Preet Bharara:

From CAFE, and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Bianna Golodryga:

I’m really thankful that Ukraine has stood, and that Kyiv stands, and that the president of the United States, can safely, in wartime, travel to the capitol of Ukraine, and stand there with the president of Ukraine, having helped provide some 30 billion in assistance.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Bianna Golodryga. She’s a senior global affairs analyst, at CNN. This week, marks the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which initiated the full scale war, that has devastated the region, and impacted nearly every corner of the globe. This week, President Biden, visited Ukraine for the first time since the outbreak of the war. Walking around Kyiv with President Zelensky, as air raid sirens sounded above. Golodryga, joins me to discuss the tragic human costs of this war, the political maneuvering of global leaders in response to Putin, and where we go from here. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Now, let’s get to your questions.

This question comes in a tweet from Twitter user, dannymac234, who asks simply, “Why is Joe Biden, going to Ukraine?” Well, I would think about answering that question, but instead of that, I put that question to our guest this week, Bianna Golodryga, and she answers it at some length, so stay tuned for that.

We got a number of questions, about what’s going on with the, special grand jury, and the district attorney, in Fulton County, Georgia.

This is an email from Olivia, who asks, “Did you learn anything from the unsealed parts of the Grand Jury report, in the Fulton County, Trump investigation?” So you’ll recall, that there’s been this ongoing debate, and litigation, about whether the special grand jury report should be made public. The judge finally decided, that a small portion of it would be made public, the intro, the conclusion, and the part of the report that suggests, that the special grand jury, believed that one or more witnesses may have been lying, and that they took that matter very seriously. So we learned that they’ve taken their job seriously, we’ve learned that they have recommended indictments, and we have learned that they unanimously decided, that there was no widespread voter fraud. So that’s something, but the meat and potatoes, as Joyce Vance, and I, discussed in the CAFE Insider podcast, we don’t really know just yet. Now, we know a little bit more, because there’s somebody who’s been talking.

This question came in an email from Judith, who wrote, “This woman from the Georgia Grand jury, who’s been talking to the press, is very concerning. Is she causing damage to the Georgia DA’s case? Will her comments cause a mistrial? Has she said anything that would compromise a trial?” So it’s very interesting, this jury foreperson, who clearly is excited about talking to the press, and wants to talk about her experience. From what I’ve seen so far, she may be coming close to the line, but has been pretty careful not to reveal any specifics or details.

When asked the question by a member of the press, whether the jurors had recommended indicting Trump, the foreperson wouldn’t answer directly, she said, “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.” And she also went on to say, I think, in another interview, that multiple indictments were recommended.

Now it’s not a great look. I’m sure the Georgia Fulton County DA, would prefer that the foreperson not be speaking to other grand jurors. Not speak, in fact, they’re sworn to secrecy with respect to details of testimony they heard, and other things that have gone on. And of course, there is a judge, that has already decided that the large majority of the report, should remain under seal, and not be made public, which is assigned to the grand jury members, who should probably not be talking. On the other hand, I don’t see any particular legal damage that will be caused, to any ultimate case brought against Donald Trump, or anyone else. This special grand jury, remember, just composed a report. It was not able to, and not authorized to, vote on an indictment.

At some point in the future, if an indictment is sought, that will go to another grand jury, will not include this person, and presumably, those grand jurors will remain quiet, and not violate their oath. And then if one or more cases proceed to an actual trial, then a regular jury, not a grand jury, but a regular trial jury, will decide the fate of one or more defendants. And so, while I think it’s not a great look, for this poor person to be sort of excitedly talking about her service on the grand jury, and revealing some of the things that went on, I don’t think it will have any prejudicial effect, or compromise a future trial against Trump, or anyone else.

Jeanie:

Hi, Preet, this is Jeanie in Annapolis, Maryland. I’m calling, because I need you to make me smart. I was wondering if it’s possible to try someone, without telling the jury who the defendant is. Seems to me, that we’re going to have a little hard time with juries in the Donald Trump case, if it ever gets that far, and could they try him anonymously? Thanks. Bye.

Preet Bharara:

So Jeanie, thanks for your question. It’s an interesting one. I don’t see any way in our system, consistent with the rule of law, and the constitution, and protections for a defendant, who has a right to trial by jury, and also based on the particular facts of this case, that you could have any trial against Donald Trump, in which you don’t tell the jurors who the defendant is. I’ve never heard of such a thing. There are times, when a jury is rendered anonymous, because there are fears about safety, or jury tampering. There are times when particular witnesses testify anonymously. It’s very rare, but sometimes an undercover officer, who’s worried about personal safety, and their identity being compromised, can testify anonymously.

But a defendant, and certainly, by the way, if there’s a criminal trial against Donald Trump, relating to his time in the presidency, and relating to what he did, it would be impossible to tell that story, and keep the identity of the defendant Anonymous. Obviously, only one person, had the ability to tell Mike Pence to change the results of the election. Only one person, was speaking at the ellipse. Only one person, had the power, and wherewithal to do all the things that he might be alleged to have done. So I understand your concern about getting around the issue of a fair jury being empaneled, but anonymity of the defendant, is not a viable option.

We’ll be right back, with my conversation with Bianna Golodryga.

A year into Russia’s war with Ukraine, there appears to be no end in sight. On Tuesday, President Biden, affirmed US support for Ukraine, in a speech in Warsaw, Poland

President Joe Biden:

One year into this war, Putin no longer doubts the strength of our coalition, but he still doubts our conviction. But there should be no doubt, our support for Ukraine will not waiver, NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire.

Preet Bharara:

CNN’s senior global affairs analyst, Bianna Golodryga, has been covering the conflict since it began.

Bianna Golodryga, welcome back to the show.

Bianna Golodryga:

Oh, thanks for having me. I think, Preet, this is my first time on the show, actually.

Preet Bharara:

Well, no, it’s actually not.

Bianna Golodryga:

Oh, no. Didn’t I?

Preet Bharara:

You had a very important role.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes, I moderated,

Preet Bharara:

You interviewed me, when I launched my book, which is now almost four years ago, on stage live, and that was in the podcast. So it’s good to finally have you on, in the traditional context.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes, I guess that’s what I was trying to say. This is my first time in the traditional context of the show, though I am an avid listener.

Preet Bharara:

Yes. Now, you get paid the standard fee, which is zero.

Bianna Golodryga:

I welcome it.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m very delighted to have you, for many reasons, but obviously, this week marks the first anniversary of the war in Ukraine, the unprovoked war by Russia into Ukraine. And there are many reasons why you’re a perfect guest for this week, because you’ve been covering the issue, because you’ve been talking to all the experts about how they think about the issue very deeply.

