Dan Goldman, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was the chief investigator in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.
This interview with Mr. Goldman was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 27.
Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.
Kathleen Kingsbury: What would you be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress? If you could, be as specific as possible.
Sure.
Kathleen Kingsbury: But also, is there one big idea that you’d pursue with bipartisan support?
Yeah. I think in the unlikely event that it will be a Republican Congress, I actually think that my skills and experience are going to be even more valuable to the caucus. Because we can fully expect a Biden impeachment. We can expect a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.
The Republicans are out for blood and out for revenge. And so my experience, having led the impeachment investigation and being right in the throes of that kind of complex and high-stakes investigation, will be even more valuable, I think, to the Democratic caucus than reasonably a first-year Congress person would be even in the majority without any seniority.
As for what I think we can achieve in a bipartisan way, look, my approach to this is sort of twofold. I think on the one hand, we need to be really aggressive in attacking the Republicans and attacking our policy prerogatives. We need to defend our democracy, which is under attack. We need to defend and protect our fundamental rights.
We are dealing with a very different Republican Party today than even 10 years ago. And so what we have to recognize is there are bad-faith actors, in my view, who are trying to sabotage anything the Democrats do in order to acquire power of their own. So the old traditional way of negotiating with them or going directly to them and begging them or having a meal with them or whatever, it’s not working. What we are going to have to do is convince them that it is in their self-interest to do something.
And I think there are two ways of doing that. One is aggressively investigating, and using the investigative and oversight powers to change the hearts and minds of the public, as we’ve seen a little bit with the Jan. 6 committee, or to expose their special interests or their — the folks, the lobbyists or the other special interest group that control them. And the other way is to figure out a way of reframing an issue so that they can recognize that it is in their self-interest to do it.
And I’ll give you an example of each real quick. Actually, it happened today. A few weeks ago I called for an investigation into gun manufacturers and gun dealers, so that we can know what they’re marketing and advertising, whether it is they knowingly were targeting young adults with radicalizing on social media and trying to sell a AR-15s. There’s, I think, a lot there not dissimilar to the tobacco companies or the opioid companies who knew what they were selling was addictive.
There is a path there to expose the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers, which is really the only way to impact the Republicans. Because 70 percent, 80 percent of the country believes in much stricter gun legislation than we have. So that’s a way, I think, we can use investigations and oversight.
[In a recent Gallup poll, 66 percent of people said gun-control laws “should be made more strict.”]
On the other hand, I look at renewable energy as one thing that we might be able to figure out a creative compromise for — not dissimilar to mass incarceration, where Democrats pushed for it for a long time, Republicans resisted it because of their tough-on-crime stance. Ultimately, Republicans got onboard with decarceration because of the fiscal benefits. And so you first started seeing it in states, and then you saw it with the First Step Act.
I think we can do something similar with renewable energy, which Democrats — we want for climate purposes, for job purposes. But we hear a lot from Republicans about energy independence now, with gas prices going up and with the issues in Russia and Ukraine in terms of oil and natural gas and our dependence on the Middle East. The best way to be energy independent is to invest in renewable energy that we create here. And so I think there’s an avenue that, in the minority even, I think we could pursue some sort of climate legislation that would be — we could agree on for very different reasons.
Mara Gay: OK, thank you. What would you do in Congress to help build more new housing in New York so that New Yorkers can stay in the city that they love?
I think we need to do two things in terms of housing. One is we need more money for NYCHA so that we can fix these dreadfully maintained buildings. I met with the tenants association at the Jacob Riis Houses a couple of weeks ago and it was really, really unacceptable conditions. So we have to figure out a way to repair that.
I am open — I support the preservation trust. I am open to creative ways of providing some sort of funding streams so that we can fix NYCHA. But the bigger issue I think you’re hitting on is we need more and we need better housing. I would work very hard to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers, especially for the homeless, which are often — it’s often undesirable for some of the affordable housing or transitional housing places to take the homeless. But I think we need to be pushing for more Section 8 vouchers.
