Preet Bharara:
From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara. In uncertain times, when it’s difficult to look ahead, it can be grounding to look back. And there’s no one better to appear into the past with than two of the country’s foremost historians, Heather Cox Richardson, and Joanne Freeman. Heather teaches history at Boston College and pens the widely read newsletter, Letters From an American. Joanne teaches history and american studies at Yale. Together, they co-hosted CAFE’s history podcast now and then. We talk about the history of due process, the misuse of historical events for political messaging, and Trump’s strange take on the Declaration of Independence. Then, I’ll answer your questions about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court and using AI in courtrooms. That’s coming up. Stay tuned. Should the President of the United States understand the nation’s founding documents? Historians Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman, join me to discuss the past and present. Joanne, Heather, thanks for being on the show. Welcome back.
Heather Cox Richardson:
It’s always a pleasure, Preet.
Preet Bharara:
I should note for people who are not watching this on YouTube that we are in the same room at the same time, at the very glorious Vox Media studio, so that’s exciting. I don’t think I’ve done this in-person since before the pandemic. How do you feel about it?
Heather Cox Richardson:
We did it in-person only once, because of the pandemic as well. And I think we were in this very room.
Preet Bharara:
Well, it’s good to see you. You both look taller.
Joanne Freeman:
And 3D as well. That’s really not possible for me.
Preet Bharara:
No, you do. Yes.
Joanne Freeman:
Thank you. Bigger than my five feet. I’ll take it.
Preet Bharara:
So we have a lot of things to cover. I thought I’d start with a question that just occurred to me, or at least a combination of, I’m going to combine a couple of things and ask you the question. What do you predict will come first, the actual 250th anniversary of our great nation or the suspension of habeas corpus?
Heather Cox Richardson:
Go for it, Joanne.
Preet Bharara:
It was a humorous question. Gallows humor.
Joanne Freeman:
Yeah, Gallows, for sure.
Preet Bharara:
I’m hoping you’re going to say the 250th.
Joanne Freeman:
I will be interested to see what you say, Heather. But personally, I no longer make predictions of that sort with the seriousness of something like habeas corpus or due process, because we watch them get eroded all the time. Whereas, 250th, we got months. We have lots done.
Preet Bharara:
Well, that’s a sure thing, I think.
Joanne Freeman:
Yes.
Preet Bharara:
Getting to 250, Heather?
Joanne Freeman:
Yes.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, it’s a sure thing that it’s going to get to July 4th, 2026. But, whether or not the country will make it I think is an open question. Although I’m one of those who thinks that it will. I am less concerned about the suspension of habeas corpus or what is essentially the military rule in the United States than many other people are. Because if you look at the way that Stephen Miller, who’s the deputy White House chief of staff made that statement about the fact they were looking at it. It really looked as if he was trying to put pressure on the courts to do what he wanted. And, I’m a little less concerned that he will do that, especially in face of the fact that the constitution is pretty clear it can’t be done without Congress. And I don’t think Congress is going to go along with that.
Joanne Freeman:
I don’t think so either. But what alarms me about that talk, I guess, is twofold. It’s number one, the fact that it’s pronounced and it becomes very clear that nobody knows what that means. That nobody knows what the threat in that is, that nobody knows, number two, that it’s unconstitutional, that has anything to do with the constitution. So I suppose, I’m not going to predict whether that’s going to actually happen and I will go along, you were my guide in such things, Heather, that maybe it actually won’t happen because of the seriousness of it. But when that pronouncement is made and it’s only people like us who are responding to it, that alarms me.
Preet Bharara:
You think it’s only people like us? I feel like a lot of people have been talking about it and people are re-educating themselves about what the right or privilege of habeas corpus is. And I want to go back to what you said a second ago, Heather. You used the kindly word pressure, as opposed to threat on judges, which is it?
Heather Cox Richardson:
Threat.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Threat and pressure, I think. In case of Miller doing that. But the issue of due process, and I think there’s something that Joanne points to there, which is a question that goes back to the 250th is, are Americans really aware of their constitutional rights and what it means to be a part of this country? So that’s one question. But the other question is, what this administration is doing with due process and how that’s playing among Trump voters? And one of the things that I have found really surprising about the reaction to the rendition of Kilmer Abrego-Garcia to prison and El Salvador was the number of MAGA voters or Republican voters who were suddenly standing there going, “Wait a minute. This guy deserves to have his time in court.”
And I thought that was really interesting and was talking to a prosecutor who’d worked in a rural area who said that it really didn’t surprise her that much because so many MAGA voters from Republican areas were ones in which… Or rural areas were people who had run up against the law themselves and recognized the importance of the protections that they had had, in part, because prosecutors or law enforcement officers in rural areas had more time to spend on petty crime than they did in urban areas. And so, that was something that MAGA voters were specifically attuned to. And therefore, were much more inclined to pay attention to the issues of due process than they would have been if they were-
Joanne Freeman:
In that case though, just as you’re saying, they’re not abstract.
Heather Cox Richardson:
… It’s very real to them.
Joanne Freeman:
It’s very real. It’s every day. And, I think when we talk about constitutional rights and such things, those are very high-flying ideas. So in a sense, the fact that this is real, are they sitting around and thinking, “Well, my constitutional right is…” Or, are they thinking, “I understand that this is my right. And I understand what it means for that right to be violated.” That has a power to it. But obviously, that happens when you’re watching rights being violated.
Preet Bharara:
Right. It also depends on whose rights. There are probably people in the country who think… I mean, we know this because they’ve talked about it and they’ve written about it, that you have extra special rights if you were, not only born in this country, but born to a line of people who are also born in this country. We see birthright citizenship. We’re going to talk about that in a moment. And you have fewer rights, if any, if you are naturalized in this country, even fewer rights if you are next in the descending hierarchy, visiting, and then even less obviously if you are of illegal status in this country. And that’s not how the constitution works.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, I have a question for you about that. See, this actually bothers me. If you get rid of birthright citizenship, which is the idea that if you are physically born in this area… I mean, on this land, you are a citizen of the United States, which is not an uncommon way to look at citizenship. If we get rid of that, how would you become a citizen of the United States? Where do you start? What they’ve done with the executive orders, for example, is say, “Well, starting in a few days.” Or whatever their limit is. But, how would you do that? What if you’re-
Preet Bharara:
When you become a citizen, I hope that doesn’t come to pass, I imagine you become a citizen just like anyone else who was born elsewhere becomes a citizen. You apply, you get naturalized, either through sponsorship of your parents or on your own accord. I got naturalized at the age of 12 on the strength of my parents becoming naturalized. So I guess, that’s what it would be.
