-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Preet Bharara has been thinking about the justice system. He's had time since President Trump2 fired him as a U.S. attorney in Manhattan in 2017. Now Bharara has written a book about a justice system that is meant to protect the innocent even if some of the guilty get away.
PREET BHARARA: The system is the system. We could have a different system. We could have a Singaporean system. You know? We could have a system, in some other places, where you spit in the sidewalk, and there's no due process and you can be executed. That's not the system we have.
INSKEEP: It's a system he supports, even if the wealthy and powerful are especially likely to escape. Preet Bharara has written a book called "Doing Justice." In it, he barely mentions his experience with President Trump. Bharara has said elsewhere that the president placed inappropriate calls to him and then dismissed him. Instead of Trump, Bharara focuses on what he learned as the first Indian-American U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York with authority over many prominent cases. He describes famous convictions and also talks frankly3 of times when there were few convictions. No top-level Wall Street executives were prosecuted5 for the financial wrongdoing that triggered the Great Recession.
BHARARA: It's never a satisfactory answer to people who are rightly angry and prosecutors7 around the country who were victims of the financial crisis, too. But at the end of the day, career people didn't make a recommendation to bring a case against the head of a financial institution. Because there are all sorts of ways in which, you know, leaders of institutions and banks and other, you know, financial organizations immunize them self by relying on advice of counsel, by relying on accounts, who gave the blessing8 to do all these things. You have to prove what's in a person's mind.
INSKEEP: So wait a minute. A large-scale banker gets his institution involved in mortgage-backed securities, which we later discovered were incredibly risky9, far riskier10 than people seemed to realize, and also almost impossible to unwind, almost impossible to get out of. Total disaster. What were some of the ways that an executive or a financier in that position would have evaded11 some kind of prosecution12 for that?
BHARARA: Well, a number of ways. First of all, the person at the top - and we see this with organized crime families and we see these with other kinds of, you know, organizations, as well. The person at the top often has plausible13 deniability. Says, you know, I didn't tell you to defraud14 anybody. There were also many occasions on which a financial institution would ask for the legal advice or accounting15 advice of a third party and they would say, hey, will you bless this? And in some cases, you know, maybe it was sketchy16 to bless something. But...
INSKEEP: I asked the advice of a lawyer. I asked the advice of an accountant.
BHARARA: And they don't work for me. Yeah, I pay them a fee, but it has been recognized throughout our system that if some independent third party says, yeah, we're the experts, we're the professionals, you can do this thing, you can make this disclosure and it's sufficient, you're never going to get a jury. Unless they're violating their oath as jurors, you're never going to get a jury to believe that the first person that relied on the advice had the intent to commit a crime.
And that's true, by the way, for ordinary people who may have tax returns that they file and they say they relied on their accountant. Now, some people who say they were relying on their accountant commit fraud and take deductions17 that they shouldn't. And, you know, I used to give this example all the time. It's very hard to separate the ones who are in cahoots with their lawyers and not.
INSKEEP: Were you, as a prosecutor6, ever politically interfered18 with?
BHARARA: I was not. If I had been, I would have left the job earlier.
INSKEEP: Did you just describe an almost unique feature of the American system of justice?
BHARARA: Well, I don't (laughter) know if it's going to be forever unique in that way. We have this evidence now of President Trump making calls along these lines. And you get a lot of - I got a lot of criticism. Sometimes for being too soft, sometimes for being too harsh. I'm banned from Russia by Vladimir Putin because we successfully prosecuted an international arms dealer19 named Viktor Bout1. I was personally attacked by President Erdogan of Turkey because we prosecuted somebody that, you know, he had connections to in an indirect way.
INSKEEP: I'm glad you mentioned Turkey's president. What happened in a different country, in a different system, when there was a prosecution of someone named Reza Zarrab, and it became a matter of political interest?
BHARARA: So Reza Zarrab was a gold trader, Iranian but also from Turkey, who was being prosecuted along with other folks in Turkey for various, you know, elements of misconduct. And those cases were made to go away because he was politically connected to two people who were close to Erdogan.
