Q&A With Dan Goldman: NY-10 Democratic Candidate Is Running To Save Democracy

NEW YORK ― If you tuned into the live television coverage of the first impeachment of President Donald Trump in 2019, you might remember Dan Goldman, who served as the House Democrats’ chief prosecutor of the case against Trump.

Now Goldman, a former federal prosecutor, short-lived candidate for attorney general of New York and MSNBC legal expert, is hoping to return to Washington as a member of Congress.

He is one of 13 Democrats competing in the Aug. 23 primary for New York’s newly drawn 10th Congressional District, a liberal seat that encompasses lower Manhattan and a cluster of neighborhoods in downtown and central Brooklyn.

HuffPost is running an interview series with the 10th District candidates. Check out our previous interviews with Carlina Rivera, Bill de Blasio, Yuh-Line Niou, Mondaire Jones and Jo Anne Simon.

As one might expect from someone with his résumé, Goldman, who sees himself as both progressive and “business friendly,” is running as the best candidate to defeat Trump and stave off the United States’ slide into authoritarianism.

With less name recognition or legislative experience than several rivals, Goldman, a New York Knicks fan who lives in Tribeca with his wife and five children, has a difficult road ahead. He managed to raise more than $1.2 million in his first month in the race, however. And as an heir of the Levi Strauss & Co. clothing fortune, he also has the capacity to self-fund.

HuffPost sat down with Goldman over coffee in Manhattan to ask why voters should still care about Trump, what kinds of tools Democrats have to protect abortion rights and why he wants President Joe Biden to be more “aggressive.”

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

You have never served in public office. Why are you qualified to serve in Congress? Why shouldn’t a voter pick someone who has served in elected office before?

I’m uniquely qualified because I’m the only candidate in this race who has actually stood up to Donald Trump and the Republican Party. And I’m the only candidate who has been effective at doing that.

Even the Republican senators who voted to acquit Donald Trump conceded that we proved our case, which was my job at the time.

We are facing existential threats like we’ve never faced before because of threats to our basic democratic processes as well as our fundamental rights. And what we need right now is someone with the skills and experience to stand up to the Republicans, to stand up to Donald Trump, to be creative in figuring out solutions to so many of these threats ― and to defending and protecting our democracy at large. I’m the only one in this field who’s actually had experience defending and protecting our democracy.

There is a good chance though that you would be entering a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans, which would seemingly limit your ability to shepherd ambitious legislation. How do you square the fact that your experience was under a Democratic House, and how would you propose trying to achieve and advance these goals under Republican rule?

Well, I am very optimistic that the Democrats will maintain the majority.

But if the Republicans do take over the majority and the Democrats are in the minority, I think my experience in investigating Donald Trump and the Republicans, in conducting a congressional investigation of the highest stakes, will in some ways be even more important to fend off what will almost certainly be a bogus impeachment effort by the Republicans of Joe Biden. My experience in actually leading such an investigation will be even more valuable.

I also have found that members of Congress walk and chew gum at the same time. You can be aggressive and attack some members’ positions on one issue, and then you can sit down and hash out a bipartisan agreement on another issue.

Speaking of bipartisan compromise, would you have voted for the recent gun legislation?

I would have voted for the recent gun legislation because I’m a believer that we cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good. And it is progress. It is by no means enough progress.

I will be a very active and engaged Congress person in fighting for more gun control. I have called for, as a creative way of tackling this problem, an investigation into the gun manufacturers and gun dealers to uncover what they know about the impact and effect of their marketing and advertising, especially among people who are the most common culprits of these horrific mass shootings around the country.

This is the type of creativity that I think we need because we need to expose the gun manufacturers for what they are doing. They have control over the Republican Party, and so rather than go and beg for Republicans for better gun legislation, let’s go to the source of their power and see what they know and use transparency as the great disinfectant.

I assume that that is something you envision doing through the power of the bully pulpit but also through the investigative power available to you as an individual member. What sorts of committees do you envision being on?

Naturally, based on my professional experience, I’m inclined toward the Judiciary Committee, the [Government] Oversight [and Reform] Committee, and also the Intelligence Committee, where I was a staff member. Those are some of the most important committees where my experience of over 10 years in the Department of Justice, as well as conducting high-profile and significant direct congressional investigations, will be the most valuable.