Heather Cox Richardson:
… Rather like black Americans in the American South between 1874 and 1965.
Preet Bharara:
Well, that’s a different and harder question.
Heather Cox Richardson:
That went well. Again, and we’re laughing, but for people who are listening, what that meant was that in order to register, you had to make it past a series of examinations that were delivered by a white registrar who basically made it impossible for any black American to get registered to vote or to have the benefits of citizenship. Although, of course, they were citizens under the 14th amendment, they did not have the right to have a say in their government or the right to equality before the law.
Preet Bharara:
Nor women for a very long time. I forget what phrase you used when you talked about the reaction with respect to Mr. Abrego Garcia. And, what I think is an awakening on the part of people who didn’t understand this previously that, “Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute. Due process means something.”
Heather Cox Richardson:
Mm-hmm.
Preet Bharara:
Even if it’s for somebody who the administration has, plausibly or not, accused of being a gang member and/or a terrorist, is that heartening to you? That doesn’t have to do, I don’t think, with civic education. We talk about civic education a lot. I have a more cynical view of it. I think that there are a subset of people in the country, who whether they’ve learned about the constitution, the rights they have or not, have a proclivity for and in favor of certain authoritarian tendencies.
So long as those authoritarian tendencies of the leader of their nation, whether you call them a king, a monarch, an emperor, dictator, or president, so long as the policy views align with theirs. And I would dare say, you tell me if I’m wrong, there’s some subset of the population on the left who also might think of a benevolent authoritarian who didn’t have to be stymied by a horribly reactionary supreme court or a supine Congress, and that person who gets elected could engage in sweeping powers to enact progressive legislation. I’m not saying it’s a large number. I’m hoping it’s not a large number. But it’s a number, is it not? You haven’t done these polling. I can see.
Joanne Freeman:
I have not done the polling. I mean, I think that-
Preet Bharara:
Is that too cynical? I feel, I’ll stop myself quickly in one second, that across the spectrum, I think much worse on the right, people care about outcomes and not process. And, however you get there, however you lock him up, however you lock her up, that’s what matters to me. However I get my right to the thing that I want is fine by me, because the other side does it, and force has been used throughout history, and victors should get the spoils, and all of that. Am I wrong?
Joanne Freeman:
… I like your opposing outcome versus process, because in many ways, we’re living in a major crisis of process. And, if you go all the way back to my time, go all the way back to creating the constitution, the important part about that was creating a process, like a set structure and a set process.
Preet Bharara:
And that’s what whole thing is.
Joanne Freeman:
It is. And, when crises happened within a decade after the ratification of the constitution, if something seemed to be going terribly awry and you asked, “Well, now what do we do?” Someone would say, “Well, the constitution tells us how to play through on this, what we do now. And if it doesn’t, we tweak the constitution, so that then it actually will apply to this moment.” So I think you’re very right that people aren’t thinking about process, that they’re thinking about outcome. But, to go back to your first point, I also think watching people being taken away and put in El Salvador, suddenly that’s an outcome.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Joanne Freeman:
It’s no longer a matter of-
Preet Bharara:
People want to be able to speak to a manager.
Joanne Freeman:
… Right.
Preet Bharara:
“Can I get a manager please?” That’s also about… I mean, not to make light of it, but at some point, again, I don’t think it’s a civic education point, I think it’s a civic values point. I don’t know how much you can teach values. Maybe you can and maybe you can show people through the erosion of those things that they’re before the grace of God go I. A little bit of that is happening with the Abrego Garcia. But, it’s the whole ball of wax. Democracy is all about process. Elections are all about process. Our charter is all about process. The court system is all about process. There’s no outcome guaranteed in any way, shape, or form at any phase of any proceeding. So you think people are waking up to that. And a related question, Heather, as a political matter, do you think that the administration, Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and others have miscalculated in talking about the suspension of habeas corpus and in the forcible deportation over a court order to the contrary of Garcia to El Salvador?
Heather Cox Richardson:
So I’m going to start by going back to your initial proposition that people do gravitate toward the idea of having essentially a dictator. And there are certainly members of a population who do that in any population, but one of the things that is a vacuum in what you were talking about is the role of the media, and the role of education, and the way people approach their government. And this is something I don’t think you can divorce from this moment.
A lot of people do in fact think it’d be great to have a dictator, but that’s in part because we aren’t really lionizing the pieces of our American democracy like you and Joanne just did, that says, we have to value the process, we have to value the constitutional rights, we have to value the rights of a citizen and the people who are otherwise here in this country and so on. And that is something that, I think, you see in a larger sense across the country, because people don’t even know what those things are, like you started out by saying they don’t know that it’s missing until they suddenly realize that, “Hey, that could be me on that plane-”
Preet Bharara:
Something happens.
Heather Cox Richardson:
“… On the way to El Salvador.” Or to Libya. Or, wherever. And that’s something that we are pushing back against. Now, whether or not the administration miscalculated I think is a really big question, because who was the administration?
Preet Bharara:
Is it Stephen Miller?
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, that’s just it. Donald Trump is the figurehead, but he does not seem to be in control. And then, you’ve got these different factions under him. And certainly, the Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget has been pushing through essentially project 2025. Of course, he’s been working underneath Musk, and now he’s stepping into the role of Musk.
Preet Bharara:
Is Elon Musk out of the government? I know he was never in the government, but he was.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Yeah, what never happened to Amy Gleason? She still on a beach in Mexico?
Preet Bharara:
We have to look that up.
Heather Cox Richardson:
I mean, have you heard anything about her?
Joanne Freeman:
No. Other than other people asking that question.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Yeah, that’s right. It’s a whole thing on social media.
Joanne Freeman:
Yes, yes.
Preet Bharara:
But do you think Stephen Miller said those things about habeas corpus without maybe not the express written consent of Donald Trump. But knowing that it would jive with what Donald Trump thinks and feels?
Heather Cox Richardson:
I think that Stephen Miller with perhaps the assistance of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, has been operating largely unchecked by the president, because the president is simply not able to pay attention to what’s going on.
Joanne Freeman:
And I think, that on a lot of levels, even using the phrase the administration is problematic, right?
