Preet Bharara:

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

Laura Coates:

We know that there’s not a monopoly on crime, but when you see the parade of thousands over the course of years of black and brown people coming into the courtroom as defendants and as victims as well, you wonder, you look around where are the white people?

Preet Bharara:

That’s Laura Coates. She is a senior legal analyst and anchor at CNN where we are colleagues. She’s also a former federal prosecutor and a trial attorney who served in the civil rights division at the Department of Justice. Her new book is Just Pursuit, A Black Prosecutor’s Fight For Fairness. It pulls back the curtain on her time at DOJ, where she navigated the interventions of enforcing the law in a system struggling to overcome pervasive problems with racism. We discuss a range of moral and ethical dilemmas that arise in the pursuit of justice, the state of voting rights in America and how the late host of Jeopardy Alex Trebek once suggested her as his potential successor. That’s coming up, stay Tuned.

Preet Bharara:

Hey folks, some of you may have heard the news that my new children’s book is now out. It’s called Justice Is, the book is a kind of guide for young truth seekers. It showcases trail blazers throughout history from Frederick Douglass and Ida B Wells to Malala Yousafzai and John Lewis. And it’s illustrated by Sue Cornelison, who brings them to life on every page. I’m donating all my proceeds from the book to the New York Legal Assistance Group, a leading civil legal services organization that advocates for people experiencing poverty or who are in crisis. Head to justiceisbook.com to buy your copy of Justice Is, for the budding leaders of tomorrow. Now let’s get to your questions.

QUESTION AND ANSWER:

Preet Bharara:

This question comes in a tweet from Brian Enices who uses Twitter handle @nicebb71, who asks can the Senator from Arizona suddenly switch parties during term? Where can I get an autograph copy of your new book? Was my high school friend your nanny, while you were working in the Senate? Her last name is close to a European bank. Well, you have a lot of questions, Brian. I’ll take them in reverse order. I don’t know if your high school friend was our nanny, but if her name was Melissa and you’re from Iowa, probably yes. You can get an autograph copy of my new kid’s book, Justice Is, in a few days from the Strand Bookstore and Books of Wonder. Now, as for the Senator from Arizona, there’s a lot going on here. As people know, the Senate is split 50-50.

Preet Bharara:

There is no rule prohibiting a Senator from switching political parties in the middle of a term. She can do it, anyone can do it, Republican or a Democrat. And that of course is the real fear that a lot of folks have talked about less in fact, with respect to Senator Sinema and a bit more with respect to Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. You’ll recall that while Biden narrowly carried Arizona, Donald Trump, won West Virginia, by wait for it, 38.9 points. And the state’s current governor, Jim Justice defected to the Republican party in 2017, just seven months after first taking office. So there is a precedent for party switching recently in West Virginia. Now, if a Senator were to switch parties, what does that look like in real life? In the Senate, functionally switching parties means that you instead decide to caucus with the opposing party. Right now, there are two registered independents in the Senate who choose to caucus with the democratic party, Angus king of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Preet Bharara:

There have been some prominent consequential examples of party switching in the Senate in recent times. You may remember some of them in April of 2009, while I was actually still working in the Senate, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania left the Republican party and joined the Democrats, giving the Democrats what would essentially become a filibuster proof majority after Al Franken’s race was called and he was seated. This was a huge deal at the time. In fact, Obamacare would not have been passed in 2010, but for Specter switching sides. If you go back further to 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican party to become an independent. Then after deciding to caucus with the Democrats, he shifted the majority from the GOP to the Democrats in what had been an evenly split Senate. Since we’re talking about history, there may be some other names that folks may recall.

Preet Bharara:

Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado defected from the Democratic party in 1995 and Richard Shelby of Alabama, who is still there, did the same in 1994. Going back further, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, the famous opponent of civil rights switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964. So that doesn’t mean that Manchin or Sinema or anyone else will actually do this anytime soon. Sinema for her part has denied any interest in switching parties saying disagreement is normal. And Manchin has said that he previously floated the possibility of him becoming an independent to his democratic colleagues. He said, “Me being a moderate centrist Democrat, if that causes you a problem, let me know and I’d switch to be independent.” But he clarified, he would continue to caucus with the Democrats. So I will say for all the criticism of Sinema and Manchin, much of it understandable, people should also bear in mind that if one or both of them switch parties, Democrats lose a majority in the Senate. And that means an even worse situation for passing legislation than we have now.

Preet Bharara:

This question comes in a tweet from Diane who asks given Trump’s SCOTUS laws, Ray 1/6 documents, is there now more pressure on Trump to testify? While you’re talking about a significant Supreme Court opinion that didn’t say a lot, but essentially allowed the national archives to produce all sorts of documents to the 1/6 committee that Biden had said he was waving privilege with respect to. But the Trump folks saying they were objecting to over said privilege. Now, the way you phrase the question is interesting, is there now more pressure? I don’t know that Trump or his team or other folks feel more or less pressure when the merits of their arguments take a dive because of court decisions. I think it is true that the argument in favor of Trump not testifying goes down when you have case after case and argument after argument rejected by the courts, favoring disclosure, rather than protecting those documents or those communications or that testimony.

Preet Bharara:

The lower courts found in connection with the 1/6 documents that among other things, given the nature of the inquiry, the importance of getting information out to the public, how significant the event was, that outweighed other interests, including interests of a former president in keeping that information secret. But as Joyce Vance and I have discussed on the Insider Podcast in the past, the issue with respect to Trump is a unique one because with respect to other folks, people around him, some of the argument about privilege relates to communications with the president. And you can make good arguments and you can make poor arguments, but there are arguments.

Preet Bharara:

With respect to the testimony that one would want to get from Trump himself, you wouldn’t be asking about advice, you wouldn’t be asking about deliberations with staff, you wouldn’t be asking about communications. Mostly you’d be asking, what did you, Donald Trump do that day? What did you, Donald Trump say that day? What were you Donald Trump thinking that day? And in a sort of bizarre way, the stuff that’s in Donald Trump’s mind and the stuff that was coming out of his mouth has less of a claim to privilege than in some ways the people around him have claimed to. So I don’t know if there’s more pressure on Trump. I don’t know if he ever feels pressure of that sort. I don’t think we’ll ever hear from him, but his arguments have become less meritorious. Stay Tuned. There’s more coming up after this.