But I want to start with something personal. People may not know, that your family hails from Moldova, formerly of the USSR, the Soviet Union, and your family actually was a refugee family, came to the United States when you were a baby. Does that connection to that region of the world, cause you to cover the story differently, or think about it differently, or more deeply? And, or do you try to figure out ways, to be more objective about it?

Bianna Golodryga:

I mean, I’m only human, so to be honest with you, it does hit close to home, it does feel like a personal story for me. I don’t have a long connection just physically, obviously, with Moldova, since we moved here when I was 18 months old, so there’s not a visceral reaction, in terms of, memories, that this war has sparked. Unlike my parents, who I spent a lot of time leading up to the war, and then obviously, once the invasion began, talking to about it. And this took a toll on them, it was hard for them to see clearly. We left for political reasons, and we left as political refugees, and with no money at all, and gives you a sense of what life was like for them in the Soviet Union. And that having been said, I’ll never forget my mom saying, that things were never this bad, then. We weren’t killing each other, in terms of Soviets, or Russians, or neighbors killing each other, the way Russians are killing Ukrainians, now.

I do have to say, I, growing up, would mostly tell people I was Russian, because to be honest with you, especially in Texas, not many people knew what Moldova was. It’s a small landlocked country, of about two or 3 million people, and one of the poorest countries, if not the poorest in Europe, and now, it’s sandwiched, literally, between Russia and NATO. It borders Romania and Ukraine, and it has always, for the past 20 years or so, had a neutral take, in that, it depends so much on Russia for energy and gas. It has had its own civil war years ago, and it has a breakaway region of Transnistria, which is home to about 1500 Russian soldiers. So this war has been extremely perilous for that country, and it’s applied for EU membership.

The president, President Biden, just referenced the country as well, and his support for it. It’s got a pro-western country right now, and President Zelensky, just last week, warned the Moldovan president, of an attempted coup from Russia, and a sort of cyber warfare, hybrid warfare attempt, to cause internal strife and panic, and have the country turn back towards a more pro-Russian leadership.

So needless to say, the country has been front and center, but I’ve been very proud of my heritage, and that this is a country that’s, again, small and poor, but taken in about 400,000, or so, Ukrainian refugees, in the past year.

Preet Bharara:

That’s a lot, given how large, or how small, that country is.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

So you and I are recording, I should note for the record, this podcast in the noon hour on Tuesday, February 21. And as we’re speaking, and you point this out when we began to record, our president, is speaking in Poland. I don’t know what he’s saying, so we can’t report on that.

But I have a basic question, that a listener asked me, and I decided I would punt it to you. And maybe the answer is very obvious, but I thought it was useful to begin with it. And the question comes from listener whose Twitter user, dannymac234, who asks a very simple question, “Why is Joe Biden going to Ukraine?”

Bianna Golodryga:

Well, how much time do we have?

Preet Bharara:

We got an hour. We got an hour.

Bianna Golodryga:

In a nutshell, listen, in a nutshell, it’s a very simple question. It’s the preservation of democracy. It’s standing up for democratic values.

President Joe Biden:

America, Europe, a coalition of nations, from the Atlantic, to the Pacific, we were too unified. Democracy was too strong.

Bianna Golodryga:

I think it’s, from that perspective, a black and white issue, in terms of, you have a country being the aggressor, launching an unprovoked war, against the sovereign country, with a democratically elected leadership, that posed no threat to the country, despite what Vladimir Putin, may be telling his public.

So from that sense, for the United States not to stand up for democracy, and obviously, knowing the risk that this could pose to NATO as a whole, and aiding a country, remember we’re not sending any military to Ukraine, but aiding the country with weapons, with training, in hopes of not seeing the war exacerbate between two countries into one, that could involve numerous in that, being NATO allies.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think, based on folks you’ve talked to, that it was safe and proper for him to go, given that, I think, it’s the first time an American president, has visited a war zone, without our own US troops around to protect him.

Bianna Golodryga:

It’s something he clearly has been wanting to do for a while now. It sends a symbolic message for sure. You’ve seen other NATO allies and neighbors, take that same train ride from Poland, into Kyiv, at some point.

Preet Bharara:

It was Amtrak, right?

Bianna Golodryga:

Exactly.

Preet Bharara:

Amtrak. I didn’t know they ran Amtrak.

Bianna Golodryga:

Which is why it took nine hours. No, but-

Preet Bharara:

I don’t think they have an Acela.

Bianna Golodryga:

I Don’t think think they have one yet.

Preet Bharara:

I think it’s the Northeast European Regional.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Is what he took.

Bianna Golodryga:

With a great snack bar. No, I think this is something he clearly wanted to do for a while. It was a logistical nightmare, obviously, from a security perspective, and you’re right, it’s the first time that a US president, has visited a country at war, when it hasn’t been the United States at war, where we have a military presence. It was smart, for all apparent reasons, for the United States to notify Russia of his arrival, and I think, it sent an important message. We saw President Zelensky address Congress, at the end of last year.

Speaker 5:

Against all odds, and doom, and gloom scenarios, Ukraine didn’t fall. Ukraine is alive and kicking.

Bianna Golodryga:

And I think it was fitting to see President Biden, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, and walking the streets of Kyiv, with President Zelensky, as you heard, air raid sirens wailing behind them. I believe that was, because there had been Russian MiGs spotted, flying in Belarus, so nearby, and I think that it was a strong message to send.

Preet Bharara:

Can we take a step back, and take stock, and assess the past year, and then, of course, we’ll look forward, because it’s important to figure out, and predict, what will happen in the coming weeks and months? But as an initial header, I don’t really have a sense, with any degree of accuracy, about what the human toll has been in the last year. I know it’s wartime, and there’s a lot of propaganda, and it’s hard to figure that out, but based on the interviews you’ve done, and the people you’ve spoken to, can you give us some sense of what the most accurate count is, with respect to how many Russians have died, and how many Ukrainians have died in this war?

Bianna Golodryga:

So in terms of what intelligence, both the US, and British, predominantly, have noted, Russian casualties, in terms of deaths, and those have been injured, ranges in the 200,000, if not higher, figure, which is just astronomical, if you think about how many US soldiers have died, and too many have died.

Preet Bharara:

That’s four times as many Americans died in Vietnam, right?

