It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.   

Photo by Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

THE LATEST ON JAN. 6
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

If you are reading this newsletter, I suspect you are like those of us who write it: hungry for basic information and facts. We savor those things like a favorite meal. (For me, currently, that’s a homemade pot of zuppa Toscana.)

But history serves up knowledge on its own timeline. Often in a sudden platter – or burst! – of news.

This seems to be where we are now regarding the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The past week has brought a few new bits of knowledge and arguments.

We thought it a good time for an update.

Ginni Thomas

Led by thereporting of Bob Woodward and Robert Costa ([link removed]) , several outlets ([link removed]) reported ([link removed]) last week that Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent more than 20 text messages advocating for efforts to overturn the 2020 election to Mark Meadows while he was chief of staff to former President Donald Trump.

Here’s a quick summary of what has been reported:
* How we got here. The messages were among more than 2,300 texts Meadows voluntarily turned over to the Jan. 6 committee. He later ceased cooperation ([link removed]) .
* What Ginni Thomas sent. The committee has 21 text messages from Thomas to Meadows. All but one came in November 2020, after the election. The other text is dated Jan. 10, 2021.
* “The greatest Heist.” Thomas implored Meadows to try to overturn the election results, expressing deep fear, praising disproven conspiracy theorists and referring to Biden’s win as “the greatest Heist of our History” and a “coup.”
* Criticism of Pence. After Jan. 6, Thomas criticized then-Vice President Mike Pence, who rejected the idea that he could block the election result. She wrote, “Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!!”
* What about Justice Thomas? The texts never mention Justice Thomas.
* “Best friend.” Ginni Thomas at one point refers to a related conversation with her “best friend,” but does not name that figure. Justice Thomas has referred ([link removed]) to his wife as his best friend ([link removed]) in the past. But there is no specific indication that Ginni Thomas meant her husband in these texts.

In addition, Ginni Thomas has said ([link removed]) she was at the “Stop the Steal” rally that occurred before the insurrection on Jan. 6, but that she did not stay long and did not have a role in helping organize it.

The discussion happening now:
* No response from either Thomas. Neither Justice Thomas nor Ginni Thomas has issued a statement or responded to requests regarding the texts.
* Will the committee ask for testimony? Several outlets now report that the Jan. 6 committee plans to ask Ginni Thomas to voluntarily testify.
* Calls for recusal. Some Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., are calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself ([link removed]) from cases related to Jan. 6.
* The recusal question. Whether Justice Thomas has a conflict of interest because of his wife’s advocacy with the White House as the court has been involved in legal cases regarding the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 investigation.
* What are the rules here? There is no code of ethics ([link removed]) for the Supreme Court. Justices choose to recuse or not, weighing their own judicial values and public perception of their actions.
* Is this impeachable? Supreme Court justices can be impeached ([link removed]) . As with presidential impeachment, there is no clear standard for what is impeachable. A Supreme Court impeachment has happened only once ([link removed]) , in 1805. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached, charged with overstepping his role as a judge and acting as a partisan prosecutor. He was acquitted in the Senate and returned to the bench.

There are other stories regarding Jan. 6 making headlines this week as well.

Trump phone records
* Seven-hour phone gap. Thanks to more sleuthing from the Woodward and Costa team, the Washington Post reports ([link removed]) there is a more than seven-hour gap in which White House records show no direct phone calls to or from Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.
* Trump did speak on the phone during that time. Statements from lawmakers and other reporting make it clear that Trump did communicate with people via the phone during that hourslong stretch.
* Committee questions. The committee is reportedly investigating whether Trump used other phones or back channels to communicate.

