Preet Bharara: From CAFE. Welcome to CAFE Insider. I’m Preet Bharara.
Anne Milgram: And I’m Anne Milgram.
Preet Bharara: How are you doing Anne?
Anne Milgram: I’m good. How are you doing?
Preet Bharara: Get some rest after last week?
Anne Milgram: I did. I woke up on Thursday, thoroughly exhausted and I felt like I had a Mueller hangover and I hadn’t had a single thing to drink. It was just exhausting.
Preet Bharara: It was good seeing you in DC.
Anne Milgram: It’s great seeing you in DC. [crosstalk 00:00:21]
Preet Bharara: DC is a different kind of place.
Anne Milgram: It is, but it was good to be down there and sort of be a part of it. We were both at CNN that night. We got to watch some of the hearing together, talk about it together, read some Twitter together.
Preet Bharara: So we went to the studio to record, Stay Tuned literally I think 50 minutes or 55 minutes after the testimony concluded and so we didn’t have a chance to reflect and think deeply. I know that you and I like to think deeply.
Anne Milgram: Yes.
Preet Bharara: We are not so much about the hop takes, right?.
Anne Milgram: I shouldn’t be laughing at that.
Preet Bharara: Here at CAFE, we’re about the deep thoughtful response, right?
Anne Milgram: Yes.
Preet Bharara: Were we right about everything we said in the immediate aftermath?
Anne Milgram: Yeah, I think so. The thing I think-
Preet Bharara: You don’t have to retrieve from anything.
Anne Milgram: Well, what I think we did well and what I’ve been frustrated and angry thinking about in retrospect, what I thought we did well was that we really focused on the substance of the testimony. And I’ve now thought it through a little bit more a couple of points I want to talk with you about, but I was really disappointed that night I was on CNN. I watched a lot of media, I read a lot of media the next day and there was way too much focus on not the substance, but on the sort of appearance of the hearing. And I think there was a lot lost because of how in general, the media and a number of folks who are influencers, what their takeaways were from the hearing. They missed a lot of the bigger points. And when I went back and listened, I was happy that you and I really, I think focused almost exclusively on the substance. And I think that’s important. I mean obviously it’s fair to have all of these conversations and to have conversations about both but.
Preet Bharara: Yeah, I mean, so you and I have spoken on air obviously, and also offline. I’ve talked to a lot of other people and I’ve had phone calls with folks who watch and people want to know what you thought. Look, was Bob Mueller super strong and dominant like I’ve seen him before? No, but I got asked a couple of times what my biggest takeaway from the hearing was and I think people were expecting me to talk about some particular substantive point and I didn’t because I think the overall takeaway is whatever you thought of the performance, nothing substantive in the report was undermined.
Anne Milgram: Right.
Preet Bharara: Not a conclusion, not a fact, not an assertion, nothing. I mean even when you think about it, everything having to do with obstruction, everything happened to do with the welcoming attitude on the part of people on the Trump campaign towards help from a foreign adversary was all set forth. In large part, it was not undermined because no one even attempted to undermine it.
Preet Bharara: It was about peripheral things. It was about how the investigation began, which he refused to talk about. But as to the actual conclusions in the report, the bulk of which support all kinds of action, including taking strong action with respect to the 2020 election, none of it was undercut at all.
Anne Milgram: Yeah. In addition to none of it being undercut, the point that Mueller made on the 2020 election that the Russians are trying to hack into our election as he sat there, and we’ll talk more about that today, but that is a really critical piece of information evidenced have Robert Mueller testified to. And so if anything, I think the substance was a little bit enhanced. Nothing was taken away from it. Moreover, Robert Mueller always said, the report is my testimony and I’m not going beyond it. And he didn’t go beyond it. And so if people were frustrated and upset about that as well, it was never to be expected that he would have stepped out and said, “Yes, I would have indicted the president. I would have gone to the grand jury to indict the president.”
Preet Bharara: The problem is life is about expectations and the expectation was set that Bob Mueller would perform in a particular way. The expectation part was set that if nothing else happened, he would do dramatic readings of portions of the report, which people said, well then that will be able to be televised and people will see by Mueller himself, the head of the investigation, the special counsel on an endless loop saying some of these things that are in the report that most Americans have not read. And he refused to do even that.
Anne Milgram: And it was a miscalculation for people to have thought he was going to do it. Because if you went back to his old testimony and you looked at it, he really goes out of his way to never be political. He’s almost fiercely a political and that matters enormously that he didn’t want to be upon either of the Ds or the Rs. And so he was willing to agree to facts. He wasn’t willing to agree to conclusions and spin on what the facts in the report were. Conclusions beyond the conclusions he’d already drawn in the report. Do you think sort of stepping back, I’ve sort of two big questions I’ve been thinking about. One is the Democrats in Congress made this decision from the time the report came out to not begin impeachment hearings, but rather to do a “investigation” short of having a formal impeachment hearing, but to do an investigation.
Anne Milgram: And so this really, this to me is one of the core questions. Should the Democrats have just brought impeachment in April and basically said, look, Robert Mueller gave us a report which makes out crimes committed by Donald Trump and also presents a huge issue with the 2020 election. Should we just go to impeachment? And then do the hearings in the context of that, because this feels to me almost like they want to not do impeachment, but then they’re trying to do things like they were trying to do with Mueller last week, that it sort of feels like round peg square hole in some ways.
Preet Bharara: Yeah, I don’t quite follow it. Now there’s this discussion since last Thursday or Friday about whether or not we are in impeachment proceedings because Jerry Nadler now uses the term. And he’s saying, well, I forget the exact phrase he’s used, but he’s now using the I word.
Anne Milgram: But then he should formally do it because I think he’s getting-
Preet Bharara: Or he needs Nancy.
Anne Milgram: Right? He does need Nancy Pelosi. It’s a good point. But he also there now litigating grand jury testimony, right? So the house is now basically said, we want to go to court and get access to the redacted material in the Mueller report, the grand jury testimony under rule 60 federal rules. So I personally think that having a “investigation” in the house is a decent argument, but having an impeachment inquiry is a far stronger argument to go to a court on.
Preet Bharara: Right. You’re talking about for purposes of actually making the legal claim to court.
Anne Milgram: Getting witnesses in, getting Don McGahn to testify. There’s a whole host of reasons why it would be helpful for the process.