Bianna Golodryga:

Right. And in Afghanistan, if you think about how many years we were there, and so you just calculate in one year, the loss on the Russian side, it’s huge, it’s devastating. It’ll be devastating to any army. The Ukrainians, I think, have bit been a bit more clandestine, and haven’t been as public, I would say understandably, for many reasons, in not wanting to share their figures. The latest, I would say, assessment, would be around a hundred thousand. I mean, it’s a huge, huge number. And I think for that reason alone, just in terms of the message it sends, internationally, and for morale, domestically, to promote that number, to give a figure, Ukrainians, have assessed, would not be in their favor. So they, both sides, have lost a huge number of troops.

Preet Bharara:

And if you know, among the Russian people, ordinary Russian people, what is the figure that they either believe it is on the Russian side, or are told it is? They don’t believe it’s 200,000, right?

Bianna Golodryga:

To be honest, I don’t know what exactly they’re told. I think that Putin, has been very cognizant of this, and sensitive, to not wanting to disrupt life amongst everyday Russians, and going into this war, which he still does not call a war, but instead, refers to as a special military operation, going into even his tenure in office, and his leadership over the past 20 plus years, he’d sort of set a deal with the Russian public, that you don’t involve yourself in politics, and you will have steady, prosperous at times, lives. You’ll have jobs, you’ll have an income, you’ll have social needs, and social safety guarantees. And so, that was their deal, and you won’t have war, and he broke that promise.

That having been said, if you look at the people who are serving right now in the conscripts, and the death toll, is disproportionately higher amongst ethnic minorities in Russia.

So the purpose here, being that life, and remember, they’ve only clamped down even more on media and censorship, you can’t say war in Russia, you can’t say war on television, you can’t walk outside with just a blank sheet of paper in protest of the war. So having full control there, or nearly full control, has allowed people in the bigger cities, so let’s say St. Petersburg, and Moscow, to have a feel that that life is somewhat normal. And I, to answer your question, don’t know, and I would be surprised, very surprised, because early estimates in the war, I think, it took them months to finally say, that the number was at 5,000.

Preet Bharara:

Right.

Bianna Golodryga:

So I’m not sure what the latest is.

Preet Bharara:

And what’s your sense of the magnitude of the refugee crisis, out of Ukraine?

Bianna Golodryga:

It’s huge. And it’s not just an issue that Ukrainians are dealing with now, but in terms of what happens in the aftermath following the war, for the country to survive, and thrive, you have to have these people come back. You’ve seen millions of people leave the country to Europe, and even to the United States, around the world, but obviously, the closest refuge for them, would be neighboring countries, and don’t forget, that men had to serve.

So for a lot of these people, these families were divided, and split up. And again, we’re one year in, but early into the war, when I went to Moldova on a trip with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, and I told you, that Moldova took in about 300, 400,000 refugees, and I spoke with a few there, and every single one of them had planned to return, and they felt guilty for not being there, supporting their families, and their husbands, or boyfriends, or brothers.

But one year in, I think reality has set in for a lot of people, just thinking about how much longer this war could go on, their lives have to go on as well, and that can be very disruptive, in terms of, what a rebuilt Ukraine could look like, when you’ve lost a significant percentage of your population.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, let’s go back almost exactly a year, and there’s a disconnect, that I’m wondering if you have some insight. On the one hand, US intelligence, was right on the money, with respect to the intensity of feeling on Putin’s part, and the willingness to invade Ukraine, and a lot of people thought it wouldn’t happen. It came something of a surprise, on February 24th, so they were very good on that, but they completely overestimated the strength and might of the Russian army. Have you talked to people who have explained, how they could be so right on one thing, and so wrong on something else, that was just as important?

Bianna Golodryga:

Well, I think, one year in, we’re getting a clear picture, of not only the true status of the Russian army at the time, and remember, Russia has conducted war since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but not to this large of a scale. I think a couple of factors fit in here. Reminder, that the United States had been training Ukrainians, so this isn’t just Russia’s failure, Ukraine deserves credit for how they’ve been fighting throughout this war as well.

But sticking with just Russia, I think it’s an example, in simple terms, of bloated military, rife with corruption, an exaggerated sense of their capabilities, money spent, perhaps not smartly in areas where, for traditional combat, you necessarily, there’s no naval involvement right here, and thank God no nuclear weapons have been deployed. So from just a battleground perspective, it’s clear that they weren’t equipped for a war that would last as long as this one has.

And just going back to their initial intelligence, you mentioned our intelligence, US and Western intelligence, Russian intelligence, was faulty from the get-go, assuming that they could take Kyiv in a matter of weeks, and that the Ukrainians would be greeting them with open arms as liberators, which was not the case.

So having no preparation, no plan B, for what happens if Ukraine isn’t captured in a matter of weeks, and remember, in 2014, they took Crimea without any bloodshed there, one, without any guns going off, no fighting, I think, they assumed the same what happened here, and that wasn’t the case.

And unlike the United States, and how I think we’ve helped train the Ukrainian military, it’s very top down orders, from the Russian perspective, and I think we give a bit more leeway to our troops, in terms of, making decisions on the ground. It’s almost like a bottom up operation, and the Ukrainians proved to be very nimble, in terms of, how they responded to Russia. And Russia, it was just one mistake after another.

Preet Bharara:

In February of 2022, if I had told you a year later, we would be having a conversation about how the war was proceeding, and Ukraine was still free, would you have been surprised yourself?

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah, yeah. I would’ve been very surprised, as I think most other experts, who were more what read in on Russian capabilities, and Ukrainian capabilities, than I am. I was also one of those, surprised that Russia ended up invading. I also didn’t think that that would happen.

And one year in, on the one hand, I’m really thankful that Ukraine has stood, and that Kyiv stands, and that the president of the United States, can safely, in wartime, travel to the capitol of Ukraine, and stand there with the President of Ukraine, having helped provide some 30 billion in assistance. And that having been said, as we talked about before, the death toll, and the toll to just lives, and families, and society as a whole, has been devastating, and this war is nowhere near over.

Preet Bharara:

Here’s something else we seem to have gotten wrong. And again, I’m not casting dispersion on anyone in the fog of war, and in trying to assess the effects policies will have, it’s obviously very, very difficult, and there are a lot of variables, but we undertook a regime of sanctions against Russia, and you, recently, interviewed somebody about this. And in the premise to your question, to this expert, you pointed out that the expectation of the first year of sanctions, was a 10% decline in Russian GDP, and it’s only actually ended up being about two and a half, 3%, which is not quite devastating. What are people saying about how that was misestimated?

