Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi everyone. Harry here. We've got a great conversation for you today about the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. They're the prosecutors usually tasked with leading the charge on investigations into controversial police shootings like those of Renee Good and Alex Preddy. In the wake of those shooting deaths, I spoke with Bill Yeomans, a 24 year veteran of the Civil Rights Division. As you'll hear when we spoke, the administration still seemed committed to blocking any DOJ investigation of those deaths. Now after much foot dragging and huge external pressure, the department says that the Civil Rights Division has begun looking at Preddy shooting. There's still no investigation nor any expected into goods came killing. In a few moments you'll hear why this chain of events was so shocking and why these investigations are so vital. Here's my conversation with Bill Yeomans. Welcome to Talking Feds One on one deep dive discussions with national figures about the most fascinating and consequential issues defining our culture and shaping our lives. I'm your host, Harry Littman. We've had some very unusual goings on in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and that's an understatement. All expectations of people who know the division were that the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division would begin a criminal investigation into the shootings of Renee Goode and then Alex Preddy for potential violations of civil rights laws. But in the Renee Good killing, they were pulled off the case, prompting a sheaf of resignations by the top people in the section. And it's far from clear how the department is planning to handle the Preddy killing, which so far seems if anything even more jarring in terms of the use of deadly force without any legal justification. So I wanted to talk about the aberrant conduct we're seeing and what's going on in the Civil Rights Division. We really have the perfect person to discuss it. Bill Yeoman spent 24 years at the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division beginning in the Reagan administration and going through the George W. Bush administration. He litigated and super cases across the gamut of the Department's jurisdiction. Voting rights, desegregation, police misconduct, much more. He served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Staff, Acting Assistant Attorney General. That's the top position for civil rights. And he also has logged in his years in Washington a lot of time in Congress, which I think is going to be germane here. Senator Edward Kennedy's Chief Counsel, among other positions, also taught law directed programs for the American Constitution Society a polyglot, but with a focus in the Civil Rights Division. So really to get the whole kind of historical focus on the division and what's going on that seems departure from it. He was the person I was really hoping to talk to. Thanks so much for joining us, Bill Yeomans.
- [03:40]
B
It's a pleasure to be here, Harry. Thanks for having me.
- [03:43]
A
Okay, so let's take a few minutes just to set up. People know about the division. Tell us a little bit about the Criminal Section within the division. A pretty small enclave, but who they are, what their traditional function has been, their size, and, you know, what normally happens after a controversial shooting. Those sorts of questions.
- [04:06]
B
As you point out, the Criminal Section is, is one part of the Civil Rights Division. The division has, I think, 10 sections usually. And it is composed of a group of extremely able and experienced, for the most part, lawyers who come from lots of different backgrounds to get to the Criminal Section. Many of them have been Prosecutors for local DAs. A good number have been public defenders. But they've all come to the Civil Rights Division because they believe in the work. And the work of the Criminal Section is just extremely important. It's fundamental to our civil rights architecture in this country. It's not a large group, it's generally around 30 attorneys or so, but their power is magnified by their ability to, to work with U.S. attorneys around the country. So generally when the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Section, is going to investigate or prosecute a case, it will pair with the local U.S. attorney's office and do it jointly.
- [05:20]
A
Actually, I'm sorry, one more threshold question. How many cases. Let's focus on alleged police misconduct do they. Does the section do in a year? And how many prosecutions does it bring? There's a. Because the investigations obviously outnumber the prosecution.
- [05:41]
B
Yeah, it's, you know, it's not a big number. I think in part because the, the legal standards are difficult to satisfy and these cases are, are simply difficult to develop. But that said, the Division, the Civil Rights Sec, The Criminal Section gets complaints from all over. And generally what happens is a complaint comes in, it's given to a line lawyer in the section who does a preliminary assessment, looks at what we know. If the line lawyer thinks there's something there, then the line lawyer will ask the FBI to conduct a preliminary investigation. That preliminary investigation will come back, and then the section will decide whether or not to open a full investigation. The preliminary investigation is. Looks mostly at public sources, tries to figure out if there are important things that have been overlooked or whatever. And then once it, it comes back to the Section to open a full investigation. Then the FBI goes to work jointly with the prosecutors to try to see whether there's a case there to build.