THE INTERVIEW:

Preet Bharara:

Laura Coates is a senior legal analyst for CNN, host of a daily talk show on SiriusXM and an alum of the justice department, where she served both in the civil rights division and later as an assistant US attorney for the district of Columbia. We discuss her years of public service and the experiences that inform her perspective today. Laura Coates, my friend, welcome to the show.

Laura Coates:

I’m so happy I’m here. Nice to well, virtually see you at least, hear you.

Preet Bharara:

Virtually, that’s the case-

Laura Coates:

I know.

Preet Bharara:

… for the last two years. I had this great opportunity to ask a friend and colleague, fellow legal analyst on CNN, I can be the Wolf Blitzer and the Jake Tapper. And you can do you, and you can tell me the right answer to all these questions that I get.

Laura Coates:

Oh man, but Preet, that’s why I asked to be on after you. I’m like, what time is Preet going on? It’s like the wheel of fortune moment when the person says $1 more than the person next to him. I’m like, what time is he on? 6:00 O’clock, 6:01 please. Thank you.

Preet Bharara:

You and I sat on set in one of the rare times in the last few years during COVID. I’m forgetting what the issue was, what the case was we were talking about. And I think our listeners will appreciate this because this person I’m about to mention is also a member of the CAFE family. But you said something like, “Preet, you’re putting me to sleep because you just sit there motionless.” And I said, “What do you mean?” He’s like, “You’re not fidgety like Ellie Honig.” You’re like, Ellie keeps me awake because he’s moving around, he’s tapping his foot.

Laura Coates:

He is the Energizer bunny. I love him dearly.

Preet Bharara:

You basically said when we were about to go on air, you basically like, Preet you’re like a corpse. It’s not doing anything for me.

Laura Coates:

But I’m sure I said it without a furrow brow. I’m sure my smile was wide or at least you were able to infer the sarcasm. If not then I’m sorry.

Preet Bharara:

No, it was very funny. It was very funny and it was very accurate. So there’s a lot of stuff in the news I would like to pick your brain about in a bit, but first I want to congratulate you on your book.

Laura Coates:

Thank you.

Preet Bharara:

Just out, Just Pursuit, A Black Prosecutor’s Fight For Fairness. It’s terrific. And I hope people will buy it. And we’re going to talk about it soon.

Laura Coates:

I so appreciate that. It really was something. Well, you know, you’re a wonderful author. And so I strive to be as great as people like you. And it’s so funny because I think this was not the type of book people expect me or lawyers in general to write, right? There’s always this perception that it’s going to be something equivalent to a legal textbook. You talk about a Supreme Court case and you give it its place in history. And those are all very important and very impactful. But I think storytelling is the best way to help people understand an issue and to personify the issues we all talk about.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, 100%. And that’s what trial lawyers do. It’s funny because I think that was the perception of the book I wrote right, Doing Justice. And I went on to promote the book one time and the host of the show asked me what my parents thought of the book. And I said, “My dad paid it a very high compliment.” And she said, “What’s that?” And I said, “He said it was really readable.” And she thought I was joking. Like how could that be a high compliment? And I said, “From my dad, who’s a non-lawyer, who expected it to be very dense and legalistic, it was a high compliment.” And so I’m going to pay you the same compliment and say the stories are great, Laura, it’s very readable.

Laura Coates:

I appreciate that. Also, the father of Preet Bharara, thank you so much because I understand who my father… Maybe it’s a father thing cause my father said, you know what, when I thought about picking it up and of course he read it over time and as I was giving drafts and can you read this chapter? He goes, now, I want to wait until the end. I want to wait until it’s out so I can actually sort of sit down and delve into it. And a part of me thought is this code for, I don’t want to read legal textbooks right now, Laura, I don’t want to read it right now and so I absolutely have to. And then he says to me, “I just loved the way that you wrote as I was seeing it.” It played out maybe very episodically, every chapter stands alone and it was intentional.

Laura Coates:

I wanted people to vicariously experience it, to come on the journey. We talk about, you and I obviously, on CNN and on television, we talk about what the law says, and we talk about how it’s interpreted and we talk about how it might flush out. But really do we talk about what it feels like and what the pursuit of justice is like. And what it’s like for the people who are not necessarily the defendants or the perpetrators of a crime, but those who are mostly impacted by it, even in the periphery. And I think it’s so important for people to feel like the law is accessible because when it’s not, when it feels like it is esoteric, when it feels like it’s something that is not meant for you, you disengage. And you feel like, well, that’s for somebody else to either solve or address or reconcile. And I want people to feel agency and that they too have a role and it’s a legitimate and a worthwhile one.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, no, I think that’s absolutely right. And what I like about your book and the way you think about these things as a former prosecutor and someone who has some distance from being at the Department of Justice is that you explain through stories and anecdotes that it’s not always clear what the right thing to do is. Justice is not binary, it’s complicated. And we’ll get into a little bit of how you feel about your experience in the justice department. It sounds like there were good things about it and bad things about it, but I’ll start with what I’m sure other interviewers start with so I’m not being different here. But the first sentence of your introduction, the very first sentence in the entire book is a bit jarring until you think about it for a moment. And so the first sentence of your book is, “The pursuit of justice creates injustice.” So that’s very heavy and very meta, Laura. And I think I know what you mean in part, because I read the rest of the book. But as you point out, how can it be that pursuing justice creates injustice?

Laura Coates:

There is a ripple effect in nearly everything we do. There is this notion that because people define justice, oftentimes erroneously as the outcome of a trial, either it’s a conviction or an acquittal, or as if justice is a destination and that the ends will justify whatever means. We often restrict ourselves and believe that as long as you get the result, then that’s it, justice has been served. In reality, what happens along the way to ensure that you’ve got the cooperation of victims, the cooperation of witnesses, that you have what you need to prove your evidentiary burden beyond a reasonable doubt, what happens along the way can create circumstances where people who you don’t anticipate being harmed can be. And I start the book with a prime example of that.

Laura Coates:

In my commentary, I suffer no fools. And I ask the world to oftentimes evaluate the facts as they are, and to glean their own informed opinion as a result, without leading you and trying to have an agenda, let alone a political one. I want you to have the information and you decide what you see. And so I don’t spare myself in the criticism or the evaluation of what you’re seeing and what role you may have. And I start the book talking about an instance that is a prime example of an injustice that was created. A run of the mill car theft case, which frankly is light work for most seasoned prosecutors, particularly when you have the suspect and the person whose car was stolen was a person who was in the country illegally.