Bianna Golodryga:

I think, it’s once again, another example of how sanctions aren’t the silver bullet, and you don’t have to look at just Russia. I mean, look at Iran, and North Korea, other countries that we’ve leveled sanctions against, they’ve continued to, if prosper, clearly is not the right word, but they’ve continued to function, and the regimes have stayed in place.

In Russia, and the expert that I spoke with Dmitri Alperovitch, it’s clear that the Russia was able to bypass some of these sanctions, and import from other countries, former Soviet republics, china, has been a big help in the microchip sector, and technology, and we’ll probably get to China in just a second, but China has avoided the larger ramifications, of directly providing assistance to to Russia through this war, and avoided secondary sanctions to this point. But Russia, is still commodity driven economy, and has been able to sell oil, and gas, if not to its traditional market and buyers, which was Europe. You’ve got countries like China, and India, and others, that have been willing to step up, and take their place.

So from all of those perspectives, Russia, has been able to manage rather stably, I would say, through this year, and Putin, of course, has been focusing on that in multiple speeches. Again, blaming the West, and accusing the West of wanting to bring Russia down, and this is a war between the West and Russia, and not Russia and Ukraine, and to that point, as you said, the economy still holds.

Now, what happens in the years, or the months ahead, there’s some indication that Russia, and their economy, could suffer more consequentially. But again, one year in it’s not, you compare where Ukraine is, and their economy, has seen a GDP decline of over 40%.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I wonder if some of it is just. That sanctions. And departures of Western companies from a country like Russia, it takes time for that to have a harmful effect, so whether it’s at ATM machines, or infrastructure, or cars, or whatever the case may be that are of Western origin, those things work for a while, but when there’s no ability to get things repaired, or parts, everything falls apart, but maybe that takes 2, 3, 4, 5 years, is that what you’re hearing?

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah, and people adapt, so if you can’t get your Starbucks, you get a Russian equivalent, if you can’t get McDonald’s, so second rate, maybe, isn’t ideal, but it’s manageable. People who were used to a lavish lifestyle, can still get the same goods that they were getting before, they just pay a premium for them.

So you’re right, this is something sort of like, putting a frog in boiling water, it takes a while for it to take its toll on a society, that, as you know, historically, has had a high threshold for suffering, and has been told that this is worth the sacrifice, given this existential threat that the West poses to them.

Preet Bharara:

Like, with the importance of denazification.

Bianna Golodryga:

Exactly. In saving all of those people from the Nazis in Ukraine, a country, which is run by a president, a democratically elected president, as a Jewish heritage, so go figure.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, go figure. You said something a second ago, about how people get used to a lavish lifestyle, and of course, we have a lot of that in recent years in Russia, and some of those people are called, oligarchs. I’m sure you’re on the phone with oligarchs all the time. Why is it that they are pretty acquiescent in all of this, even though their standard of living, and the risks to their fortunes, and everything else, are quite extreme? Is it just pure terror of, dear leader, Putin?

Bianna Golodryga:

I think we misjudged, and by we, I mean, people in the West, in terms of, what could be pressure points.

Preet Bharara:

By we, you mean, them.

Bianna Golodryga:

Not us, for sure.

Preet Bharara:

By we, I mean, you.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes, by me, I mean, not me. No, there had been this assumption, that some of the pressure points early on in the war, would be to get the oligarchs to turn on Vladimir Putin. Now had that been the case early on in his administration, maybe that could have worked a bit more, but going back to what I had mentioned about his early days in this sort of deal that he made, not only with the Russian public in general, but with oligarchs, that you get to keep your money, and you stay out of my way in politics. They helped elect him, the one, I would say, almost legitimate election that they held in Russia.

That having been said, at this point, they are no use to him, and I think, he has never really valued, or respected, their lifestyles. I mean, he has more money than God, but he doesn’t travel to the south of France, and Miami Beach, and doesn’t have apartments on Park Avenue.

And so, for him, having oligarchs complain that they can’t do the same, wasn’t going to decide, whether or not he was going to pursue this war. And I think, ultimately, we’ve come to realize, that using oligarchs as, and they’ve been [inaudible 00:30:37] us, and they’ve been sanctioned, and none of that seemed to persuade Vladimir Putin, that he needs to rethink things.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back, with more of my conversation with Bianna Golodryga, after this.

Yeah. I made a facetious comment earlier, or a minute ago, about you speaking to oligarchs. Do they talk to the press? Have you talked to so-called Russian oligarchs, or are they scarce?

Bianna Golodryga:

Early on in the war, they did, and I think, that was mostly, in terms of, trying to salvage whatever businesses they had, and their reputations, and it’s hard to pity a Russian oligarch, and it’s clear, they made their money, not by starting an innovative company, for the most part, but by stealing resources, and becoming quite wealthy off of them, from the Russian people.

So for those who took their money, and started other businesses, and expanded to the West, namely, even London, I think for them, they viewed their reputations, and the media, as a way to try to defend themselves, or distance themselves from the war, or even use themselves as mediators, perhaps. Roman Abramovich, was in the headlines a few months into the war, for trying to mediate between the two sides, the Ukrainians and Russia, but it ultimately got nowhere.

Preet Bharara:

So they stopped talking?

Bianna Golodryga:

I think there’s no-

Preet Bharara:

Or are they falling out of windows?

Bianna Golodryga:

Well, that continues to happen from time to time, which is just so, I mean, come up with something a bit more original at this point, you just roll your eyes, really. I mean, you can’t think of anything else, any other way to kill people off?

Preet Bharara:

You know what the other weird thing about that is, and other people have talked about this, that Vladimir Putin, if he was really a strong man, could just own it. Why have these accidents, quote, unquote, accidents? Why not just own the fact, that you’re taking these retaliatory measures? Is that a sign of Putin’s wiliness, or strength, or of his weakness?

Bianna Golodryga:

I mean, he was a KGB man, so some of these tactics he learned along the way. There’s a sense of plausible deniability, and up until the war, I think he still viewed himself as a global leader on the world stage, who’d like to go to events, like the G20, and mingle amongst his peers. So to own, killing people, and calling for their poisoning, and he set such in speeches, he’s come out and brazenly said, “If I wanted to kill Navalny, I could have,” or things along those lines, though he won’t mention Navalny’s name.