Heather Cox Richardson:
Just everywhere.
Joanne Freeman:
Right. Well, there isn’t a cohesive administration. There are pieces of it operating with an agenda of the sort that you just mentioned. But, could Stephen Miller make that pronouncement, and not check with anyone, and just say it? Yeah.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Yeah.
Preet Bharara:
But what’s so interesting about that, at least to my mind, I think what you say is totally correct as a pragmatic and real-world, IRL, in real life. But these are the same people who keep advocating for a radical theory called the unitary executive theory, which overly simplified is all about the fact that all this shit they keep talking about, it’s all the power is vested in one guy, and he’s the president, and they’re the same guys, these other guys, who rail at the deep state and rail about the people who have their own agendas, when the only agenda that’s worth anything that everyone must follow at peril of a charge of treason is Donald Trump’s. So you see some hypocrisy there?
Heather Cox Richardson:
You think? Well, not just hypocrisy, but it’s interesting, because if you look at the way the Supreme Court has talked about the unitary executive, they clearly have this fantasy figure who is going to be defending America and being the great hero of the country. And when they have actually put in power somebody who’s becoming a unitary executive or what we would call a monarch, or a dictator, or an authoritarian, what you’re seeing instead is the absolute factionalization of the administration and all these different players having power.
And one of the things that’s interesting when you look at this administration is where power resides. And, power is not obviously residing in one place or another. It’s obviously somewhere in the administration, and it looked like Elon Musk would get it for a while. Now it looks like Russell Vought has got it. Certainly, Stephen Miller has some. In other administrations, you’ve seen Congress take the power or the Supreme Court take the power.
Joanne Freeman:
It’s a hierarchy, a clear hierarchy.
Preet Bharara:
But where’s Trump?
Heather Cox Richardson:
If you think about the power, you know who’s gathering the power right now? Is the allegedly ICE agents and the sheriffs who are supporting them in local areas. They’re the ones who are exercising power right now.
Joanne Freeman:
Unchecked.
Preet Bharara:
But Donald Trump, respectfully, I get all those points, but the tariff policy, which is a very important set of policies, and they’re distorted and they change.
Heather Cox Richardson:
How did we start talking about tariffs? We were talking about constitution law.
Preet Bharara:
We were, but part of that was the discussion of where the power resides. And if we’re going to talk about where the power resides, the economic power and economic policy of this nation at the moment, which has put us on the precipice, a lot of people think, of a recession. That’s not Stephen Miller, that’s not Secretary Bessent. Isn’t that all Donald Trump? Doesn’t he wield that power?
Joanne Freeman:
Congress holds the power of the purge.
Preet Bharara:
Right? But who’s wielding the power?
Joanne Freeman:
Well, right, if you’re talking about wielding it, that’s different.
Preet Bharara:
It’s a raw exercise of power. I just want to make sure we’re not forgetting that guy.
Joanne Freeman:
No, no.
Heather Cox Richardson:
No.
Joanne Freeman:
No, no. It’s true.
Heather Cox Richardson:
No, Trump is definitely wielding the power over the tariffs. One could argue either illegally or unconstitutionally, because he is doing so under emergency powers and it’s a little hard to believe what in an emergency. But, that seems to be his own particular hobby-horse. Everybody except Peter Navarro tried to talk him out of that. And, here we are. I will say, in terms of that and his exercise of executive power, of course. And yet, one look at the bond markets and he had to back down. So if you’re thinking about who holds power, it’s not a zero… It is a zero-sum game, but it’s not a-
Preet Bharara:
It’s the bond market.
Heather Cox Richardson:
… There’s a lot of different people exercising power.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Heather Cox Richardson:
And in this administration, which is the word we started with, it’s not clear to me that that unitary executive is the one who has been fantasized about by the Supreme Court. It seems to be a committee meeting that isn’t going terribly well. And power seems to be still sloshing around and people are picking it up who are unexpected, like these masked agents in different small cities and across the country.
Preet Bharara:
I will be right back with Heather and Joanne after this. Donald Trump said something recently. And I’m forgetting the exact context, but I’m sure the two of you’ll remember it. He was asked a question about the constitution. I can’t remember if it was about birthright citizenship or due process. But he said, “Now I’m not a lawyer.” Nor are second, third, and fourth graders, and fifth graders.
Joanne Freeman:
He’s bound to follow the constitution.
Preet Bharara:
Right,
Heather Cox Richardson:
Kristen Welker. Yeah.
Preet Bharara:
Right. That’s what the question was, right?
Joanne Freeman:
Right.
Preet Bharara:
Did he get away with that answer? How does the sitting president… I mean, this has been a perennial question in 100 different forms. But, how do you get away with, particularly in a party that talks about patriotism, and talks about liberty, and always talks about the institution, right, whether they interpret it correctly or not, they’re always talking about those things. Those are the pillars of the rhetoric at a minimum. How does a president of that party get away with saying, “I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer.” He did take the oath. Maybe he doesn’t remember what he said in the oath. I don’t know. That wasn’t a question, it was a remark.
Joanne Freeman:
Well, part of that, and this is an obvious thing to say but I’ll say it anyway-
Preet Bharara:
Please.
Joanne Freeman:
… Part of it is because he routinely says a million ridiculous, unconstitutional, lying, crazy things to the point that-
Heather Cox Richardson:
How do you really feel, Joanne?
Joanne Freeman:
… I know. As I’m going, I’m like, “Uh-oh.”
Preet Bharara:
You’re too kind.
Joanne Freeman:
I know. But, it is the fire hose of crazy, in part. And so, you say something like that, certainly my response is, “Wait, what? You don’t have to abide by the constitution? But wait, who? What?” But, people don’t hear necessarily what he’s saying, unless you have a sense of what your rights are. Generally speaking, how the country runs. I mean, I really do feel… You and I, Heather, have been in one way or another, ranting, speaking, arguing about this for years. And, I’m interested to hear what you’re going to say. But to me, it’s only recently that I feel that some people are saying, “Huh?” Actually, last night someone said, “Heather and you have been talking about this for a couple of years, right? I was like, “Yeah.” It’s like, “Well, maybe we’re there.” It’s like, “Huh? Interesting.”
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, another thing about why he can get away with this stuff I think is very important, and that’s that there are 53 senators in Congress that could speak up at any moment and really challenge him. And in the case that you’re talking about, when he said that to Kristen Welker, there was one Republican senator in Congress who said, “Yes, you have to follow the constitution.” That was Rand Paul of Kentucky. And the other 52 of them had no comment. Literally, Rolling Stone reached out to every single one of them and nobody called them back.