Laura Coates:

An undocumented person who had been for several decades had not much as sneezed in the direction of a police officer since he arrived in this country as a teenager. And he has otherwise been a upstanding civilian in this country and raised his family. His unfortunate circumstance though, was that his car was taken by somebody with a very long rap sheet, and not a rap sheet, like say a judicial nominee who had a five miles over the speeding limit “rap”. I mean an actual one where society was better served with this person being off the street. And he reported the crime. When he reported the crime as you know, as part of our role in prosecuting trials is we run background checks on the people who might be called to testify, who might be in a courtroom. And as part of that routine background check his deportation warrant pinged.

Laura Coates:

And so I was wrestling with the fact that here we are, I know I have to go to trial. I know this person has committed a crime, the person who stole the car, but in our society, because of our immigration laws, this person was also engaged in a kind of illegal activity, but they’d be treated and beyond the same footing in our justice or really legal system more often than not. And I wrestled, really wrestled with the idea that in pursuing justice and a conviction against this person who had, as you know, offended society, we don’t have private clients. We are on behalf of the jurisdiction, the people of the United States, not the unusual person, there was going to be a sense of unfairness, profound unfairness for this particular person who found himself being discovered. The worst fear that so many people who are undocumented have.

Laura Coates:

And there was a real injustice in my mind and in my bones about the idea of having to put this person into the custody of immigration officials. And that’s example of when our pursuit, we could look at it in terms of, well, hey, you know what, no one came with unclean hands, you might think. But is that the kind of fairness we think about when we’re talking about our pursuit of justice? I don’t think so.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I mean, I think I read that chapter with great interest because the issue would arise obviously in my practice as well when I was a prosecutor and overseeing a prosecutor’s office. And so I believe the victim who had a deportation order against him was named Manuel. And it was from 20 years earlier as you described. And you went to supervisors, you tried to talk to people at ICE and see if there was any loophole or off ramp for him because he was doing his duty as a citizen and reporting a crime. And instead he was being double victimized. And there is a process that you also mentioned in the chapter of getting a U visa, but that only arises in certain special circumstances that were not present here. Do you think that should have been handled a different way?

Laura Coates:

Yes, I wish it could have been. I think that there should be a way in which people who are the victims of crimes can be incentivized without fear of deportation to report what’s happened. And I think about it from their… Taking a step back, what we are actually risking when we do not allow that to happen, right? We know that if you’re a victim of domestic violence, intimate partner violence in a way that you are repeatedly harmed and abused or even one time, right? If somebody has something they can lord over you, or there’s a fear that if I report I will be deported, well, then you are going to conceivably be in the same situation without an ability to escape. And we don’t want that as a society. Imagine the worker who’s being exploited with not minimum wage, but really being thrown pennies in their direction.

Laura Coates:

Well, they have no recourse, no legal recourse to be able to report if they’re given the choice of, I could either tell what’s happening or I can be harmed and abused. And this is an issue in our society. People have their views about what immigration policy is and ought to be and how it looks in practice. And we talk about safe harbors and sanctuary cities and all the notions. But until you get down to the nitty gritty of not just the policy concepts, but what is actually at stake? What does it mean to come out of the shadows or be forced to remain in them? And what does that mean for the people down the road?

Laura Coates:

Cause, you know as I mentioned, it’s not like you and I were individual social workers or that unlike in private practice, when I had a client come to me and I was advocating on behalf of that client, mostly the prosecutors are trying to prosecute the person who has committed the crime with an eye towards obviously helping the victim to be made whole in a sense. But also with an eye towards not wanting future victim, not wanting to have this person remain out in the open to commit and be emboldened of other crimes. And so if that’s our notion about what a prosecutor does, shouldn’t we incentivize the reporting without the same level of consternation that we gave to so many who are undocumented. It makes more sense.

Preet Bharara:

I absolutely agree with you. And I have found over time, both as a prosecutor and also as a Senate staffer, looking at potential immigration reform some years ago that immigration policy and criminal justice policy does not intersect well. I’ll give you another example. And maybe you came across this, so you’re talking about a person, Manuel, who’s a victim of a crime. The other thing you say in your book that’s interesting is that at one point justice is a cost benefit analysis and the most cost benefit analysis area of criminal justice is the employment of cooperating witnesses. People who have committed crimes with others, they plead guilty, they cooperate. And that testimony then increases public safety because you get other really, really bad guys off the street, murderers, drug kingpins, and others.

Preet Bharara:

But our immigration policy increasingly says that if you have any conviction at all, you must be deported. That leads to a vicious spiral of not being able to get people to flip if they know that one potential consequence is deportation. Now there used to be a way out of that. There were particular visas and in recent years with so much anti-immigration rhetoric, it’s become much more difficult to do. So it’s kind of a mixed bag in that regard.

Laura Coates:

I’m so glad you mentioned that. And which is why the expertise of one Preet is so invaluable but it’s true.

Preet Bharara:

This flattery is going to get you very far.

Laura Coates:

Well, I got to tell you, I’m hoping so. Did you say you wanted girl scout cookies? Is that what you’ve said? I think I heard that between the lines. That’s fine, I’ll send them your way.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll take them.

Laura Coates:

But it’s true. And I’m glad you mentioned the idea of the Senate and what happens at the pause level, because so often we think about when there are calls and cries for justice reform, we confine ourselves to conversations around a police encounter. And we know why, we know that those make the headlines. We know that they are so impactful to people’s perception. The role in law enforcement and the fundamental distrust that happens. But if we only think about justice as what an officer’s interaction’s going to be with an individual person and the fourth amendment, then you’re missing really the base of that iceberg.

Laura Coates:

You’re hitting the tip, but it’s the base of the iceberg, it’s so much more. It’s the conversations around the policy considerations and where it intersects. And I wrote this book really talking about the battle of allegiance as a form of personal intersection, where all the different facets of my identity as a woman, as a mother, as a wife, as a black woman, as a lived experience of a black woman, as a civil rights oriented attorney, how those things can often be in conflict with even our directives of the justice system. And that’s a conversation worth having.

Preet Bharara:

You mentioned victims. I teach a class at NYU in which we spend some time talking about the role and relevance of victims and people like to just spout off and say, well, what the victim wants I think some lay people think the victim gets. We have this phrase, does a victim want to press charges or not, as if that choice is delegated to the victim, it’s not so simple. Sometimes you have multiple victims and they want different things. They want different kinds of punishments. Sometimes a punitive victim has ulterior motives and bad reasons for wanting to do something or not do something. You have victims who become scared, like in domestic violence situations. You have a couple of stories about the advocacy of victims that are super sobering and interesting.