Preet Bharara: Right. because there’s some lack of clarity on whether or not you can get that material, grand jury material, even though a court order, unless you have formally declared an impeachment inquiry. So I like Nancy Pelosi a lot and I defer to other people who have some view about her political skills and her predictability. But it is an odd paradox to say. I think as she has said that the president looks like he’s committed crimes and on the other hand we don’t need to seek impeachment because we need more information. Yeah. You always want to have as much information as possible before you undertake any kind of proceeding or allegation, whether it’s in a criminal context or in the impeachment context.
Preet Bharara: But in the same way that when you bring a grand jury indictment, which is just a set of allegations, the standard is probable cause. Here it sounds like they’re all comfortable. Not all, but many Democrats are comfortable saying there is enough to sustain impeachment and it seems like they’re tying themselves in knots for political reasons because they’re worried about a backlash.
Anne Milgram: Which is silly in my view. I mean, look, I think politics is politics and it’s not generally the lane that we sit in, but I think both. If you think it’s the right thing to do, which I personally do, to have that level of an inquiry, then you do it. And the second piece is that, and maybe this is out of my lane, but even on the impeachment question, I think Donald Trump of the things he would not like to have happen. I mean he still talks about how many people were at his swearing in, right? The guy is superficially concerned about these questions enormously. If you’re impeached, it’s your legacy, right? It’s part of Bill Clinton’s legacy. It would be part of Donald Trump’s legacy. There’s a level of fear I think that we’re seeing in Congress that I think that the political calculus is probably not exactly what they think it is. It’s irrelevant question where the public is, but I also think that, look, Robert Mueller gave them 460 plus pages of information related to what has happened and that’s a lot of evidence to start with to me.
Preet Bharara: In hearing you talk a minute ago about some of these things, and I’m looking at a question we got from a listener through Twitter, John Kujawa who writes, “Listening to Preet Bharara and Anne Milgrim this morning about Mueller’s testimony. Mueller said, “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” While the morning’s discussion was about indictment. Is there a distinction between indict and committing a crime in Mueller’s mind? I’m not a lawyer, but law and order and common sense say there’s a difference between being charged and being determined to have committed the crime. What say Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram #askpreet.”
Anne Milgram: That’s a great question.
Preet Bharara: I mean, I don’t think that necessarily in most cases has to be a distinction. So there are circumstances in which we might say internally at the US Attorney’s office, we’ve concluded in an investigation and so and so person X has committed a crime, you have evidence of it. And I talked about this in the book too, and sometimes you still don’t indict, you don’t prosecute because there are other reasons of fairness because it’s maybe not a statute that’s ever been enforced in that particular way before. So simply technically meeting all the elements of a crime does not necessarily compel you to bring the chart. So for example, one of the times that I cite you in the book on the question of turnstile jumping.
Anne Milgram: Yes.
Preet Bharara: Still remains a crime.
Anne Milgram: Token sucking.
Preet Bharara: Token sucking.
Anne Milgram: Back in the day when New York city had tokens.
Preet Bharara: Some version. And I think your line was, I think if you were industrious enough to suck out the token, you should be able to keep it.
Anne Milgram: Yeah. I was not a fan of prosecuting those cases.
Preet Bharara: So now side Nancy said we’re not going to prosecute those cases anymore. It’s still against the law.
Anne Milgram: It’s on the books.
Preet Bharara: It’s on the books. So that’s one small bore example of where there’s a distinction between having committed a crime and whether or not you bring an indictment. The Mueller situation is much more complex and he has taken the position that it’s sort of the same that if there was a bar on charging, which there is, with respect to OLC opinion says you cannot charge a sitting president, indict a sitting president. He has taken that to mean and to extend to their being a bar on even saying whether or not the president committed a crime. I’m not sure everyone would agree with that. I think that’s arguable.
Anne Milgram: This is the second thing I wanted to ask you about and I think so this is a great listener question and to just give a technical explanation also because I think the Mueller thing is complicated in ways that most criminal proceedings are not. In order to charge a crime in the grand jury or by an information which is essentially just a written document for lower crimes. But for felonies, it would generally be a grand jury you would use to charge the standard has probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that it was committed by this person. To convict someone to trial, the legal standard is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So there is a higher threshold to convict someone and a lot of members of the public I think would think about a conviction on a crime equals someone committed the crime.
Anne Milgram: And so you and I as prosecutors would say, “Oh, we think there’s evidence to support someone committed a crime.” And we’re sort of short handing a little bit of it, but I think a lot of the folks in the public would think proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of evidence you have. Now, here’s what I was thinking about since the Mueller testimony last week, which is Mueller did a pretty complicated thing, which is one reason why I think the Republicans were able to keep saying, there’s no legal standard to exonerate the president. I totally reject the Republican’s arguments for a variety of different reasons. I don’t think Mueller at all was changing the legal standard. He was basically saying, I’m not reaching those questions, but by the way, he’s not exonerated. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Right. That doesn’t mean he’s innocent.
Anne Milgram: Either I just don’t want to reach the question and he was trying to say sort of in a pretty complex way, a little, it’s like Mueller speak. I’m not exonerating him, but I don’t want to reach it. But here’s the thing I was thinking about, which is, OLC says that you can’t indict a sitting president. Mueller decides, he doesn’t want to say in the report, the president is guilty of crimes because it’s essentially charging him without making a final decisions.
Preet Bharara: It’s not, but yes.
Anne Milgram: It’s not. And isn’t there space for Robert Mueller to have said, I would have presented this case to a grand jury for the grand jury to determine whether or not, meaning I think there’s sufficient evidence for a grand jury to consider criminal charges. I’m not actually making the call or not, but that’s how you would generally do a prosecution memo.
Preet Bharara: Which remains internal and he had to understand that this was going to be made public and the reason that he sites, which by the way is to the benefit of the president who keeps maligning him.
Anne Milgram: Hugely.
Preet Bharara: He said, we didn’t make a determination, I’ll get back to that in a moment, but he essentially is saying, I’m not going to announce because I can’t indict him, that the president committed a crime because he has no way to clear his name. Because it’s just in dispersion. It’s going to be cast on, in this case, the president that he can’t defend against. It’s sort of like when newspaper article does something like that and they have to take very great care about it.
