Editor’s Note: We hope you enjoy the video above. If you’d rather just listen to the podcast, click this link to Apple Podcasts: The Common Bridge. It is also available on all podcast platforms. We have included the transcript to this program below. We offer this program in it’s entirety to our paid subscribers, and welcome all to subscribe below.
Richard Helppie
Hello, welcome to The Common Bridge. I'm your host Rich Helppie. We've had a good number of law school professors to help inform us about the issues of the day and the policies. But this is the first time that we have hosted a guest who is both a senior law enforcement leader and a professor at a law school. It's an important time in our nation on laws, law enforcement, equal application of the law at the federal level, the state level, the municipal level. So we're privileged to have with us today, Mr. Andrew Arena. Andy, welcome to The Common Bridge. Thank you so much for being with us.
Andrew Arena
Well, Rich, I appreciate you having me out. Thank you.
Richard Helppie
Your background is amazing. You were raised in Detroit, you joined the FBI as a special agent some time ago; you worked on general crime, organized crime; you were assigned to Los Angeles; then in Cleveland, where you focused on systemic public corruption and organized crime; and then they put you in charge of the FBI office in Detroit. Later you were promoted to the chief of the International Terrorism Operations section, and then you were special agent in charge of the New York division of the FBI. After you left the FBI, you joined as executive director of the Detroit Crime Commission. You're also a professor at Cooley Law School in the Homeland Security Program. So what are you doing in your free time with all that on your agenda?
Andrew Arena
Well, probably the thing I'm proudest of is I'm a middle school basketball coach. So I also do that, and I really do enjoy that. I've got my two youngest daughters [who] are basketball players. Actually one's playing in college now, and one will probably be playing in two years in college. So I really, really enjoy that. On top of all that, I do find some time to do that and golf a little bit.
Richard Helppie
Great. So with your background and your biography, any other personal insights you'd like to share with the audience of The Common Bridge?
Andrew Arena
Rich, as you said, I've been born and raised in Detroit, my family - my brother, my sister-in-law, my uncle - were Detroit police officers. So I've kind of got this law enforcement background flowing through my blood. So this was something, when I went to law school, I tell people I had no intention of ever practicing law. It's a great education, it helps you see the world a different way. Think like a lawyer, right, so I think the analytical capabilities that it gives you really helps you in life; it did help me every single day that I was with the FBI, and it still helps me today now that I'm teaching.
Richard Helppie
That's a great insight. What is the Detroit Crime Commission? What exactly is the function? It's a nonprofit if I'm not mistaken?
Andrew Arena
We're a 501-C3, not for profit organization. We were founded by a group of businessmen and attorneys here in Detroit who wanted to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the community, help make Southeast Michigan a little bit safer and a little bit better place to live. We do a lot of analytical work. We act as a fiscal agent. The Rape Kit Initiative with Kym Worthy, the Wayne County prosecutor, we negotiated the contracts to get those rape kits. For your viewers who aren't aware, there were 12,000 rape kits found in the Detroit Police laboratory years ago there, that had never been tested, never been analyzed. We were able to get those analyzed and now [do] the follow up. We get money to pay for the tests being looked at, we also have been able to hire, or help Kym Worthy's office hire, investigators, prosecutors to actually follow up once you find out that this is the person who committed these rapes. Rich, many of them are serial rapists. There are a number of serial rapisst in almost half the states; I think over 80% of the states in the United States have links to the rape kits here in Detroit. So we act as a fiscal agent, financial agent, do a lot of analytical work, predictive law enforcement - when and where crime may occur. I always like to say, law enforcement speaks Chinese and the community speaks French - they aren't always able to communicate correctly - which is one of the problems I think we certainly have with law enforcement today.
Richard Helppie
Indeed, as law enforcement's an incredibly difficult job. On the rape kits, anything that was able to result in apprehensions and convictions?
