Speaker 1: 0:01

Welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast, where stories about the power of focus and resilience are revealed by the people who live those stories and now the host of the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast, jack Hopkins.

Speaker 2: 0:20

Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast. I'm your host, Jack Hopkins. Today, I am speaking with Westchester County District Attorney Miriam Mimi Rocha. Guided by the principles of safety, accountability, integrity and justice, DA Rocha leads an office with more than 120 assistant district attorneys, 34 investigators and about 90 support personnel. As a daughter of victims of violent crimes, Mimi, who was a successful federal prosecutor for over 16 years, is dedicated to fighting gun violence and extremism, while investing in crime prevention and mental health programs. She served as Assistant US Attorney for the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2017 in the Southern District of New York, where she oversaw the prosecution of organized crime, gun traffickers, corrupt public officials, narcotics dealers, sex traffickers and child predators. She is the recipient of the 2016 Women in Federal Law Enforcement Leadership Award Under President Obama. She was promoted in 2012 by US Attorney Preet Bharara to Chief of the DOJ's Westchester Division. In that position, she served as primary liaison with law enforcement agencies and other prosecutorial offices, including the Westchester County District Attorney's Office. She was elected Westchester County District Attorney in 2020, in November of 2020. Before running for office, she was Pace University School of Law's Distinguished Fellow in Criminal Justice and a legal analyst for MSNBC and NBC News. She is a graduate of Harvard University and New York University School of Law a graduate of Harvard University and New York University School of Law.

Speaker 2: 2:29

Look, I know you are going to enjoy this episode as much as I did. Mimi has a story about her father that she'll share right in the beginning. That is very captivating and compelling and is the perfect lead-in to the rest of the episode. So let's get right into this episode with Westchester County District Attorney Miriam Mimi Rocha. Mimi, I am so pleased that you decided to join me when I extended the invite, because I knew some things about you in the past as it relates to our elections, more specifically, Donald Trump, and as I dug further, I found out that there's a family history that's probably very important to you when it comes to democracy and freedom, and I thought I have to ask her. I just have to invite her. She may say no, and that's okay. At least I'll know I tried. So thank you so much. Let's start with your father. I guess, if we go in chronological order, your father so let's start with him.

Speaker 2: 3:57

He's got a rather compelling story.

Speaker 3: 4:15

He does, and thank you for having me. I know, you know you, you talk about a lot of really important, interesting topics, so I'm happy to be here and his story does play a huge role, and always has, and probably even more so as I get older. I reflect on it even more as we're, as we mature, you know, and look back and wish, wish as a teenager I had maybe asked more questions and listened more to his family history, but I did enough to know that he was born in, and the geography gets very confusing here because, as you know, you know, romania, russia, basarabia, ukraine all of these countries have been called different things and and parts of different governments over the years. But he was born in 1929, I believe, in an area that's now, I think, called Moldavia, called Moldavia, and he, you know, so he at various times identifies as Russian, as Romanian, but certainly Eastern Europe, which his father actually. First. The first sort of narrow escape, like part of how I think about my life, is I can't believe I'm actually here because really my father should not and his family should not, frankly, have survived. I mean, it's a miracle that they did, but it isn't through a miracle, it's through kind of intuition and ingenuity and hard work. And so his father, my grandfather, first escaped from the Russian during the Russian Revolution in 1917, when Russian soldiers came knocking on his door looking for him after the revolution because he was considered part of the, you know, enemy of the revolution I don't even know exactly why, it doesn't really matter and they asked for him by name at his home and he answered the door and he said, oh no, gregory Roga, he's not here right now, and you know. So they said OK, we'll come back later. And so he immediately escaped, whatever part of Russia he was in at the time, I mean literally just got out of there. So that was sort of the first you know how did that happen? Kind of story.