Joanne Freeman:
Just consider that.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Yeah, it’s crazy.
Preet Bharara:
But, there is a little bit more life with respect to a different thing that happened in the last week, not about whether or not I need to follow the constitution, but whether or not I can take a $400 million plane from, choose your pronunciation, Qatar, Qatar.
Joanne Freeman:
You pick one, Preet.
Preet Bharara:
I don’t know.
Joanne Freeman:
I’m going to go with Qatar.
Preet Bharara:
Let’s go with Qatar. Multiple senators have talked about that on the Republican side. First, are those two things equal to each other? And what do you make of that reaction? Because there are things that will cause Republican senators to say no. They said no. Republican senators said no to Ed Martin, the nominee to be the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. And so, address that thing, the plane, but then also, can you stitch together any thesis of the things that cause Republican senators to criticize him, such that the Democrats can come up with a strategy of connecting those dots to be more effective?
Joanne Freeman:
That’s a good question as to why, particularly among Republicans, the flying palace.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Oh, it’s easy. At the same time, they’re talking about cutting Medicaid and cutting Medicare and social security, he is going to accept a $400 million 737. I think it’s a 737.
Joanne Freeman:
47.
Heather Cox Richardson:
- Sorry, 747 from the government of Qatar, and it was known as the Flying Palace, and it was full of gold? That was just not going to make it.
Preet Bharara:
And listening devices?
Joanne Freeman:
Right.
Heather Cox Richardson:
I mean, the whole thing was stupid in many ways. There’s no way we can go through all the details of why it was never really going to be possible to make it Air Force One, because of things like security, and listening devices, and so on. But the very optics of that to say, “You get your two dolls and five pencils while I get a flying palace.” That was not going to fly. Not going to fly, no pun intended.
Preet Bharara:
I like it.
Joanne Freeman:
Interestingly though, one of the things that does is bring out into the open in a glaring, literally and figuratively way, is that the division right now between the massively wealthy and everyone else that is running everything, this oligarchical moment that we’re in, you can’t make that more apparent than someone deciding, “Yes, I’m going to take this gift from you that’s a flying palace. And then, again, handily, you can have two dolls and five pencils.”
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, and you can see this in MAGA. You look at the branch of MAGA that is Laura Loomer, and Steve Bannon, and so on who are taking a look, they’re very upset by that. Ben Shapiro I think was in that list of people who said, “You simply can’t do that.”
Joanne Freeman:
That’s exposing something that they certainly don’t want emphasized.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, and MAGA’s already in trouble in numbers with rural Republicans, where they’re just about evenly divided between pro and in favor of the Trump administration’s activities and against them. And they’ve fallen dramatically in every other population, because of the uncertainty, because of the economy, and because of these extraordinary renditions, they’re already in trouble. So the last thing you need is your guy up there saying, “Yes, I’m going to throw the constitution out the window for a gold plane.”
Preet Bharara:
There’s two things. One, he doubles down by saying, “I’d be stupid not to accept something of that value.” It’s an odd argument. But then, the second thing is… Well, you were going to say something about that.
Heather Cox Richardson:
I was going to ask if you read Truth Social?
Preet Bharara:
I don’t. I get it secondhand from the reposting.
Joanne Freeman:
That’s been posted everywhere though. That line has been posted. And that, “The Democrats are losers for saying that I shouldn’t take…”
Preet Bharara:
So my second question was going to be, as historians of great repute and great integrity, does it make you crazy when people use ridiculous, and perverse, and idiotic historical parallels? And, the reason I ask is, sticking to the subject for just another minute, the $400 million plane, I think someone in the administration, if I’m allowed to use that term still given the conversation earlier, said, “Well, we took the Statue of Liberty and that was a big gift from France.” Does that make you crazy? And, why?
Joanne Freeman:
So yes, is the short answer.
Preet Bharara:
Let the record reflect there was a lot of sighing an eye-rolling.
Joanne Freeman:
Sighing and eye-rolling. Yeah. Yes, the Statue of Liberty is a gift, first of all, to the nation. It was not a gift to a president. And the President didn’t say, “And when I leave, I’m taking it with me.”
Preet Bharara:
“I’m going to put it in the back.”
Joanne Freeman:
On just the basic level, it was larger than a presidency, the gift, right?
Heather Cox Richardson:
It was also accepted by Congress, which is part of the constitution.
Preet Bharara:
Congress voted, right?
Joanne Freeman:
Right, right. It wasn’t the same at all. It’s on another level. So yes, that is a different gift.
Heather Cox Richardson:
But that also points, I think, to something that you and I talk about a lot, and that’s the misuse of history by his administration. And there’s a larger question there about the use of history to support an authoritarian versus a democratic government. But I just have to say, it went with hardly a splash. But when a member of the administration celebrated Pearl Harbor Day the other day and said, “This great moment in June of 1941.” That was a real fingernails down the chalkboard for me, because of the whole idea that theoretically, MAGA Republicans are in favor of the military, and they’re the ones who are defending true American history. And I don’t know how you can be a member of the U.S. government and not know December 7th. I just don’t know how that’s the case. And that to me was just such a complete denigration or disdain for our history, our military, our role in the world.
Joanne Freeman:
Heedlessness, just not caring.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Just not caring. But then, to celebrate, “Here I am. I’m this great representative of the American government.” Not knowing one of the most important dates in our history. It’d be like saying, “I really was thrilled with the Declaration of Independence in 1832.”
Joanne Freeman:
Well, I was going to mention, because you asked as a historian, what are we thinking? Declaration of Independence. So this has been making-
Preet Bharara:
Oh, right. I remember this.
Joanne Freeman:
… My head explode, because the degree to which I have to keep talking about things that the Declaration of Independence says are bad and that we revolted against Great Britain for, and that now we’re watching people pretend that Trump is a king. We’re watching him or others putting these iconic images as though he’s a king. The revolution, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, it is a rant, in a sense, against authoritarianism, against the king who essentially un-kinged himself. And a list of the things that that King did to un-king himself, includes, among other things, transporting Americans to foreign courts on pretended charges, or trying them in admiralty courts in the United States which have no jury. So no trial by jury. So way back then, when the country is in formation, the colonists are saying, “These things are fundamentally unfair. This king is doing these unfair things to us.” And here are two of them that we’re now watching play out.