I think we need to be funding nonprofits that focus on this, on homelessness and housing, much, much more. Because they’re really in the sort of nexus between some of the for-profit real estate developers and the city. And so what is starting to happen more, and I’m a big fan of, is that you have for-profit companies that are providing some capital for more housing. But they can’t really get that last 25 percent of the way.
And then you have the nonprofits who are ready and expert at managing the housing and providing the services that in permanent sustained housing, that the residents and the tenants need. And then you have the city that’s often providing the land. But it’s often that last bit of money that is needed in order to push the project over the top.
And so it’s not necessarily a lot of money, but it is something that the federal government can do to help provide that last bit of capital, help to provide grants to nonprofits. And, by the way, I think that providing grants to nonprofits is something I’m going to push across the board. Because what you see with nonprofits is they are expert in their area and they are closest to the community. They’re closest to the ground, and they know what the communities need.
A couple of weeks ago, I went down to the Lower East Side and met with some of the settlement houses executives. And the programs they have are fantastic, but they just don’t have the scale that can serve enough people. And so, to my mind, that is an avenue that we need to fund more from Congress to provide the services that the community needs, and to provide them in a high-quality way.
Mara Gay: Thank you.
Jyoti Thottam: Just stepping back a minute — what do you think Democrats can do at this point to protect American democracy, which, as you sort of alluded to, is under threat from various places?
Yeah. Well, this is a huge thrust of my campaign and my experience in leading the impeachment investigation and trying to protect and defend our democracy at that point, which seems somewhat quaint now, where we are now. But even before I left the House Intelligence Committee, I helped Adam Schiff draft the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which at the time, those provisions also seemed somewhat quaint, pre-Jan. 6.
But I actually released a five-point plan to protect and defend democracy. Because I think it is, first of all, the No. 1 issue. We have so many policy objectives that we want to do, whether that’s protecting the right to choose, gun control legislation, as we’ve talked about, climate change, immigration, infrastructure, housing. All of these are incredibly important things that I would very much like to tackle.
But our first priority has to be to protect and defend our democracy. Because Donald Trump still controls the Republican Party, he still is the front-runner to become the 2024 nominee. And he is still pushing the Big Lie, and he has his acolytes in the states around the country and some of the swing states — in Pennsylvania in particular, which is very scary — of trying to change the laws so that partisan elected officials can overturn the will of the people in a way that they failed in 2020.
So this is the unprecedented existential threat that we are facing, and it frankly is why I’m running. Because I was on the front lines, I have dealt with Donald Trump before, and I am very, very concerned about our democracy. We need to do a couple of things I’ll just briefly summarize.
We need to maintain free and fair elections, where not only do the voters decide but that everyone can vote and gets access to the ballot with Election Day as a holiday and other ways of making voting easier. Registration should be a lot easier. We need to make voting as easy as possible. It is the right in our Constitution from which all other rights flow.
And so that is a significant thing. And there are lots of ways that we need to do that, whether it’s the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or banning gerrymandering or getting rid of the Electoral College altogether. There are a lot of ways, I think, that we can make voting free, fair and consistent with one person, one vote.
The other thing that we need to do is combat disinformation. When I was on the House Intelligence Committee, that was the House committee that had the Russia investigation. And a lot of what we were focusing on — because Mueller had taken over a lot of the criminal investigation — we were focusing a lot on the disinformation. We got a tremendous amount of intelligence that was classified on this issue. And so I’m familiar with a lot of the foreign efforts to use disinformation and misinformation.
But it happens here at home, too. And in fact, it affects not only our democracy and our elections. It affects climate denialism. It affected Covid. So one of the things that I have been pushing for is we need to regulate social media companies more, but we also need to expand the public broadcasting media arm to include independent online media platforms.
Jyoti Thottam: OK. I’m just conscious of time. We have a lot of things to cover.
I’m sorry. I go on too long.
Jyoti Thottam: That’s all right. Patrick, are you going next?
Patrick Healy: Yeah, thank you. Do you think Democratic elected officials are out of step with Democratic voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any particular issue, just as you hear kind of the messaging and the Democratic Party priorities with where voters are at, as you talk to them?