Speaker 3: 6:56

And then he, you know, had a family and raised my dad in a part of Romania that in 1939, it became clear that the Nazis were, that the Romanian government was aligning itself with the Nazis, a Nazi-friendly government, and, according to my dad, that you could already see Nazi soldiers on the street and they knew that it was time to get out. And I don't know if it was exactly 1939 or 1940. I don't know the exact date, but literally kind of in the nick of time, got out of that area by bribing Romanian officials, because that was the only way for someone who was Jewish to get out. I guess I should have left that part out. That to me seemed obvious. But my family is Jewish and, you know, they obviously were like, like all Jews in Eastern Europe at the time, were in real danger. And so they somehow, you know, got visas. The visas were then revoked and then they had to bribe more people to, you know, get the visas reinstated.

Speaker 3: 8:09

They somehow got on a boat to Turkey and then a train from Turkey through Syria and then some kind of car or transport from Syria to what is now called Israel, what was then Palestine, and that is where they were able to, you know, essentially be safe for some period of time and escape what the rest of our large other parts of our family you know were killed in the Holocaust.

Speaker 3: 8:50

I think a couple who stayed did survive, but very few. So that in and of itself is, you know, just an incredible story. And then my dad ended up coming to the United States with his parents and studying architecture and, you know, meeting my mom and that's how I'm here. But it's just an incredible story, both in terms of survival but also, you know, the time period. My dad used to say that he felt like he had sort of lived through several different generations not even more than he actually did because he was born in a small town with cobblestone streets in Eastern Europe which was the equivalent of, you know, being born in 1800s or, you know, earlier 1900s here in the United States. So he really had an incredible view of the world and life.

Speaker 2: 9:55

That's one reason I always kind of chuckle when somebody refers to a building here in the US as well. That's an old building, right, right? No, no, relatively speaking all of our buildings are fairly recent Exactly.

Speaker 2: 10:10

I want to really tell you how much I appreciate one thing. You kind of backed up on and recategorized. You said it was kind of a miracle that they survived. And then you took a step back and you said, actually it wasn of a miracle that they survived. And then you took a step back and you said, actually it wasn't a miracle. You said it was a combination of intuition. And basically what you said is look, there were choice points along the way of that process and had they not have been willing to make certain choices or decided not to?

Speaker 2: 10:48

So I think so oftentimes and this is why I'm wanting to highlight this I think so oftentimes, just as a matter of speaking, people will say you know, it was a miracle that they did whatever.

Speaker 2: 11:02

And to the listener that can run the risk of making it look like you just had to be one of the selected few and there's nothing that you could have done about it.

Speaker 2: 11:15

And certainly there are boundless examples of people who we could look at their story and say I don't know what they could have done, but when there were choices that somebody has made that contributed to the outcome that they achieved, I always like to point that out, because we need that feeling right now in our country. We need to feel like we can make decisions that can influence and impact our future, not only our personal future, but the future of the country and the world at large. Myself in your shoes and and think about the number of times throughout your life where you have paused or just kind of had a thought, hit you like you know, wow, what it took for me to be able to be here for for this life that I'm living to, to be able to, to be lived, and and look at all of those choice points where things could have gone horribly wrong, and then you know there's no me, me.

Speaker 3: 12:29

Yeah, no, absolutely, I really do. And, as I said, as I get older, obviously I appreciate and think about it more and more and try to pass that on, you know, to my kids, who are teenagers, so also probably not listening like I didn't.

Speaker 3: 12:48

But, yeah, no, you know, and look, that's not to say I mean, obviously I know you weren't saying this there are so many people who perished in my dad's situation, who didn't have a choice and didn't ever have the opportunity, and you know, but, but so some of it is just luck, that of what is presented to you, but but the courage for people to take those opportunities, it's, it's a very scary thing to do.

Speaker 3: 13:18

I mean, I think about that.