Preet Bharara: So he was doing it to bend over backwards to be fair to the president. Now, the funny thing that I think arises from your point is going back to Mueller’s quote, when he says, “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” And I get that, and on its face it seems to be a logical statement, but in real life, you or I or someone else, if we decided we were not going to reach a determination, but you collect the evidence and you marshall it and you spend all your time writing it and revising it and you put it together, what is the likelihood that in their minds people in the special counsel team have not made a determination as to whether the president committed a crime, whether or not they’re saying it publicly? I think-
Anne Milgram: 0%.
Preet Bharara: 0%.
Anne Milgram: 0%. There’s less than 0%. They all think he committed a crime. I don’t think there’s any question of reading that report and I think whatever, in 50 years-
Preet Bharara: It’s a clever step back from having to say it because he assumed certain things, he assumed correctly that you can indict the president. And then he extended that as we’ve been saying to the principal of that, you can’t even say if he’s committed a crime. It seems to me that you don’t need to say the not exonerated part unless you feel that either there is a crime committed or it’s very close to determination the crime was committed or some other body, like a future prosecutor after office or the Congress could make the conclusion that a crime is committed. Otherwise, there’s actually no reason to say no exoneration.
Anne Milgram: Right. And I actually think that Mueller could have said more with the idea being that he has this whole fairness argument. So he knows he can indict. And then what stops him from saying whether or not the president has committed a crime is this question of fairness of not wanting to accuse someone who doesn’t get their day in court. But there’s a footnote in the Mueller report that talks specifically about the United States Congress, that talks about the process for dealing with president, which sites to the United States Congress and impeachment. I mean without saying explicitly like, look, Congress, you can impeach him, but in some ways the trial is in Congress and should be. And so in some ways Mueller could have said, look, we would have gone to the grand jury. We can’t draw our conclusion as to what a grand jury would’ve done, but that essentially still leaves congress as the trier of fact. Right?
Anne Milgram: And that’s the piece that I think Mueller was worried about and maybe he was so worried that Congress wouldn’t do it, that there wouldn’t be a trier of fact. But I think in some ways he sort of unintentionally put his thumb on the scale thinking that Congress would read his report. If there’s any fault to be had with Mueller I think it’s this. I’m a huge fan as you know. It’s that I think he thought, well, there’s no one who’s going to read that report and not understand the crime was committed. I think he probably thought it was so obvious and that Congress would go into impeachment hearings and take this up, that he didn’t think he needed to say it more directly than he did.
Preet Bharara: That’s why I think actually he flubbed that question that I spent a lot of time talking about on television. You and I spent time talking about also in response to a question from Ted Lou who basically said that, “The reason you didn’t indict the president was because of the OLC opinion. Is that correct?” And Mueller without hesitating said, “That’s correct.” And he wasn’t confused and he had to clean it up because of this sort of Pretzel like logic that they have adopted, which is you can’t say something like that. They’re studiously trying to shy away from that.
Preet Bharara: One thing that we talked about on Stay Tuned last week was whether or not the hearing made it more or less likely there would be impeachment. I just don’t know the answer to that question, but interestingly, the number of house members on the democratic side who now favor impeachment has grown since the hearing. I think it went up by six or seven or eight people up to about 108 or 109.
Anne Milgram: Yeah, 108 Democrats plus congressman Justin Amash who was a republican and stepped out of the Republican Party. You get to 109 and that’s a lot of members of the United States Congress who favor impeachment. And so it’s almost half of all the Democrats. There are 235 Democrats in the United States House of Representatives. It’s almost half. By my count, 118 would be more than half of the Democrats who are currently in office in the United States Congress. And so you’re getting to the point, Pelosi, is clearly holding back the charges from a large number of people.
Anne Milgram: And it’s an interesting question in my mind of how long she can hold that back. So Congress has now moved to try to get the grand jury and material. They have subpoenas out for the testimony of witnesses, but it still feels a little bit to me like the middle of the road, which is for, as they say, yellow lines and dead armadillos. And so-
Preet Bharara: What?
Anne Milgram: I mean, have you ever heard that in south?
Preet Bharara: No. What is the other thing you said the other day?
Anne Milgram: Woof and Quack.
Preet Bharara: Woof and Quack.
Anne Milgram: Yeah.
Preet Bharara: I’m learning a lot for sure.
Anne Milgram: Yeah. These important linguistic things. But it does feel to me she’s trying to play both sides a little or stay in the middle until she feels which way the wind is blowing.
Preet Bharara: Is that the role of the speaker?
Anne Milgram: I don’t think it’s the role.
Preet Bharara: Oh, well let’s talk about something Adam Schiff said.
Anne Milgram: Yeah.
Preet Bharara: Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. This is another question from Twitter. Garret Sherwood says, Preet Bharara and Milgram just heard an interview with representative Adam Schiff where he states that an impeachment in house and acquittal incentive could impact future DOJ consideration to prosecute Trump after he leaves office. Would that really be the case? #askpreet sort of interesting question. I don’t have the transcript of that interview. I know he was on TV a bit since last Thursday and I don’t think he said definitively that impeachment and acquittal in the Senate would impact future DOJ consideration. But yeah, it might be something.
Anne Milgram: I think it’s a silly argument.
Preet Bharara: In the prosecution memo you would note in the discussion he would say, well there was another body that considered this. They were not bound by the same rules of evidence and the same rules of criminal procedure that we were, you had a special counsel who made the determination that he couldn’t go forward.
Preet Bharara: And in the interim before we got to a future prosecutor, in this future universe, the hypothetical that we’re talking about, Congress acted and they did some stuff. And even though I don’t think there’s a double jeopardy problem of a president, I don’t think-
Anne Milgram: I don’t think so.
Preet Bharara: … That the president would ask some scholars about that and get back to you guys on that. But you have a trial in the Senate, he’s acquitted. I think that would be a consideration, but not a definitive one. What do you think?
Anne Milgram: Schiff did a great job with questioning, I thought there were a couple of moments during the hearings where I thought folks did a really good job. I thought Schiff’s questioning was very strong and so I would say that this argument, I don’t credit very much and I’ll tell you why.
Anne Milgram: It’s one of those things there are countless different reasons that would come into play as to whether or not the president is charged after he leaves office. First of all, if he’s reelected, the statute will run unless Congress takes a different action, so we don’t even know sitting here right now, it’s possible the president is not reelected and that the Southern District or someone else brings charges, but we don’t know. It’s really speculative. The second piece is that it’s not to say that the president couldn’t be charged and I think it’s potentially possible, but remember that Richard Nixon was not prosecuted. He was essentially given a pardon for his crimes, the crimes that he had committed because he was no longer going to be president. And people were sort of saying, let’s move on as a country. Let’s put this behind us. He did bad things, but let’s move on.