Preet Bharara:
I thought you were going to say, that incident, and I see Heather is smiling and nodding, so maybe you’ll want to respond to this, Trump was in the Oval Office, I don’t know if it was the Oval Office, but somewhere in the White House-
Heather Cox Richardson:
It was the Oval Office, because office he’s got it on the wall.
Preet Bharara:
… A framed… Is that the original declaration?
Heather Cox Richardson:
No, no.
Joanne Freeman:
No, no.
Preet Bharara:
That’s in-
Joanne Freeman:
Washington. The National Archives, Washington.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Washington, DC.
Preet Bharara:
… Oh, it is.
Joanne Freeman:
Yeah.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Yeah.It’s pretty impressive. Although hard to see, right?
Joanne Freeman:
It is.
Heather Cox Richardson:
After they held it up outside the window for that cameras, it got a little faded.
Preet Bharara:
Is it going to go on a tour for the 250th?
Heather Cox Richardson:
Can it?
Joanne Freeman:
I can’t imagine.
Heather Cox Richardson:
It’s very fragile.
Preet Bharara:
I have this vague recollection when I was seven-years-old for the Bicentennial, which was a big deal in my public school in Eaton Town, New Jersey, and maybe it wasn’t the declaration, but there were important artifacts that went around the country-
Joanne Freeman:
Sounds right.
Preet Bharara:
… By train.
Joanne Freeman:
The bicentennial. The train.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Joanne Freeman:
I went to see that train.
Preet Bharara:
The whole year, all we did in second… I think it was second grade, maybe it was third grade, all we did was talking about how it was America’s birthday, which was a tremendous thing.
Joanne Freeman:
It was huge.
Preet Bharara:
It was a tremendous thing. And that’s only 200. And now we’re 250.
Joanne Freeman:
Did you know that? I think it was called the Freedom-
Preet Bharara:
I think it was the Freedom Train.
Joanne Freeman:
… Freedom Train?
Heather Cox Richardson:
We didn’t get it up to Maine, but we did the same.
Preet Bharara:
Well, Maine’s very far. There’s no rail access.
Heather Cox Richardson:
But we did a whole thing… Just about really. We did a whole thing about cooking in revolutionary times, and making revolutionary crafts, and all that. Yeah. The revolutionary food did not do a lot for me, but yeah, it was a huge thing.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Joanne Freeman:
Yeah.
Preet Bharara:
So going back to the point. So Trump was asked a question, “What does the Declaration of Independence mean to you?” And he had that look on his face, which I know a little bit, but you two must know very, very well of the student who hasn’t done the reading.
Heather Cox Richardson:
That’s a wonderful thing.
Preet Bharara:
But feels confidence. Usually a man, who feels confident enough to give an answer anyway. And his answer was, “Well, it’s about unity.”
Joanne Freeman:
And friendship, it’s a beautiful thing.
Heather Cox Richardson:
“And love.”
Joanne Freeman:
And love. It’s a beautiful thing.
Preet Bharara:
Unity and love. What was wrong with that answer?
Heather Cox Richardson:
Well, what was wrong with the answer was it was clear he has never read the Declaration of Independence. There’s absolutely no way you could ever have looked at the Declaration of Independence and come out with it’s a statement about unity.
Joanne Freeman:
Well, that’s what I was saying a moment ago, it’s-
Preet Bharara:
Well, I was thinking about this. Because in the afternoon, sometimes I practice law. I was like, “What’s the case to make?” And, this is not what he meant, and I would rather have your side of the argument. I was often thinking about issues about not whether the good arguments or bad arguments, but the best way for me to decide what I think about the merits of the arguments, which one would I prefer to argue? And I’ll do that with clients. They’ll say, “Can we do X?” I’m like, “Yeah, you can make an argument for X. I would rather argue the summation on the other side.” Which means it’s a stronger argument. But, look, the Declaration of Independence was in some ways a reflection of the unity of… I’m already getting-
Heather Cox Richardson:
No, no. Come on. So in all of our years of teaching, has a student ever said, who has actually read the Declaration of Independence that it’s unity, and love, and friendship?
Joanne Freeman:
… No.
Heather Cox Richardson:
It is a declaration of-
Preet Bharara:
… Did he say friendship?
Heather Cox Richardson:
… All he had to say was, “It’s a declaration of America’s independence.” End of discussion.
Joanne Freeman:
And it was a declaration of-
Preet Bharara:
What does it mean to you?
Joanne Freeman:
… Essentially warfare. It was a declaration saying, “We are now declaring ourselves independent.” First of all, that was treason on the part of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence. But there was nothing about… Now I see your argument. You could say-
Heather Cox Richardson:
Oh, stop it. No you couldn’t.
Preet Bharara:
It was a crappy argument.
Joanne Freeman:
… No, no, no, but you could say that-
Preet Bharara:
But they do it.
Joanne Freeman:
… They did it deliberately to create a sense of a we.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Joanne Freeman:
But there’s nothing about it that’s about love or friendship.
Preet Bharara:
When they make arguments, so when they clean up, so Trump will say something that’s like an F. And, I think sometimes the people around him are cleaning it up sufficiently to a D, or D minus, not for you folks, but for their base who just needs some semblance of an argument they can make and be satisfied with, “Well, that’s what he meant.” Just like with the tariffs, when he changes. Monday, he’s got a policy A. Wednesday, he reverses the policy altogether. People come out and say, “That was his plan all along. It’s the art of the deal.” It’s like, some fig leaf of an argument to provide the many, many people, some call them cultists, is sufficient. Or, do you think they don’t need an explanation at all? He can say anything he wants and they shouldn’t do any cleanup?
Heather Cox Richardson:
So I often listen to Trump and rewrite his speeches in my head to make them more to be [inaudible 00:33:24]. I mean, because I love to argue. I love to argue both sides of things.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah.
Heather Cox Richardson:
In the case of the Declaration of Independence, there was no way to clean that baby up. That was-
Joanne Freeman:
Well, that just made it clear he just never read it and didn’t know what it was.
Heather Cox Richardson:
… So let’s go from that to what it means simply not to have read one of our two foundational documents. And the fact he says he doesn’t know about the constitution suggests he hasn’t read that one either. And then, to say that you are the true arbiter of what American history is and what that history means, that is, I think, deeply problematic and where we started in terms of the 250th, who gets to define the United States of America?