Speaker 3: 13:20

I remember during the Trump administration, when there was, you know, all these families being separated at the border, and you know, there's still obviously a lot of talk about on his part and and and certain other elected officials and candidates, about, you know, the people who choose to come to America from other countries, and I remember thinking, you know, that I feel like a lot of it discounts how hard it is for people to leave their home, and there really must be something driving them away. Yes, it may also be the lure of our country and all the amazing things it has to offer, but it's such a painfully hard thing to leave the place where you've, you know, had your family and grown up, that you know again, like my dad and his family were driven out and you know, so I think about that in today's world a lot, in terms of people who end up, you know, trying to come to the United States and what must be driving them out as well, that we don't even necessarily know about and doesn't get talked about a lot.

Speaker 2: 14:45

Right, I wonder. You said your father came to the United States and study architecture and clearly did something with his life. I'm sure there was a lot of a sense of gratitude for just having survived and he wanted to make sure that he didn't waste that opportunity. How much of a role did his story and, whether you realized it or not, do you think his journey played in you choosing the path that you took?

Speaker 3: 15:26

Yeah, I think I think it definitely played a role in the sense that my dad definitely talked a lot about sort of the fear of extremism, any kind of extremism. I'm not talking about a right or a left, but just he would often talk about, you know, sort of we need too much of. Anything is bad, and I think that was something that he took from you know, literally the fear of the Nazi extremist movement, but then he applied it more broadly. It was, you know, this idea that we have to. You know, sort of he wanted everyone to sort of live down the middle if possible and live by these rules and laws, and he was like eternally so grateful. He called himself the luckiest man in the world.

Speaker 3: 16:20

I mean, he did, you know, I think he knew it wasn't just luck, but he would say that often he had this perpetually optimistic outlook at the world. And so this idea that you know we need to rely on our government, we need to rely on our rules and our laws in positive ways, and how dangerously those can be turned quickly into dangerous tools as opposed to something for the positive good, and so that is definitely something that you know I. I mean it's part of why I went to work for the Department of Justice and stayed for so long. And you know, do not by any means think the Department of Justice is perfect, by any means it's flawed, like any institution but that overall it is a place where people try to use the law to help people and and in my view, and in my experience, and to do to do good.

Speaker 2: 17:24

So that was a big part of that I've had some attorneys on the podcast and I don't think I've asked this question before, but I've always wanted to. It's something I always wanted to, I guess, inquire about, I should say Trump as a lawyer, as a Harvard graduate, as clearly an intelligent person had you ever imagined or maybe that's not a good way to frame this. Did your knowledge of the law inform you that, yeah, if somebody like Donald Trump ever came along who was willing to push against every norm in this country, there are enough cracks in the armor that they could really run amok. Was that a thought you had ever had, but that you just knew that? But nobody will ever do that?

Speaker 3: 18:44

Yeah, I mean, I think I hadn't thought about it, because no one imagined there would be someone who would try to do it in this way, because political differences are one thing and policy differences are another thing. But you know, this is why, to go back a little bit when I left the Department of Justice, when I left the US Attorney's Office in 2017, you know, I was teaching at a law school and I ended up going on TV and becoming a legal commentator, and that wasn't something I planned to do. On TV and becoming a legal commentator, and that wasn't something I planned to do. It literally was because I remember seeing Trump on TV, on the news early on. This was like 2017, sometime going off.

Speaker 3: 19:30

You know, being extremely critical of the FBI and you know, in a way that you know, just slandering the entire FBI. Right, it's, it's. I mean I don't need to repeat because I'm sure your listeners are familiar with the things he would say as well as DOJ but I think at the at the time, it was a little more focused on the FBI and I was thinking I can't believe I'm hearing the president of the United States. I mean, this is, this was still kind of new and it was. It was so shocking to see and hear the person who, technically, is at the head of the DOJ institution that is part of his government and that he should want people to have faith in, because they're the people that go out and enforce the laws that he too is supposed to want to uphold. And I know this all now sounds really naive, but I think that's in part because of what you're saying. It was so out of the realm of possibility that someone in a high position in government, let alone the president, would attack his own institutions that are supposed to uphold the rule of law early on. In my opinion, he was doing that for his own personal benefit, to degrade institutions that could hold him accountable, and I think that clearly played out over the years.

