Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Friday, April 01, 2022

Inside Ginni Thomas’ 'Insane' Hiring Memos for former President Donald Trump

Inside Ginni Thomas’ ‘Insane’ Hiring Memos for Trump

By
 
Adam Rawnsley Asawin Suebsaeng 
The Daily Beast
    Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty
    Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty

    "Years before she became one of then-President Donald Trump’s most prominent coup supporters, Ginni Thomas was already notorious in his West Wing for, among other things, ruining staffers’ afternoons by working Trump into fits of vengeful rage.

    “We all knew that within minutes after Ginni left her meeting with the president, he would start yelling about firing people for being disloyal,” said a former senior Trump administration official. “When Ginni Thomas showed up, you knew your day was wrecked.”

    Ever since she became a welcome guest at Trump’s residences, Thomas—an influential and longtime conservative activist, and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—had perfected a proven formula of enthralling and manipulating the president’s emotions and mood. On multiple occasions throughout the Trump era, Thomas would show up in the White House, sometimes for a private meeting or a luncheon with the president. She often came armed with written memos of who she and her allies believed Trump should hire for plum jobs—and who she thought Trump should promptly purge—that she distributed to Trump and other high-ranking government officials.

    The fire lists were particularly problematic, as they were frequently based on pure conjecture, rumor, or score-settling, where even steadfastly MAGA aides were targeted for being part of the “Deep State” or some other supposedly anti-Trump coalition, according to people who saw them during the Trump administration. The hire lists were so often filled with infamous bigots and conspiracy theorists, woefully under-qualified names, and obvious close friends of Thomas that several senior Trump aides would laugh at them—that is, until Trump would force his staff to put certain names through the official vetting process, three sources familiar with the matter said.

    During the Trump years, these memos would astonish various administration officials, including those working in the White House Presidential Personnel Office (PPO). Some of these officials noticed that as the Trump term went on, the Thomas lists would increasingly feature a disproportionate share of names more suited to an OAN guest line-up than any functional government. (To be fair, well before Ginni Thomas became a recurring visitor, Trump would routinely hire people because they had entertained or excited him, via Fox and other cable-news appearances.)

    Officials in the PPO regularly annotated the margins of Thomas’ hire lists, usually including a single line for each rejected name, explaining why the prospective hires did not work out. Some failed background checks, or suffered from security-clearance hold-ups. Other annotations noted that a specific individual was offered a job in the Trump administration, but turned it down for whatever reason.

    Sometimes, the reason for the White House’s preemptive rejection, despite Thomas and Trump’s best efforts, were more outlandish. According to a person who reviewed one of the Thomas lists, one annotation for a MAGA job candidate noted that that individual had made too many extreme or offensive jokes on social media that were still visible.

    Another of these annotations claimed that one recommendation for a Trump administration position was, in fact, a suspected foreign-intelligence asset, or spy.

    Thomas did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

    Over the years, some of the specific names that Thomas had compiled and pushed to Trump and his West Wing have trickled out into the press. Among them were Fox News personality Dan Bongino, and the Trump-adulating Sheriff David Clarke.

    And according to two sources with knowledge of the matter, Thomas had, unsuccessfully, advised the then-president to hire Frank Gaffney.

    Gaffney, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration, has spent the past two decades embracing some of the more absurd conspiracy theories circulating in the far right. He has accused conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist of being a secret agent for the Muslim Brotherhood and believes that American adversaries are working on secret electrical device-frying “electromagnetic pulse” weapons to zap America back to the pre-industrial age.

    “These fucking lists were so insane and unworkable,” said one former Trump White House official who had to personally deal with the Thomas-supplied memos and Trump’s fascination with them. “A lot of them were dripping with paranoia and read like they were written by a disturbed person.”

    After Thomas departed, he would soon summon a variety of government personnel—West Wing brass, national security aides, lawyers, and other underlings, depending on proximity or the occasion—to inform them he’d just spoken to “Ginni.”

    Trump would then identify an official— or, sometimes, he would rattle off a string of names—who he said needed to be sacked “immediately,” according to people familiar with the matter.

    When they could get away with it, several of these Trump administration hands would slow-walk these Thomas-inspired firing directives, and wait until Trump invariably forgot about it, cooled off, and moved on to other fixations and gripes. Others would scramble to try to calm Trump down themselves, advising their boss to reconsider, telling him that a firing or a larger purge in the middle of the Trump term would make him look bad or attract negative media attention.

    Thomas’ interactions with the Trump administration have taken on a new significance since the January 6th House Select Committee released text messages showing her urging Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to help overturn the 2020 election. Members of the committee are now seeking to interview Thomas, whose efforts to overturn the 2020 election included attendance at a “Stop the Steal” rally on the National Mall the day of the insurrection.

    “Trump loved talking to Ginni so much because he loved hearing about who was a Never Trumper, or allegedly one. He loved people who would flatter him, [as Ginni would do],” said Stephanie Grisham, once a top White House aide to Trump who has since had a very public falling-out with the ex-president. “But also, his obsession with loyalty aside, he just loved to gossip—all the time. That’s something else he got out of his series of meetings at the White House with Ginni Thomas.”

    In the text messages released by the committee last month, Thomas defended Sidney Powell, the “Kraken” lawyer whose election conspiracy theories were so outlandish they earned her a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, the scorn of rank and file Republican officials, and sanctions from a Michigan court. At the time, a number of Trump aides were trying to distance the president from Powell because of her increasingly outlandish comments about bogus election fraud. Thomas, however, urged Meadows not to yield to mainstream Republicans, according to The New York Times.