Joanne Freeman:
I was going to say.
Heather Cox Richardson:
And can you simply lay claim to the documents, and the symbols, and so on without any understanding of what they mean? And when I think about the declaration, when those men, as you say, were essentially signing their own death warrants, because what they were doing was committing treason against the king, and they end that document that they’re pledging their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor to the cause. And, that seems to me to be the kind of America we need to focus on, rather than, “It was friendship and unity. And I like having it on my wall.”
Joanne Freeman:
Well, as you’re suggesting, there’s a meaning. I mean, the historical meaning and context of those documents is deep and heartfelt. There were moments that came out of struggle, and they do in some ways. You said define, just as in my head was coming the word define. How do we define ourselves? Not necessarily with pieces of paper, but what those pieces of paper represent, and what was the process through which we got them, and what they mean, and what people at the time thought they mean, and what forever after they’ve come to mean, because of the ways in which Americans of various sorts have pointed to them and said, “I have rights.” See they’re in those documents, to… I mean, I’m ranting here and I suppose I don’t even have to. But to be President of the United States without the most basic fundamental understanding of any of that, even to the point… I mean, this kid doesn’t only get an F, this kid is like, “Have you been sitting in this classroom at all this semester?”
Preet Bharara:
He’s a guy who eats the chess pieces.
Heather Cox Richardson:
But maybe that’s part of the difference, is the difference between the ideas in something and the thing.
Joanne Freeman:
He has the things. He’s about things.
Heather Cox Richardson:
He literally put a copy of the Declaration of Independence on the wall of the oval, which is unprecedented and unnecessary if you know what’s actually in them. But it’s a difference between having stuff and having the principles.
Preet Bharara:
And knowing the value of the thing.
Heather Cox Richardson:
And knowing the value.
Preet Bharara:
I’ll tell you a quick anecdote. People, long time listeners of the podcast will know this, but some people know that I had some conversations with Donald Trump. During the transition in 2016, he asked me to stay on. He called me a number of times, I believe, in an effort to cultivate a relationship with someone who had enormous authority in that district. The last time I ever spoke to him was January 18th of 2017. He’s one of these calls. Again, this is well documented and I’ve talked about it publicly before. But the funny thing about it in this conversation is, I’m thinking, he must be busy. And he made small talk. And then, when he called me later in March, I refused to take the call, and then the rest is history.
But, on January 18th when he called me, making small talk, I said, “Mr. President-elect, you must be busy with the speech.” And he said two things, oh yes, am I going to the impression because I can’t do it. And he said two things, and you’ll appreciate why I’m telling you the anecdote. He said, “Number one, I’m writing it all by myself.” Which was lie number one. Number two, “Yeah, and I’m making it all about unity.”
Joanne Freeman:
Wow.
Preet Bharara:
And do you remember the speech?
Joanne Freeman:
Oh, yeah.
Heather Cox Richardson:
Oh, yeah.
Preet Bharara:
American carnage?
Joanne Freeman:
Yeah.
Preet Bharara:
So I don’t know what was less about unity than the Declaration of Independence, it might’ve been his first inaugural. I don’t know if that’s a window into him and if that makes it better or worse, that maybe he just doesn’t understand words as opposed to documents.
Heather Cox Richardson:
But that’s really interesting, because he has always been fabulous at reading what the public, at least a certain public wants. And you’ve talked before about the importance of the inaugural dress as a moment of unity, and he clearly knew that’s what he was supposed to do, but apparently, somehow Stephen Miller never got the memo.
Preet Bharara:
Got hijacked in that last 48 hours. People like to talk about vibes and vibe shifts. And there’ve been a lot of times, and we did a little bit of that in this conversation, that, well, people are finally seeing the light and they’re getting turned off by, you name the thing, the payoff to the porn star, the interference of the election, the pardoning of the January 6th people. In recent times, we’re talking about the topsy-turvy tariffs, the threat of recession, the $400 million plane, the disappearing of people to El Salvador. Historically speaking, does it happen like that? Is there a straw that breaks the camel’s back historically for a presidency or a regime? Or, does something else happen? Or, I don’t know. It’s not a well-phrased question. But, I’m trying to get a sense of if the vibe is going to shift away from him among Republican senators, independents, and others, will it be apparent or only in retrospect when you folks write about it in some years?
Heather Cox Richardson:
I’m laughing because I just looked at Joanne, and you can see both of our Rolodex just going click, click, click, click, click, click, click.
Joanne Freeman:
One president, another president, another.
Heather Cox Richardson:
That’s right. Do you want to go?
Joanne Freeman:
Well, I would say, part of the answer to that is, is there one click moment? I would say, no. I would say, there’s a slow build of things. And, at a certain point, people see, and hear, and realize that there’s enough opinion out there about that president that in a sense, that movement of opposition is created. So for example, I’m thinking about Thomas Jefferson, who-
Heather Cox Richardson:
As one does.
Joanne Freeman:
… As one does. I know you don’t like to. But, Jefferson in his second term was not a happy camper, because he, for a variety of reasons, decided that the America should not be trading with the rest of the world. We should hold back. He created an embargo that really hit New England hard. And, actually, it’s not unlike now, as that began to hit home particularly for New England in that they couldn’t use their ships, all of these people in the maritime trade were losing money. The embargo, which they renamed the, “Oh, grab me.” All the cartoons, said, “The ‘Oh, grab me.'” Which is very 18th century, or early 19th century humor. Still-
Preet Bharara:
It works today.
Joanne Freeman:
… It does. Well, for me. Maybe for us in this room. But that became something that, I don’t want to say, turned the tide frantically against him, but he was not a beloved figure after that point. Actually, George Washington in his second term, people didn’t… His first term, he was just beloved and wonderful. But his second term, when he began, for example, speaking out about what he called self-created societies, these clubs that were meeting to express support of the French Revolution, and he said, “These are bad. These are self-created. These things shouldn’t exist.” And, a lot of people were like, “Wait, what? These are clubs of people supporting the French Revolution. What do you mean?” So by his second term, people are putting out cartoons, attacking him, they’re making fun of him. He was not a happy camper about that. But in both cases, things started happening and it takes a little bit of a snowball of grumbling to get to a point where then that momentum builds.
