known that lies. Let’s not talk to her live. I don’t know why you’d want to talk about her stupid book. I don’t think it’s done very well, but that’s my own personal little opinion. But if let’s say you desperately wanted to understand that. You don’t have to hand people a live mic. You can even pre-interview someone and then pop them on the air 10 minutes later not live, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
It can fill that live. We used to call that, might still be called as live. Right? You interviewed someone basically as live. It happens all the time. This idea that everybody gets to be live when you don’t have the ability to fact check them, maybe you’re not good enough or maybe you just don’t have the time to know all the details, it is a lot of work. Yeah. But you can stave off probably 75% of your problems by not booking those people in the first place, by recognizing this is what they do. They come on the air to do this very thing. Don’t be surprised.
Preet Bharara:
But here’s the other thing that happened. We talked about one motivation being continued access, another motivation being ratings. But there is sometimes the case, hopefully more often than not, that there is an idealistic aspiration for the journalist to be, whatever in that journalist’s mind, it means to be neutral or objective or fair, which leads to the problem you’ve also talked about, which is the false equivalency. What do you do about that problem?
Soledad O’Brien:
Yeah. I think the best example that I’ve heard about this for folks who don’t really understand what that is, right? Is this idea of looking out the window and asking people, “Is it raining or not?” This person says it’s raining, this person says … Well, the actual job, right? Is to go outside and tell people, “I was there, I was reporting it and here’s what I saw. It was in fact raining.”
Soledad O’Brien:
I think the false equivalency thing comes around because of a pressure to feel like you are not taking a side, and I think the side you should be taking is the side of truth and accuracy. I think it’s also really easy. Oh my gosh, if you’re busy, it’s so nice to have two people, they just fight, right? Here’s your job, “Senator Jones, Senator Smith says you’re a big fat liar. How do you respond?” Right? They talk for a one minute.
Soledad O’Brien:
“Senator Smith stand by. Senator Smith, as you heard, Senator Jones answering you back saying, no, in fact it’s you who’s the big fat liar. How do you respond?” Right? It’s so easy to anchor that kind of a show. It is so easy. It’s really, really hard work to actually sit down with somebody and make sure that you are pushing them on the specific things, and sometimes you’re actually just trying to get information. Not every interview has to be this side versus that side. Sometimes it’s just walk me through how this works.
Soledad O’Brien:
Explain to the audience your thinking. You could sit down with the police chief in Uvalde and just say, “I want you to walk me through your thought process at this moment, at this moment, at this moment. Then you get this information, what do you do with that?” Right? That’s an interview where they’re just giving their side. Now, when you do your full reporting, you can say, “Hey, here’s all the pieces.” But everything doesn’t have to be he says this, but she says that.
Soledad O’Brien:
A lot of things are actually factually clear about what has happened, and it’s the reporter’s job to give context and to elevate the pieces of that are clear and maybe even dig into the pieces of that are not clear. Here’s why these two people standing there seem to have opposite takes on the very same thing. That could be interesting. It’s just a lot more work than, on the other hand, this. On the other hand, Jane says it’s raining, but on the other hand, Steve says it’s not.
Preet Bharara:
You’re pretty blunt about these criticisms on social media, and with particularity, you call out people by name and people comment on it, and you have said when asked about it before, “One of the nicest things about being in your 50s is I don’t need anymore friends.” First, that means, I guess, that you and I can’t be friends because you’re full?
Soledad O’Brien:
I’m full, but you know what? If I have a resignation, I’m happy to consider you.
Preet Bharara:
Put me on the wait list.
Soledad O’Brien:
Listen, I’m always looking for acquaintances, and then I upgrade people from acquaintance into-
Preet Bharara:
Yes.
Soledad O’Brien:
I have two friends. I have my best friend, Kim.
Preet Bharara:
Well, do you have Washington friends? Remember the phrase Washington friend [inaudible 01:00:13] I lived in Washington for four and a half years?
Soledad O’Brien:
Oh no.
Preet Bharara:
That’s a real thing.
Soledad O’Brien:
Is it?
Preet Bharara:
No, they’re not really a friend, but you say you’re friends and you talk about the behind the [inaudible 01:00:21].
