In a conversation he didn’t know was being recorded, embattled Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shared his private belief that his movement’s battle with secular forces in the country was a zero-sum contest of irreconcilable values.
“One side or the other is going to win,” Alito says in secretly recorded audio. Alito was speaking at a reception for the Supreme Court Historical Society last Monday evening. “I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. It’s not like you can split the difference.”
Alito was responding to a question from Lauren Windsor, a progressive advocacy journalist and activist who regularly records conversations with Republicans and conservative movement leaders.
Windsor is my guest on Deconstructed this week. We’re publishing the secret audio in partnership with Rolling Stone.
Windsor, who is making a documentary called “Gonzo for Democracy,” which will be out in the fall, reminded Alito that she had spoken with him a year earlier at the same event and wanted to ask him the same question. “What I asked you about was about the polarization in this country, about, like, how do we repair that rift?” she asked.
“Asking questions of judges, these are the most discreet people in public life. There’s a huge amount of secrecy around the Supreme Court decisions around justices,” Windsor tells Grim. “I’m asking the questions to try to expose true intent. And given that none of the justices will go to Congress, will make their views more publicly known, I feel that it’s of intense public interest to find out whether their decisions are guided by personal religious convictions that really have no place in our public life.”
[Deconstructed theme music.]
Ryan Grim: I’m Ryan Grim, and this is Deconstructed.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has come under intense scrutiny lately after the discovery that he had flown two flags associated with insurrectionary elements of the far right. On Monday, he had what he thought was a private conversation with what he thought was a right-wing ally at an event at the Supreme Court.
That person was actually Lauren Windsor, a progressive activist who has been a guest on this show before and who has spent years embedding within right-wing movements and recording her interactions. Lauren also spoke that evening with Chief Justice John Roberts, and the contrast between how Alito answered her questions and how Roberts answered her questions is truly startling.
Now before we play the clips, let’s welcome Lauren Windsor back to the show.
Lauren, thank you for being here.
Lauren Windsor: Thanks, Ryan.
RG: And so as we’ll hear in this recording, this wasn’t the first time you spoke with Alito. Can you set up the context of this conversation and your previous one?
LW: The initial conversation that I had with Justice Alito was in 2023, and I had asked him about the rising polarization in the country: “How do we heal this rift — this divide?”
And he answered pretty standardly of, “I don’t know. I don’t know. That’s not our role.” But my hunch was that his feelings might have changed in the course of the year when I had that initial conversation with him. It was several weeks, maybe a couple months after the ProPublica reporting on Clarence Thomas, but before the reporting that came out on Justice Alito. And the reporting only intensified from that point on.
The court’s really been under a very intense magnifying glass in the past year, and I figured that he might have a different response to that question this year. So, I went back this past Monday.
RG: Yeah, so he certainly did. I want to play a little bit of this conversation and get you to unpack what’s going on. And first of all, oftentimes, when you are recording somebody and having a conversation with somebody on the right, there’s some identity disguise going on or you’re pretending to be somebody you’re not.
In this case, you just told him your name and then had a conversation with him. At times, you were kind of indicating a conservative affinity that doesn’t exist. But in general, there wasn’t actually much other misdirection going on here, am I right?
LW: Right. I mean, I look like myself. I gave my name. I just misrepresented my true political ideology or ideological leanings.
RG: And what struck me is that this is not really behind closed doors. Like, it’s a private event, but not really private. Lots of people there.
LW: Yes, a lot of people. But I’ve only met him in these two separate times. So it’s not —
RG: So you’re mostly a stranger to him.
LW: Yes.
RG: This is him talking to a stranger, which I think is important context — that he’s going to be this revealing to a stranger. So let me play a little bit of this interaction.
LW: Hi, I wanted to say hello to you again. My name is Lauren. I met you last year. I think you already met my friend over here. So anyway, I wanted to just tell you— my husband wanted to be here, but he had a last-minute thing. And he was just like, “Make sure that you tell Justice Alito that he is a fighter and we appreciate him and he has all the grit.” And I know it’s gotta be terrible what your family, what you and your family are going through right now. So, I’m just so sorry.
Samuel Alito: Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
LW: But — and I’m sure you don’t remember this at all — but what I asked you about, was about the polarization in this country.
The discussion revolves around repairing the political rift in the country, with a focus on the role of religion and morality. The interviewee strategically frames the conversation to explore Justice Alito’s views on the matter, leading to revealing responses. Alito expresses a belief that one side will ultimately win, indicating a partisan intent. The dialogue escalates with a focus on winning the moral argument and returning the country to a place of godliness. Alito agrees with this perspective, highlighting potential concerns about the intertwining of personal beliefs with judicial decision-making. The exchange sheds light on the complexities of navigating religious convictions in public life and the challenges of addressing polarization. What happens next in this conversation? How does it progress from here? And it’s like, yeah, we haven’t resorted to shooting each other yet, but there was a violent insurrection on January 6, which, obviously, I wouldn’t have brought up in that context.
RG: And the times that he compares it to are quite remarkable moments in American history. So in a sense, he’s saying, OK, yes, it is an abnormal time period, but we’ve had lots of abnormal time periods before.