Richard Helppie
Oh, you know what? I don't have the numbers in front of me but it was an incredible amount of apprehensions [and] convictions have come off of this program. As I said, just identifying serial rapists it's really been a very successful program. It's something we're very proud of. And if you ever get Kym Worthy on here, she'll talk for two hours about the success and she loves it.
Richard Helppie
I would love to have Kym Worthy on the show. Man, I would never want to be crosswise with Kym Worthy. (Andrew Arena: She's quite a prosecutor.) One of the things that's been in the news a lot lately, and I published on it; my current episode of The Common Bridge is kind of a pseudo interview with President Biden about gun laws. You've heard some of the changes that have been proposed: more background checks, raising the age to get a automatic rifle, red flag laws. Based on what you've experienced are these gun laws heading in the right direction or are they not really hitting the target?
Andrew Arena
It's a good first step, Rich, maybe a baby step. I don't know that it's quite enough. I think it - from what I'm seeing, what I've been reading the last couple of days - it's almost like it makes us feel good, like we're doing something about it. I think it's a good first step, but I just think there's so much more out there, there's so much that can be put on the table that as good Americans, as adults, we could have a very good discussion about and maybe come up with some solutions, maybe some compromises, which is unheard of in this country today. Compromise is a forgotten word.
Richard Helppie
Indeed. I've advocated for something that I believe would pass Second Amendment scrutiny called graduated licensing; just like we do with driving privileges and airplanes and fireworks and medical practice. If you want to get a firearm, great, but show that you can competently handle it, show that you know how to store it, and you don't get to have the most powerful weapon on the market as your first gun. So there's a period of time where you are observed, you can show that you can handle more powerful weapons. I mean, think about this; pilots rarely have a misuse of an airplane, very rarely. And it's because of the regulations that we put in. [It] doesn't stop anybody from becoming a pilot, wouldn't stop anybody from owning a gun, but it would keep the gun away from the people that shouldn't have it.
Andrew Arena
Yeah, you're right. I mean, a pilot [who] learns on a Cessna single prop doesn't get into a jumbo jet. Rich, this is what I carry with me right here. This is a copy of the US Constitution. I carry this everywhere with me. And I am a gun owner because of what I did for a living. I hunt, I like to hunt pheasant and grouse. So I've been a gun owner; I think I got my first shot gun when I was like 16. Now, my father purchased the gun and made sure I knew how to handle it. I wasn't just allowed to run out anytime I wanted with the gun alone. But I'm a proud gun owner. I understand the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment, but I always like to read people, what does the Second Amendment really say? Most people, most gun advocates, will focus on the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They forget the first sentence; a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. So, when the US Constitution was written, when the Bill of Rights was written, 1789 - in the early 1790s - there were 20,000 British soldiers across the Detroit River waiting to invade. We didn't have a well established US Army. We didn't have armed forces that we have today. It was within that environment that the Second Amendment was drafted. I think people forget that; they forget the history, they forget the first part of the Second Amendment. So when we talk about gun rights; the right to bear arms to hunt, for sporting, for competition, some people like to collect them. I mean, those are all great things but we really need to discuss, as you said, when people are able to own a weapon, at what age and what training. I always talk about gun owners being responsible. There's a term that needs to be there - responsible - and we don't think about that. I think all of those things go into a preamble to the discussion that we need to have as adults.
Richard Helppie
I am in strong agreement with you. If you read the entire Second Amendment, [it has] nothing that says an 18 year old walking in and getting an automatic rifle and a thousand rounds of ammo is helping our secure free state. It's just not. That intent of making sure that we're able to be armed has been lost in this free fire, which is crazy. Again, most gun owners are responsible. We have, I think 300 million firearms in private hands, including over 11 million of the - what would be classified as - assault rifles. It seems like we'd have a lot more incidents, but we've got to keep it away from the people that shouldn't have them. I think gun owners should be responsible for securing their weapons. Again, I've talked about this, editorialized about it. Even if you're using it for home security, you can keep it in a quick release safe out of sight, it is secure, nobody else can walk up and get it and it's as accessible as putting it in your nightstand drawer.