Heather Cox Richardson:
So I’m going to add to that. It seems to me we are at a real paradigm shift moment. And those come after a long period of time in which one political party or the other becomes dominant and begins to concentrate power among a very small group of people. We saw it in the 1850s, we saw it in the 1890s, we saw it in the 1920s. We’re seeing it again. And, the thing is that, in moments like that, the lead up to that has meant that the media, religion, society, and so on has increasingly… I think of it as a tornado. Has increasingly supported that political party’s ideology. And so, it’s very hard to break out of that. People are just used to thinking a certain way.
But when it becomes clear that that political party, and as I say, it’s not always one or the other, but that political party has created a legal system in which power and wealth has concentrated among a very small group of people. The pennies start to drop. And you get a lot of resistance in different ways. Originally, at first, people being considered on the fringes, but more and more people begin to say, “This is not working for me.” And as that happens, finally, you get somebody who doesn’t simply say, “I’m going to tinker around the edges.” But says, “I’m going to push back for real and offer an alternative.”
Joanne Freeman:
You know what’s interesting about that? As you’re listing these moments, when I talk about political violence and about moments in America where there’s been really outstanding, meaning a lot of political violence… When is it? Well, it’s the 1790s, before 1800, when there’s a transformation and who controls the government and the nature of democracy? It’s the 1850s, when you have the Civil War, and again, a transformation. It’s the 1960s, when you have that transition, you have civil rights beginning, and you also have that transition from the 1950s to what came next. So not only-
Heather Cox Richardson:
And the 1920s, because the neo-Nazi is the 1920s.
Joanne Freeman:
… Exactly. So not only do you have people realizing that there’s a paradigm shift that the tenor of things, a major change is happening. The evidence of that, in a sense, is the upsetting, is the… I don’t want to say chaos, but the storm among the populace, and potentially violence, because people understand and feel that change and that instability and they are acting out.
Heather Cox Richardson:
And often there’s a generational change at the same time, which again, we are seeing in the present as well.
Preet Bharara:
That’s a good note to end on. Because often, these conversations with various people, including I’m sure on some occasions with you folks, don’t end on a positive note given what’s going on. Maybe we’ll title the episode, the feeling of a paradigm shift. I don’t know. I hope you’re right. Joanne, Heather, thanks so much.
Heather Cox Richardson:
It’s always a pleasure.
Joanne Freeman:
Thanks.
Heather Cox Richardson:
As folks may have heard this week, Stay Tuned with Preet came to Substack. So after I wrapped taping this episode with Heather and Joanne, they stuck around the studio a while longer to join me for a live conversation. We discussed how symbolic renaming and historical revisionism is used to shape public perception. It’s a pretty fascinating conversation. You can find a link to the free video in the show notes of the episode or head to staytuned.substack.com. Stay tuned. After the break, I’ll answer your questions about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court and using AI in courtrooms.
Now, let’s get to your questions. This question comes in an email from Joseph who writes, “Hi, Preet. During a recent manslaughter sentencing in Arizona, the judge permitted the victim’s family to present an AI generated video, depicting the deceased, delivering his own victim impact statement. I’m not aware of the legality of this, but it appears to set a concerning precedent. In this instance, the AI generated statement expressed forgiveness, but what’s to prevent victims families in future cases from using AI avatars to attempt to coax judges toward harsher sentences.” Which Joseph, that’s a great question. And, a lot of uncertainty, and concern, and issues surrounding the use of AI in a lot of different contexts, but certainly in the criminal justice system. Like you, I read about this new story with a raised eyebrow. For everyone else, the case you’re referring to involved a road rage incident in Arizona in 2021.
According to the police, Gabriel Orcasitas shot and killed a man named Chris Pelkey while they were stopped at a traffic light. Orcasitas was later convicted of manslaughter in an Arizona state court. Then it came time for the sentencing and things took an unusual turn. At the hearing, the judge, Todd Lang, allowed the victim’s family to present an AI generated video of the victim himself delivering a victim impact statement. This was, for me, a first. In all my life, given all the cases that I’ve overseen, and read about, and heard about, I have never heard of a murder or manslaughter victim give their own victim impact statement before. It was a bit like something out of a science fiction movie.
Before we discuss the AI rendered video, it might be worth explaining just a little bit about sentencing hearings and victim impact statements. So the purpose of a sentencing hearing is for the judge to have an opportunity to determine a fair and appropriate punishment hearing from relevant folks in the process. That could include the defendant, the defendant’s lawyers, various victims, the probation department and others potentially to decide what the fair and proper punishment should be. The judge, of course, considers all types of factors, like the severity of the crime, the defendant’s background, criminal history, and of course, as is obvious from this comment, the impact on victims. That’s why during sentencing, victims and their families have the right to talk to the court about how the crimes have personally affected them through a victim impact statement.
In this case, obviously, such a statement would’ve typically been delivered by the family and friends of Chris Pelkey, the deceased. But as I’ve mentioned, and as the question presents, they instead created an AI rendering of Pelkey making the statement. So the question that arises, of course, is this legal? Now on one hand, judges in these scenarios have broad discretion over what they permit at sentencing hearings. They can hear from various participants in the process. They can hear from friends and family. They can hear from neighbors. And they can choose to put weight or not put weight on various things they hear.
I’m not aware of any specific rules governing the use of AI renderings in this context. So it’s arguably the case that nothing specifically prohibited Judge Lang from allowing the video, but I would imagine that the defendant would object on various grounds including prejudice to him. It’s my understanding that there’s an appeal pending, and one of the issues raised on appeal is the use of AI. So there’s a dubious aspect to the use of AI in this context and in this way for a variety of reasons, some of which may be obvious. Of course, first, we don’t know if the AI rendering is actually putting forth what the will of the deceased may have been, and obviously, that’s an impossibility because the person is deceased. And, it’s odd to consider and contemplate the notion of what someone who was a victim of a crime and died in connection with that crime would want as punishment for the defendant. It’s hard to get your arms around, your head around, and obviously, there was no consent to be rendered in artificial intelligence format in any proceeding.
By the way, it’s also the case, as my friend and colleague and CAFE contributor Nita Farahany has talked about before, it is possible to manipulate or hack AI renderings of people to make them more effective and make them subtly more persuasive than actual human beings. So the combination of no consent, and manipulation, and other problems with AI in my book means this is not the kind of thing that judges should do. We’ll see what happens in the appeal. Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Curious what you think. Send us your comments and thoughts about AI renderings in the criminal courtroom to lettersatcafe.com.