I want to circle back to something you mentioned in the beginning in terms of your ability to challenge Donald Trump. Accepting your substantive premise that this individual and the movement that he represents pose a threat to democracy, it does seem as though this is no longer the powerful political appeal for the Democratic Party that it once was. In Virginia last year, Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, effectively ran against Trump, but Republican Glenn Youngkin was on the ballot, and Youngkin won because he was able to distinguish himself from Trump. Is Trump still a compelling issue for the Democratic Party, politically?

It’s a compelling issue because too many people don’t realize the extensive efforts that Donald Trump and the Republican Party that follows him are going to, to pave the way to steal the 2024 election. There are laws that Republican legislatures have passed around the country that would allow an elected official to overturn the vote in his or her state based on allegations of widespread fraud ― not proof, because there is no proof, but allegations.

So it is not only a significant issue, it is the most significant issue. Because without democracy, we can have no rights and we can have no policies that we want.

It is a five-alarm fire. For the reasons you stated, too many Democrats view it as a distant flame in the rearview mirror. And it’s not.

Part of what I’m trying to stress is: Raise that alarm to voters in this district and around the country that Donald Trump is not done. He is very, very active. He still has control of a party, and he still is trying to undermine and subvert our democracy.

What legal tools might either the executive branch or Democrats in Congress have to try to undermine the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade?

We have to attack this on multiple fronts. The first is through legislation. And we need to codify Roe. We need to get rid of the Hyde Amendment [blocking federal funds for abortion care]. And we need to push very aggressively to expose as many people who are anti-choice as possible, because if we are unable to get legislation passed, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the right to choose, and that will be an issue that is on the ballot box.

Secondarily, the executive branch needs to take more actions. And one thing that I feel strongly that we should pursue is figuring out a way to provide abortions to those who want them within the framework set by Roe and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] at VA hospitals, which is federal land, or other federal lands in states that prohibit it. Because there, federal law applies, not state law.

So you don’t buy the Biden administration’s argument that there are potential legal obstacles that would prevent this from being workable, such as exposing people who use these services to criminal prosecution in their home states?

Based on the Supremacy Clause, the federal laws trump state law. So they could not be subject to criminal prosecutions if they’re doing something in accordance with federal law. I do think there are legal hurdles to doing this that we need to significantly and aggressively investigate.

But this is the type of creative idea that I want to bring to Washington because there are different ways of doing things than what the same old playbook has done. And the days of having lunch with Republican members of Congress to hash out legislation are long gone. The Republican Party is not a good-faith partner in moving forward for the benefit of the majority of American people. So what we have to recognize is that we’re not going to plead to their inner moral values in order to push forward with legislation ― and that goes for the Supreme Court as well, which has traditionally followed public opinion.

You mentioned getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, but that wasn’t really going to happen even before Roe was over. Is there no room for a strategic retreat here?

Even the bill that Democrats passed in the House could not get the support of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in the Senate. But in part that’s because it went further than codifying Roe. So isn’t there some room here to try to go back to basics and get people to at least to go on the record about more modest, foundational abortion protections?

You’ve raised an important point, which applies not only to this issue but to very many issues. I don’t believe that the House of Representatives operates in its own vacuum. What we need to see are members of Congress and senators working much more closely together, because we need both to actually get something done.

It is not good enough to say, “We passed this in the House. It’s now up to the Senate and the president to get it done.” That’s not actually moving the ball down the field; that is taking an impractical and ineffective position that doesn’t accomplish at least part of what the goals are. And so in a situation like this, I think that the House and the Senate need to get together on the Democratic side at a minimum and work together to figure out legislation that can work for both houses.

All too often what we are seeing in the House right now is a desire to push through very aggressive and ideological laws that don’t have a chance of actually passing the Senate. As a member of Congress, I will work very closely with my Senate colleagues to ensure that we can actually get something done, not just create a nice talking point.