Preet Bharara:

And on the one hand, there’s a victim also of a car theft who advocates for leniency against the perpetrator. And then later in the book, you tell a story about parents of a purported victim who were over aggressive in wanting a perpetrator charge. Can you talk a little bit about how you think about victims, how you thought about them then, how you think about them now and why you wrote those two stories?

Laura Coates:

I think about it from the perspective of my interactions and with the people who were victimized by crimes and also just those different vantage points that people have and what they want. And I often joke around about how, and I’m sure your experience was the same, how the law and orders of the world impact the ability and the strategy that you must employ when you are prosecuting cases. Because so many people think that within 48 minutes, you’ve got a crime committed, a suspect identified, arrested, a trial, and then time to walk down the court steps and go grab a coffee at some point, right? I mean, it’s this thought that… And then what you have to bring to the table, oh, well, shouldn’t there be DNA and ought there to be surveillance video? If you’re thinking this is not what the volume of cases and the ability to get the resources together will actually lead to.

Laura Coates:

And so you’ve got for victims sometimes believing that there is going to be a greater scope of resources devoted to their specific case. In other instances, it’s the perception, as you mentioned of, do you want to go forward? We often went forward when we did not have a cooperative victim because we have an eye towards ensuring that there are not future victims. And if there is corroboration, your particular personal opinion is deprioritized. And I think that’s very jarring for many people who are victimized by crimes to think, wait, you mean I can’t stop this from happening? No, I can recant. I have to turn over information and it becomes exculpatory. That all has a play in it. But I wrote those two chapters in particular because I think people need to understand this concept of victim impact statements on the one hand. One of the chapters you speak about is I want no part of it.

Laura Coates:

And it tells a story about a woman who is able to give a victim impact statement, which is a ability as you know, to tell the court before sentencing, how this particular crime impacted their personal life and hoping to influence the court because you’re the person most aggrieved. And when she learned that this was a 20 something, very young black male defendant, she herself, somebody who reminded me of an aged jazz singer and the mother of sons herself, who she was much older, she was adamant about coming in and talking. And had a victim impact statement that just shocked me. And the idea that her role in her mind was not to contribute to what she knew the justice system could do when it had its claws in a young black defendant. And the idea of second chances being a part of what the calculus should be and redemption as much as retribution and rehabilitation.

Laura Coates:

And I think it speaks to the idea that when people are informed about the impact of justice and the disproportionate impact on black and brown communities in particular, or just the idea of being able to see yourself in even the person who was committed the wrong, it is a pretty life changing experience and exercise as of humanity that I want people to see also does happen. And then you cut to the idea of these two parents who were in positions of power. They were very influential in Washington DC, and they believe that their daughter had been victimized by a relatively young man, although older and legally an adult. And they were very, as concerned about their child’s experience as they were about the perception of how she would not be viewed as a victim and might be viewed as complicit in the alleged crime that occurred.

Preet Bharara:

Right, if nothing happened to the person that they were fingering.

Laura Coates:

Right. If nothing happened to that person, then people might judge their daughter as somebody who was sexually promiscuous. And so was this idea of weighing between what was legal or alleged and credible versus, you know what, I don’t want my daughter to not be a victim because then what will that say about her and me? And I think that is something that’s so telling in a world we live in about not only the Me Too movement, but about the kind of the perverse notions of victim blaming when perhaps the idea of what they perceived as the benefits of victim hood. And it’s a very shocking sort of juxtaposition about what we think about who is entitled to be a victim? And is this something that was sought after? It was just a very stark example of that.

Preet Bharara:

Can we talk about you for a little bit, Laura?

Laura Coates:

I mean, if you want to, I got it all day.

Preet Bharara:

So everyone’s experiences are different. And what you talk about in terms of your experience at the justice department is very interesting. So you began in the civil rights division and working on voting rights and some other things. And the purpose of that position was to enforce civil rights laws. Then at some point you changed your job and you applied for a permanent position to be an assistant US attorney in the district of Columbia, US attorney’s office. And now you were sort of a generalized prosecutor. And you described the way some people looked at you and viewed you in the black community and outside it as having gone from a position where you were viewed more positively to one where some folks thought you had crossed over to the wrong side. How did you perceive that? And how did you react to that?

Laura Coates:

It was really kind of an emotional epiphany that I never wanted to experience. To go from being a civil rights attorney, it’s a foregone conclusion. You’re on the right side, that you are championing on behalf of people whose civil rights have been infringed. People who require over the history of America, a champion. And so it was assumed that I was on the side that I believed I was on. And then to go under the same umbrella of the Department of Justice. But this time moved to the criminal context, although my victims were overwhelmingly black and brown, somehow my presence was a betrayal. It was questioned as to who’s side I was on because people don’t often expect to see a black woman where they assume the “man” will be. And the way I was perceived was as if I did not hold to whom I owed in allegiance.

Laura Coates:

And it’s very stunning to think about. And obviously in a place like Washington, DC, as it is across this entire country, knowing that black and brown people should represent a racial minority, we know that there is not a monopoly on crime. But when you see the parade of thousands over the course of years of black and brown people coming into the courtroom as defendants and as victims as well, you wonder, and you look around where are the white people? I mean, I actually would ask that question more than once. And the first time I remember saying that it was in the courtroom, and I said, I don’t understand where… This is Washington DC. What is happening right now? I could count on one hand and not even need every finger the number of white defendants I saw over the course of being a criminal prosecutor. And that’s in any courtroom, not just my own, in any courtroom.

Laura Coates:

And so I knew that there was the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on black and brown communities. But until you see it up close and in front, and you are in the position of perceived power to exercise discretion, there’s nothing like it. It’s a difference between knowing and understanding something. And this forced me to understand what I intellectually knew. But I’m not sure I ever really, and I thought about against the perception. I didn’t try to be a people pleaser or try to prove who I was by any other way or try to prove that I would appease who you think I am. I tried to just pursue justice for the people who needed a champion. And sometimes that resulted in praise, other times that resulted in people being very angered at the role I was playing. And I sometimes still question about the exercise of discretion. And did I have a seat at the table that was a meaningful one? Or was I just in the room where it happened?