So I think, all bets are off now, and clearly, regardless of how this war ends, or what happens next, he’s a pariah on the global stage, at least among western countries. But before, I think he sort of viewed himself as being able to have a foot in both worlds, so I kind of like being the thug, and the KGB guy, and the spy who people are afraid of, and the thing he hated most, and he still says, he hates mo more than anything, and people he has no mercy for, are traitors, so other spies, that then become double agents, or what have you, the Skripal murder, comes to mind. And so, I think, from that perspective, it was just his decision to not want to, literally, own these deaths, but at the same time, make it clear, that only one person signs off on them.

Preet Bharara:

When the history is written about this first year of the war, what do you think people will say, the few pivotal moments were?

Bianna Golodryga:

Clearly, the first few days of the war when Kyiv wasn’t lost, when the Ukrainians held their capitol and-

Preet Bharara:

And Zelensky, didn’t flee.

Bianna Golodryga:

And Zelensky, didn’t flee. And Zelensky, is another crucial player here. Obviously, you’ve got the West, and the United States, standing in support of Ukraine, which has been huge, and it was the only way. It’s the biggest factor in Ukraine winning this war, is the continued aid from the West, but zelensky himself, and think about him, just with his personality, and his charisma, and his wartime leadership. I mean, just think of the blunder that Putin made as well. I mean, everyone before the war, anybody who would call him, calculating, brilliant tactician, playing chess, while everyone else was playing checkers, Zelensky, had a popularity rating of about 20%, 25% in Ukraine. He wasn’t popular.

And now, after the war began, to see what he was able to do as a leader, to travel to capitals around the world, and to speak to different parliament, in language that people would just eat out of their hands, and speak directly to their own country’s history, and their own situation, so they could relate to what Ukraine is going through.

It takes a special skillset, and I think that he will go down in history, as a Churchill type of world leader, who held his country together, and became one of the most well-respected, and regarded figures around the world.

In terms of, the consequential pivotal moments, I think, those early days are right up there. And I think the fact that Russia, continued to make misstep, after misstep, after misstep, and obviously, taking back control of the territory in their counter offensive last fall, was a big game-changer, that ultimately led to, not only military change in leadership in Russia, but also the call for conscriptions and 300,000 conscripts, because Putin, as I told you, was really, really trying to avoid doing that.

Preet Bharara:

How do you think American sentiment and opinion, has shifted or evolved, over the first year?

Bianna Golodryga:

I don’t think by much, and I think that’s a good thing. I think, that it’s a relief that the United States, for the most part, has stood strong in support of as this administration, and our policy, and the steps that President Biden has taken to unite, not only NATO, but to continue to provide as much assistance, and funding for Ukraine, as we have.

So some polls, maybe recent polls, vary as to how Americans feel, and I think the bigger question, is what’s going to happen, not only with elections in next year, but the longer this war goes on? Are we going to become exhausted with just the amount of money in taxpayer dollars, that are being delivered to the Ukrainians? I would argue, it’s worth it, and it’s an important thing to continue doing. I’m just not sure how the public, overall, would continue to view that support, if it’s longer than another year or two.

Preet Bharara:

So it’s good to do this assessment, and take a look back, because of the accidental happenstance of it being a year, and that’s the length of time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.

But now, let’s look forward. What is the best assessment that you have heard, about where the war is, in its arc, and what the future, at least in the near term, and medium term, will look like?

Bianna Golodryga:

So the medium, to the near to medium term, it’s pretty clear, that Russia, that the spring offensive that everyone been waiting for, had already begun. It was really a winter offensive that Russia started, and one of the reasons why it hasn’t been called as such yet, or recognized, is because it’s been quite underwhelming, and the experts I speak with, say, it’s been happening now for about three weeks, and there’s no indication that-

Preet Bharara:

Is that, because Putin didn’t see a shadow, or did see a shadow? Punxsutawney Putin.

Bianna Golodryga:

The Moscow Punxsutawney, right? And the Kremlin. It is for a number of reasons, that Putin may be anxious, and not listening to perhaps generals that he should be, that this offensive should have come later, and give Russia time to regroup, and train some of these new conscripts. Their best trained soldiers, many had been killed, early on in this war, and it’s not easy. I mean, they’ve got the bodies, they’ve got the numbers, they can conscript hundreds of thousands of men, but it makes a difference, if they’re well-trained, and equipped, to go into battle.

And so that was one of the failings. And there were rumblings that Putin wanted to make another attempt at Kyiv, and perhaps that’s his ultimate goal, but it seems that this offensive, at least, will be focused in the Donbas, and will likely lead to even more Russian casualties, which at least, according to experts I speak with, believe this will help Ukraine, in terms of, what they’re gearing up for in a counter offensive in the spring. Basically, try to run through as many Russian soldiers as you can, fighting in cities like Bakhmut, and other parts of the Donbas there, and then save your weaponry, and your manpower, for the spring, for a counter offensive, most likely, in the southeast.

Preet Bharara:

So I’ve been reading a lot about discussions over weaponry, and we’re a year in, and we’re still talking about the kinds of things that Ukraine wants, or needs, and what western nations are providing, and in particular, there’s been a lot of talk about tanks. I don’t know a lot about tanks. Do you know a lot about tanks, bianna?

Bianna Golodryga:

I’ve learned more, throughout this war.

Preet Bharara:

So there’s a lot of discussion about which tanks, and how many, and German tanks, and American tanks, and other tanks. Can you talk a little bit about that? And in particular, what’s confusing to me is, how it can be that we’re a year in, and military experts start saying things like, certain western tanks, can make a big difference. Some commentators are talking about German tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, and American Abrams, M1 Abrams tanks, could be a potential game changer. If these things could be game changers, why are we talking about them a full year in?

Bianna Golodryga:

So a couple of points. So the experts I speak with, while obviously, Ukraine could use tanks, and they need about three or 400 tanks, it’s not the game changer or silver bullet that it’s being described as. And there’s been a lot of talk spent on, will Germany deliver? Why isn’t Germany allowing other NATO allies, to at least, deliver their tanks? And the United States ultimately had to agree to deliver Abrams tanks, and that that’s taken up the crux of the tank conversation in the past few weeks. Experts I speak with, say, that tanks are not what Ukraine needs now the most. Ukraine needs just more ammunition. I mean, they need bullets. They need the procurement of more weaponry, and ammunition, and this is where you’ve got a situation, that stockpiles are dwindling, or amongst allies, here in the United States.

Preet Bharara:

Seems like, you have that famous quip at the start of the war.

Bianna Golodryga:

I need bullets.

Preet Bharara:

Exactly, I don’t need a ride, I need ammo.

Bianna Golodryga:

I need ammunition, yeah.