Specifically on the issue of abortion rights, would you support the idea of getting Republicans at least on record on more modest proposals, such as exceptions for rape and incest, or such as a codifying abortion rights in the first trimester? Abortion rights advocates have sometimes opposed putting those things to an up-or-down vote because they consider it a concession.

At the very least, I do believe it’s a useful tactic because I think you have to view this as a long-term war. This is a battle on a long continuum. And so in order to make progress, we have to make some incremental progress.

What we need are more pro-choice elected representatives. One way to get that is to expose the extremist views of those who are anti-choice ― even when it comes to making exceptions for rape or incest ― because that will be relevant at the ballot box. And so, as a result, we get more Democratic pro-choice representatives so that we can then push forward for the proposals, the policy views, the rights that we all believe in.

It will not happen in an all-or-nothing way. That is not the way that our government is structured. We’re not a parliamentary system. So we have to be strategic about how we’re going to get from Point A to Point Z, and we have to make sure that we are thinking two and three and four steps ahead, not just screaming from the rooftops and then getting angry when we don’t get our way.

How do you think President Biden is doing?

I am a little frustrated that President Biden has not been quicker to recognize that the Republicans are not good-faith partners. And I understand why: Joe Biden was a creature of a much more collegial Senate, where you could sit down with your Republican colleagues and you could hammer out some legislation.

But that is no longer the case. And I hope that the president pivots to recognizing that that isn’t the case and that we need to use much more aggressive tactics.

All that being said, I think the accomplishments of the Biden administration are really, really outstanding. Broadly speaking, unemployment has dropped more than ever before. The infrastructure bill is very, very important and will fund much-needed infrastructure both in terms of roads and bridges and tunnels but also broadband to modernize our economy.

The American Rescue Plan also got a lot of really important policy proposals done. So he has accomplished a lot.

People are understandably very concerned about inflation, very concerned about gas prices, because that really, really hits the average American.

Any ideas about how to address inflation?

I do support a gas tax holiday. I know it is somewhat frowned upon by economists, but we need to do everything that we can to give some relief to Americans who are struggling to make ends meet now that the prices have gone up.

I wish the [Federal Reserve] had reacted much more quickly to the signs of inflation and not stuck with their belief that it was transitory for so long. I do wish that we had raised interest rates earlier to try to tamp down inflation. They’re catching on to it now. But these are very complicated, important issues that we have to deal with.

I’ll give you another example about the bad faith of Republicans: They have been harping on inflation as a problem that falls at the feet of Joe Biden. So when Democrats proposed a law to alleviate inflation, the Republicans voted against it. Why did they vote against it? Because all they care about is power. And all they care about is winning elections. They don’t actually care about helping out American people by alleviating the incredible rise in prices. This is all a political game for them.

One other thing: We absolutely have to raise the minimum wage. It is no longer possible to live in our country comfortably on the minimum wage. I believe firmly that it should be $15. But if we can get the votes to move it to $12, I would support that.

Do you support Joe Biden’s reelection?

I do.

And you assume that he’s running?

I have no idea.

So you’re not one of the people entertaining alternatives?

When alternatives are presented to me, I will entertain them. I will say that I think it is very easy to blame all the country’s ills on the president. But it is not as simple as that. And what is frustrating is that the Republicans are trying to sabotage this administration so that they can try to win elections based on their efforts to sabotage the administration.

The policies and the ideas, broadly speaking, that Joe Biden is putting forward are very important ones. I hope that he will become more aggressive in using his bully pulpit and in talking to the American people and in messaging in a way where we cannot continue to tolerate this rollback of our democratic institutions.

With that in mind, do you believe that Biden’s plans to nominate a conservative to the federal bench in eastern Kentucky are a mistake?

I would need more information about the nominee before I give an informed opinion about it. I will say Kentucky is a state with two Republican senators. And so I do think it’s very important for the president to nominate as many judges as he possibly can.

We know from the fact that [Sen.] Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stole a Supreme Court seat that he will do anything to prevent a judge nominated by Democrats in his state or to the Supreme Court.

I want to shift a little bit to ideology and hot-button federal policies. Do you envision yourself joining the New Democrat Coalition or the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

I would want to explore any caucus that lines up with my values. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has many of the same values and policy views that I do, so I would anticipate wanting to join the CPC.