Preet Bharara:

I mean, this is a complicated issue that I’ve thought about a lot, both in terms of trying to populate my former office with a diversity of people, backgrounds, race, and everything else. And I understand the perception that you’re describing. But then the other thing I think next is if everyone thought that way, that if you’re black or brown or somehow a marginalized member of society or a marginalized group, that you have no business being a prosecutor, then all the prosecutors will be white men. And a system in which all the prosecutors are white men is infinitely worse than a diverse system. How do you think about that?

Laura Coates:

Bingo, absolutely hit the nail on the head. And it’s one of the things I grappled with when I chose to lead the department, was I going to be in a position of service within or outside of the system? What would be a better use of my skills and my advocacy? But I also challenge that fallacy. And I write a chapter about a conversation-

Preet Bharara:

Oh, yes. I was going to ask you about that next.

Laura Coates:

… with a black defense council who, by the way, I was minding my own business, eating my meal, Preet. Just want you all to know, okay.

Preet Bharara:

That’s what you say.

Laura Coates:

I don’t seek out confrontation, but I don’t back down from them either. All I know is I was sitting, minding my own business, having a nice cookie and a meal, in that order, cookie and then the meal. When I was having a-

Preet Bharara:

Wait, so your cookie is your appetizer?

Laura Coates:

You know what, don’t judge me, Preet.

Preet Bharara:

I’m not. When you send me the girl scout cookies, I’m going to eat those for appetite.

Laura Coates:

I think you should all. A whole sleeve of thin mints is one serving, just so you know, that’s the calorie count you should think about. Look, life is too short. Have the cookie first, okay. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not going to-

Preet Bharara:

I got you.

Laura Coates:

… be hit by a bus just having a water crest salad in my stomach, God forbid.

Preet Bharara:

You have now titled my next book. Have the cookie first.

Laura Coates:

Have the cookie first? Well, I think about this chapter where I was speaking to a, it was called a right table where I was being challenged by a black defense council, as I often was about how do you have the audacity to say that you’re a civil right attorney or you believe in civil rights and you’re a prosecutor? You should be on the other side of the table. Otherwise, you are essentially infiltrating and you are a civil rights attorney in name only. And I challenge the idea that black and brown people are supposed to only fill one role within the justice system, either that is for the defendant, because we know what happens or because of a defense counsel. And I challenge the idea of whether you understand the two different roles. One can exercise discretion and be proactive about ensuring that the officers have abided by the constitutional rights of the defendant.

Laura Coates:

They can also advocate obviously on behalf of the community and the person who was harmed. They are in a position to instill the aspects of deterrence and rehabilitation and request sentencing. Or you can be reactive, which is an equally important role to guard and protect the person who is the defendant, who has approach of innocence. But then you’re reacting to every decision that’s already been made. And there’s a lot of weight. Nobody wants to be on the other side of the V when it’s United States versus, there is the weight of authority. There is the weight of the benefit of the doubt that I was a beneficiary of. How often people said, even now, even though we have a presumption of innocence, yeah people say, well, you know what? The government would not charge that person unless they really had something. A police officer, benefit of the doubt, they don’t get up in the morning to commit crimes or harm people.

Laura Coates:

So that person must have done something or they’re there, one of our why dear questions Preet, is always would you give more or less weight to the testimony of an officer, because we recognize the beneficiary of those benefits of the doubt. And so I’m with you when I say, I don’t just think that black people and brown people should be defense counsel, they should be prosecutors. They should be on the bench. They should be decision makers at the congressional level, at the local levels. They should be police officers as well. Any place that touches the justice system, we should be, because I think it’s important not to shed one’s up. I never had the luxury of walking into a courtroom, let alone a room I’m in today and leave behind who I was, I bring it with me and justice I think is better for it.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Look, any conversation about justice is also implicitly a conversation about power. And part of what was fascinating about the conversation between you and the black defense lawyer that you relate is you were having a little bit of a debate about who has power. And you were saying, well, I have power because I have the discretion as you were mentioning. And the defense lawyer says, well, she has power too, but it’s unquestionable that there is a locus of power within law enforcement on all these issues. And if well intentioned black and brown people are not there too, it will only lead to more injustice. So I agree with you.

Laura Coates:

And you know, of course, we talk about it in the contexts of race, this does not mean that only black and brown people can be in the position to exercise reasonable, responsible, constitutional discretion. And I tell you because black and brown prosecutors are certainly in the minority in their field, I had colleagues, my white counterparts, who did the right thing, who shared the same sort of moral dilemmas from different perspectives, of course. And I think the concept needs to be there, that we understand and experience that race and bias informs nearly every aspect of our criminal justice system. And so to act as if it does not exist or that it can be either whitewashed or disregarded, those are as dangerous as any other kind of constitutional violation.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Laura Coates after this. You say something towards the end of the book that I also think is interesting. And I wonder how people will react to it. You talk about race very directly throughout the book, but also in particular at the end. And you say, “My race always informed my objectivity.” And I read that and I thought, how can that be? How can you be explicitly thinking about race and then also talking about the concept of objectivity? And you say, you explain a bit, and then you punctuate your explanation with, “It is precisely because I am a black woman that the blackness of a defendant was never an indictment.” Which I found to be profound. Can you elaborate on that?

Laura Coates:

That’s a hell of a sentence.

Preet Bharara:

It was pretty good. So if we had been in person, you would see how much I underlined and where my post-it notes are.

Laura Coates:

Oh, are you like me? I do the same thing. I always put the… I have my tabs because I consume what I read as if it’s a meal, I consume it.

Preet Bharara:

No, I do a lot of underlining and stars.

Laura Coates:

Well, I appreciate that you have taken the time to really.

Preet Bharara:

So that sentence got a star.

Laura Coates:

Oh good, I love it. Thank you. I had to tell you that. It’s important and I think when I write and think about that, I think you’re right. It is counterintuitive that you could essentially, in a society where we say the only real way to be fair and unbiased is really the mascot of the justice department, a blindfolded lady justice. When in reality, we do a disservice when we pretend that these things don’t exist or influence. And I know just from thinking about, the most recent example for the court of public opinion for so many people can be the trial of the Michael father and son, and Roddy Bryant who were now convicted in killing Ahmaud Arbery, a black man who was jogging in Georgia. And the defense council was adamant about their voir dire. They said they wanted to have more “Bubbas” or people who had less of an educational attainment because there was the perception that for some reason, as long as you were a white Southern Bubba, their words, that you would be able to look at this case favorably to the defendants. You’re laughing because it’s ridiculous.