INSKEEP: What did President Erdogan of Turkey do to make that case go away?
BHARARA: Well, he exercised his power in a country that doesn't have the same constitutional protections that America has. He relieved judges of their duty. He removed prosecutors from office. He shut down media outlets20. And the case went away. Literally21, the case was made to go away. Now, that is not something we've seen in this country and hopefully we'll never see in this country. And it's harder to accomplish in this country.
And then Reza Zarrab made the mistake of showing up at Disney World one day, and a young prosecutor from my office spearheaded a case that was an indictment22 under seal, Michael Lockard, against Reza Zarrab for sanctions evasion23. So Zarrab shows up in Florida. He's under arrest. It becomes an overnight sensation in Turkey because, you know, much of secular24 Turkey saw this as an example of American justice that can survive and work and prevail, even when Turkish justice would not.
INSKEEP: You note when Turkey failed to prosecute4 this man and then your office did prosecute this man that you became a kind of social media hero in Turkey. You got a huge following. Apparently25...
BHARARA: Yeah. Completely undeserved. As I said, other people had done the work. But I became a symbol. And I say, look, the prosecutors are not saviors. They can't solve everything. It takes an involvement from a lot of other people. It just happens to be the case that it's very easy to put, you know, their hopes and hatreds26 both, sometimes, in the figure of a prosecutor.
INSKEEP: Are people putting too much faith in Robert Mueller?
BHARARA: People should have a lot of faith in Robert Mueller. I have a ton of faith in Robert Mueller. I think, you know, he is not a deity27 and he should not be put on a pedestal, but there's no one I can think of in the country who could have done this job as honorably as he's doing. And even he has been attacked and dragged through the mud and false accusations28 made about him. What I'm saying is he's just a lawman acting29 by the book trying to do what he thinks is correct with a band of really, really smart, I think, honorable people around him.
But if people think that America will be healed, or America will be better or these dangers to democracy will be fixed30 if Bob Mueller recites, chapter and verse, a lot of misconduct on the part of the president then they're mistaken. 'Cause even if he does that, it goes to the Congress, and Congress has been fairly supine.
INSKEEP: Given your experience, should we be prepared for the possibility that even though Mueller has clearly found lots of criminal activity around the president, he may find no criminal activity by the president himself that he feels he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
BHARARA: Yes. We should be prepared for that. And we should also be - I'll say it. I've said it before. I'll say it again. And if that is the conclusion of Robert Mueller, I will say, so be it.
INSKEEP: Preet Bharara is the author of "Doing Justice." Thanks so much.
BHARARA: Thank you, Steve.
1 bout | |
n.侵袭,发作;一次(阵,回);拳击等比赛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 prosecute | |
vt.告发;进行;vi.告发,起诉,作检察官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 prosecuted | |
a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 prosecutor | |
n.起诉人;检察官,公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 prosecutors | |
检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 ); 告发人; 起诉人; 公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 blessing | |
n.祈神赐福;祷告;祝福,祝愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 risky | |
adj.有风险的,冒险的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 riskier | |
冒险的,危险的( risky的比较级 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 evaded | |
逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 prosecution | |
n.起诉,告发,检举,执行,经营 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 plausible | |
adj.似真实的,似乎有理的,似乎可信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 defraud | |
vt.欺骗,欺诈 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 accounting | |
n.会计,会计学,借贷对照表 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 sketchy | |
adj.写生的,写生风格的,概略的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 deductions | |
扣除( deduction的名词复数 ); 结论; 扣除的量; 推演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 interfered | |
v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 );调停;妨碍;干涉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 dealer | |
n.商人,贩子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 outlets | |
n.出口( outlet的名词复数 );经销店;插座;廉价经销店 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 indictment | |
n.起诉;诉状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 evasion | |
n.逃避,偷漏(税) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 secular | |
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 hatreds | |
n.仇恨,憎恶( hatred的名词复数 );厌恶的事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 deity | |
n.神,神性;被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 accusations | |
n.指责( accusation的名词复数 );指控;控告;(被告发、控告的)罪名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|