It’s a good question. I think the biggest disconnect is that there are a number of Democratic representatives who are very ideologically strident and uncompromising, if it gets down to it. And I think what Democratic voters — at least what I hear — what Democratic voters want more than ideological purity is results and solutions. And I think I, and others, were very frustrated in the fall that the $1.5 trillion or $1.75 trillion reconciliation package didn’t get through not because of the Republicans, but because the Democrats couldn’t come together and figure it out.
[Last fall, divisions in the Democratic Party stalled the $3.5 trillion domestic agenda.]
I blame Joe Manchin for a lot of it. But, at the end of the day, he did seem willing to agree to a significant package that would have provided universal child care, that would have provided climate change and renewable energy incentive legislation — many things that now, as we look back, we’re not going to get. And that’s a wasted opportunity. And I think part of it is because there were some folks in Congress who felt stuck to their sort of perfect view of what it should be and were uncompromising.
[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]
So I’m not sure, to answer your question directly, that it is that there’s a particular policy that is out of step. I think it is more what’s out of step is a little bit what the objective is. And, for me, I’m going down there to get results and to find solutions.
Kathleen Kingsbury: Eleanor? We lost Eleanor.
[Eleanor rejoined this interview via Google Meet after getting a stable internet connection.]
Kathleen Kingsbury: OK. We have a series of questions that are yes or no questions. If you could stick to yes or no, we’d appreciate it. Do you support expanding the Supreme Court?
No. It’s anti-democratic.
Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you support ending the filibuster?
Yes.
Kathleen Kingsbury: Should there be a term limit for members of Congress?
I would support a term for members of Congress. Yes.
Kathleen Kingsbury: How about an age limit for members of Congress?
I actually would support an age limit for every federal government employee.
Kathleen Kingsbury: So that’s a yes, basically.
Yes.
Kathleen Kingsbury: Should Joe Biden run for a second term?
Yes.
Kathleen Kingsbury: Alex?
Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask you about Ukraine. I know you support the war there. What I’d like to know is should there be an upper limit on the amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars that gets spent in that conflict? And how should we think about conditions that are attached to that money, if any?
I would not put a limit on it because this, to me, is purely a fight between a democracy and an authoritarian regime. And we cannot give up on a Democratic nation that is a bulwark against an authoritarian regime. That has to be the central part of our foreign policy. It has been for a long time. And I think that in this particular case, where Ukraine became a democracy on its own, we need to support them.
I think what we really need to do as well, which President Biden has done a really good job, is rally allies around the country to also pay into it, and to also help Ukraine so that the financial burden is not all on us.
Nick Fox: What do you think are specific measures on climate change that Democrats should be prioritizing right now?
Well, we talked about renewable energy. I strongly believe in incentives and subsidies to encourage private corporations to invest in renewable energy. I think our climate change issue is so significant that the government cannot solve it by itself. And so what the government should be doing is using its funding for incentivizing and subsidizing private corporations to also spend their own money. That’s one.
Two is I think we need a lot more funding for electrification of mass transit. I support congestion pricing in New York City, and I would hope that the money that’s derived from that will go to electrifying buses and other transportation. And then, here in New York City, resiliency is a huge issue and making sure that we don’t suffer from another superstorm Sandy.
Mara Gay: Yeah. I’m just going to shorten this question. Can you just name one further action that Congress can take to protect abortion rights?
I have several. Now, other than repealing the Hyde Amendment and codifying Roe — which I of course support, but I think it’s not going to happen tomorrow — I’ll list them quickly for you since I know we’re trying to move. One is to pass a law preventing prosecution or other prohibition for anyone receiving medication abortion across state lines. Two is expanding funding to veterans hospitals and military bases to provide medical care, such as for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies or even I.V.F., which some state doctors will be concerned about.
And three is to lease federal lands to medical providers or others that can provide services to women in the states where abortion is banned.
Mara Gay: Thank you.
Kathleen Kingsbury: I’m curious, given your experience as prosecutor, what you think Congress should be doing to address the increasing threat of domestic terrorism.