Preet Bharara:

Well, because what that means is, which maybe is what you’re going to say, they would share the biases of the killers and presumed that a person in black skin must have been up to no good.

Laura Coates:

Exactly. And when we know that happens, when we know that’s part of the thought process of defense counsel, that’s in front of cameras with the microscope on, right? With the volume loudly for every microphone. That is the quiet part that happens out loud, but behind closed doors for so many across the justice system, the assumption, the role of bias. The assumption that because this person is of a particular race or looks a certain way, then that is a person who I am going to assume is more likely than not to have been the correct suspect. I’m not going to question whether the officers got it wrong, I’m going to assume that the presumption of innocence is what you say on paper.

Preet Bharara:

I’m trying to understand how you think about your time as a federal prosecutor because you only stated until the end of your commitment. I get to the end of some chapters in the book and I get the feeling about some of the things you did and were involved in, you were gratified and you have pride. And other things that you do not have pride in. And at one point in the book, you sort of do the back and forth. You say, “There are days when I am so grateful to have been a prosecutor to have witnessed the relief of a victim no longer living in fear, to have heard the emotional release of a father who got justice for his son.” And you go on to say the other things that were gratifying.

Preet Bharara:

And then you also write, “But there were also days when I wish I had never left the comfort of private practice to embark on the journey of public service.” In looking back, do you regret having been a prosecutor? Do you feel guilt about having been a prosecutor? Is it super complicated and mixed? How do you look back on that time overall?

Laura Coates:

I look back at it, it is a mixed reaction, but I am overwhelmingly proud that I see the world as it is not just what I’d like it to be. And I think had I confined myself to sort of the golden handcuffs and the comfort of only exploring the law in ways that were within my comfort zone. And in ways that I wouldn’t question our role in the greater society, I wouldn’t have developed and grown as a person. And I’m not the same person I was when I left private practice.

Laura Coates:

I don’t think I was ever naive, but I certainly am far more informed and educated about the world around me. And in ways that I look back at a younger version of myself and sort smile and condescendingly sort of pat that younger woman’s head and say, oh, that’s wonderful that you think that answers are binary. And that you think that it’s an either or world when in reality it’s the in between that happens. It’s almost like a play on that famous John Lennon quote of, “Life is what happens, you’re busy making other plans.” Well, justice is what happens when you’re busy learning about case law and everything in between. And so I’m very grateful that I had the opportunity.

Preet Bharara:

And you say something that I’m going to totally borrow. You sort of articulated how I think about the podcast I do and the commentary I give on the same platform that you do at least in one place. And you once said in an interview, “I value my role as a CNN legal analyst because education is my form of activism.” I’m totally copying that. I’m going to say that.

Laura Coates:

You know what? Here’s how the world works. You will say, and we’ll go, Laura Coates is quoting Preet Bharara. And you know what, I’ll laugh and go, that’s fine, hat tip to you. A chef’s kiss.

Preet Bharara:

My male privilege.

Laura Coates:

But no, it’s true. I mean, I think that people feel that activism requires an angle and an agenda and a political nod. But in reality, I look back and I think about those moments of the decision of Emmett Till’s mother to show the world what happened to her son. I look about how the media covered the Edmund Pettus Bridge or what freedom writers saw to galvanize him to go down south. And I think about even a cell phone camera held by a teenager in Minneapolis, looking at what happened to George Floyd. And I think we kind of have to think about what we do and the information we provide. And as you know, you’re a new Yorker, see something, say something. And that’s why I think we have to do and show the world what we are at times to be the spark for the people who are in positions of power to change it. To speak truth to power, but first know what the truth is.

Preet Bharara:

And I wonder what you think about some of these big trials that Americans hear about. You mentioned one already the trial of the three men who killed Ahmaud Arbery. There’s also a lot of discussion of, and focus on an analysis of the Derek Chauvin trial and Kyle Rittenhouse. And one question I have is do you think that the American public gets a skewed view of the diet of criminal cases or how criminal cases unfold? Because they hear so much information about a few very celebrated cases and they get a skewed picture or not.

Laura Coates:

It’s interesting because I think on the one hand, I think we’ve gone so long with people believing that it’s impossible to charge, let alone successfully prosecute and convict a police officer of a crime. Or the idea that it’s nearly impossible based on statistics for a victim and a defendant of different races to result in a conviction for the person who committed a crime, assuming the victim is white and the defendant’s black. If it’s vice versa, the overwhelming thought is a black victim will not see justice. And I think people are seeing a change in that happening. They’re seeing successful prosecutions of officers like Derek Chauvin, officers like Kim Potter, vigilante justice which of course is an oxymoron that that is being treated differently as well. But I think people should not sort of rest on their laurels and be lulled into a full sense of security and thinking that that’s what will always happen.

Laura Coates:

And these are key cases that have been under the microscope. You’ve seen some really incredible advocacy in some respects, the Derek Chauvin trial being one example of a team of resources and devoting it to that. But that is not the standard result for the overwhelming number of cases. And I think that we can’t allow people to feel that it will always happen. I also think that when people, since they’ve watched these trials with dated breath, the law and order effect comes into play. As we talked about earlier in the show, the idea of, well, wait a second, what about X, Y, and Z? Where’s your video tape? Well, where’s this? Wasn’t anything there? And the things that were advantages in other trials might become deficits that can’t be overcome in other trials, even though the underlying facts might be similar. And I think that we have to sort of guard ourselves and sort of steal ourselves for how these cases will create blueprint that will be helpful and harmful in the end.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, we used to call that this CSI effect. That over time people go through voir dire and they talk about their biases and hopefully they say they’re going to be fair and they mean it. But people are the sums of their experiences, which include watching some of those popular television shows where there’s always DNA, there’s always some forensic evidence. And I know in garden variety cases at the district court level, there’s often none of that. And it’s very sticky when you have just plain eyewitness testimony to convict someone. One of the questions I get most frequently, no matter what the pending investigation is, when an investigation becomes public or the fact of it, is what is taking so damn long? I presume you get that question a lot.

Laura Coates:

All the time. And I get it with respect to the Department of Justice.

Preet Bharara:

I was going to segue to that because I’m tired of answering that question because I don’t always know the answer. So this is what I talked about at the beginning, I get to switch roles. Is it your view that the Department of Justice, from what you can see is doing enough with respect to, not just the ground level people who went into the capital on January 6th, but the ring leaders or the insighters?