- [06:55]
A
Okay, so. And there are a lot of cases that are not nearly as high profile. I mean, the division. I mean, the section does all of them. I did some work on the Rodney King case, and, you know, at the time it was high profile. But I think it's also fair to say even cases that many people think look like some civil rights violations, you know, the standards of proof, the evidentiary problems, just the general structural issues of trying to make these cases mean that they really decide not to investigate quite a number. Okay. Like everyone else in the country, two weeks ago, you saw the Renee Good fatal shooting. What just from your experience in the Section would you have anticipated would have happened next within civil rights generally, including by the Section? But if to the extent there's any involvement with the, you know, you were, you were the acting assistant attorney general, also chief of staff with the so called front office of the division.
- [08:03]
B
I think there's no question that we would have opened an investigation immediately and.
- [08:09]
A
Certainly like next day.
- [08:11]
B
Oh, yeah. Or same day. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's a. It's an incident that. That cries out for investigation. I think it's worth pointing out that civil rights investigations alone are very important. Many incidents that implicate civil rights laws like this one are matters of great public concern and frequently have led to civil disorder distress in communities. So one of the important things about a civil rights investigation is to open it and let people know that there is a careful, credible investigation being undertaken by a neutral party who is trying to get to the. To the core of what happened. And this can be. It can be a hugely influential thing. I mean, I think back to Ferguson when Michael Brown was shot. And Eric Holder, the attorney general at the time, went to Ferguson in the middle of a fair amount of civil disorder to announce that there would be a federal investigation. And that was an act that did a great deal to calm the community. The community had something to hold on to, something to expect. And the civil rights division did do an investigation. He was also able to announce that there would be a civil investigation into the Ferguson police department. The division has authority to sue police departments civilly for patterns or practices of unlawful or unconstitutional policing. So he was able to announce that. And that's. I mean, that's a hugely important function that has now been abandoned completely by this administration. There are no civil police investigations going on. And I don't expect that there will be.
- [10:07]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think the shutdown's been announced, except one has now been threatened or brandished. As to one Democratic stronghold, I do just want to emphasize this point that for many people, once an investigation is started by a credible entity, it really is the case that people think, okay, it's being investigated, we can trust, you know, for now, the investigation. I myself had to announce at the end of investigations in Pittsburgh when I was U.S. attorney, that the section and division decided not to go forward nevertheless, and this was a relative of a Pittsburgh Steeler who was basically killed and big, big case, but just that the Civil Rights Division had been there. Actually the Assistant Attorney General, Bill Langley came to Pittsburgh, announced it, and even not bringing the case, it meant so much to the community. I was able to basically, you know, have the credibility to say, you know, looked at it hard and really reasons that it couldn't be done. Tell me to the extent, you know, what the hell happened here instead of the, the orthodox procedure that you outlined and expected?
- [11:34]
B
Well, as you know, as I understand it, the department came out preemptively announced that there would not be an investigation. Exactly the wrong thing to do. And of course, other various other spokespeople in the administration were running around, you know, saying that Renee Goode had tried to run over the agent and was a radical left wing, whatever. In other words, prejudging the outcome of any possible investigation and frankly souring any potential investigation by the federal government. That's the problem now, you know, at.
- [12:14]
A
This point, even if there was a whole change of heart, how could an administration ever be able to credibly be a stratum message where they've announced the result, even if even in the other direction, this is 100% clearly a violation, we're going forward. You cannot do that and simultaneously launch a professional investigation.
- [12:38]
B
Right. I mean, once, once you have blown your credibility, it's gone. You can't get it back. And so if there's going to be a meaningful investigation, it has to be done by a different body, but presumably by the state. And that's a shame. You know, I think it's worth pointing out and going back to what we were talking about earlier, that civil rights investigations are really treated differently from many investigations in the Department of Justice. You know, the standard practice is not to announce investigations in most areas in doj, and that's a matter of fairness, that you don't want to tar. People who are just being investigated may not have done anything wrong, but because of the public nature the visibility of civil rights matters. The department makes an exception for civil rights cases, and those are announced. And as you point out, the closing of the investigation is frequently announced. And the section's practice is to write very long, somewhat turgid closing memos.
- [13:42]
A
Speaks to former supervisor.
- [13:44]
B
Having read many, you're right. But to go through every detail of the investigation and dot every I and cross every table and reassure people that there has been a fair, full, thorough, deliberate investigation and that they can trust the Department of Justice. That obviously cannot happen here. Yeah.
