Autocracy in America: "Capture the Courts" – Detailed Summary

Release Date: September 13, 2024
Host/Author: The Atlantic
Episode Title: Capture the Courts

Introduction

In the "Capture the Courts" episode of Autocracy in America, hosts Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev delve into the alarming trend of politicization within the United States judiciary. This episode explores how authoritarian tactics are infiltrating American courts, undermining the rule of law, and posing significant threats to democracy.

The Rule of Law vs. Authoritarianism

The episode opens with Anne Applebaum defining the cornerstone of democracy: the rule of law. She emphasizes that in a democratic system, laws are applied impartially, independent of political influence.

Anne Applebaum [00:59]: "In a democracy we have something called rule of law. And that means that the law exists independent of politics."

Applebaum contrasts this with authoritarian regimes, where laws are manipulated to serve the interests of those in power rather than to administer justice.

Applebaum [01:21]: "In a dictatorship, that's not what the law is for. The law is not to find out what happened. It's not to establish the truth."

Case Study: Renee Diresta and Election Integrity Partnership

A significant portion of the episode centers on Renee Diresta, a polymath involved in various industries, who co-founded the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) in 2020. The EIP aimed to study misinformation surrounding American elections, particularly focusing on narratives that delegitimize electoral processes.

Renee Diresta [07:02]: "We were going to do a project to try to understand narratives related to voting."

Her team meticulously analyzed 22 million tweets to identify misinformation and delegitimizing narratives surrounding the 2020 U.S. elections.

Anne Applebaum [09:50]: "22 million tweets were reviewed by Diresta and her team, but that number was used incorrectly by Benz and others, and that mix up went viral."

Misuse of Data and Political Manipulation

Post-election, Diresta and her team published a comprehensive report titled "The Long Fuse," aiming to shed light on the extent of misinformation. However, their findings were distorted by Mike Benz, a former State Department official who rebranded himself as the head of the Foundation for Freedom Online. Benz misrepresented their data, claiming that 22 million tweets were categorized as misinformation, a stark exaggeration.

Ante Applebaum [09:50]: "22 million tweets were reviewed by Diresta and her team, but that number was used incorrectly by Benz and others, and that mix up went viral."

This misrepresentation fueled a narrative that the government was suppressing free speech, leading to increased scrutiny and legal challenges against Diresta and associated institutions.

Congressional Investigation and Legal Proceedings

With Republicans regaining control of the House in the fall of 2022, Jim Jordan, a prominent conservative figure, spearheaded a congressional investigation into the supposed government suppression of speech. The Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas, compelling Stanford and other institutions to produce documents related to the EIP's research.

Anne Applebaum [10:35]: "And so they start issuing requests for documents which tie up the Stanford lawyers who need to figure out which documents are relevant to the request."

The process was prolonged and fraught with legal maneuvering, ultimately leading to Diresta testifying before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Role and Legitimacy

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Diresta experienced a moment of vindication as the justices began to question the validity of the misuse of data.

Renee Diresta [15:03]: "The validating part of, I think, the Supreme Court decision, though, was the recognition that so many of the things that were cited as evidence... were just smoke and mirrors and innuendo. There was no there there."

Despite this, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, dismissing the case and highlighting the fragility of judicial independence.

Anne Applebaum [16:04]: "So, the justices find that the plaintiffs did not even have the standing to sue because they hadn't shown that they'd actually been harmed."

Current Threats to Judicial Independence

The episode shifts focus to recent developments that further jeopardize the independence of the judiciary. Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, cites the handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump by Judge Eileen Cannon as a "canary in the coal mine."

Ian Bassin [22:32]: "Judge Eileen Cannon has officially taken a May 20 trial date off the calendar... It appears as if Trump has fundamentally captured the referee there."

This case exemplifies how judges can become tools for political figures, undermining the impartiality expected in the judicial system.

Reflections on the State of the Courts

Drawing parallels between democratic and authoritarian systems, the hosts discuss the potential consequences if the judiciary continues to lose its independence. Applebaum reflects on historical instances where the courts upheld democracy, juxtaposing them with current trends aimed at politicizing legal outcomes.

Anne Applebaum [21:29]: "I think the piece of it that worries me is that the guardrails on the system... is essentially a set of customs."

Peter Pomerantsev expresses concern over the perception of a divided justice system, fearing that overt politicization could erode public trust and the foundational principles of democracy.

Peter Pomerantsev [21:05]: "If you can't get anything above politics, that's a very dangerous place."

Conclusion

"Capture the Courts" serves as a chilling examination of how authoritarian tactics are subtly undermining one of America's most revered institutions: the judiciary. Through detailed case studies and expert insights, Applebaum and Pomerantsev illuminate the urgent need to safeguard judicial independence to preserve the rule of law and democratic integrity.

Notable Quotes

• Anne Applebaum [00:59]: "In a democracy we have something called rule of law. And that means that the law exists independent of politics."

• Renee Diresta [07:02]: "We were going to do a project to try to understand narratives related to voting."

• Anne Applebaum [09:50]: "22 million tweets were reviewed by Diresta and her team, but that number was used incorrectly by Benz and others, and that mix up went viral."

• Ian Bassin [22:32]: "Judge Eileen Cannon has officially taken a May 20 trial date off the calendar..."

• Peter Pomerantsev [21:05]: "If you can't get anything above politics, that's a very dangerous place."

Production Credits

• Hosts: Anne Applebaum, Peter Pomerantsev
• Produced by: Natalie Brennan and Jocelyn Frank
• Edited by: Dave Shaw
• Mixed by: Rob Smirciak
• Executive Producer: Claudine Ebayd
• Managing Editor: Andrea Valdez
• Support: SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University

This episode underscores the fragile balance between law and politics, urging listeners to remain vigilant in protecting the judicial system from creeping authoritarian influences.