Laura Coates:

I too share the frustration of the amount of time it takes for us to get the transparency. I think the American people are entitled to, as the Supreme Court really has articulated in the past and reiterated this idea of being able to have information. I find myself frustrated at times, but I also understand that when you’re talking about charges that are novel, like conspiracy to commit sedition, it’s a good thing in our democracy that these charges are so rare because people are… they’re not committing acts of sedition, but it also requires… right?

Preet Bharara:

What’s so funny about that and that’s such a smart point because people, when they ask these questions, sometimes they will want to know how this works. And sometimes the answer is we don’t really know because there’s not a lot of precedent and that’s actually, as you pointed out, that’s a great thing. Cause it means people aren’t really doing this so much.

Laura Coates:

I mean, we’ve become so desensitized to crime that we go, well, obviously, unfortunately we’ve got no shortage of precedent when it comes to homicide, no shortage or precedent for other matters, drug cases and the like. But acts like that, we should have a shortage. But because of that and in the rare instances when you’ve had it, like for example, in Michigan, a few years ago, when it was raised, when you’re unable to meet the burden according to a judge, that creates feelings of reluctance and fear on behalf of prosecutors, because the benefits of the doubt that we normally get, when you fail to meet your burden, it really is imputed on every other prosecutor and every other government official going down the road in jurisdictions. And so I think they have to be very careful to make sure that they don’t get it wrong.

Laura Coates:

However, I think a lot of the delay comes from the fact that these charges in particular, even though they are not aspects of a partisan witch hunt, people know that it has to do with some form of politics. And because of that, the DOJ is trying to guard against the perception that they are simply involved in a partisan exercise and they have to correct what has taken place over the last several years, which is that perception that the DOJ is no longer apolitical. And so I think there’s a lot of things happening at once. The being contemplative, the being forward thinking, the doting all Is crossing all Ts and guarding against the outside perception of it being political. And I think when that all combines, it’s delayed. But I remind people, Merrick Garland is not an extension of Robert Mueller. He just came into office, as many people conflate often times and say, well, hey, we’re still waiting to figure out if Trump is going to be indicted.

Laura Coates:

And is he the sort of, not the audience of one, but the defendant of one and people conflate what happened under the Mueller probe versus what’s happening now. But these are very distinct eras and Garland only came in, what? In March, or maybe even almost closer to May I want to think. And these investigations have been continuing since then. And so I would caution people not to either one, conflate or to believe that taking one’s time is indifference and being apathetic. I think it’s important that we get it right. Otherwise, you won’t be able to prosecute again.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that the justice department should charge Mark Meadows with contempt of Congress?

Laura Coates:

I think that anyone who does not comply with a duly issued subpoena should get the same treatment as every regular person who would come before me or any of us who says, no, I don’t feel like it today. We send a squad car often times out, it wasn’t optional. It wasn’t like, hey, you know what, do you feel like testifying today? No, oh, okay then. I guess I can’t prosecute.

Preet Bharara:

Do you hear that noise? You know what that noise is?

Laura Coates:

What is it?

Preet Bharara:

That’s the sound of thousands of podcast listeners cheering. That’s what that sound is, Laura.

Laura Coates:

Well, you know what? Then cheer on because can you imagine it? I mean, just imagine that. The regular person gets a subpoena from Congress or less and they go, nah, you know what? No, thanks.

Preet Bharara:

So this is an interesting question that Joyce Vance and I have discussed on the other podcast. At some point I would presume the committee will ask for testimony from Donald Trump himself and they’ll follow the standard practice of asking for voluntary testimony like they did with Ivanka Trump in the last number of days. And then when that is defied or refused, they’ll issue a subpoena. And Donald Trump and his lawyers will say F you. Will the committee vote to refer a contempt of Congress charge to the justice department against Donald Trump? And what will the justice department do? And one of the reasons I asked the question, imagine a universe in which Donald Trump has not been charged by the Manhattan DA, has not been charged by the Southern District of New York, has not yet been charged by the Fulton County DA. And the first charge on the book is contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the select committee, how do you think that will play out?

Laura Coates:

Well, they should not leave a stone unturned. They should question the former president. They should be entitled to question the former president. All of the protections and the reasons why it’s disruptive to a president’s calendar no longer apply to this particular former now defeated president. I think they should refer him for criminal investigation or criminal charges if he does what, again, anyone who is issued a subpoena and refuses should do. And remember, he doesn’t have the idea of the Supreme court saying, you know what, although a former president, he’s a former president, he should be able to wield his privilege any way he sees fit. They did not say that recently. And you heard Justice Kavanaugh in his opinion saying, look, I’m not saying a privilege could never exist for a former president, but it certainly can be… It’s constrained, it’s conditional.

Laura Coates:

And I think the conditions are such that a former president should be asked the questions. And I think that he will, of course try to run out the clock. They will try to bank on the assumption that perhaps the Republicans might reclaim the house. And if they do the subpoena power essentially lapses for that select committee. But I think that if our democracy is going to mean anything, if we’re really going to have co-equal branches of government, they’ve got to be willing to actually act like it. And they can’t stand to delegitimize themselves and still expect people view them as a legitimate body of government. I mean, I look at the Supreme Court in the same way. The only reason the Supreme Court’s opinions are really valued is because of inertia. It’s been the way it always has been that you honor and value and abide by Supreme Court precedent.

Laura Coates:

But when they delegitimize themselves by not enforcing their precedent and allowing people to do an end run around it, like what’s happening in Texas, well, then at some point, people are no longer going to revere you as an institution that must be followed. And I think Congress is at a fork in the road. Either they will have to flex the authority that should be there and is, or they’re going to play second fiddle and no longer be coequal. And they’ll have to decide what’s more important. I hope they decide that coequal branches of government are as more important than some simply trying to not wanting to have a harder road to pursue and delay tactics.

Preet Bharara:

Given what your earlier career was focused on in the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, what’s your view on how hopeful or pessimistic people should be about voting rights in this country?

Laura Coates:

Oh, our voting rights are… I mean, sorry.

Preet Bharara:

That was an excited utterance right off the bat.