This question comes from a post on BlueSky by Drapini. “C-SPAN recently requested that the Supreme Court televised oral arguments for the upcoming birthright citizenship cases. Given the importance and public interest involved, it’s surprising to me that these proceedings aren’t televised already. Why has the Supreme Court consistently refused to broadcast its hearings, and do you think it’s time they allowed cameras in the courtroom?” So I’ve addressed this issue before. I dealt with some bills relating to cameras in the courtroom when I worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am and always have been an advocate for cameras in the courtroom. I understand that there’s a difference in feeling with respect to the Supreme Court, versus a lower level court, like a trial court. And, people can debate in good faith the merits and problems with a distorting effect that a camera might have when you’re doing a criminal trial, versus a high stakes, high level, often legally arcane Supreme Court argument in the highest court in the land.
I think that the arguments in favor of cameras are at their apex and have the most merit. When we’re talking about the Supreme Court, for a lot of reasons, I think there’s less distortion, there’s less likelihood of distortion, and there’s more public interest in civic education that can arise from cameras in the Supreme Court. I also think the cameras can be fine in other courtrooms as well. And we know in many states there are cameras allowed in the courtroom, and I’m unaware of a ton of evidence suggesting that that has caused undue prejudice to anyone. And on the other hand, it shows that our court system is open, and free, and transparent, and I think that’s a net positive.
But in answering your question more fully, I think it’s useful to look at the history of broadcasting government proceedings, because there are other branches of government too, and they provide maybe some precedent and example. The key technological advancement that enabled stations like C-SPAN to broadcast government proceedings was, of course, the rise of cable television. Cable dramatically expanded the number of available channels. So now, all of a sudden, there was space for non-commercial programming such as C-SPAN. The House of Representatives, I’m old enough to remember when this happened actually, was the first congressional body to embrace television coverage. They began broadcasting their floor proceedings way back in 1979. For reference, that’s the same year cable networks like ESPN and Nickelodeon were launched. The Senate, as is its want, was a little slower and more hesitant. It did not allow televised proceedings until 1986, when it authorized a three-month trial at the start of that year. Newspaper articles from the time revealed that some senators were initially hesitant to allow cameras, but over the course of the three-month trial, a lot of them changed their minds.
That summer, the Senate voted as a body, 78 to 21, to authorize permanent gavel-to-gavel television coverage of its proceedings. And I think we’ve all benefited as a result. Not that the proceedings are always mesmerizing, but there’s a transparency and an openness that I think is important to democracy. And as a result, we’ve been able to witness history in real-time, from the house passing the Affordable Care Act, to John McCain’s dramatic thumbs down vote against repealing it, to Mitt Romney’s impeachment speech, and most recently, Cory Booker’s record-breaking 24-hour, 18-minute address, just to name a few. One might say, when you turn to the court, it’s somewhat ironic that Americans can watch a Supreme Court Justice’s confirmation hearing, but not the justices actually doing their jobs on the bench. I remember the confirmation hearing for then nominee John Roberts in 2005. I was in the hearing room working for Senator Chuck Schumer at the time. If you turned on C-SPAN, you might’ve seen me sitting behind the Senator during the hearing. While Chuck Schumer didn’t at that moment ask Roberts about broadcasting Supreme Court sessions, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley did. He asked…
Senator Chuck Grassley:
Are you against cameras in the courtroom like Justice Rehnquist was?
Preet Bharara:
Nominee Roberts, as was his want, made light of the question and responded with his typical humor.
Chief Justice John Roberts:
Well, my new best friend, Senator Thompson assures me that television cameras are nothing to be afraid of. But, I don’t have a set view on that.
Preet Bharara:
But, as you know, since that confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts has formed a seemingly unshakable view on that. Over the years, he’s offered a number of reasons for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court. Here he is, ironically, making that case during an interview on C-SPAN.
Chief Justice John Roberts:
Television has changes a lot. I don’t know what institution has been improved by being televised. I know a lot that have been harmed by it. And, my judgment is that it has the potential of hurting the court. You worry about counsel playing to the audience. And I have to be honest, worry about the Justices doing that. And, you don’t want that.
Preet Bharara:
Now, to be fair, there has for some time been an audio version of oral arguments before the Supreme Court. But until the pandemic, those were only made available sometime after the argument. So you couldn’t follow along in real-time. You had to rely on summaries and newspaper accounts later that day or the next day. During the pandemic, we got for the first time, real-time audio delivery of the arguments. And I think that’s been important and a good thing. But cameras would be better. Chief Justice Roberts’s continuing hesitancy, in my view, has prevented the American public from witnessing some of the most consequential Supreme Court cases in recent history. Cases that have fundamentally reshaped our legal landscape. And we won’t see the arguments in the birthright citizenship cases being heard today, Thursday, May 15th.
At the end of last week’s show, I shared the story of Officer Pepe, a tremendously courageous corrections officer who recently passed away after spending nearly 25 years, largely in a wheelchair. As you may remember, Officer Pepe was attacked by two inmates, brutally, including a close advisor to Osama bin Laden at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan. They tried to escape by taking his keys by force. But notwithstanding the brutality of the attack that would leave him blind in one eye, as I said last week, he refused to give up those keys. Many stay tuned listeners called or wrote to us to share how moved they were by Officer Pepe’s story.
So I want to end today’s show by sharing with you a couple of those responses. This was in an email from Ali. “Thank you for telling his story. It moved me to tears. Rest Easy, Officer Pepe.” There was this response in an email from Susan, “Last episode’s tribute to Officer Pepe, his bravery, and the consequences he suffered as a result of it brought tears to my eyes. Thank you so much for this moving tribute to someone who sounds like a good, decent human being.” And then, finally, this voicemail from an unidentified caller.
Listener Voicemail:
Preet, I’m a longtime listener and I enjoy your show enormously. I just listened to the story you told about the corrections officer whose funeral you attended. And it was very moving and quite inspiring to know that there are people like that who care so much about doing the right thing. May he rest in peace.
Preet Bharara:
I agree with the caller. It’s inspiring to know that there are people who are willing to be brave, and courageous, and sacrifice themselves for others, no matter the personal cost. Rest in peace, Officer Pepe. Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guests, Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also now reach me on BlueSky, or you can call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338. That’s 833-99-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.
Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noa Azulai and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández. And the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner, and Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, Stay Tuned.