We need to make it very clear that domestic terrorism is terrorism. We need to redefine it as terrorism. And I know there are free speech issues on that, and I get and I understand both sides of it. But when the F.B.I. director says that domestic violent extremism is the No. 1 threat to our country, we have to take action.
The other thing that I would do is — that I think in some ways is even more important — the most commonly charged international terrorism charge is material support of a terrorist organization. If we were able to declare the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys or some of these domestic groups as domestic terrorist organizations and we prohibited material support to them, we’d avoid a lot of the free speech issues.
Mara Gay: Thank you. Quick pop quiz for you — how does Plan B work?
Plan B is a over-the-counter medication that you would take to sort of prevent —
Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you know how it medically works? How does it work in your body, in one’s body?
How does it work in one’s body? I don’t … I don’t know.
Mara Gay: It prevents ovulation.
OK.
Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?
No.
Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?
I have — no, only at riflery at camp [chuckles].
Mara Gay: OK. What is the average age of a member of Congress?
Oh, man. Congress or Senate?
Mara Gay: Congress.
I would say the average age of a member of Congress is … 52!
Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. What’s the average age of a senator?
I would say that is 68.
Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Please name a member of Congress, dead or alive, who you most admire and would emulate if elected to serve.
Well, it’s got to be Adam Schiff, who I worked hand-in-hand with and admire tremendously.
Mara Gay: Thank you. And finally, what is your favorite restaurant in the district?
Well, my favorite restaurant has morphed into my kids’ favorite restaurant, which is Bubby’s in TriBeCa. Somehow the mac and cheese with extra crusty topping is the dish that they need frequently.
Mara Gay: I like the biscuits.
The biscuits are amazing, too.
Kathleen Kingsbury: You’re a former prosecutor and have never held elected office. You live in Manhattan, but the majority of the voters in this district are in Brooklyn. Can you talk a little bit about why you think you’re the best person to represent the district, and what your path to victory is?
Sure. I have lived in the district for 16 years. I’m raising my five children in the district, a couple of whom have or still do go to school both in Brooklyn Heights and others in TriBeCa. So I’m very familiar with the entire district. I also worked in the district as a prosecutor in the Southern District, protecting the communities, supporting victims’ rights, and protecting and trying to make the community safe.
But ultimately, I’m running for Congress because I think I have a unique set of skills and experience that meet the moment that we’re in. And I think we’re in a really different moment than we’ve been in with these threats to democracy that, you know, even under the George W. Bush administration we would have never imagined. I long for the days when we get back to arguing about policy and we’re not actually arguing about what the facts are or whether we have a democracy.
But because I have been on the front lines leading the fight in Congress against Donald Trump and his Republican Party and trying to protect and defend our democracy and our institutions and our rule of law, I think that is a set of skills and experience right now that is really needed. In addition, I think my experience as an investigator in Congress is more uncommon than some other people’s experiences. And I think that both the New York delegation — which has some wonderful firebrands that are pushing that Overton window on policy — I think we in the New York delegation, but also around the country, could use someone who’s very experienced in the investigations and oversight role. And part of it is because I think we’re going to have to be creative and use investigations and oversight in order to get results.
Patrick Healy: I mean, building on that, given that background and that role, though, how would you approach the challenge that some voters may see you as kind of narrow, as essentially an investigator going after Trump yet again, or that you wouldn’t necessarily be seen as someone advocating for the policy needs or the community needs in the district? That you’d be kind of a committee person driving at another prosecution of Trump or dealing with the Biden issues?
Yeah. No, I understand the question. And I think part of the reason why I was framing it a little bit more broadly than Trump is because it wasn’t by accident that we proved the case against Trump. And we used different strategies, rather than going directly at them, to get the whistle-blower complaint and to get the July 25 transcript. We went around and had applied indirect pressure through other people in the administration.
And the reason I cite that is that those same kind of strategies apply to all of these policy prerogatives and priorities that we have. We need to use that same kind of creative strategy, not necessarily to go after Trump, but to get the Republicans to come to the table. And so it is an attribute that I can bring that I think will help move the conversation forward.