And again, this is a situation, where just the procurement of the ammunition, can’t come fast enough, from the defense companies, unlike Russia, who’s going through a lot of their own ammunition as well, they’re not really, I mean, they’re using everything for this war, whereas any sensible other country, has to make sure, and this is where the general public would turn on the idea of helping Ukraine, if it were to find out that we are foregoing our security needs for the sake of helping Ukraine. So obviously, you have to set aside a significant allotment of weaponry that we need to keep for our own defense, and to just continue to generate. I saw a report, though, somebody told me, it may be a bit exaggerated, that Ukraine, was going through 5,000 rounds of ammunition a day. And so, there have been reports that the US has tapped into stock, tried to be creative, and tapped into stockpiles in Israel, and in South Korea, that we’re holding, perhaps, sending a cache of weapons that we’ve held, from Iran to Ukraine.

But it’s clearly not enough in the short term, to send them what they need now. I think they probably have enough now. I think for them, it’s just the security of knowing, less than six months from now, we’re going to have more coming our way.

But going back to the tanks issue, while the tanks are definitely helpful, and Ukraine needs them, I think, it’s more of just the everyday that the ammunition, and the long range missiles, and anti-air defense missiles, that they are desperate for right now, that’s a top priority. And we have yet to agree to send them these longer range missiles, for fear of provoking Russia, going their capabilities of being launched into Russian, the official Russian territory. And again, I think there’s a procurement question, about can we make as much as needed right now?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, that was a lot of important stuff you said, and I have a number of follow-ups. It’s part of the problem with the ammunition, I’ve been reading, that the Ukrainians, are overusing ammunition, because of lack of, they’re not so good tactically, so they’re firing off more rounds than they need to, and that part of the solution, is to train them better. Have you heard that?

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah. There had been reports of that too, that the United States, had been advising Ukraine, to sort of tone things down, even in the defense, in the battle for Bakhmut, and regions there, in the last few months, to not give in to Russia, necessarily, but at least for now, at least call it a day, and preserve what they envision would be their own counter offensive, as we discussed, in the months to come.

Preet Bharara:

And you were speaking also, a second ago, about the need for defensive systems, and Zelensky has asked Israel, to send, what’s very coolly named, David’s Sling. Is that in the offering, can that happen, the Israeli-made air defense system, going to Ukraine?

Bianna Golodryga:

I have just questions, Israel’s role throughout this war, obviously, sensitive to the fact that Russia is in their backyard there, in Syria. For whatever reason, and this is multiple administrations now, in Israel, and there’s been a change, as you know, in the past few months there with Prime Minister Netanyahu, coming back, but even his predecessor, had been very apprehensive about giving Ukraine any sort of defensive weaponry.

They’d been providing them with medical assistance, and what have you, and I believe, even some intelligence, but in terms of, just the weaponry itself, which President Zelensky, had been really pressuring them to do, Israel, has decided that it’s not in its interest to do as such. And the United States, I don’t believe has been pressuring Israel, at least publicly, to do it either. So whatever politics are taking place behind the scenes, again, Russia there. I have been a bit puzzled about Israel’s role here, but I guess, whatever assistance they have been providing, has been helpful, better than none.

Preet Bharara:

What I also don’t get, and maybe, it’s too complicated, and the decision makers themselves, don’t really know, and the line shifts, obviously, there’s certain bright lines, or red lines, that we won’t cross, so as not to draw ourselves directly into a war with Russia. We’re not sending Marines to Kyiv, and that everyone understands.

But there are other things that we’re doing, that we didn’t do earlier, and didn’t do, to the same degree. What’s your sense of that, are they making it as it up as they go along? If Putin is not rational, and Russia and its leaders, Putin, above all, have been framing this as a war with the West already, are we being overly literal, or clever, and cute, in how we’re deciding to engage or not engage?

Bianna Golodryga:

I do think there’s something to your question of, are we making it up as we go? Because whether it’s from the persuasiveness of Zelensky, and his pleas, it does seem that even US officials, off the record, will say, listen, we ultimately give in to a lot of these asks. So what were a definite no, eventually, become a yes. They go from a no, to a maybe, to a yes. So it’s the type of weapon we’ve provided. Obviously, we didn’t start the war, it was Javelins in early days, and we went on to HIMARS, and the Ukrainians, all the time, have been very thankful, and appreciative, but saying, what’s next? We need more. We need long range of missiles. From day one, President Zelensky, has been calling for F16s, and that had been a no-go, it still is, though, I can’t say, that three or four months from now, that debate won’t change, that we had the discussion about the tanks as well.

So it does seem that every few months, what was a no, turns into a yes. And then you can understand the Ukrainian’s argument of, “Why not just give it to us now? Because the sooner you give us what we need, the sooner this war ends.” And the Ukrainians, are cognizant of the fact, that as much as the US president, and Western allies, say, we’re here with you until the end, he knows that time, ultimately, is not on his side. Unlike Vladimir Putin, who assumes that it is, and that he can just wait this out, and whether it’s pressure from changing administration in the United States, or even amongst allies, that at some point, he believes there will come pressure from allies, to tell Zelensky, to return to the negotiating table.

So from Zelensky point of view, he won himself another year, last year, with their strong counter offensive, and he needs to be doing more of that. And his argument is, “For me to be doing more of that, I need more of your aid now, not promises that things will come, in three to four months.”

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Do you think we did less than we might have at the beginning? The West, I mean, because the West really didn’t think that Ukraine had a shot. They wanted not to waste stuff. Yeah.

Bianna Golodryga:

Sure. I mean, imagine sending all of this, just to go in into Russia’s hands. So I actually do-

Preet Bharara:

So part of it, they’re making it up as they go along, because the situation on the ground has shifted.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes. And I think from that perspective, even though it seems like it’s taking forever to get things there, it has happened rather quickly, once it was clear to us, the US, that our intelligence, that Kyiv would fall quickly, didn’t happen.

Preet Bharara:

You mentioned China, you said we’re probably getting to it. Well, now’s your moment. What in the hell is going on with China? How is Xi managing, and balancing all of this, and what do you think people think China’s role will be in the coming year?

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah. China’s turned into the great unknown, and I think, China, could really sort of uproot all of the projections that we’ve had thus far, and be a game changer, in a sense. If China does, as US intelligence has acknowledged, and we saw Secretary of State, Blinken, say publicly, that it does appear China is contemplating helping provide lethal aid to Russia. Now, as we noted before, the two have still had commercial ties, and economic ties, and they’ve bought oil from Russia throughout the war, but providing lethal aid, I don’t know whether it’s in the form of drones, I don’t know exactly how so, I think, it would be a game changer here, because the conventional wisdom would suggest, that where we are now, at the rate that the Russian military continues to perform, and underwhelm, and underperform, the longer this war goes on, assuming that you have continued Western aid, in the United States helping Ukraine. The longer this goes, the war goes on, the better chances are for Ukraine to come out victorious.