And the ones he mentions are huge moments in American history. The Dred Scott and then the Civil War, the New Deal, and then the civil rights era. These are probably the pinnacles over the last couple hundred years of intensity of the American republic conflict.
Let’s go from there.
LW: I guess I wouldn’t say that it’s not like it’s an innovative thing. It’s not new. I guess, I really feel like we’re at a point in our country where the polarization is so extreme that it might be irreparable.
JR: Oh, I don’t think that.
LW: And I think —
JR: Polarization that extreme is like the Civil War. We did that. During Vietnam, people were getting killed. And, I mean, I was there in Vietnam. This is all right. I mean, it’s not all right, but it’s not like it’s as dramatically different — it’s a common thing people with their own perspective think, this is so extraordinary. Eh, I don’t know.
LW: But you don’t think there’s a role for the court in guiding us toward a more moral path?
JR: No, I think the role for the court is deciding the cases. If I start — Would you want me to be in charge of guiding us toward a more moral path? That’s for the people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.
RG: So, again, that’s the kind of answer that if you’re at a confirmation hearing or talking to a stranger at a reception that you would give. So, at this point, what are you thinking in this conversation?
LW: I was trying to get as much detail out of him as possible. It was clear to me that he was not going to answer in the way that Alito did. But I felt that if I were more aggressive about Christian nation and the Supreme Court having the role in guiding us there — notice the difference in the language between that and Alito?
I did push it harder with Roberts in that moment because I felt, like, we’re after the dinner. I don’t really don’t have anything to lose. They’re not gonna kick me out. Let’s see how strongly he will react to that. And I thought that the answer was great as a counterpoint to Alito, because I was very explicit and the Supreme Court should have a role in guiding our morality, you know, we are a Christian nation. And he, to my surprise, pushed back on both counts. I was happy that he did so, but it sort of belies the fact that he is enabling the justices on the court who are actually much more forthright in their religious convictions.
RG: I think that’s a good point: that John Roberts knows Sam Alito.
He knows what Sam Alito believes. We may all be learning the truth about what he really believes now. But John Roberts has known for a very long time, but also Alito’s defenders and your critics after this comes out are going to say, well, she baited him. This isn’t really what he thinks. But I would underscore your point there.
This is how you can answer these questions. Like if you believe in the traditional role of a Supreme Court justice and how they ought to be presenting themselves in public and comporting themselves in private. If you’re Alito and you’re more of a revolutionary, you’re just telling strangers that it’s a zero-sum game.
And so the next one I thought was even more powerful in its rebuttal of your questions. So let’s roll that.
LW: I guess, I just believe that the founders were godly, like, were Christians. And I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.
John Roberts: I don’t know if that’s true. Yeah, I don’t know if we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say, maybe not. And it’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases as best we can.
RG: So he says, when you say we live in a Christian nation, he says, “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say, maybe not. And it’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases as best we can.” That’s how a normal Supreme Court justice would answer that question, right?
LW: I would think so, yes. I think about normal and it’s so relative, with the current set of crazy that we have.
RG: He’s abnormal in that in his crew, maybe.
LW: Well, I mean, as the chief justice, he has this, has got to portray himself as being a very fair minded, neutral arbiter. Whereas, I really believe that Alito is so aggrieved and feeling so empowered by the majority that he can get away with anything and no one’s going to do anything to hold him accountable.
And you see that with Congress. The Senate Democrats should be hauling them in for questioning. They may not have the political will to remove a justice from the court, but there should definitely be public hearings on what’s going on.
RG: So then from here, the conversation ends with this:
JW: It’s a much more modest job than I think people realize.
LW: I don’t want to monopolize your time. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us.
JW: Not at all.
LW: Thank you so much.
RG: Yes, he just says, “It’s a much more modest job” than we think. But that’s not exactly true. Like, the Supreme Court is currently upending American culture. It seems like he sees his role as helping to guide Alito’s vision while presenting it as simply making decisions on cases.
LW: I mean, he’s the facilitator on the court. I just question his sincerity. I believe there’s a religious conviction there that he chooses not to show because it might hinder his efforts to push it through.
RG: Let’s revisit some of the conversations you had with Alito in 2023 to see if there were any noticeable changes in his demeanor or willingness to speak out.
LW: I just want to ask something about the legal aspects of it all.
SA: Yeah.
LW: How do we bring America back to a place of less polarization? The court is going through a tumultuous period, and people are losing trust in it. How do we restore that trust?
SA: I wish I knew. It’s easy to blame the media, but they play a role in eroding trust in the court. Ordinary citizens need to work towards reducing this dangerous polarization.
RG: Which parts stand out to you?
LW: His response of “I don’t know” is striking. It contrasts with how he responded in the past. His criticism of the media was likely fueled by recent coverage of Clarence Thomas.
RG: His call for overcoming polarization at the end seemed like a typical statement from a justice. What were your impressions from these conversations?
LW: I found it challenging to get substantive information from Alito. The 2023 interaction didn’t reveal much newsworthy content, but it was a stepping stone for future conversations.