Speaker 3: 21:03

But that was sort of. It wasn't just that he was criticizing. He was criticizing them not because of the work they were doing day to day, but because of how he felt it might or was affecting him. And that and I think that's why you saw so many former federal prosecutors, fbi agents, intelligence officials all of a sudden, you know, start going on TV and talking about it, because we all just couldn't believe and realized what a threat.

Speaker 3: 21:35

This was how much it could impact, not just what was going on with him and politics still is the less frankly safe. I think we all are Because, again, I'm not saying anyone the FBI is not perfect, the DOJ is not perfect, but it is full of people who I think are trying to, and I see it, I saw it every day, I still see it in my current role as people who are solving murders and homicides and gang cases and drug cases and sex trafficking cases and child pornography cases and espionage cases and terrorism cases and things that people care about. And so you know to to for him that his goal was to erode the faith in the institutions period at all costs and that that was just unimaginable as far as I I at least for me before then, before seeing it, uh, in real time.

Speaker 2: 22:53

Do you remember a specific point or time period where you had your own personal oh shit moment where you realized this was a runaway train?

Speaker 3: 23:18

And obviously very much did not want him to win and was nervous about it, though I don't think I understood it. It was really when I saw that start happening and I almost can kind of remember he was standing outside, you know Air Force One with the yelling, you know reporters with one of those kind of Q&As and just going talking about the FBI in ways that and again, not about even about a particular investigation of him which in and of itself would have been inappropriate for him to comment on, et cetera. But it was more, you know. You know the deep state FBI corrupt. You know horrible. It was this degradation of the whole institution.

Speaker 3: 23:59

And that's when I started, you know, really writing articles about, you know sort of the threat to the rule of law that I thought he posed, and with others and speaking out. And then I remember and this is later there was some reporting about Trump having interfered or tried to interfere in the Southern District of New York's investigation of Michael Cohen and how that might have led to Trump, et cetera. And um, oh my God, I'm forgetting his name the attorney general, uh, that the acting attorney general, uh, matthew Whitaker, was that his name? Yes, I remember.

Speaker 2: 24:46

Yeah, I think that was the same guy.

Speaker 3: 24:49

Yes, yeah, Um, and and how he had said something to him about like someone needs to. You know I might be mixing up sort of different conversations, but it was. It was trying to use him and then later Barr and saying someone needs to get these, this prosecutor's office, under control. We need adults in the room. And he was basically saying, like why are you letting them actually, you know, do their jobs, which obviously he didn't view that way, but that's what they were doing.

Speaker 3: 25:18

And I remember writing an article with someone Matthew Miller, called like you know, the greatest threat so far to and this was back in like 2018, the greatest threat to the, to the rule of law. And now that kind of thing looks like, you know, like child's play compared to the things that that he's talking about doing with the Department of Justice and other institutions, if he has a second term, and that, frankly, the Supreme Court has now said are OK for him to do because, or at least that he's immune from criminal prosecution for them, because they would be considered official acts by the Supreme Court under their new ruling.

Speaker 2: 26:04

Would Donald Trump have been able to have made it this far through his refusal to just go by established norms and to throw as much money at his legal defense as he needs to without some questionable judges? If we had and I'm not sure, as an attorney, how you would define a questionable judge or not I'm sure it's different than mine. So if you want to talk to that first, that's fine.

Speaker 3: 26:45

Yeah, I mean, look, I definitely sort of recoil at and try not to go down from those categorizations because I think, first of all, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy if we start labeling everyone that way, I mean, and second of all, more more importantly though you know, I just don't think it's not accurate all the time. I mean, sure, maybe if you go by the numbers you can, you know, and I think it's increased over time use of the fact that he was able to appoint judges who seem to be more ideologically aligned with him. But I know some, I personally know some people who were appointed and confirmed as judges under him and who I think are very good people and will be very good judges. So I do try to stay away from those categorizations.