Anne Milgram: And so whether or not people will think that, I don’t know, it’s just so speculative to me to say that it’s a bad idea to hold someone accountable now because there’s a tiny potential chance that there’ll be charged later.
Preet Bharara: Yes. So there’s two things going on there. One, I tend to agree that that argument should not necessarily impact the decision now to go forward with impeachment. But on the question of whether or not in the hypothetical, if you went ahead and impeach and there was an acquittal in the Senate, would a future prosecutor consider that fact of the equivalent of Senate in connection with the fairness and public support aspect of proceeding with a criminal charge against the president after those allegations had been aired out in the Senate even though it’s a political process, I think it would impact the decision. So if I were the US attorney, the Attorney General, I’d be thinking about it.
Preet Bharara: The other weird thing about all of this that I’ve been asked about is what is the consequence of the sitting Attorney General Bill Barr having basically declared the position of the department as the head of the department that these things do not constitute a crime? And Muller wouldn’t say it, but the boss, he’s the boss said that doesn’t constitute a crime. Now obviously if you’re an intrepid use attorney right now, you can indict the president because of the OLC opinion. Now imagine this scenario. This is a weird hypothetical. That Trump leaves office, he decides to just quit. Bill Barr is still the Attorney General. The OLC opinion is no longer applicable because the president has gone. Now you have that same intrepid US attorney, not barred by the OLC opinion, but you have the person superior that US attorney, the Attorney General, having taken the position that this is not a crime.
Preet Bharara: I think in that circumstance the US attorney does not bring the criminal case, but in the more likely hypothetical going forward, the president leaves and Bill Barr leaves and you have a new attorney general, maybe it’s Kamala Harris as attorney general. Who she has said and I don’t actually love the way she has said this is I don’t think you prejudge these things even if you think all the facts. Essentially she, and I think a couple of others have said that they would direct the Attorney General to-
Anne Milgram: Bring charges.
Preet Bharara: To bring charges.
Anne Milgram: Right.
Preet Bharara: What is the weight of the prior Attorney General statement that there was no crime?
Anne Milgram: Yeah, I mean I think it matters, but at the same time I personally believe Barr’s conclusion that there is no crime is not consistent with the evidence and the report, remember he said he hadn’t looked at the underlying evidence. There are a lot of reasons to believe that he was making a largely political decision in my view. And I think it’s completely legitimate for a new Attorney General to raise the question of and to look without regard to politics but with regard to what are the facts, what does the evidence say if there’s evidence that a crime was committed to bring that to the grand jury.
Anne Milgram: Now you do raise an interesting question though. Again, I don’t love this either. The saying I would charge or I would definitely charge. There’s a piece there I feel very strongly that there’s something about accountability that we’re missing right now and that we have to figure out what is the accountability mechanism and let’s even talk about the 2020 election piece. How do we get to a point where we hold our current government accountable for the fact that our election systems, it said that report that came out last Thursday from the Intelligence Committee, the Bipartisan Report said that all 50 states had had election interference.
Preet Bharara: All 50.
Anne Milgram: All 50.
Preet Bharara: Yeah.
Anne Milgram: It’s extraordinary. I mean there’s a lot we can talk about with this, but one of the things I found chilling was this question they have at the beginning is what’s the motive? And so did you follow this? There’s two possible things they have. The first is that the Russians were infiltrating all these systems and they have IP addresses, Internet Protocol addresses that the Russians were sending to these state election systems where they were able to sort of access information about voters. One possible motive, the first one they say is that they were testing it out for future use and that to me is chilling. The second option was, which I actually found less compelling, was to basically influence the election by showing their ability to essentially hack into these voting systems. There are a lot of reasons why I don’t think that’s as credible of an analysis, but this is really serious. What do we do about it Preet? No pressure.
Preet Bharara: There are a number of bills that are pending in the Congress, none of which Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader wants to move on. The bottom line problem in all of this is that the president doesn’t want any of these things to get attention even on the going forward basis, because any suggestion that there will be interference in the future, he does not sever that from interference in the past.
Preet Bharara: And even though all the Intel services say there was interference, even though there’s basically unanimity that the Russians interfered and they interfered on the side of president Trump and wanting president Trump to win, that undermines president Trump’s vanity about the legitimacy of the election and any attention to it going forward even though it’s good for the country, he doesn’t like an emphasis on it. I was on CNN late on the evening of the testimony with Rob Ray, Republican lawyer, supporter of the president. And the thing we talked about was why doesn’t the president show some leadership and I actually think it’d be good for him.
Preet Bharara: He could say, look, I won legitimately say whatever he wants to say about 2016 I too care about America, I too care about elections, I too care about democracy and I too care about interference from a foreign adversary. So we should pass these laws and we should be strong going forward. And it’s good for him for another reason. If the thing he cares about the most with his fragile ego is doubt about the legitimacy of his election. He could get reelected. I know people don’t want to hear that, but he could easily get reelected and if he has not taken any effort to do something about it and there is, as we know, there will be some forms of interference in the 2020 election.
Preet Bharara: He will then have the burden of having to defend against the second illegitimate election because he never did anything about it. And in fact the last time around encouraged it even though you can get charged for it and seems to be, if not encouraging it at least passively allowing it to happen. And the other thing is once people have seen in other countries, the Russians have basically gotten away with it. There’s no price to pay from the president. Other countries are going to get in on it too.
Anne Milgram: Completely. I mean it’s like the United States elections are open for business and so why would a foreign adversary, a hostile state power not do it. You tweeted out last week and I thought this was a great thing, a link to one of the Donald Trump tweets and this was from July nine 2017. I swear to you, I thought-
Preet Bharara: I forgot.
Anne Milgram: Your tweet was, “Wished someone had asked Muller about this tweet, reporters still can ask Trump about the abject idiocy and disloyalty it shows.” And here’s the Donald J. Trump tweet. “Putin and I discussed forming and impenetrable cyber security unit so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded.” It’s like the fox in the henhouse 101. He was like, “Why don’t we just let Valdimir Putin take over election security and he can do whatever he wants to do.”