- [14:11]
A
And let me ask if, you know, you maybe don't, or if you have any educated surmise, you know, we saw a similar kind of, of sort of steamrolling of another crown jewel, maybe the other crown jewel in the department, the Public Integrity section, with the Mayor Adams case. And we know a little bit about the bullying of that section. Do you have any. Four people resigned here? Right. That's huge news. Seismic in the civil rights community. I believe they're the top four in the section. Do we have any sense of, you know, were they called in and told they're off the case? Did they just read it in the papers or did they have a chance to protest? Do you have any insight into the behind the scenes conduct that precipitated the resignations?
- [15:05]
B
I don't, I don't have any, any reporting on that. I hope to see the people this coming Saturday. We're having a reunion of the Civil Rights Division alumni, and I assume they will be there. I can imagine.
- [15:20]
A
Alumni, yeah.
- [15:21]
B
Right. They are people of integrity. They're people who believe deeply in what they do. They're people who believe in the norms of the Department of Justice. And those norms are, as we've said, to conduct a fair investigation of important matters. So I think it was appalling and I think it would be very difficult for them almost not to resign. And I know that at least a couple of them were planning to leave fairly soon anyway. You know, the whole Civil Rights Division has been under enormous pressure. I think at least three quarters of the attorneys have left and I think it was. They probably felt it was time to go, but this just made it absolutely apparent, I'm sure, that they could not do their jobs. They couldn't possibly stay. So it's a tragedy.
- [16:13]
A
I want to follow up on that a little because, you know, in the normal culture of the Department of Justice, this is what was so effective about the showdown with Trump at the end of his administration and the Jeff Clark thing. So effective about the Saturday Night Massacre. A Resignation. You know, a responsible prosecutor and DOJ official can't take to the. The microphones and start screaming out what's happening. A resignation is the sort of ultimate kind of protest. And yet there's a sort of sense in these more crass and vulgar days that it's. It just sort of, you know, drops with. With not the same impact. Just talk to us a little about, you know, when somebody comes to you when you were in the department and said, you know, Bill, I think I maybe have to resign. What, you know, what, what, what would that mean? When do people, when have people thought about it? What is it within the at least old culture of the doj?
- [17:17]
B
Yeah. Well, I think there. There traditionally has been an understanding in DOJ among line lawyers that you may be asked to do things with which you don't fully agree, and you accept that sometimes it's just not being able to make a particular argument that you wanted to make in a case or there might be a dispute over in opening a minor investigation, something like that. And those are usually worked out internally when the Department of Justice and I speak for the Civil Rights Division. When the Civil Rights Division is working well, there's an ongoing conversation between the line people and the supervisors, the political people. And, you know, in the course of that conversation.
- [18:00]
A
So that's important point. Each administration comes in and brings its political supervisor who, you know, that's part of their job is to do their. But. But they're still within the overall mission of the doj. As I said, you, you were under Reagan and George W. Bush, et cetera. The supervisor might have been a little different, but. Sorry, go ahead.
- [18:21]
B
Yeah, no, but it's still. I mean, as long as. I think if you provide people with that kind of process internally, you're likely to avoid resignations. Things simply won't come to a head quite like that. I think what these resignations say and what others say about this Department of Justice is that the relationship between the career people and the political people has completely broken down. The political people are conducting a reign of terror. Basically, you do it our way or you're out. We're not going to discuss it. We don't care if you have a better legal argument. We don't care if your view of the law has been accepted by every court. You do it our way or you're out. You know, it's very difficult to run a Department of justice that way, and it's destructive because the Department of Justice, as you know, Harry, is filled with tremendous attorneys with lots of Experience people who have been through all kinds of tests and have handled the most difficult legal cases, and they bring great wisdom. They bring judgment. And when you. You rule by diktat in the Department of Justice, you eliminate all that, and it's. It's a terrible loss to the country. The country loses the benefit of the wisdom and experience of those people, as well as their creativity and intelligence.
- [19:46]
C
I'm Michael Waldman, host of the Briefing podcast. I'm a former White House speechwriter, a lawyer, and a constitutional scholar. And I'm president of the Brennan center for Justice. We work to repair and strengthen American democracy, from gerrymandering to abuse of presidential power, from Supreme Court reform to congressional corruption and more. What fun. You're going to hear new ideas in this podcast, and you're going to hear about the strategies and the legal and political fights that will shape the next phase of American politics. If you care about our democracy. The Briefing is a podcast for you.