You throw China into this equation, and it’s not that all bets are off, but then I think, you’re just in an uncharted territory again, and I don’t know yet what the assessment would be, as to how this would impact the war, but I think it would be a huge setback.

And what China’s thinking, and what President Xi is thinking, having seen what he’s, Russia did this, the friendship that can’t be broken, no limits, as he and Putin had said, just a few weeks before the war in Beijing, clearly didn’t go the way Vladimir Putin had sold him on. I think, it doesn’t benefit Xi, to have a defeated Russia, in the sense, that the United States comes out victorious, as the supporter of Ukraine, in Xi’s mind.

But that having been said, continuing this war, and then having the United States impose whatever kind of sanctions against China, at a time when we had balloon-gate, and when relations are already at an all time low, I don’t know what he’s thinking, by possibly helping Russia here.

Preet Bharara:

Is there a corruption problem in Ukraine, that will have any bearing on the outcome here?

Bianna Golodryga:

Sure. I mean, Ukraine was rife with corruption before the war, and as one of the reasons why Ukraine wasn’t given an open invitation into EU membership, and it’s been a challenge for a number of administrations, prior to Zelensky’s, and I think that he was clearly aware of that, going into this war, and even most recently, he’d fired some of his top officials, and advisors, just to sort of stick with this promise, that not only would he battle the Russians on the battlefield, but he’d battle internal corruption as well.

Preet Bharara:

Can we talk about domestic politics for a moment? What do you think is the grade that people should give Biden, as to how he has talked about the war, and support for Ukraine?

Bianna Golodryga:

I think an A, A+.

Preet Bharara:

You think an A?

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Now, there are people, a number of whom are on the Republican side, who think this war is folly, and should end immediately, and take liberals to task for having been vocally and rhetorically against war for a long time, and now they seem to be embracing war. What is going on in the American right?

Bianna Golodryga:

Well, I can’t speak for the American right. I think, for the most part, thankfully, those voices are few, and they remain fringe. I think, you have leadership in both houses, that have come out firmly in support of this administration, in how it’s approached the war, and Ukraine in general. In fact, I think, that if anything, their criticism has been that not enough aid has been given in a timely manner, and sooner, so I don’t know how that’s going to impact the elections next year. We’ll see who the nominee will be, but Nikki Haley, I saw today, was criticizing Biden, for not helping Ukraine as much as it could have, and early days into the war,

Nikki Haley:

What we need to do, and what Biden should have done, was give them what they needed to win, early. We’re not putting troops on the ground, we are not writing blank checks, but when they need the ammunition to win, we should give it to them.

Bianna Golodryga:

I’m not sure what the other perspective candidate, the former president Trump, he seems to be quiet on this issue for now, after calling Vladimir Putin, I believe, brilliant or whatever, early into the war.

Nikki Haley:

Many things.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes. So I am hopeful that these voices, and these naysayers, will be outliers, but again, a lot is contingent on how this war goes. I think, for the American public as a whole, to continue to see atrocities, and crimes against humanity, and officially hearing that from US officials, and the vice president, over the weekend last week in Germany, at the Munich Security Conference. I think, for the most part, Americans understand, it’s not a difficult war to understand, and this is a situation where there’s a right side and a wrong side.

And I think from a political standpoint, I think Biden deserves a lot of praise, for how he’s, not only united allies in NATO, but I think just the steadfast support for Ukraine, and standing up to Russia is laudable.

Preet Bharara:

Favorite interview of all time, that you’ve done?

Bianna Golodryga:

Favorite interview of all time? I don’t know.

Preet Bharara:

You’ve had a couple of viral ones.

Bianna Golodryga:

I don’t know that those are my favorites.

Preet Bharara:

They’re not.

Bianna Golodryga:

They didn’t end on happy notes.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, but they were cool.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah, I think, just going back most recently to my time in Moldova, I just think about this one grandmother, this woman who, I believe her name was Raisa, and reminded me so much of my grandmother, because she was feisty, and had never met me before, but was happy to talk to me, had no idea who I was reporting with, and nothing, just wanted to tell her story.

And she was a refugee from Odessa, and came to Moldova, and was telling me about her family that was left behind, and her grandkids, and how old they were, and her daughter who stayed behind, because her husband was fighting. But right before the interview, she just asked, can you give me a second, so I can put my lipstick on? And it just reminded me so much of my own babushka, who, here in New York, passed away a few years ago, but before anything we would do, in any pictures, or anytime she’d go outside, I mean, there she was with her little compact mirror, and lipstick, that stains every single thing, that you can’t kiss her, without having lipstick on your cheek, or on your coffee cup, or what have you, and so, I just remember that, and I don’t know if it’s, because she reminded me of my grandmother, or that could have been my family if we had stayed, who knows, but I don’t know if that was my favorite, but it’s definitely one of the more recent, memorable interviews I’ve done.

Preet Bharara:

No, that’s a good one. I’m going to ask you a deeply personal question.

Bianna Golodryga:

Sure.

Preet Bharara:

True or false? You are an avid listener of, and fan of, the Stay Tuned podcast.

Bianna Golodryga:

Oh, I am. I told you I ran marathons listening to your podcast. Maybe, that’s why my times were never that good. I remember listening.

Preet Bharara:

I find it bizarre, that you run to a podcast.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yes, I know.

Preet Bharara:

Even if it’s my podcast.

Bianna Golodryga:

Again, any running coach would say, “Don’t do that.” And I remember running a marathon, and I was listening to your podcast, and I believe you were talking to Ian Bremmer, I believe. Is he’s still your all-time, number one guest?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Bianna Golodryga:

And some woman ran by, and was listening to Eminem, and all pepped up, and I was like, we are in two very different places right now. Physically we’re in the same place, but mentally, and she was probably in a better place, to be honest.

Preet Bharara:

Wait, did you kick her butt, or not?

Bianna Golodryga:

I bet she won. I bet she would beat me.

Preet Bharara:

She whizzed pasted you, with the Eminem.

Bianna Golodryga:

I mean, there’s a time and a place. I wouldn’t recommend people wanting to get a PR.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Well, I blame Ian Bremmer. That guy will slow you down, every day of the week.