Andrew Arena
I tell people this all the time. When I talk about responsible gun ownership, a lot of it is the training. When I was with the FBI, I qualified four times a year to carry my hand gun, outdoors. Then we shot indoor ranges. But we also shot combat courses and we shot firearm simulators. Training, training, training, training, because as I tell people all the time, until you've actually been shot at, when you're put in that situation and the pressure and the stress is on you, it's a little bit different than standing five feet away and shooting at a paper target. So, training, training, training, that's how you get better. Most people in this country, I would say the vast majority that have a concealed weapons permit, will train enough to get the permit. And as you said, put that gun in a [inaudible] it for home protection. If something, God forbid something bad, happened, who knows what would happen.
Richard Helppie
Exactly right. When you're talking about your training, the best in the world with the FBI; I was nine years old, we went to Washington DC and we went to the FBI headquarters, so I'm a little guy. They demonstrate the handguns on the range and then one of the agents comes out with a machine gun. He tells us about it and he says, now for your safety and comfort, I'll fire in the opposite direction [laughter] and he tore up the target. So as a nine year old, I was quite impressed with that. But something about the gun laws; in recent months, we had a horrible tragedy in Oxford, Michigan. A very troubled young man was given a firearm, according to reports by his parents; the parents have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. They seem culpable. Are they in the eyes of the law? Are the parents responsible in some way for the death of four children and wounding of others?
Andrew Arena
I've talked to a lot of attorneys - defense attorneys - on this point, Rich, and it's going to be a long road for the defense to make that case. It's going to be difficult, because they're going to have to show...I mean, obviously, parents have a certain duty and responsibility in raising their children but what is that? Is it the same for all of us? Did these folks breach that responsibility and that duty? It's going to be very, very difficult. I think it's also going to open the door for parents being liable for a myriad of other things. So, I think most of us would say this is a terrible situation and we want to hold people responsible. But I think the Oakland County prosecutor may have stretched a little bit on this from a legal standpoint. I think from a moral standpoint as a parent - I'm a parent of three daughters - I always tell them, Rich, there is no right to privacy in my house; the United States Constitution is suspended in my house. I'm going to look at your internet browser, I'm going to look at your social media activity - live with it, I am responsible for you. But not all parents are like that. So I think it's the duty and responsibility of the parents and we all have a different definition. I think the law's definition is going to make it kind of difficult to prove this.
Richard Helppie
I guess now that I think about it, it'd be like parents buy a 16 year old a very fast car and they wrap it around a tree or hit somebody; where does their liability end for a potentially foreseeable accident of too fast of a car for a young driver? But we've had some other things happen in Michigan. Acquittals and hung juries for some men accused of threatening Governor Whitmer. There were allegations of FBI informants that were egging them on. I know the FBI had one informant that they couldn't use because he had so tarnished himself with his behavior. In your experience, to the extent that you can talk about it, was the FBI's conduct in this investigation unusual or normal? How did it get so convoluted that we can't figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?
Andrew Arena
I think a lot of it, Rich, goes to the actions of the case agents. You really have to look at who you assign to certain cases. When I was the head of the FBI in Youngstown, Ohio, for instance, we opened a case on a US congressman. I didn't just pick the next guy on the list, I really looked at the agents I had - their experience or expertise, what they brought to the table - and picked who I thought would be the best two people. I think that some of the baggage that the agents involved had certainly contributed to this. It's the job of the defense attorneys to raise reasonable doubt. I think the defense attorneys did a very good job of it in this case. I think, however, the FBI unknowingly or unwittingly actually gave them a lot of reasonable doubt to work with. I think that was probably part of the problem; who was actually running this case? What was their background? What baggage did they bring into the prosecution? I say the defense did a very good job of mucking the waters up, and as you said, really clouding it up as to who the bad guys are, who the good guys are.