- [20:20]
A
You've mentioned a broader point. You know, it is one of the areas in which you say rule by diktat, but there are some really unfortunate places in government where they have installed people whose kind of claim to fame has been opposition to the very sections they are now leading. Kash Patel might be a case in point, but I think Harmeet Dhillon, who is the Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, does qualify there. And so there was probably an expectation of her coming in that there would be a native kind of antagonism or mistrust. Give us your sense as you know it from your old friends there or what you've observed still in D.C. about. I've, you know, said the criminal section is a very special place within the civil rights division. But can you give us, you know, your sense of what it's like overall in the division and its different sections?
- [21:23]
B
Yeah, well, I mean, I think the division is in crisis. And, you know, as I said, I think three quarters of the attorneys have left.
- [21:31]
A
That's civil rights division wide.
- [21:33]
B
Yes, that's the whole. The whole.
- [21:36]
A
Wow. Okay.
- [21:37]
B
Yeah. And obviously not all of them have been replaced, and they won't be replaced with the same kind of people. They'll be replaced with people with the same talents and with the same commitment to enforcing the law. But I think when Dylan came in, she announced, basically, this is my way or the highway, and issued mission statements for each of the sections, which were astonishing documents. I mean, thinking back, the. I remember the statement for the housing section, which handles housing discrimination matters, didn't mention the Fair Housing act, which is the core of what the housing section has normally done and didn't mention lending discrimination, which is. Has been, has been key to what this section has been doing. In the voting rights section, there is no mention of voting rights. It's only about voting integrity. It's a complete voting fraud. Nothing about bringing Section 2 cases or protecting minority voting rights. None of that.
- [22:45]
A
Any sense of pressure to bring the other cases, which, as best we can tell, don't have much foundation in fact.
- [22:53]
B
Yeah, I think, I think that they're, they're working on it. They're gearing up. You know, they're trying to get the voter rolls from states. And this entered into the Minnesota episode where Pam Bondi. Yes. Wrote this bizarre letter saying, you know, if you'll give us your voter rolls, maybe we can work something out. I know, but, but that's, I mean, that's what they're very interested in and they're obviously going to use the division for that. So, I mean, that's what's going on. And I think it's. People need to understand that this is the tragedy that this is, because, you know, you've mentioned that the Division is sometimes referred to as the crown jewel of the Department of Justice, and it really is.
- [23:39]
A
Well, I actually meant the section itself, the criminal section, but I do think it. And the public integrity. Yeah, sorry, go ahead.
- [23:48]
B
Right, right. But, you know, the fact is we only have a Department of justice because of civil rights. You know, we had an Attorney General from, from the get go, but it wasn't until 1870 that Congress authorized the creation of a Department of Justice. And it was specifically so that the rights of newly freed enslaved people could be protected in the South. And, you know, that was pursued for a few years with some vigor. Then the political will died and the Supreme Court, limited, narrowed the civil rights laws enormously, which allowed the south to develop its Jim Crow racial caste system. And it wasn't until the 1950s that Congress returned to civil rights and for the first time was able to overcome a Southern filibuster. And in 1957 passed the first Civil Rights act, which created the position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil rights. And, you know, it was. That was a result of the civil rights movements, the enormous moral pressure that they had brought on the country that they had used to awaken the population and to push Congress in that direction. And then, of course, Congress went on in 1964 to pass the broad 64 Civil Rights act, and 65 the Voting Rights act, and 68 the Fair Housing act, and Those, those laws are the expression of the moral crusade that was conducted to wake up this country and to set it on path to become a multiracial, multi ethnic society. And those laws from the 60s, I think reflect that commitment.
- [25:37]
A
And look, when we study it in school, that's what we study, we study those laws. But the Civil Rights Division, the, you know, the lawyers who are now three quarters down really were the foot soldiers, you know, of this if you think about it. Okay, you got a Voting Rights act, you've got a Fair Housing Act. What happens now that the short answer to that is the Civil Rights Division happens now, but no longer?
- [26:02]
B
Yeah, yeah, we've moved in fits and starts. I mean, there's been movement forward, there's been retrenchment at times, depending on who's in the White House, but generally the movement has been forward. What really scares me now, Harry, is that the administration, the MAGA movement is attacking the very foundation of the laws. In other words, they are, they are attacking the moral values that underpin the laws. And I think by rewriting our history, you know, redoing the Smithsonian, changing signage in public parks, all of that, to eliminate slavery, to eliminate our mistreatment of Native Americans, all of that. And I worry that once you remove the moral foundation, it becomes far less obvious for people to understand why we need civil rights laws, why we need to enforce them. And I think that's a part of the, the larger scheme is to sort of cut the legs out from under the laws so that their rationale is not as obvious, so that the laws themselves can be attacked.