Soledad O’Brien:
No, I don’t have Wash … When I say friends-
Preet Bharara:
You shouldn’t. You shouldn’t have Washington friends.
Soledad O’Brien:
… I mean friends. When I say friends, I mean I could call somebody up right now and they would say, “I’m getting on a plane in a … I booked my flight. I’ll get on that next flight. I will see you first thing in the morning.” Right? That’s your friend. That’s your person who puts down what they’re doing and they … That’s your friend. I think [inaudible 01:00:41]
Preet Bharara:
Do people get mad at you when you talk about them on the social medias?
Soledad O’Brien:
Sometimes. Sometimes, and they’re welcome to, right? I understand that. People criticize the work that I do sometimes. I get it. Sometimes I’ll say, “Well, let me give you some insight into why I did that. “This latest kerfuffle, I think between, I think her name is Felicia Sonmez. I’m not [inaudible 01:01:01] I don’t know her, from the Washington Post and Dave Weigel, another guy. I don’t know. When they had this back and forth on Twitter about Dave retweeting, a guy who basically tweeted some version of women are either nuts or sluts, basically. He said women are-
Preet Bharara:
Yeah, I think it’s all women are bi.
Soledad O’Brien:
Right. They’re bisexual or bipolar, right. Some version of that, right? I don’t know any of the parties involved at all. But again, if someone pushed back on me and said, “Soledad, why did you do that?” Which sometimes people do, right? I’ll say, “Here’s why I did it. Here’s what I was thinking.” But often I’ll say, “I’m really sorry. You know what? I thought blah, blah, blah. I’d like to apologize,” if that’s the case.
Soledad O’Brien:
If I feel like, wow, that was a mistake. I shouldn’t have done it. But we’re in a moment where … Again, they’re welcome to be mad at me if they don’t like my take. If I think I’m wrong, then I’ll take it back or shift it. If I think I’m right, then I won’t. When we did our documentary, Black in America, I had a number of people who wrote to me and said …
Soledad O’Brien:
I think we had divided that doc up into the first two hours was the assassination of Dr. King, second hour was the Black woman and family, the third hour was the Black man. Those two might be reversed. The amount of criticism I got for framing the doc series that way was a ton, and you know what? They were right. It was just done out of sloppiness, and I was part of it, right? Why did we divide it into the Black man and the Black women and family? [inaudible 01:02:33] stupid way to do it, and utterly no thought in it. None.
Soledad O’Brien:
I wish someone had been in the room to say, “Why are we dividing it this way? This makes me uncomfortable.” It’s a stupid way to divide it. But I was part of it. I did it. When people push back on me, I’m like, “God, you’re right,” and I can’t even claim there’s some brilliant thought process behind it. I just (beep) that up. I understand when someone’s not happy with it. I get it. I think people should examine what part of it is making them uncomfortable.
Preet Bharara:
I want to talk about another issue that’s in the news, and that is what may be the imminent overruling of Roe v. Wade. The taking away reproductive rights. That could happen before this podcast airs, because we’re taping it a few days in advance. The question that arises is not just the issue of reproductive rights, but other personal rights based on a right to privacy, one of which is the right to marry who you want.
Preet Bharara:
I raise that because I know you’ve talked about it and I wonder if you would elaborate. You were born to an Australian man who was White and a Black woman who was from Cuba, both immigrants, who, as I understand it, at the time had to get married in Washington, D.C. because it was against the law for a Black person and a White person to get married in Maryland. In light of what’s going on now and the threats to various rights, how do you think about the future as it relates to your past and your parents’ past?
Soledad O’Brien:
Whew. Well, that’s a big question to leave toward the end. Yeah. An interesting little factoid I discovered just a few days ago, when my mom and dad had their first kids in Baltimore, when they lived in Baltimore, they got married in D.C., and then went back to Baltimore where interracial marriage was illegal until I guess, my little brother was born the same year, so 1967. My two older sisters were born and my sister …
Soledad O’Brien:
My parents passed away now a couple of years ago, and my sister was going through their things finally, and she said an interesting thing that dad had put on everybody … Her birth certificate and my older sister’s birth certificate had written his race as Negro. My dad was super White dude. He wasn’t one of those people you’re like, “Maybe. I don’t know.” But in order to, and I’m not even sure, but I wish I had known this before they passed away, I would’ve asked them about it, right?