Preet Bharara: But I kind of mean it about that the next time anybody, whether it’s Maria Bartiromo who I don’t know what happened to her or anyone else has the president there-
Anne Milgram: Sits with the president. Yeah.
Preet Bharara: … Show him some of these statements is it’s not just, oh, I’m not sure about the election interference. He literally was saying, we’re going to get together with Putin, the person who was responsible for the election interference.
Anne Milgram: And who’s state agents have been charged with committing crimes related to hacking into our election.
Preet Bharara: And say, let’s you and I an impenetrable was it impenetrable?
Anne Milgram: Impenetrable. But it’s really very unclear an impenetrable cyber security unit.
Preet Bharara: Maybe he meant what he said and guard the negative things. What does it say at the end?
Anne Milgram: So that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded.
Preet Bharara: Negative things will be guarded so maybe he actually is very clever fault. So we can preserve the interference.
Anne Milgram: And all the bad things about him will never come out.
Preet Bharara: But they can be guarded.
Anne Milgram: To your point though, you’re right about this, about how important it is for the country. It’s also very foolish to think of that all the hacking from foreign adversaries will benefit you as the president currently believes, right? It could be-
Preet Bharara: What goes around comes around, in some future election there could be some country decides we want the Democrat to win.
Anne Milgram: And it’s just all bad for us. It’s bad to have foreign power on either side, pushing into the election. One thing I want to know, I’m going to disclose one of my past secrets Preet, which is that you may not know this.
Preet Bharara: Right. So we get some music here?
Anne Milgram: When I was AG, I ran the division of elections for the State of New Jersey and I agreed to give that to the secretary of state because the AG really should not run the division elections-
Preet Bharara: I was going to say-
Anne Milgram: … For many reasons which is way too complicated. I also ran, by the way, mixed martial arts and the horse trail.
Preet Bharara: Now you’re just showing off. Now you’re just showing off.
Anne Milgram: It’s going to be like a joke of what I can speak to, but one of the things that-
Preet Bharara: I ran the barbecue at [crosstalk 00:27:51].
Anne Milgram: You did?
Preet Bharara: Yeah. There was a whole barbecue every summer and I didn’t really run it. I was a figurehead.
Anne Milgram: That’s a pretty good thing.
Preet Bharara: Yeah, it was good barbecue, dinosaur barbecue. Very, very yummy.
Anne Milgram: Oh, I love dinosaur barbecue. Going back to the joint intelligence report that came out last Thursday, one of the things that they highlighted and I think is so important to talk about is the fact that the states are just not equipped to deal with election hacking by a sophisticated state run foreign adversary. And I can tell you, I think the election folks that I worked with in the state of New Jersey were extraordinarily talented. They’re not cybersecurity experts. They wouldn’t know how to respond. There’s so much that the federal government needs to do in this space and to say that states are in charge of elections. Okay. But there are plenty of spaces take education for example, that are hybrids where the federal government has standards and rules and the states also have standards and rules. And so there’s a space here that if we do not fix this, we will never be able to feel confident in our elections because that is a level of sophistication that the states, they just don’t have. And I don’t expect them to have.
Preet Bharara: People can call Mitch McConnell, Senator Mitch McConnell, tell him to release the hold on these bills and put them on the floor. So one thing when I’m sitting on the panel at CNN last week was there was a congressman Ratcliffe who some people didn’t like this when I said it on Twitter, he was a pretty effective questioner. He asked this question about the inversion of the burden in whether or not there was any policy backing for Bob Mueller’s apparent decision to say no exoneration. We’ve been talking about that a lot and I think there are good answers to that. And I think it was not quite fair what I’m going to say, but it was effective because he was a pretty strong questioner and it got my attention and Mueller was not able to push back at him in the way that I thought he might’ve been able to.
Preet Bharara: And someone else on the panel said, well here’s what’s going on, he’s auditioning for the job of Director of National Intelligence, DNI and sure enough the reporting as we come into the studio on Monday morning on July 29th is that he’s going to be nominated because Dan Coats, former senator never on the same page, quite on the same page with Donald Trump has announced his resignation
Anne Milgram: And it looks like Coats is being pushed out. So just to be clear, it looks like the president has tweeted out negative things about Coats in the past and we should talk about Dan Coats just for a second. He’s a former senator. He also like other members of the Intelligence Committee has been very strong in saying that Russia hacked the election and that we need to do more for election security. So he has been at odds with the president. I would argue very much on the substance of what happened in 2016. I think Coats has been honorable. I don’t want to endorse everything he’s done, but I think he’s very much been willing to step out and say contrary to what the president has thought and said that he thinks that there’s a problem.
Anne Milgram: And so when you speak out against the president, that puts you on the outs. And so the president is now putting in representative Ratcliffe, who is a former US attorney, former prosecutor. So you’ve done terrorism cases, you’ve been top secret cleared. I’ve been top secret cleared. I’ve been briefed on intelligence matters many times. It still feels to me like DNI, the director of national intelligence should be an intelligence, someone who is part of the intelligence community and not a prosecutor. I don’t know if that’s fair enough, but that was my first reaction.
Preet Bharara: So I have maybe a minority view on some of these things and our positions of leadership. I think there’s an important factor to consider and that is direct, relevant expertise and experience. And I think that’s incredibly important. It is not the only thing. I think there are people who are really smart, really good managers, have very good judgment, who I would trust to lead basically any agency, even if they didn’t have a lot of subject matter expertise in the way that you might want because you know that they’re going to hire good people and know that they have good judgment. I’ll give you an example of this. Somebody who was belittled when he was first selected for the position, didn’t have intelligence experience, he was a very seasoned member of Congress, who worked in the Clinton White House. Dianne Feinstein, the state from which he’s from initially because she hadn’t been consulted by Obama, said something negative about the nomination.
Preet Bharara: It was Leon Panetta, Leon Panetta was not an intelligence person. CIA is a very serious job. Some of the prior directors and acting directors I know personally and they largely have deep institutional knowledge of the agency and I think that’s good and that can be great. By all accounts Leon Panetta was a pretty good CIA director. So good in fact that he was nominated for and confirmed I think unanimously after having a tenure that’s a difficult one at the CIA, confirm unanimously to be defense secretary. So I think there are occasions, I think it depends on the person.
Anne Milgram: That’s a fair point. Yeah.