Speaker 3: 28:10

That said, there's no question that you know, first of all, he appointed a large number of young judges who, across the courts not just the Supreme Court but across all the federal courts and that courts and that you know he has personally benefited from some of the rulings by some of those judges that seem very questionable, especially, obviously I'm thinking about the case in Florida, where the rulings in particular seem quite inconsistent with what I understand the law to be and you know he's benefited from that.

Speaker 3: 28:55

Is that because she's a Trump supporter, judge Cannon? Is that because she doesn't understand the law? I don't know the answer to that and I wouldn't actually, as a lawyer, presume to figure that out, but there's no question that the end result is that he has benefited so far greatly from that, as he has from a Supreme Court ruling that I consider shocking on immunity and that I thought was extremely result-oriented. It seemed like they knew where they wanted to get and then they got there, regardless of what the history and precedent under the law was. So I think that's the best way I can answer that.

Speaker 2: 29:37

No, I understand your approach to that answer. Let me ask you was your father well enough in his last years of life to know that Donaldald trump was it was doing what he was doing? And if so, yeah, did he voice?

Speaker 3: 29:57

yes, he, uh, he did not like donald trump, um, and and in part, you know, I think, um, I mean he wasn't around for what you know as it became even more extreme, but I think he saw that extremist, very kind of ideologically based governing that you know that I, understandably, a lot of people, including my dad, saw as very potentially dangerous and not a respect for the rule of law.

Speaker 2: 30:35

So, yeah, an everyday citizen and as an attorney about this last 10 weeks of this election cycle, as we go into the election, what are your biggest concerns?

Speaker 3: 31:03

I mean, look, I am, you know, on a personal level, you know on a personal level extremely scared if Trump becomes president again, for all the reasons that I think so many other people are. And obviously, you know, I worry, I take the threats and the statements that he's made about firing the civil service and using the Department of Justice to get revenge on political and personal enemies and to protect friends and, you know, using the military. I mean, I'm not even talking about a whole host of other things, about abortion, like policy issues. I'm talking about the sort of turning the government into a authoritarian form of government. That, I think, is what scares me the most, and that's as an American citizen, that's as a woman, that's as a Jewish person.

Speaker 3: 32:07

You know the, I mean, I I don't think it's good for anyone, but all of those things, um, you know, I think it's, it's um, a lot of us feel particularly vulnerable, but I think everyone should, because I think that, at the end of the day, someone who wants to use the government in and off their turn it into an authoritarian form of government, which I think is really what he wants to do. I think he always wanted to, but now feels more empowered to, is more emboldened. He has more laws at his disposal yes, more judges, more enablers and would have more power if it were. You know, just because it would be a second term, I think that the guardrails would be off and he would be more able to do that. I hope that some of the other checks and balances would really still work, but that is what terrifies me. I'm not even focusing on specific policies, though there's plenty of reason to do that but more this what form of government would we have of someone such as yourself?

Speaker 2: 33:28

From my perspective, thinking about you, I can think of six to ten million reasons why someone who's Jewish would be concerned about this president. Now, when I say some people cringe. When I say that unfortunately we live in a world where Holocaust deniers exist, which is such a mind-boggling concept for me to even get my head around. I think you know it's interesting. A lot of people have made the assumption, or made the leap, that I'm Jewish, because I've been very outspoken on behalf of of jewish people. There was, there was just something about when, before I even knew what a Democrat and a Republican you know, those terms didn't even exist in my mind yet. But he was just talking about history and it was so hard for me to imagine such a thing occurring. But then I think probably an even greater shock to me was, as an adult, to discover that there were people in in the existence of this massive historical, documented series of events who said it didn't happen.

Speaker 2: 35:05

And for me that explained when people say well, how can somebody that's educated become a MAGA follower? It's the same thing. It's the suspension of that critical thinking, combined with a number of other things, but I think if we've learned one thing and I'm sure you know several who fit this, there are intelligent people out there, educated people we like to think of everybody who's education and an average or above average IQ could fall victim to this. But I know plenty. I'm sure we all do. I know you've got to go in just a minute, so, in closing, what can you say if you just have a moment to say look, here's, in addition to everything else, here's something we need to be thinking about, not only in the lead up to the election and the election itself, but in the post-election period, which we have no idea how long that period may last. Could be days, weeks, months.