Richard Helppie
Again, I have a lot of faith in juries. They're the only ones that hear all the evidence, see all the testimony. They generally get it right. So you have two guys that were in jail for a year and a half acquitted, free and two guys that are back in jail waiting for, perhaps, another trial. I just ask myself, is the public interest being served? Certainly we want the FBI and all law enforcement to investigate threats against the governor or anybody elected. If they find a crime, we want them prosecuted, but we don't want them making [up] a crime that it's not there and that seems to be the case with this one.
Andrew Arena
It could be. I know that when I - you mentioned earlier - I teach National Security Law at Cooley, they have a master's program in national security so I teach a terrorism class. My wife says, I'm the Forrest Gump of terrorism, that from 9/11 on I was involved [in] or had some input into those cases. And she told me I shouldn't be insulted by that, but I've seen the movie. I did have a lot of experience in those cases. A lot of folks in the Muslim community would accuse the FBI of entrapment. The definition of entrapment is, if but for the actions of the government, the person would not have ever even thought of doing this, would not have had the wherewithal to do it. There were a number of cases from 9/11 up until now, where the FBI has identified potential terrorists who have the desire to act and then use informants. So you have to differentiate between the use of informants...listen, the FBI has used informants forever in everything they do - organized crime, public corruption - but you have to make sure that you're not orchestrating what's going on. The informant's kind of along for the ride, not driving the car. That's a tricky proposition sometimes, but that's not the case agent; you've got to make sure things are not getting out of line.
Richard Helppie
So I'm kind of reading between the lines on your view there, and I appreciate that insight. Another case that's been in the public eye: Mike Sussman - attorney, Perkins Coie, in Washington, DC area, is charging billable hours to the Democratic National Committee into the Hillary Clinton election committee - is acquitted of lying to the FBI, although there's sworn testimony from James Baker, the FBI's general counsel, and then there's a text message with Sussman saying, hey, I'm not coming to you on behalf of any client, I'm just coming as a citizen, on a completely bogus claim of a server in Trump Tower communicating with a server with Alpha bank in Russia. And just for the record, when that story broke - I'm an IT guy back since the 1970s - I'm like, what are you even talking about? Like, it's just not technically possible, what they're alleging. Sussman is acquitted but the evidence seems to point the other way; what standard was missed here?
Andrew Arena
Title 18, United States Code Section 1001, makes it a felony to lie to an FBI agent when you are being interviewed, when you're asked a question. In my career in the FBI, that was always a slam dunk. I used to preface it, to tell people look, I'm going to ask you these questions. First thing they teach you in law school is you don't ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. A lot of times you don't know the answer, but you want them to think you know the answer. That was a slam dunk if somebody lied to you and you had the solid evidence to show this person lied to the FBI. As you said, it was really...there was no argument, it was a done deal. I think we've seen...and I think this is kind of indicative of what's going on in our country right now with people...there's a minority that's far to the left and there's a minority that's very, very far to the right, and they're very loud. So, I don't know if that's what the jurors are hearing. I don't know if there are jurors who believe that, or think that way, on these jury pools, I don't know. But it's not a slam dunk anymore, something else is entering into it. And Rich, I don't really know what it is, but something is swaying jurors away from just looking purely at applying the law to the facts. Something else is muddying the waters.
Richard Helppie
I would maybe speculate that we've kind of lost that moral compass of what's right is right, what's wrong is wrong, as well as who's doing it; [it] is really the the line of demarcation. Look, Kevin Clinesmith, a lawyer for the FBI, falsified an email, changed the words to make it look like there should be an investigation of Carter Page, and was convicted of it and now has since been reinstated as a lawyer in good standing in Washington, DC. (Andrew Arena: Yeah.) And I'm wondering, why isn't he doing a little jail time for perjury and falsifying evidence. I don't get it, [it] doesn't make sense to me.