Soledad O’Brien:
To avoid trouble? I don’t know what. On my birth certificate. on everybody else’s birth certificates who were born in New York, he lists himself as White. But on the birth certificate of my two sisters who were born in Baltimore, he lists himself as Black. Fascinating. Yeah. It’s obviously, I think we’re at a really crazy, scary time, and I don’t know enough about the law to weigh in thoughtfully on how likely any of these things that seem to be teed up.
Soledad O’Brien:
IF you had asked me 10 years ago did I think the law that passed in Ohio about people now being able to check the genitals of … I would’ve been like, “That would be insane, and no,” and yet here we are. I don’t know what’s coming down the pike from that. I really don’t. It’s very crazy to me and unnerving and anxiety provoking to even be having a discussion about it.
Preet Bharara:
How do you think the coverage is of these issues?
Soledad O’Brien:
In some ways, I think the coverage of law has been interesting because a lot of times lawyers and people who are experts in SCOTUS or whatever I think are very good at understanding that they have expertise and the rest of us don’t. They click into this, I’m going to educate the public. I think when you have experts in the law on the air, they’re quite good because they tend to assume we don’t know what we’re talking about, and we need an explanation.
Soledad O’Brien:
I love that framing for an audience. I know and I can give you help, but you don’t know. In terms of just sheer amount of coverage, I don’t think there’s been very much. I think people like to … Even when people would talk about threats to Roe v. Wade, I remember when Hillary Clinton brought that up originally. A lot of journalists, overtly, not even at home to their friends would say that they just were not a fan of Secretary Clinton, and that anybody who was worried about some of these things like Roe v. Wade, well, that they were just ridiculous and just fear mongering and just over the top and overly dramatic, and here we are.
Soledad O’Brien:
I think there’s often a sense of everybody wanting to believe, again, back to that heroic narrative, back to that, well, in the end it all wraps up nicely. I think Americans like, as someone told me the other day in an interview, a sad story, but neatly wrapped up, right? The bad thing won’t have … The movie won’t just end with it all being bad. It can’t. It has to end with some-
Preet Bharara:
Sometimes it does.
Soledad O’Brien:
It does a lot, actually. I think there’s lots of people who will tell you that it ends that way a lot. It’s [inaudible 01:07:42].
Preet Bharara:
There’s a movie that I’ve been thinking about writing about, maybe for our listeners, I think it’s called Arlington Road.
Soledad O’Brien:
I don’t know it.
Preet Bharara:
Which is an astonishing movie because it doesn’t end happily.
Soledad O’Brien:
What’s it about?
Preet Bharara:
It’s about a terrorist. In the end, the building blows up and the terrorist is not caught. It’s so shocking and devastating that you’re just stunned sitting there because you don’t expect that because movies don’t end that way.
Soledad O’Brien:
Right, and yet life does. Right?
Preet Bharara:
Life does.
Soledad O’Brien:
But actually, life … Talk to all those parents in Uvalde, right? Where they’re like, “The end of this movie should be the heroic police chief in this … The way the story goes, they go in because they’ve spent all this money over all this time to outfit and train for this moment in time, and the courage comes through and they go in and they save the day,” and they didn’t. Or-
Preet Bharara:
[inaudible 01:08:34]
Soledad O’Brien:
… that Dr. Bix … Birx. Sorry, Dr. Birx. Dr. Birx, in the moment when finally, a bridge too far, the president, a national television is suggesting that people inject cleaning fluid into their own arms. Right? She stands up and she says, “Screw it. Even if this means the end of my career, what has always mattered to me is the health of the public. It’s why I got into public health at all. This is my moment.” She should have said, “I have to say something,” but just couldn’t. Happens a lot in real life. It doesn’t sell a movie, but it happens a whole lot in real life.
Preet Bharara:
Soledad O’Brien, it’s great to have you on the show. I want to remind people about this documentary you have, that is I think must watch for everyone, The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks. Tell people where they can see it.