RG: There will likely be scrutiny on you when this comes out. How are you preparing for that?
LW: As an advocacy reporter, I’m open to people reviewing my past work. I believe I’ve been transparent about who I am.
RG: You’ve been undercover but still transparent. How do you navigate that?
LW: I have a few wigs from Kathy Griffin, but I try not to be seen in them to maintain my cover. Some of my reporting involves leaked audio, like the one from the Koch conference in 2014. I was on site leading up to the conference, but the complex was closed down during the actual event.
RG: Can you share some of your favorite stories you’ve covered?
LW: One of my favorites was the Koch brothers story, which we partnered on with Huffington Post and Salon. It was particularly fulfilling for me as an activist for campaign finance reform. Another memorable moment was when I confronted Mitch McConnell about remarks made at a Koch retreat, and he refused to respond.
RG: McConnell’s refusal to comment is a well-known tactic. It can be unnerving for reporters.
LW: Definitely. I also remember a conversation with Rep. Mike Johnson about Amy Coney Barrett’s stance on Roe v. Wade. He believed she would be the one to overturn it, although it was actually Justice Alito who authored the opinion.
RG: Johnson’s prediction was close. Barrett’s willingness to act immediately was evident.
LW: Another significant story was about Tommy Tuberville’s plan to challenge the 2020 election results. It was a wild time in D.C. with the conventional wisdom being that McConnell would remain majority leader.
RG: The Tuberville story was a big moment, especially given the context of the political environment at the time. They need someone in the Senate who will also take action.”
The Senate seems to be a place of decorum. Do you really think there isn’t someone willing to team up with Mo Brooks on this? Georgia was the perfect place to find out due to the double runoff. I attended a campaign event with Tuberville, Madison Cawthorn, and Byron Donalds. Madison kept hinting at having tricks up their sleeve. Tuberville encouraged fighting for Trump in mid-December, even though the election was over. When asked what they would do to fight for President Trump, Tuberville hinted at following the House’s lead in the Senate. This caused quite a stir. The next day, David Perdue expressed a similar sentiment, despite the technical limitations of his term ending. When asked about challenging the Electoral College, he confirmed he would. I was unable to record this conversation, but I captured a photo with him, and he confirmed it. Trump even acknowledged Perdue’s actions on Twitter. This led to a significant uproar.
I believe they were already planning this move. Many people I spoke to on the campaign trail hinted at something big coming, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kelly Loeffler, and Madison Cawthorn. Trump’s public acknowledgment should have given Democrats time to prepare for it, as he tweeted and hinted at the event being “wild.”
Trump’s involvement changed the narrative in Georgia and pressured officials to overturn the election, which I believe contributed to the Democratic wins in the Senate race. Perdue and Loeffler wanted to avoid discussing the election being rigged as it could have discouraged Republican turnout.
My reporting played a role in exposing the lengths they were willing to go to overturn the election, but it was not the sole factor in the Democratic wins. A lot of credit goes to the organizing efforts of Fair Fight Action and others who mobilized Democratic voters.
As for my documentary, we are aiming to release it in September. We submitted a short version to Tribeca, which was rushed but still impactful. The completion of the film will depend on fundraising efforts.
There is still some work that needs to be done before organizing screenings to secure the remaining funding needed to complete the feature film. I am currently in the process of polishing the film and setting up screenings to gather the necessary support.
Additionally, I am working on a research project focused on factory towns, spearheaded by my partner Mike Lux at American Family Voices. This project delves into the voting patterns of working-class voters in industrial areas of the Midwest and Pennsylvania, exploring the shift from supporting Obama to becoming Trump voters. The story of factory towns closely aligns with the trajectory of my political career.
My journey into activism began with Occupy Wall Street, and much of the phenomenon in factory towns can be attributed to the backlash from the financial crisis. As someone who experienced the impact of the mortgage meltdown in LA, it was a major catalyst for me to transition from pursuing a career in fashion design to diving into reporting.
The documentary “Gonzo” aims to uncover the factors that led to events like January 6 and the rise of Trumpism. It connects my past reporting on figures like Tommy Tuberville and Ron Johnson to shed light on the current political landscape.
In regards to the recent Alito reporting, I hope to see some level of accountability and potential recusal in decisions related to Trump’s immunity. It is essential to create public outrage to fuel political will and hold those in power accountable.
For more information and updates on my work, you can visit laurenwindsor.com or follow me on Twitter @LaWindsor. Thank you for listening to the Deconstructed podcast, a production of The Intercept.
If you enjoy our content and would like to support our work, please visit theintercept.com/give and consider subscribing to our podcast. Your feedback is valuable to us, so feel free to email us at podcasts@theintercept.com with “Deconstructed” in the subject line. Don’t forget to check out our other podcast, Intercepted, for more insightful discussions.
Thank you for tuning in, and stay tuned for more episodes soon!
Please rewrite the following sentence to make it clearer:
“The report was not completed by the deadline due to unforeseen circumstances.”
“The report was delayed and not finished on time because of unexpected events.” Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