- [27:12]
A
Well put. And it's a whole nother discussion. But the, it has been the case that the overall antipathy towards so called DEI programs has really lapped onto a real sort of attack at the heart of the civil rights agenda itself. I want to ask you about one other thing that's unprecedented to me. But you've had 24 years there. There's been case, there's a lot of cases. I think it's even maybe the preference of the section and the division to let the state go first, other ones in which the feds have gone first. But we have at least the good case and possibly the pretty case indicate strong indications from the DOJ and the Civil Rights Division that they don't want the state to go forward, that they want to impede the investigation and circle the wagons. In my experience, anytime the state's gone first, it's been there. You already assigned someone from Civil Rights. They're sort of in the in background, standing by, monitoring, cooperating. Have you ever, in your 24 years or since known of a situation in which the division is literally trying to impose obstacles on a state going ahead?
- [28:40]
B
No, that's, that's the straight answer. I mean, as you know, there's, there is sometimes tension between the Feds and the state in, in civil rights, the way we have generally operated is that states, if they are conducting a good faith investigation, proceeding toward a good faith prosecution, can go first and the Feds can provide the backstop. And if the state effort doesn't vindicate the federal interest, then the states can, can move in and try the case.
- [29:19]
A
The Feds can move in and try the case.
- [29:21]
B
I'm sorry, the state. Right.
- [29:23]
A
Like Ronnie King say.
- [29:24]
B
Yeah, exactly, exactly. But, and, and sometimes along the way, there is tension in the investigation. You know, as you know, as you well know, you don't want two sets of investigators overlapping too much and taking conflicting statements from witnesses and all of that. But generally people share. If the Feds are investigating, they will share with the state, State's investigators will share with the Feds, and you'll, you'll come up with a thorough investigation and so that it's there, whether it's the state or the Fed's proceeding. But I am not aware of any situation in which you have, particularly where you have a, an incident that is so obviously ripe for investigation, where you have the federal government trying to block the state from proceeding.
- [30:17]
A
I mean, at a minimum, there are logistical issues galore and ego vanity.
- [30:24]
B
Who.
- [30:24]
A
But, but they're rowing in the same direction, Right. Basically. And here they're, here you have the Feds, you know, putting their hands on the oars, or so it seems, a kind of uncharted territory. I think Minnesota is very earnest about investigating. They'll face some legal impediments, like motions to remove an immunity and maybe practical ones as well.
- [30:50]
B
Well, I think it's gonna be very interesting to see how the state moves forward. And of course, as you, as you point out, they can, they do face some of the obstacles.
- [30:59]
A
If you don't mind, let me keep you a little bit into overtime. Give us your sense of the legal landscape now that Minnesota encounters with the federal opposition.
- [31:10]
B
Well, I mean, the first, the first challenge is going to be doing an investigation. I mean, they were barred from getting to the scene of the, of the incident. And so they've lost all, as you know, they've lost a lot of crucial evidence. Yeah. And they have to identify the eyewitnesses, they have to track everything down. There's a lot of forensic work that just can't be done now. But I think, you know, the state can proceed. I mean, there is, I guess, this notion out there that this is a federal matter and the feds need to do it. But no, the states can prosecute a federal official. It's challenging, you know, they have to show that the federal officials actions were not necessary to the completion of his federal duties. But it can be done. And it will probably, I think, as you point out, be done in federal court, can be transferred to federal court, but that you're still arguing under state law and you're still dealing with the same people. So that's not a big deal. So I, I think that there is going to be real fervor in the state to move forward and I, I think it's going to be very interesting to watch. And I don't think the feds can stop it. And I can't imagine at this point, because we are seeing the administration somewhat in political retreat on this, I can't imagine that they want to be seen as impeding state investigation. So I expect something will go forward.
- [32:37]
A
That'd be my best guess as well. I hope, as it does, we can talk further. And thanks very much for being with us today.
- [32:43]
B
All right. It's great to see you again, Eric.
- [32:48]
A
Thank you for tuning in to One on One, a weekly conversation series from Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube where we are posting full episodes and daily updates on top legal stories. Check us out on substack harry litman.substack.com where we're posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. And Talking Fez has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this new media venture, committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious and vital project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@Contrarian.com substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry. As long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw. Associate producer, Becca Haveian. Sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansuma Hadrenathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our clients. Contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Doledo, llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.