Preet Bharara: And so I’ve heard people say you shouldn’t have a politician at the head of the intelligence agencies. Leon Panetta was a politician. Dan Coats was a politician. I think-
Anne Milgram: I don’t think that’s an absolute bar. Yes I agree.
Preet Bharara: And ideally you don’t have a politician at the head of the Justice Department, but we’ve had many and some of them have been good and some of them have been less good. I think you look specifically at this person, representative Ratcliffe. I don’t know a lot about him. People say he’s especially partisan. He seems to be… The worry I have about all these people who are getting put into positions is that there is no room for dissent from the president.
Anne Milgram: I feel the same.
Preet Bharara: And you have lackeys-
Anne Milgram: That they’re lackeys. Exactly.
Preet Bharara: … Like Pompeo and others and people who initially put in place Sessions and Madders, they were largely supportive of the president’s policies.
Anne Milgram: But they disagreed with him.
Preet Bharara: They disagree with him. And they also had some pride in the institutions they were leading and didn’t think that there were some lines that should be crossed. And they have systematically one by one either been replaced by acting’s or replaced by people who are sort of abject loyalists to the president which doesn’t serve the country well.
Anne Milgram: Yeah. It doesn’t serve the country well. And ultimately the message to everyone who’s in one of those positions of authority right now in the administration is that if you disagree with the president, you’re fired, essentially you’ll be pushed out. And so leadership to me is about having people who surround you, who do disagree with you and who make you think about both sides of an argument or multiple sides of an argument. I agree. I think it’s bad for the country.
Preet Bharara: It remains to be seen how well he does in the Senate confirmation battle. But one thing to point out, and this may have been overwritten since we’ve been in the studio, but the president said he was going to announce an acting deputy. Some people are pointing out, I think it’s a very strong legal argument that the law requires that the replacement for the DNI must be the current principal deputy. That’s someone named Sue Gordon. And it sounds like Trump, maybe he doesn’t want to put that person in because Trump in many agencies, including the Defense Department and elsewhere, likes the idea of actings and likes the idea of bypassing. Not always, but in some cases bypassing the senate’s role advise and consent. We’ll see what happens here.
Preet Bharara: So let’s move on to a lighter topic, the death penalty. So to give people a sense of where we are in the death penalty federally, every state has its own laws and I think there are 29 or 30 states that still have the death penalty in New York, in New Jersey, where we have principally practiced, do not. The federal system also has the death penalty and there’re various things that you can be convicted of and carries a charge of the death penalty. And I think there’s something like 62 people on federal death row, which is not a large number. There’s been no one actually executed on the federal level in 16 years since 2003. But in the last few days, our Attorney General, Bill Barr has announced essentially that we will be proceeding with at least five executions in the coming months. What do you make of that in the timing?
Anne Milgram: Yeah, I mean I think there’s a lot of things that we should talk about. The first is that you’re right in how many states have the death penalty, but they’re really only 19 that continue to use it. And there are 11 states like California that recently put a formal moratorium in where they just haven’t executed someone for a long period of time. And so it’s worth noting that it’s not more than half the states are actively pursuing the death penalty. More than half of the states do not pursue the death penalty.
Preet Bharara: And three states I think account for-
Anne Milgram: Half.
Preet Bharara: … Half of all-
Anne Milgram: … Federal death row inmates.
Preet Bharara: … Death row inmates.
Anne Milgram: Virginia, Texas and I think Missouri. That’s an extraordinary fact that half of all the federal death row cases are brought.
Preet Bharara: Yeah. The trend has been whether you like it or not, the trend has been away from the death penalty in recent times for reasons that maybe don’t go to the core unfairness that people think the death penalty implicates. And in recent times it’s been about the process of imposing death of the drugs used because are these drug cocktails that have not gone well and that have caused people to suffer. There’s this issue with pentobarbital which apparently is in short supply. It’s a single drug usage. Some states are considering because they want them to-
Anne Milgram: The maker basically said that they would not allow it to be used for lethal executions. And so it’s not clear that this announcement last Thursday by DOJ is anything more than the department saying we want to do this. It’s not clear that it’s actually going to happen. We should take it very seriously. But it’s also, there’s a lot about it that may be symbolic in some ways. Maybe you could say pandering to the base of people in the United States who might be interested in it. But I want to go just back high level for one second. You’re totally right that there’s the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. And so this is always something that’s litigated. And there were a lot of issues with the drugs being used and whether it was cruel and unusual punishment, the way that people were being executed. So that’s been the most recent issue.
Preet Bharara: So I said before, without looking it up, that New Jersey no longer has a death penalty. When was that abolished?
Anne Milgram: So New Jersey abolish the death penalty in 2007 I was the first assistant Attorney General at the time, New Jersey had not executed someone in decades. And I sat as the Attorney General’s designate on the death penalty commission, the commission that was asked to look at this. Here’s what was fascinating and what I came away from and we actually, the AG did not vote on the commission because we were actively overseeing off criminal justice prosecutions in the state. But what was really interesting is that there were survivors, people whose family members and loved ones had been murdered and who took positions on the death penalty. And what was really interesting is that a lot of family members and survivors ultimately believe that because there was no finality because cases were going through the courts for so long and they were literally having this come up every two or three years that they ultimately oppose the death penalty on those grounds.
Anne Milgram: And so it was a really interesting experience for me that there were people who had religious opposition to the death penalty. There are many people who came at it from different places. And to be sure there were some survivors and family members who were advocates for the death penalty. But it was really fascinating to me to see how many people who’d initially supported it no longer did because of how long a process it is to work its way through the courts.
Preet Bharara: Yeah. You said something that I think is very important and that is that this seems to be symbolic because if you’re talking about four or five people in the coming months, that’s not a lot. And it just seems to be of a piece with what this justice department is president wants to project the death penalty, harsh and cruel punishments and it’s very different from, but not completely alien from sort of other ways that he’s thinking about criminal justice policy and notwithstanding the first step act, which was as they say, a step in the right direction in criminal justice reform.
Anne Milgram: And by the way, let’s talk about death row in second. Because the politics of the people on death row, their cases are horrific. I mean there’s-
Preet Bharara: These five men-
Anne Milgram: Absolutely horrific.
Preet Bharara: … If you believe that these allegations are true and they were proven and that they are not innocent, which I don’t have any reason to believe that they are, are horrible. One white supremacist murdered a family of three, including an eight year old girl, in other cases, rape, murder, dismemberment, cruel suffering-
Anne Milgram: They’re terrible cases.