Andrew Arena
It's not a good message being sent. I would agree with you there.
Richard Helppie
As part of my job here as a host of this, I watch C-span. And so I'm watching the Senate Intelligence Committee, and James Comey, former director of the FBI, Sally Yates was acting attorney general for a little bit, Christopher Wray, who was head of the FBI also...when asked under oath if they would have sought a FISA warrant on Carter Page based on the Steele dossier, they all answered no, although they did do it. And I thought, well, what's changed? And as far as I can understand the timeline, the only thing that's changed was, now the public knew that that reporting was completely false. So I just wondered, with your long experience and distinguished career, has the FBI damaged their reputation, and if they haven't, great, but if they have, what can we do to bolster people's confidence that scales of justice are balanced?
Andrew Arena
I think that if you look back historically, at the FBI, there have been ebbs and flows. There have been times where the Bureau's reputation has been stellar, there have been times where it has not been up to par. If you could look at the gangster era, the 1930s, you can look at the counterintelligence probe - COINTELPRO of the 1960s, when the FBI was spying on anti-war civil rights leaders - that those are not stellar moments in the history of the FBI. So, what happened to bring the FBI back into relevance and into the good graces of the American people? Look, the FBI's job is they are the primary domestic intelligence agency of this country. They are one of the frontlines in protecting democracy and protecting us from foreign threats, so we need them. We need a good solid FBI. Politicians, going back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy - some of the most trusted and beloved presidents in this country's history - have sought to abuse...use and abuse the powers of the of the FBI. So it starts with the director; the director has got to stand strong. I was at FBI Headquarters when Bill Clinton asked Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI, for files on certain political enemies, and Louis Freeh stood strong and said no way and was threatened to be fired. The president of the United States didn't speak to Louis Freeh for years because of that, but he stood strong and said, I'm not going to abuse the powers of the FBI. So that's what we need. We need leadership. Because that's...you used the term moral compass, Rich, I use that all the time. I use it with my kids, I use it with my students, I use it with my employees. I brought every new agent in the FBI, who worked for me, in and I talked about your moral compass and how to follow it. Don't let politics ever enter into your decision. There was a point where an unnamed vice president of the United States wanted to be fired from the FBI, because I stood strong and said, we're not doing that. I had people at the Department of Justice trying to order me to lie on FISA applications. We're not doing that. As you said, moral compass is a great term; you got to stick strong to that, and I think that that comes from the top and the leadership of the FBI. That's what they need.
Richard Helppie
You've been at this over four decades. So you've seen arcs of policing and prosecution and punishment. You've touched on some of the things that have changed during your career. What else stands out? And more importantly, are we headed in the right direction in terms of our policing, prosecution, and punishment?
Andrew Arena
So I'll start with policing. I think that as a nation, we're seeing a number of issues around the country with use of force. Now I will say right up front, defunding the police is not the way to go. We've seen that. It's not going to work. I think, personally, the discussion needs to be more of how do we fix it? How do we change policing? I think it starts, Rich, with who are we, out there, trying to get to be police officers. How are we bringing them into the fold? Training. Many police departments in the country still are very militaristic in how they train their officers. It's pseudo-military. We need to be a little bit more, you are here to protect and serve. I always tell officers, we're not occupying armies; you're here to protect. You never forget that, protect and serve. What is your role? It's psychological counseling. Police, law enforcement, Rich, see the worst of the worst, every single day. What support do they get? You can become very jaded very quickly in your life if that's all you're seeing. You can become an occupying army. So what support are we giving them? So as I said, it goes back to how are we recruiting. Who are we recruiting? How are we training them? How are we training them on the job? And what support are we giving them? The other part is - and I was very involved in this in the FBI - is what we called community policing, but it's the relationship...listen, the community is never going to 100% trust law enforcement, and law enforcement is never going to accept everything that community wants. But they have got to be able to talk and share information. As I said, that's one of the things that Crime Commission does. So to me, we need to re-envision how we police and I don't think it's a big change, I think that it can be done fairly easily. Just changing the mindset of some people as to how they approach it.