Another quick example — I want to investigate voter fraud. It doesn’t exist. And the Republicans have claimed to investigate it, but I want to expose the fact that it doesn’t exist with hearings. Because all of these state laws are based on the fiction that voter fraud exists. So I think it’s not just that I have a narrow view of investigations as to Trump. I actually want to expand the purpose of investigations and oversight into policy areas that we want to push forward.
And I will say I have been, I’ve been a public servant my whole life. I have been committed to social justice, to criminal justice reform. I worked with Michelle Alexander on her book “The New Jim Crow.” That long precedes my role as a prosecutor or my role in impeachment. These are issues that I feel very passionate about. And I am really eager to represent the district and to push them forward and get results.
Nick Fox: You haven’t used your wealth to your advantage in your campaign yet. But you’ve used the wealth of other people, particularly from real estate executives, including Steve Ross, a major Trump donor. These are the type of donors who’ve had an outsized influence in New York politics, often to the detriment of New York tenants. Is there no problem with taking that much money from real estate interests?
I think there would only be a problem if for some reason I catered to anyone’s special interests. I think that is anathema to me. I will not do that. And I have had conversations with real estate developers where I have told them that I support real estate development but I think that developers themselves need to give back a lot more to the community.
I’ll give you an example — 5 World Trade Center. I have come out very strongly in favor of it being 100 percent affordable housing, and not because the city should pay $500 million or $900 million to subsidize it. But the real estate company should be paying their fair share for the affordable housing, that some of this money should come off of all of the profits that they made from the entire World Trade Center. We can’t just look at it as one building. It’s an entire development.
And that is one of the ways that I want to increase affordable housing — provide encouragement and incentives for developers to make enough money, but also require them to give a lot back. So I can assure you — look, the campaign finance system needs dramatic overhaul. We need public financing. I fully support that.
Even in this race, we’ve got someone coming from another district with a war chest running here. We’ve got someone in the City Council who’s taking money from lobbyists and special interests before the city. The whole thing needs to just be revamped, and we need public financing. But I can assure you that a $2,900 or a $5,800 donation from any one individual is not going to influence anything that I do.
Eleanor Randolph: We are sort of up against our time limit. But you told a local news outlet that you would not object to a state law banning abortion after the point of fetal viability, and in cases where there was no threat to the life of the woman and the fetus is viable. You later said that you misspoke and that you do not support restrictions on abortion. Which is it? And could you clarify your personal views and how you feel you would vote on some of these issues if you were a member of Congress?
Absolutely. Thank you for asking the question. I’d love to clarify. I was in an interview where I was getting a series of lengthy hypothetical questions. And, frankly, the lawyer in me felt like I was back in law school with the Socratic method, and I started focusing in my mind on the legal standard that was outlined in Roe and that has been adopted by New York State and their Reproductive Health Act, and is also the standard in the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress.
What I realized soon after I answered that question is, wait a minute, I don’t think that’s what he was actually asking me. I think he was asking a much more normative question on what my views are on abortion. And my views on choice and abortion is that it is unequivocally 100 percent a woman’s right to choose. And the decision should be made solely by a woman and her doctor, and the government should have no role in that medical room to make a determination.
Before we were talking about some of the different ways that I will fight to expand access to abortion. I listed three that I don’t need to repeat again. But I have been thinking about this intensively since Dobbs, and it is not enough just to say we’ve got to codify Roe, we have to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
That’s not going to happen until we elect a lot more Democrats to Congress. So that needs to be an objective. It is to try to figure out a strategy to get more Democrats elected and perhaps to use choice as a wedge in some of these races. But I’ve been thinking very seriously and aggressively about how the federal government can increase access to abortion. So not only will I fight for it, but I will be very thoughtful and creative about it as I already have been.
Mara Gay: Thanks. Really quickly — did you spend more than a few weeks outside of the district during the height of Covid in 2020?
Yeah.
Mara Gay: And if so, where?
I was in the Hamptons from — well, I got Covid on March 10, very early. We went to the Hamptons. And then we came back in August, and then we’re in the city the rest of the year.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