Preet Bharara: … Horrible people, I don’t feel any remorse for the fact that they’re spending the rest of their lives in prison.
Anne Milgram: Well, that’s the point though, which is that the conversation here is about the people who have done absolutely horrifying things. It’s a question of do they spend the rest of their lives in prison or do they get executed? And it’s just important because when you look at these specific facts, it’s really important I think that people understand it’s life without parole for these individuals or it’s the death penalty. And in the states that have abolished the death penalty, it’s now life without parole. So that means that some of those people will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives.
Preet Bharara: You look, I was US attorney for seven and a half years, federal death penalty on the books and there were people who got charged in my office from time to time who were death eligible. I prosecuted the case that involved multiple homicides and it was death eligible. And what that means is there’s a whole process you go through and often the defendant, in all cases, defendant gets additional counsel who has some experience with respect to the death penalty. There’s a death penalty committee within the US Attorney’s office. There’s a recommendation that’s made whether to seek or not seek and you have to do that in all cases, whether it’s death eligibility based on the actual charge that’s made. And so that happens from time to time. By the way, it happens to be the case that during my tenure as US attorney, there was no case in which we sought the death penalty.
Preet Bharara: There were one or two cases where we had to have a serious deliberation about it. Whatever your personal views on the death penalty, the laws were on the books. And there were some examples of very heinous crimes including over a dozen murders in the part of one person that we had a long discussion about whether or not we would or would not seek. I think since I have left, I think there’s maybe one or two cases where I think they are seeking, there’s an open question on whether or not in terrorism cases like the Tsarnaev case, individual who killed people at the Boston Marathon where the federal government did seek under the Obama administration and Eric Holder as Attorney General, there were a number of cases where the death penalty was sought.
Preet Bharara: People just bear in mind this is not a Republican thing or a Trump thing. The death penalty remains on the books and is sought in Democratic and Republican administrations even though nobody gets executed ultimately in recent years. But the symbolism of this is interesting to me.
Anne Milgram: One other thing that’s interesting to me, and this is probably more of a conversation for another day, but as part of the challenge has been brought by one of the death row inmates. There’s an argument that the administration hasn’t followed the Administrative Procedure Act, and we’ve talked a little bit about the way that the administration has worked around existing norms and processes and essentially rules that have to be followed. And so I don’t know whether they’ll prevail on that and even if they do prevail, it doesn’t mean again that the government can’t go back and do it again. But what’s interesting about that as an aside is that the institute for Policy Integrity at NYU where we teach, they’ve done this fascinating chart where they’re following all of the challenges to the Trump administration under the administrative procedure act.
Anne Milgram: They’ve now had 46 examples of things that have been litigated. The president and the administration have been found to be compliant with the APA three of those times. So 6.5% and 43 times they were found to have not complied with the administrative procedures act. And so it’s just a very interesting potential legal challenge I think to a lot that’s happening with the current administration.
Preet Bharara: Last point, just continuing on what we’ve been talking about is the public sentiment on the death penalty. I’m old enough to remember when the majority of Americans supported the death penalty and issues of the death penalty were front and center in prior elections, including when I was in college between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. According to a recent Gallup poll is the 2018 annual Gallup crime poll of US adults, which they’ve been doing for a number of years. I think for almost 20 years. This past year, 49% of Americans said they believe the death penalty was applied fairly, which was the lowest Gallup number since they began asking that question.
Anne Milgram: I wondered as I read that the innocence project has been working now for a couple of decades and there are a number of folks who have been exonerated, who’ve been convicted of particularly rapes and were incarcerated for very lengthy terms, if not life in prison. And I wondered whether some of the sentiment is both changing norms but also this sort of a number of questions of fairness. The disproportionate number of people of color who are on death row. There is no question that that’s the case as well as you and I talked about only three states driving half of the full number of people. That means that they’re charging decisions being made not the same across the spectrum, but then also the fact that I worked a case, I investigated a case when I was at the Department of Justice where there was a man who was wrongfully convicted for a rape he didn’t commit. And so the more that the news of the exonerations is in the paper, I wondered if that hasn’t changed a little bit of these questions of fairness as well.
Preet Bharara: That’s why it’s so interesting that you have all these underlying core issues of fairness and equal applicability of the death penalty and potential innocence. But the thing that’s driving the legal challenges at the moment in the moratoriums at the moment is the method and how painful it is. Which is really doesn’t get to the core-
Anne Milgram: At all.
Preet Bharara: … In some ways.
Anne Milgram: Yes.
Preet Bharara: I mean it does goes to cruel and unusual and whether or not the state should be inflicting pain like this on someone that it is deemed appropriate determining, but it misses a lot of the main debate.
Anne Milgram: Yeah. I agree with that. The other point which is worth making is that the supreme court years ago had been allowing executions and the death penalty to be brought against juveniles, against people who were not-
Preet Bharara: Mentally incapacitated.
Anne Milgram: Yeah. They were allowing them against people who were mentally incapacitated and shown to have very, very low IQ numbers. Those two areas are places where the court has now said life without parole you cannot execute. It is not fair. And so I think it’s really important just to note that it’s not just that the perception of fairness amongst the American public has changed, but so is the Supreme Court has changed in really critical ways on this issue.
Preet Bharara: So we’ve been talking about the Jeffrey Epstein case for the last number of weeks. There was a weird development last week, we don’t know all the facts yet, so we shouldn’t speculate, but just, it’s interesting that Jeffrey Epstein is in the MCC, the Metropolitan Correctional Center, which is connected to my old office and also connected to the court where people are incarcerated pending trial if they’re deemed a flight risk or a risk to the community. And as we discussed, Epstein’s lawyers tried to get sort of the private $77 million mansion prison deal, didn’t work. He was found to have been injured in his cell, unclear whether or not he tried to harm himself, whether a suicide attempt or something else, or whether he was harmed by some other person.
Preet Bharara: And oddly the reporting is, again I know the only thing about this is that his cellmate and one of the witnesses to the injury, whether it was self-inflicted or not, is a guy named Nicholas Tartaglione, who we charged when I was US attorney cases pending, a former cop who was charged with a murder of four people. And I believe they’re actually considering whether or not to seek death against Mr. Tartaglione. So you have one SDNY defendant rooming with another SDNY defendant. One is an alleged killer. The other is an alleged rapist of young girls. One of them is injured. We don’t know what happened, I guess we’ll see.