Laura Coates:

Oh god, it really was. I am furious about the clawing back of voting rights in this country. But it also shows you that we cannot believe that just because it’s written on paper, it will actually be realized in practice. Just like our constitution, who America is on paper is not who it is many days. And so what are you going to do about it? And I have no choice, but to be both furious, but still optimistic because what other choice do we have? If I become pessimistic and say, you know what, nothing’s going to change, then I’ve resigned myself to believing that the entire civil rights gains where an exercise in futility. And that just cannot be, because if that on paper means nothing, then what other rollbacks will there be? Maybe we could go to the extremes, at some point, will Jim Crow’s wings be unclipped because that also was a part of that particular era that continues to this day.

Laura Coates:

And so I think that I’m frustrated, but I also think that Congress, this is not something that Congress has just recently had to grapple with. They have been asked since the Shelby decision to recalibrate the section five formula, there wasn’t the appetite then for whatever reason. Now you see the big lie being used, even as a pretext, obviously for a failed candidate. But the big lie is also being used as a pretextual reason for many states to do and make the changes that they already wanted to make even prior to the 2020 election and to use fraud as a means to justify the clawing back of voting rights act. I think it’s important for our Congress to act. And I think it’s really even more important for us to stop thinking about voting rights as a partisan issue. I’m not saying nor is anyone saying that you are entitled to vote for the winner, but you are entitled to be able to participate in the process. And if we are weak on voting rights, we will never have a strong democracy. Yay.

Preet Bharara:

The late great Alex Trebek of Jeopardy-

Laura Coates:

The cheering just ended.

Preet Bharara:

You knew that, you didn’t think you were going to get away with this interview without getting a question on this. And it’s my last question before I do a bonus round with you. He reportedly said that one, Laura Coates would be a great replacement for him as the host of Jeopardy. If you had been offered that job, would you have taken it?

Laura Coates:

Oh, what are the hours? I’m sorry. I really got to think about that. I got to tell you-

Preet Bharara:

That sounds like a yes, you have various employers who are listening to this.

Laura Coates:

It would’ve been very nice, don’t you think? To be in a position where you’ve had the answers in front of you, right? That is a lifestyle I would welcome, I got to tell you. But it wasn’t in the stars. I was thrilled that he offered and I felt that he asked and thought it would be important, but when it came down to it, I asked and they said no, and no uncertain terms. And so that door was closed, but you know what? It doesn’t mean I’m going to stop asking questions or giving answers or keeping my community out of jeopardy. See how I did that just now, see what I did?

Preet Bharara:

That was really good, that’s a great way to win. Laura Coates, you have been a great guest, you’re a great colleague, congratulations on your book, Just Pursuit, A Black Prosecutor’s Fight For Fairness. Good luck with it. And I will see you around soon.

Laura Coates:

I hope so. I’ll send the cookies your way.

Preet Bharara:

All right.

Laura Coates:

Thin Mints, you said some [unintelligible 01:02:37], right?

Preet Bharara:

I’ll take whatever you send.

Laura Coates:

Tag alongs?

Preet Bharara:

I will take and I will devour.

Laura Coates:

Thanks Preet, I appreciate it.

Preet Bharara:

Thanks, Laura. My conversation with Laura Coates continues for members of the CAFE insider community. To try out the membership free for two weeks, 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 a disgusting type of financial fraud that is becoming more and more common, it seems. And it’s one that targets elders and grandparents specifically because they’re vulnerable. And I’ll tell you, it makes my blood boil. I prosecuted some scams like this when I was US Attorney. One case revolved around a man who targeted and victimized elderly people across the US. He and his co-conspirators would cold call vulnerable grand parents and claimed that their grandchildren had been arrested and imprisoned and immediately needed thousands of dollars in bail money in order to get out. In the indictment that we filed, we described 17 grandparents who had been coerced and scammed out of thousands of dollars. And in some cases, tens of thousands. The defendants disgracefully capitalized on the compassion that a grandparent feels for a grandchild and prayed on their willingness to help family members in need.

Preet Bharara:

In many cases the defendant and his co-conspirators, believe it or not, pretended to be the victim’s grandchild on the phone. Typically, they would cry and plead with the elderly victim to send money to secure the grandchild’s release from jail. I know this sounds implausible, but imagine you’re a grandparent and you get a call like that. You might be willing to believe it to be true. They would also request that the grandparents not contact other members of the family because the so-called grandchild felt ashamed. In one of the cases, the perpetrator posed as a police sergeant alerting the victim that their grandson had been arrested on a narcotics charge and needed bail money to get free. And as was true in case after case, the elderly victim in that case wired the money to the scammers. And then later, when the grandparent made contact with the actual grandson, found out that he had never been arrested and had never been imprisoned, it was all a scam.

Preet Bharara:

And it’s just terrible. According to the FBI, every year, millions of elderly Americans fall victim to some type of financial fraud or confidence scheme. And it’s a growing problem. The FBI also reports that total losses from these kinds of crimes are up to about $3 billion yearly. In the past, scammers have attempted to target my own family, as well. As you might imagine, such abusive frauds are hard to stop and hard to prosecute. It can be hard to trace calls back to the low life people who made them. But, and this is the reason I’m talking about it this week, not everyone gets away with it. This week there was news in the Washington post about an enterprising grandma who knew better than the bad guys. Jean a 73 year old grandmother who lives on Long Island received a call almost identical to the ones I just described. Someone on the other side of the line claiming to be her grandson saying her grandson had been arrested for drunk driving and immediately needed $8,000 for bail money.

Preet Bharara:

But luckily Jean’s grandsons are too young to drive. So she knew immediately it had to be a scam. And so she decided to scam the scammers. So she played along eventually convincing them to send a so-called bail bondsman to pick up the money from her house. What the scammers didn’t know was that the police would be stationed nearby. So when a man showed up to collect the money, he was tackled to the ground by officers. The perpetrator was arrested and charged with attempted grand larceny in the third degree, according to the post.

Preet Bharara:

These scammers are pretty smart and pretty persistent and pretty shameless. They often reveal a lot of personal information about their victims to convince them that the request is urgent and authentic, but Jean was smarter. And thanks to her, this man was stopped. And my guess is that she saved many other grandparents from being victims of this kind of horrible crime. So this may be a story with a happy ending, but it’s also a cautionary tale. These kinds of crimes are unfortunately common and there are variations on them. And you may have experienced it too. So if you have elderly family members and friends, please educate them about the risks of these types of scams and help them to keep themselves and their families safe.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Laura Coates. 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. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director, who’s David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. And the CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Chris Boylan, Sean Walsh, and Namita Shah. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host Preet Bharara, stay tuned.