Bianna Golodryga:

Maybe this interview, will help people speed up their race.

Preet Bharara:

So will you listen to this interview?

Bianna Golodryga:

No.

Preet Bharara:

You won’t, right? I don’t like to listen to myself either.

Bianna Golodryga:

I don’t like listening to myself at all. And in fact, when I watch interviews, it’s so hard for my old interviews. I hate it. It’s cringeworthy.

Preet Bharara:

And why your old interviews?

Bianna Golodryga:

I pick at everything.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, yeah.

Bianna Golodryga:

I don’t like my voice.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Yeah. Does your family comment on your interviews?

Bianna Golodryga:

All the time.

Preet Bharara:

Always positive?

Bianna Golodryga:

I would say, constructive.

Preet Bharara:

Oh my goodness. Wow.

Bianna Golodryga:

But my mom, watch, I mean, every day she-

Preet Bharara:

Jewish parents, and Indian parents, I think, are similar in this regard. My parents would comment about, whether or not they thought I was eating enough, and getting enough sleep, not usually about the substance.

Bianna Golodryga:

Oh, completely. I looked tired. I’m running too much. Eat something.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah. All the really meaty, meaty criticisms.

Preet Bharara:

Last question, then I’ll let you go, ’cause I know you got to do TV. Where do you think we’ll be, one year from today, if we were to be speaking about Ukraine?

Bianna Golodryga:

I mean, I hate to end on a pessimistic note, but I think, we’ll probably still be covering a war.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Bianna Golodryga:

And I’m hoping that, on the one hand, if that’s the case, then Ukraine is still pushing back against Russian forces, but at the same time, I think it’s the reality sets in, that neither side, is anywhere near right now a meaningful, earnest settlement.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I guess we’ll find out, as we get through the year.

Bianna Golodryga:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Bianna Golodryga, thank you so much, for being on the podcast, covering these issues, and being a supporter of Stay Tuned. Really appreciate it.

Bianna Golodryga:

It’s been a pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Bianna Golodryga continues for 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.

I want to end the show this week, by talking about a true giant of the Senate. When I worked as an aide to Chuck Schumer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I crossed paths with that person. I’m talking about Dianne Feinstein of California, who at age 89, last week announced, that she would not seek reelection, so that means that 2024, will be Feinstein’s 32nd, and final year, in the Senate, making her the longest serving woman in the history of the Chamber. Now, anyone who follows this stuff closely, knows that the last few years have not been easy for Feinstein. She’ll turn 90 this year, and it’s plain to see, she’s not the senator, she once was. There have been reports, a number of them, of how her declining health, has impacted her ability to do her job. That saddens me. She’s received a good deal of criticism for it, for hanging on too long, and much of it is legitimate. Though, I should note, that I heard it less loudly about male senators, like, Robert Bird and Strom Thurmond, both of whom died in office.

But no matter how her career ends, Feinstein, was a pioneer, and a trailblazer, and a true original, and she should be honored for that. Just look at how she first came into the spotlight. It was 1978, and Feinstein, was president of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. She had developed a reputation as a moderate, effective member of the board, but her political career seemed to be nearing its end. She had lost two elections for mayor, and found herself the target of an assassination attempt, when a domestic terrorist group, called the New World Liberation Front, planted a bomb at her home. The bomb failed to go off, but she would go on to lose both her husband, and father to cancer, in the same year. By November of 78, she was telling reporters, that maybe it was time for her to step back from public life.

And then a different kind of tragedy struck. One of her colleagues and friends, Supervisor Dan White, shot and killed both Mayor George Moscone, and Supervisor Harvey Milk, who was one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States. And the murders happened at City Hall, just feet from Feinstein’s office. Amid all the chaos and confusion, Feinstein, stepped up to a bank of microphones, to announce to the world what had happened, and to assume the role of mayor. That image of Feinstein, of competence, and calm, in the face of crisis, would become indelibly marked in the minds of San Franciscans. She would go on to lead the city for 10 years. In 1992, she ran for the Senate, and won, in what would become known, as the year of the woman.

From her perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she became a relentless advocate for gun safety. She authored the 1994 assault weapons ban, and following its expiration in 2004, attempted again, and again, to renew it. Before many of the gun safety groups came into existence, there was Diane Feinstein.

She’s also served on the Intelligence Committee, where during the Bush Administration, she helped initiate an investigation into the CIA’s so-called, enhanced interrogation techniques, that were used in detainees during the war on terror. When President Obama took office, she became chair of the committee, and she battled the CIA, and White House officials, to continue the investigation, and make its findings public. Her staff would go on to produce a 6,700-page torture report, and on December 9th, 2014, the day the executive summary of the report was finally made public, Feinstein called the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program, a stain on our values, and on our history.

There’s even a movie about it. Feinstein, is played by Annette Benning. As I mentioned, I had an opportunity to watch Feinstein up close, and I can say, that nobody worked harder than Diane Feinstein, with the possible exception of my boss, Chuck Schumer. And she hired great people, like Schumer, and Ted Kennedy. She was able to recruit and retain smart staffers, people who turned down high paying jobs in the private sector, to do public service. She understood that to make a difference, you need a team, and that’s no small thing.

Unlike most senior senators, Diane Feinstein, gets to know other staffers, and they get to know her. At least that was true, when I served in the Senate. I remember one time, Senator Schumer and I, went over to her office to meet with her, and her chief counsel, with milk and cookies, to talk about a press freedom bill.

I remember another time, after going on the Atkins diet, having eaten too many hotdogs, and chips, and fast food snacks, in my time, working around the clock for Senator Schumer, Senator Feinstein at a hearing, looked at me and said, Preet, have you lost weight? I have to admit, that made my day.

Most importantly, I remember the time, that she refused to do something, her Democratic colleagues, or some of her Democratic colleagues on the committee, wanted her to do, when the Democrats were in the minority, and that was boycott a vote, so as to deny the Republicans a quorum, on some vote for a nominee, or a piece of legislation, the Democrats didn’t like, and she refused. She said, “I’m not going to avoid coming to work. I came to the Senate to work, not to hide.” And work she did.

Feinstein, has displayed guts, and courage, and like her or not, at a time when members of Congress increasingly favor soundbites over substance, and focus on personality more than policy, Feinstein, has dived into the work. It’s always about the work, and that is something to honor, and celebrate. So Senator Feinstein, thank you for your service.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Bianna Golodryga.

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 at Preet Bharara 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. 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 Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Namata Shah and Claudia Hernandez. Our music, is by Andrew Dost.

I’m your host, Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.