Richard Helppie
That's a terrific insight. I was in Florida - and this may not be the exact words - but pulled up next to a sheriff's deputy's SUV, and they had their seal on it and their motto was "we fight as one". And I've thought well, what does that mean? Who are you fighting? Who's the "we" in the fighting as one? I just thought it was unusual. And in Southern California, we saw a black and white pulled up next to us at a convenience store and it said Community Officer. It was a woman officer, not armed at all, and apparently had every power except arrest powers. But instead of sending someone in that might be ready for physical confrontation, she could handle most domestic things, and traffic things, and those kinds of calls. I am always optimistic that we're going to try some things, but at the same time see people stuck back in that militaristic mindset.
Andrew Arena
Yeah, and that term "we fight as one", now if I was a chief of that department, I would keep that montra, but I would say the "one" is law enforcement and community; we're all together. That's the message. I'm not sure that's what that department meant.
Richard Helppie
I don't know what they meant, I didn't look into any further, I just thought that they might want to clean that up, [laughter] because there's something there. But I'm going to jump to a little different topic and this is something that troubles me. It's a conviction or acquittal in the media and its impact on society. By way of example, today we have the very serious January 6 hearings going on and we all observed the conduct of our president, we all heard the words that he said, we saw the results. And I just see the pundits opposite that president's party coming out and saying, oh, yeah, definitely need to convict them. Yet at the same time, I see a weariness from people because we have a long list of things that were supposedly going to be criminal that turned out to be dead ends, and nothing; story gets moved on. You're in a public place with the work that you're doing with the Crime Commission, you're teaching lawyers, you're keeping us safe from terrorists and protecting the homeland. Do you ever get into this conviction and acquittal in the media and its impact on our society? I mean, what, why is it that we can't wait for all the facts to come out in sworn testimony and in evidence that's actually presented?
Andrew Arena
It's one of the things, Rich, that frustrates me most in my life, to see that. I think you really hit on what the issue is; it's the 24 hour news cycle that we live in now. We want answers. Now I tell people this all the time, the initial...and I'll give you an example. The first bank robbery I went to in Syracuse, New York; I'm a brand new FBI agent, I'm the only agent who shows up, I interview all five of the witnesses - three tellers and two customers. Every one of those witnesses gave me a different description of the assailant. He was anywhere from five foot six to six foot four, he was white, he was black, he was Hispanic, he was skinny, he was heavy set. The only thing that all five of those witnesses have in common; they could describe the gun to a T. That's what they saw. So I caution everybody, wait for the information, because the initial information is always wrong. And we're seeing that in Uvalde, Texas right now. The media now is jumping on law enforcement for the information - you were wrong. Well, you pushed them to get that information and you knew that was going to probably be wrong. Because, as you said, we don't have news anymore. We have the facts and then we have five talking heads debating those facts. Depending on what station or what news channel it is, they're either going to be conservative, or they're going to be progressive. So we don't wait for the facts, we have an insatiable appetite in this country fueled by the 24 hour news cycle. We want to know, now, what happened. That's why we have a legal system. Let the facts be brought together, let them be analyzed, let them be presented to a grand jury and then to a jury. I think that's the best, safest way for our legal system to work. It doesn't work that way anymore. And Rich, unfortunately, I don't think it'll ever work that way because we are driven by watching CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, whatever your choice is. They're going to give us...and the other thing about that is, if you're ultra-conservative, you are going to watch Fox News, if you're progressive liberal, you're going to watch MSNBC; and what are they going to tell you? They're going to tell you, you're right.