A notable district judge order

Afederal judge in California yesterday ruled ([link removed]) that Trump advisor John Eastman must turn over 101 documents, all from the days immediately before and after the insurrection, to the House Jan. 6 committee.
* Who is Eastman again? John Eastman is a legal scholar known for pushing the generally rejected idea that a vice president could refuse to certify an election, and that then-Vice President Pence should have done that on Jan. 6.
* One sidenote. It happens that Eastman clerked for Justice Thomas ([link removed]) in the mid-1990s. We do not know of, nor mean to imply any connection of his case to Thomas, but it’s a quirk of these news stories that caught our attention.
* What does this ruling do? This ruling rejects Eastman’s arguments that his documents were privileged communication with and about Trump. That may be the extent of its effect though; it is specific to the privilege claims in this case. In addition, this order does not affect other criminal or civil cases. But, Judge Carter clearly had some hypothetical thoughts about those, written as he evaluated whether the overall Jan. 6 investigation involving Eastman had merit. (See below.)
* Corrupt obstruction of justice. Carter wrote, “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” Similarly, Carter found that Eastman and Trump conspired. Again, that does not affect any other proceedings, but is a blunt statement from a bench.
* A warning. At the end of his order, Judge Carter wrote, “... This case is a warning about the dangers of ‘legal theories’ gone wrong, the powerful abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”

The ongoing investigation

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice continues with its investigation, an effort it has called one of the largest ([link removed]) in U.S. history.
* Charges: As March 6, 2022, DOJ had arrested and is prosecuting 775 people ([link removed]) for involvement in the Jan. 6 attack.
* Most serious charges: Of those, more than 80 are charged with the most serious offense: using a weapon to injure an officer.
* Guilty pleas: 224 people have pleaded guilty, most of them for misdemeanor charges.
* Sentences: More than 110 people have seen their cases fully adjudicated and have been sentenced for their actions on Jan. 6. Fifty of those sentences include prison time. The longest of those sentences so far is up to 63 months.

RECKONING WITH ONE OF AMERICA’S MOST HORRIFIC LEGACIES

[link removed]

By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

Today, President Joe Biden signed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act ([link removed]) into law.

Of the estimated 200 bills that have been previously introduced over the past century, it’s the first bill to declare the lynching ([link removed]) as a federal hate crime, recognizing the long history of racial terror and violence in the U.S.

More than 4,400 Black people – most of them men – were lynched between 1877 and 1950, according to a 2015 report ([link removed]) from the Equal Justice Initiative, a legal rights nonprofit that researches and memorializes these crimes.

The Montgomery, Alabama-based organization also reported that during the 12-year period of Reconstruction, following the end of the Civil War in 1865 through 1877, at least 2,000 Black women, men, and children were terrorized and killed by white mobs ([link removed]) who “were were almost never held accountable — instead, they frequently were celebrated.”

A plaque marks the gravesite of Emmett Till at Burr Oak Cemetery in Aslip, Illinois. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The law is named after the late Emmett Till, a 14-year-old Black boy who was kidnapped, beaten and shot in the head in 1955 near Money, Mississippi, after being accused of whistling at a white woman. None of Till’s killers have been convicted in the lynching case. Till’s mother insisted on an open funeral casket ([link removed]) to show everyone what had been done to her son.

This new law reshapens federal hate crime standards by:
* Changing how lynchings are defined. Now, lynchings are broadened to include any attack intended to kill or seriously injure someone because of their identity.
* Setting a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for convictions, as well as fines for anyone conspiring to commit an act of lynching that causes death or injury.

In his speech Tuesday, Biden said the law “is not just about the past. It's about the present and our future as well.”

The president recalled the Feb. 23, 2020, murder of Ahmaud Arbery and “countless other acts of violent” and “countless victims, known and unknown.”

"The same racial hatred that drove the mob to hang a noose brought that mob carrying torches out of the fields of Charlottesville just a few years ago," Biden said. "Racial hate isn't an old problem — it's a persistent problem."

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Matt Loffman, @mattloff ([link removed])
Politics Producer

Congress has failed to pass anti-lynching legislation about 200 times. The Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, which Biden signed into law today, was the first to garner enough support to pass – unanimously in the Senate and with a 422-to-3 vote (with eight members not voting) in the House.

Our question: When was the first anti-lynching bill introduced in Congress? And which member sponsored the legislation?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Which two senators have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee ([link removed]) for every sitting member of the Supreme Court?

The answer: Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Congratulations to our winners: Dan Golub, Rick Danaher and Marvin Welborn!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2022 NEWSHOUR LLC, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])