Soledad O’Brien:
You can watch it at Tribeca. Tribeca has an online viewing, but it’s also going to be at the Tribeca Film Festival. I hope anybody who’s in New York City will come and watch it with us. On the 16th, the 17th and the 18th is when it’s going to be showing at Tribeca.
Preet Bharara:
Soledad O’Brien, thanks so much.
Soledad O’Brien:
My pleasure.
Preet Bharara:
My conversation with Soledad O’Brien continues from members of the CAFE insider community to try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider.
THE BUTTON:
Preet Bharara:
I want to end the show this week by talking about the thing that’s still on everyone’s minds and still is breaking everyone’s hearts. Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen unspeakable tragedy after tragedy. So many lives lost to gun violence in Buffalo, in Uvalde, in Philadelphia, in Tulsa, just to name a few.
By the time this airs, more people will have died due to gun violence. Every one of these deaths is horrible and unconscionable and devastating and heartbreaking. There is a category of victims of gun deaths that we don’t talk so much about. It’s a small group of victims, but each one is a dagger to the heart of our system and to the rule of law itself. I’m talking about the cold-blooded murders of judges. These are men and women who have taken an oath to the constitution and who we don’t think about as being vulnerable.
Preet Bharara:
They sit in robes and elevated position, they have a lot of authority, they command a lot of respect, but they are in the crosshairs too, quite literally. Just last week, there was a cold-blooded killing of a judge at the hands of a person the judge had sentenced some years earlier. Judge John Roemer was a retired Juneau County Circuit Court Judge in Wisconsin. He was found dead in his home in the township of New Lisbon. He had been bound with zip ties and then shot. The suspect had been convicted in 2005 on a charge of armed burglary with a dangerous weapon.
Preet Bharara:
The suspect pled guilty to that charge, as well as the charges of carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a short barreled shotgun rifle, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Judge Roemer had sentenced him to six years in prison, and last week, the person he sentenced murdered the judge in what the state attorney general called a targeted act against the judicial system.
Preet Bharara:
Judge Roemer was one of many prominent names on a hit list of political targets. Multiple senior law enforcement officials briefed on the incident said that the apparent hit list included Wisconsin governor, Tony Evers, Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, and US Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. Judge Roemer was 68 years old. He was already retired from the bench having left in 2017 after first being elected in 2004.
Preet Bharara:
He had also served as an assistant district attorney for Juneau County, an assistant state public defender, and as a lieutenant colonel for the US Army Reserves. I think it’s important to take a moment to remember other judges who were just doing their jobs in courtrooms all around the country when they were targeted in acts of political violence. For example, as my friend and my colleague, Joyce Vance, has mentioned, in 1989, her father-in-law, Judge Robert Smith Vance of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was murdered in his home in Mountain Brook, Alabama when he opened a package containing a mail bomb.
Preet Bharara:
After a long investigation, the government charged and later convicted Walter Moody of killing Vance and Robert E. Robinson, a Black civil rights attorney based in Savannah, Georgia, and there are more recent examples too. In 2020, Daniel Anderl, the son of US District Court Judge Esther Salas was murdered when a gunman dressed as a delivery worker arrived at their New Jersey home. The gunman wounded the judge’s husband and killed Daniel who was just 20 years old.
Preet Bharara:
Incidents of political violence are tragically becoming more commonplace. A Washington Post University of Maryland poll conducted earlier this year found that about one in three Americans say they believe that violence against the government can at times be justified. That’s the highest percentage of Americans to feel that way in over two decades of polling, and it offers a disturbing window into the country’s state of mind, or at least a subset of the country.
Preet Bharara:
Against that backdrop, when the work of just doing justice can be life threatening, I think it’s important to recognize the service that judges do to uphold the rule of law at great risk to themselves and their families. We should all be grateful for those public servants, we should be grateful that they do the jobs they do without fear or favor, and I hope they remain safe.
Preet Bharara:
Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Soledad O’Brien. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics and justice. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the hashtag #askpreet, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24 PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.
Preet Bharara:
Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. The CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Wiener, Jake Kaplan, Sean Walsh, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.