Richard Helppie
On those polar extremes is hilarious, when you think about it. This is not an exaggeration; I just about spit my coffee on my computer screen yesterday because one of the talking head pundits was praising Bill Barr, although they'd been smearing the guy for a year. But now he said what they wanted to hear, so now all of a sudden, he's a good guy. Andy, this has been really insightful. What else should we be talking about today that we haven't covered?
Andrew Arena
I just think that, to me, the overarching issue in everything we're talking about - gun safety, school safety, national security - we're just so polarized in this country right now that we're unable to really sit down at the table and have the adult conversation. If we want to sit down and, for instance, we want to talk about gun safety, let's talk about everything. Let's not run to our polar opposite corners and wait for the referee to tell us to come out fighting. Let's talk about, as you said, graduated gun ownership, training, extended magazines, mental health. We talked about the state of Michigan; many, many years ago Governor Engler, in a cost cutting move, got rid of all mental health facilities in the state of Michigan. We got out of it and many other states then followed suit because it saved millions, billions of dollars. The largest health care facility in the state of Michigan [today] is the Wayne County jail; that's not a good thing. That's not a good thing. So mental health is a part of this and it goes hand-in-hand with stopping it, and also with the background check. So, let's be able to, as a country, sit down and put all of these things on the table and let's have an adult conversation and let's see what we can compromise and come up with to save our kids, to save our country, the national security of this country. It troubles me that we're not able to do that. It really saddens me and infuriates me at times. But until we can do that, Rich, we're just going to continue down that path; it's not going to be a good outcome for us.
Richard Helppie
If you have somebody far over here on the right, somebody far over here on the left, there's no way of cajoling, convincing, pull this person all the way here or for this person to argue and pull this person there. We need to start in the middle like, can we agree it's crazy for an 18 year old to walk into a gun store and buy an automatic rifle and a thousand rounds of ammunition? Like, let's just start there. That's just not a good thing. Your comments about the Wayne County jail being a mental health facility; we've had judge Milton Mack on our show a couple of times, and he's quite the advocate about mental health. He's gone through chapter and verse about how that happens, even talking about case studies where someone didn't want to be released from jail because they were getting mental health services and medication inside and they wouldn't get it outside. So I concur; the adult conversation, that's what we're trying to do here on The Common Bridge. You've added substantially to that dialogue. I know our listeners and our viewers, and our readers, are going to enjoy hearing this. I thank you for putting in your time with us this morning. Andy, any closing thoughts for our audience?
Andrew Arena
Well, the only thing I would say Rich is kind of following up on what I just said. I like to think those extremists on either side are small in number. I think they're smaller than what we think; [but] they're very vocal. They have a few people that listen to them. I think most people in this country are, I hope, like us, a little bit more centrist, and they just want to live a good, healthy, safe life and live in a country where we respect each other's opinions. As I tell my law students all the time Rich, you don't have to agree with each other but in my class you're going to respect each other. We have some great discussions. Sometimes people change their opinion, they come a little bit more into the center, sometimes they don't. But at the end of the day, even if they disagree, they still respect each other. I think that's what we need to really do in this country - just respect each other.
Richard Helppie
We've had, as our guest today on The Common Bridge, Andy Arena, extensive background in law enforcement with the FBI, now teaching at the Cooley School of Law, and also executive director of the Detroit Crime Commission. This is Richard Helppie, your host on The Common Bridge - of course available on Substack, just look up The Common Bridge on your favorite podcast outlets and on YouTube TV. This is Rich Helppie, signing off on The Common Bridge.
Announcer
Thanks for joining us on The Common Bridge. Please subscribe to The Common Bridge on substack.com where you can find more interviews, columns podcasts, video and other nonpartisan discussions to the problems of today. On Substack you can access the full archive and bonus columns, podcasts and interviews for only $5 a month. Please go to substack.com and search for The Common Bridge and subscribe.
Transcribed by Cynthia Silveri
FBI Practices and Rule of Law