Speaker 3: 36:32

That's a fair point. Yeah, we should not assume this will be over on November 6th. You know I'm trying to think of some great final words of wisdom. I mean, one thing I was thinking about as you were talking about the Holocaust denial is you know, we've now experienced in the past year denial about a lot of denialism from all different groups about what happened on October 7th in Israel. I mean, I have been personally involved in trying to write, particularly about the sexual violence that happened on that day, which I still see every day, um, people trying to deny and saying it didn't happen. And that's not a, like you know, taking away from the plight of people in Gaza and what they're suffering. It's just trying to get people to acknowledge what did happen and frankly, it's still happening with hostages, um, today, but um so but?

Speaker 3: 37:28

So I think, in general, there's this kind of tendency towards not wanting people, not wanting to acknowledge facts that are not convenient to their philosophy, outlook, approach, goals, to whatever it is that is driving them, and so we don't even look at facts anymore. We, you know and I say we very loosely, because I don't, I mean, I certainly think that that is a characteristic of Trump and the MAGA party is this ability to just deny what we can all see with our own eyes. But I don't think it's only them and I think we just, you know, you know, need to all try to at least start to come back to a place where we can agree on facts and then be as critical of those facts and policies and things that led to those facts as possible. But denying things that I, at least I feel I can see with my own eyes, and people trying to tell me doesn't, isn't, there, is, is really one of the hardest things about all of this. That just kind of drives me crazy.

Speaker 3: 38:43

I'm a lawyer, I'm a prosecutor, you know I build cases on facts. So and I and I in my professional life have very much been able to separate facts and analysis of facts from my own personal beliefs, like that. That is true in most prosecutors jobs, and you know that we're required to do that and I think I'm able to, and I don't quite understand why people can't do that even a little bit in their own daily life. So that would be sort of my overall, like you know. Just I hope and that will become relevant, you know, when we have an election and we have votes and there's going to be someone who wins and there's going to be someone who loses.

Speaker 3: 39:27

That's what happens in elections and while there may be legitimate legal issues to for either side to litigate in court and that happens after elections there also may not, or those may get ruled on. Think that the Democrats would be ones to to, to not accept reality, but it's just a general principle that we need to sort of. You know, come back to and that would be helpful in a immediate post-election world. If I don't know that Trump ever will, but the people who vote for him, I hope will, whatever that result is, and vice versa.

Speaker 2: 40:12

I'm so glad you said that, because that's something I've not heard anyone else say and you've highlighted it as such an important point. You framed that in such a way that it allowed for the possibility that, yes, this could also apply to Democrats, and I think you are right. I mean, I guess we've had reason to think lopsided, but yet we've gotten pulled so far away in that that we've stopped thinking we have anything we need to focus on or to not get pulled too too far in the opposite direction. So that's a Right.

Speaker 3: 40:58

And that doesn't mean accepting it like be happy about it. And that doesn't mean, don't question. If there's legitimate reasons to question the legitimacy, I mean by any means, and you know I mean I will be one of the least happy people. But I guess you know, if it's a legitimate election and you know, then yes, there are going to be people who are not going to want to accept that all around, and that's. There are going to be a lot of threats to our democracy and that will be one of them, as well.

Speaker 2: 41:26

I have a great deal of admiration for people such as yourself in the legal profession who are able to be so right down the middle. I mean because we've seen so many examples of that, unfortunately in the Trump era, where that was not the case. So, Mimi, I want to thank you for being just such a good person period, but such a dedicated and principle-based attorney and educator. Thank you for talking to us about your dad. I'd love to have you back on sometime, maybe as we get closer to the election, and it's been a pleasure.

Speaker 3: 42:05

Thank you, jack. It's been great talking to you too.

Speaker 2: 42:08

Bye-bye.