The New Democrats, as I understand it, are business friendly. I would consider myself to be business friendly because I believe that the way that we improve the lives of everyday Americans is, as [President Barack] Obama said, when a “rising tide lifts all boats.” If we create more opportunity for everyone, that is the best way to lift those vulnerable communities who are less advantaged by providing more jobs, providing more services, providing a larger tax base that can put more money in government programs.

I want to be business friendly, but I would want to require more from business to give back to the communities as part of any real estate deal or corporate tax loopholes. Those are areas that I would push very strongly for, but I do think that we need to incentivize more public-private partnerships, too, because I don’t think that government is the solution itself.

In order to deal with climate change, we need to incentivize private companies to transition to green energy and renewables. In order to provide more affordable housing, we need to encourage real estate development but require the developers to give much more back to the community than they have to this point.

What do you think about reinstating the full SALT (state and local tax) deduction?

I believe that we should reinstate the full SALT deduction. I think that taking that out is actually harmful to many of the states that put the most in the coffers of the federal government.

We should encourage people to buy homes. And frankly, in New York, an exodus of wealthy people is a real problem, and part of the reason for that is the elimination of the SALT deduction. We need to be cultivating a friendlier environment so that we can regain our position as the creative and business capital of the world.

What solution do you support for achieving universal health care in the country? “Medicare for All,” a public option, some combination?

Health care is a basic fundamental right. Every American should receive health care, even if they cannot afford it. I support a public option to provide health care for all Americans who cannot afford it.

What do you think about canceling student debt?

I think canceling student debt is a difficult problem. The impact of student debt disproportionately affects minorities and vulnerable communities. And we have to take measures to even out the disproportionate effect.

I have concerns, though, about the cost of doing it, especially when some people don’t need it. And while I understand the argument that the people who don’t need it are the ones who have worked hard to be successful, I believe that many people were sold a bill of goods on the value of the education that they were getting and what they would be able to achieve from that.

The fact that there are so many people, particularly in the most vulnerable and less-advantaged communities, who were preyed upon and induced to take on more debt than they can afford because they were made promises that ultimately were not kept, is a problem that we need to rectify.

Is the budget of the New York Police Department too big, too small or just right?

We should keep the NYPD’s budget where it is, and we need to increase the budget for social workers, mental health experts and people specifically designated to support and assist the NYPD.

I worked very closely with the NYPD when I was a prosecutor. And I know that what they are good at is investigating and solving crime, especially violent crime.

They are not trained to defuse domestic disputes or to provide the necessary services or interface with homeless people. But they are asked to do both of those things so much.

What I support is increasing services that can deal with domestic disputes, that can deal with the homeless from the city, and allowing the NYPD to focus on what they do best, which is to solve crimes and investigate crimes. We need to put people in positions where they are well-trained, experienced and skilled at resolving the problems that they’re charged to do.

As a former prosecutor, do you feel that progressives or Democrats have ever gone too far in their calls for accountability from law enforcement or on the related matter of criminal justice reform itself? Things like cash bail or sentencing reform? And if so, what would you prefer?

We need to have robust police accountability. I think we need to give a lot more training to police officers on issues of implicit bias and on transparency and accountability. We cannot have police officers ― with the power and authority that they have ― abusing that power.

That being said, I think that the vast majority of police officers are really hard-working, excellent, dedicated public servants. Many that I’ve spoken to are very upset about the few who go rogue, because it ruins the reputation for the rest of them.

And so we need to have accountability. We need to have a national database that documents excessive abuse cases.

But are police unions an obstacle to that accountability and transparency?

I don’t think that. Police unions probably, for the most part, are also concerned that a few [officers] give a bad rap to the majority. They advocate strongly for due process, which I agree with. But I think they are also concerned about morale within the police department, which was decimated in New York City. And there are a lot of different issues that I think everyone invested in the law enforcement world are concerned about and are working with.

Let’s talk about foreign policy for a moment and specifically U.S.-Israel policy. There are certainly figures on the left in the Democratic Party who have come out in favor of either conditioning U.S. aid to Israel or restricting it in some way, shape or form. Where do you stand on that, and what is your overall position on this topic?