Anne Milgram: Yes. I think it’s a story to watch for sure and to find out what happens. I agree with you. It’s the makings of a very interesting story, but it’s too early to know how he got injured. It sounds like from the reporting he was injured, but it’s not clear yet exactly how-
Preet Bharara: And how serious it was.
Anne Milgram: And how serious it’s, all that’s not clear.
Preet Bharara: Well, Donald Trump cares about some criminal defendants.
Anne Milgram: But not if they’re in the United States.
Preet Bharara: But if you’re in Sweden-
Anne Milgram: Then you have a champion.
Preet Bharara: … Then you have a champion and who are we talking about?
Anne Milgram: Well, there’s been a lot in the news in the past week about the president. He’s tweeted a lot about ASAP Rocky, who’s an American musician who is in Sweden.
Preet Bharara: How many of your playlist is he in?
Anne Milgram: He’s not on any of my playlist, but I will listen to him after this to check it out, ASAP Rocky.
Preet Bharara: Is it ASAP Rocky, A-S-A-P Rocky?
Anne Milgram: Oh, it’s a good question.
Preet Bharara: Oh my God-
Anne Milgram: It could be.
Preet Bharara: We’re showing our age.
Anne Milgram: Yeah, I’m old. Well, let me just even say that it’s A$ A-P Rocky R-O-C-K-Y a real name Rakim Mayers and he’s been charged in Sweden with assault. And by the way, he’s a two time Grammy nominee, so he’s a serious artist. The allegation is that he was involved in a brawl on June 30th and there was an individual who was beaten and cut with a broken bottle or bottles and ASAP Rocky denied it and said he acted in self-defense. Now, what the president does is in complete disregard of the rule of law in Sweden, which is similar to some of the things we’ve seen here, which is essentially he gets a call from Kanye West, another musician who says, “Please look into this for my friend.” And I’m looking for the first tweet. Yeah. So the first tweet on Friday, July 19th, the president tweets out, “Just spoke to @kanyewest about his friend ASAP Rocky’s incarceration. I will be calling the very talented Prime Minister of Sweden to see what we can do about helping ASAP Rocky. So many people would like to see this quickly resolved.”
Anne Milgram: And then Trump later in the Oval Office, he says, “Many, many members of the African American community have called me friends of mine and said, can you help?” And then he says, even later, so he adds, “I personally don’t know A-S-A-P Rocky, but I can tell you that he has tremendous support from the African American community in this country. And when I say African American, I think I can really say from everybody in the country because we’re all one.” That’s the part that like [inaudible 00:48:58], that we are the world song in my head.
Preet Bharara: Yeah. I don’t usually attribute that kind of sentiment-
Anne Milgram: To the president.
Preet Bharara: … To Donald Trump.
Anne Milgram: So he then calls the Swedish Prime Minister and he basically says to him, what does he say, Preet? I mean, “Take it easy on this guy. Let him out.”
Preet Bharara: “Take it easy on this guy.” Look, I will say it’s not a crazy or terrible thing for the United States to care about citizens abroad who have been taken into custody. Usually it’s the case that you make a stink about it when it’s an American journalist or someone else who in a repressive regime with his lots of reason to believe that due process has been violated.
Anne Milgram: It’s a country without the rule of law, 100%.
Preet Bharara: Sweden is the country that the president keeps saying, those are the people we want in the country, not from the shit-hole countries, but Sweden, Sweden, that’s a good place. And so maybe he’s been treated unfairly or not. I don’t know. What’s interesting is that he has said a lot more about Rocky than he ever said about Jamal Khashoggi. Who was a columnist for the Washington Post and was murdered and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey.
Anne Milgram: Or that he’s ever said about criminal justice in America. And he did do the first step act. He did sign it. But it’s very interesting to be advocating so strongly for people who are part of the criminal justice system, not in your own country but abroad.
Preet Bharara: The other thing that’s interesting about it is, look, we’re going to have an answer to this. He’s good to speedy trial. I don’t know how quickly we would have a trial in the DA’s office here.
Anne Milgram: It’s amazing. Not this fast.
Preet Bharara: It happened on June 29th and 30th right. I think his trial begins tomorrow.
Anne Milgram: This week.
Preet Bharara: I’m sure it’ll be a pretty short trial. He’s been in custody since July 3rd so yeah.
Anne Milgram: That’s extraordinarily quick.
Preet Bharara: Maybe it’s unfair and maybe he’ll be acquitted, but there’s no reason to suspect that the country of Sweden, the backwards country of Sweden, which in other circumstances one might say is more lax with respect to criminal prosecution than countries like the United States. That it will be an injustice and we’ll see what happens.
Anne Milgram: What’s worth just noting here because I think it comes back to the United States in a really important way is that the prime minister of Sweden to his credit said look, the president of the country, like the prime minister, I can’t get involved in the justice system.
Preet Bharara: Let me read it because I think-
Anne Milgram: Please.
Preet Bharara: … It’s an amazing point you make and it would be nice to hear people in our country at the leadership level, maybe in the White House say the same thing. This is what he said. Among other things said that the prime minister’s office said, “In Sweden everyone is equal before the law. The government is not allowed and will not attempt to influence the legal proceedings which are now ongoing, which is different from how Trump views his own justice department.”
Anne Milgram: Exactly. And I think the biggest point and takeaway of this is that Trump thinks that the president should be able to call the Attorney General and say do this case or don’t do this case and be successful. And he seemed truly surprised to have hit that wall in Sweden where the prime minister said, “Actually, we follow the rule of law.”
Preet Bharara: Right. So we’ve talked a long time, time for us to stop, big debates this week, 20 more.
Anne Milgram: Yes.
Preet Bharara: Over two days I’ll be watching. You’ll be watching.
Anne Milgram: I’ll be watching. I’m ready for it to get down to one night.
Preet Bharara: I may be tweeting, I maybe tweeting as well. I’m sure we’ll have something to say about that next week.
Anne Milgram: Please send us your questions, we’ll try to answer them.
Speaker 3: This is the CAFE Insider podcast. Your hosts are Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper, the senior producer is Aaron Dalton and the CAFE team is Carla Pierini, Julia Doyle, Calvin Lord, Vinay Basti, and Geoff Isenman. Our music is by Andrew Dost. Thank you for being a part of the CAFE Insider Community.