I am a proudly pro-Israel and a strong supporter of the only democratic state in the Middle East ― that also is the home to Jewish people. And as an American Jew, I identify very much with the need in a post-Holocaust world for a safe haven for Jews to go. As an example, antisemitic incidents have grown four times higher in the tri-state area over the last eight years. Antisemitism still exists, and it’s still a problem. And I believe that the BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] movement is a thinly veiled antisemitic movement, and I strongly denounce it.

I believe that the United States needs to continue to provide security and military assistance to Israel without any preconditions. The Iron Dome defense system is a miraculous system that has saved thousands and thousands of lives, both Israeli and Palestinian.

I will add that the first impeachment of Trump related to security and military assistance to Ukraine as a democratic country that was fending off a dictatorship in Russia that was invading its space. And what I learned from my extensive interviews with people in the highest levels of the State Department, the highest levels of the intelligence agencies, is that promoting democracy around the world is not something that we can compromise on. And we’re seeing why right now.

Does that mean reassessing relationships with autocratic allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

We always need to be reassessing every relationship. And we need to be using our power to push our moral authority, which Joe Biden has regained after a disastrous four years of Donald Trump ― to push all countries more toward a democratic government. And frankly, that includes Israel and other democracies.

We have enough problems here in our own country that we need to address. And part of the reason why this authoritarian, anti-democratic strain in the Republican Party is so dangerous is that it undermines our ability around the world to promote democracy, which allows for stability that is necessary for economies to grow and countries to prosper.

Do you hope to gain support of the section of Borough Park, a heavily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, that is in this district?

I hope to get support in every single region of the district. I’m leaving no stone unturned. The voters have been very receptive to my message and my experience and my unique qualifications for the time that we’re in right now.

But they also understand that as a lawyer who has always represented the United States of America ― the only client I’ve ever had was the United States of America ― that I will be a dedicated representative to the constituents of this district.

Have you reached out to any Orthodox Jewish leaders specifically?

Yes. I have also spoken to leaders of unions, of political clubs, of community boards, to elected officials. I am trying to speak to every single person I can in this district, and that includes the voters.

You’ve also suggested that you are at least willing to use some of your family’s wealth to achieve the name recognition on the short timeline that you need to ...

I’ve suggested that? Did you hear that from me?

Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but I can ask you about it now. Are you willing to use any of your family money in this race? And if so, how much would you be willing to spend?

I have been truly overwhelmed by the support that we received. To raise nearly one and a quarter million in one month is mind-blowing to me, and I’ve really been humbled by the support.

We entered a very short race starting from scratch, and one of my opponents came down from a swing district that helped him build a war chest of $3 million. And there’s a new ruling that is going to allow him to get double the fundraising from his supporters in the primary.

So I am prepared if necessary to put some of my money in to level the playing field against someone from another district who brings a large war chest into this race.

How much are you willing to spend?

I don’t have a dollar figure.

You just took a swipe at Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). Does he have any business running in this district?

Just to be clear, I didn’t take a swipe at him. Those are the facts: that he is coming down here from a swing district with a $3 million war chest and that there’s a new ruling that allows him and him alone in this race to go back and get more money [from donors who already maxed out in his previous district].

I have lived in this district for more than 15 years. I am raising my five children here. We go to school in the community ― both in Manhattan and on the Brooklyn side. My kids have been a part of the downtown Little League, the downtown soccer league. I worked in this district for 10 years at the U.S. attorney’s office. This is my community. And this is where I have roots.

It is up to every voter to make a decision as to whether or not that is something that matters ― whether having roots in this district, family in this district, and raising children and understanding the needs of the families in this district matters. People will make up their own mind.

Do you think that former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio should be proud of his record?

No.

Why not?

I think Bill de Blasio left the city in a really bad situation. That’s my personal view.

Can you elaborate a little bit on why you think that?

Well, the good thing about Bill de Blasio is he has nearly 100% name ID. He was my mayor, and as my mayor I observed him. But everybody else also experienced him being their mayor, and they will make up their own mind as to whether or not he was a good mayor and is qualified to represent the district in Washington, where he’s never [served before].