    In her texts with Trump’s consigliere, Thomas also showed a fondness for Steve Pieczenik, a far-right pundit and onetime Tom Clancy co-author whose conspiracy theories and bogus claims were so far-fetched even InfoWars briefly booted him from appearing on the network. Before he began pushing the fake stories about watermarked fraud-catching ballots that earned Thomas’ endorsement, Pieczenik had pushed QAnon conspiracy theories, claimed to have arrested Pope Francis, and spun bogus stories about prominent mass shootings being false flags.

    During the Obama administration, Thomas and Gaffney participated in a conservative messaging effort known as “Groundswell.” The group, an informal network of conservative journalists, pundits, and political operatives, routinely met at the offices of the right-wing activist group Judicial Watch to coordinate talking points opposing the Obama administration’s agenda and plot the ouster of allegedly moderate Republicans like Karl Rove from the broader conservative movement.

    The revelation of Thomas’ texts with Meadows prompted the January 6th Committee to seek an interview with her, according to CNN, but that effort falls far short of the more legally compelling option of a subpoena.

    In the meantime, Congressional Democrats are divided over how to handle Thomas’ cameo in the Jan. 6 scandal. Some, like Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, have called for Thomas to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases while others like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called for him to step down or be impeached.

    But the lack of a Democratic supermajority in the Senate means neither of the Thomases are likely to have to give up their jobs just yet."

    Charles Blow: The Supreme Court Is Not Equipped To Police Itself

    Ginni Thomas’s Texts Are ‘Shocking’ Says Clarence Thomas Biographer

    Oscars producer reveals what LAPD said about Will Smith

    Black America, don't fall for the okey doke. We should be on #TeamWill &...

    Russians leaving Chernobyl have taken Ukraine soldiers with them, say officials Russian troops have largely withdrawn from nuclear site, says head of agency in charge of exclusion zone

    Russians leaving Chernobyl have taken Ukraine soldiers with them, say officials

    Russian troops have largely withdrawn from nuclear site, says head of agency in charge of exclusion zone

    Russian forces after seizing control of Chernobyl in February
    Russian forces after seizing control of Chernobyl in February. Photograph: Twitter

    “Russian troops have largely withdrawn from the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear power station but have taken an unspecified number of Ukrainian service personnel with them, officials have said.

    Yevhen Kramarenko, the head of the agency in charge of the heavily contaminated exclusion zone around the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident, said Russian soldiers had left the plant early on Friday but some remained in the area.

    The Ukrainian state power company Energoatom said the pullout came after soldiers received “significant doses” of radiation from digging trenches in the forest in the exclusion zone, a claim the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said it is investigating.

    Energoatom said the troops had “panicked at the first sign of illness”, which “showed up very quickly”. Chernobyl’s No 4 reactor exploded on 26 April 1986, killing hundreds and spreading radioactive contamination west across Europe.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Kyiv had informed it that Russia had transferred control of the site back to the Ukrainians charged with overseeing the safe storage of spent fuel rods and maintaining the concrete-encased ruins of the reactor.

    But the UN agency said it could not independently confirm the claim that the Russian soldiers, whose capture of the plant on 24 February, the first day of the invasion, raised fears of increased radiological risks, had been exposed to radiation.

    Energoatom did not say how many soldiers were involved and gave no details of how they had been affected. The Ukrainian deputy prime minister, Iryna Vereshchuk, also said Russian troops were exposed to radiation after digging tenches in the forest.

    Some Ukrainian reports have suggested the soldiers were taken to a special medical facility in nearby Belarus after driving tanks through the exclusion zone, kicking up radioactive dust. The Kremlin has not commented on the claims.

    Citing plant workers, Energoatom said in a statement on Friday that the “Russian occupiers, as they ran away from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, took members of the national guard, whom they had held hostage since 24 February, with them”.

    The Ukrainian government had repeatedly expressed safety concerns about Chernobyl and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the Russian troops, whose presence prevented the normal rotation of personnel for some weeks.

    Russian forces also retreated from the nearby town of Slavutych, where Chernobyl worked lived, Energoatom said, and the IAEA said it was preparing to send its first “assistance and support mission” to Chernobyl within the next few days.

    Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN atomic watchdog, was due to hold talks with senior Russian officials in Kaliningrad on Friday after visiting a nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine on Wednesday on his first trip to the country since the invasion.

    Grossi, who has repeatedly warned of the dangers of the conflict – Ukraine has 15 reactors at four active nuclear power plants, as well as stores of nuclear waste at Chernobyl and elsewhere – was expected hold a press conference at the IAEA’s headquarters in Vienna later on Friday.“

    Opinion: That’s no party. That’s the Republican Hot Mess.

    Opinion | That's no party, it's the Republican Hot Mess - The Washington Post

    “At this point, the Republican Party really ought to change its name. It’s not a coherent political party anymore. To comply with truth-in-advertising standards, it should call itself the Republican Hot Mess.

    And yes, this is an election year, and the Hot Mess could take control of one or even both houses of Congress. At a time of overlapping crises at home and abroad, that is a gamble the nation should not take — and an outcome Democrats and independents must do everything in their power to prevent.

    Most endangered is the Democrats’ slim majority in the House, where Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — desperate to move into the expansive office suite occupied by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — is spending much of his time dealing with a loony-bin caucus that seems determined to embarrass the party leadership.

    The member of his ranks currently giving McCarthy the biggest migraine is Rep. Madison Cawthorn (N.C.), who recently said on a podcast that, since taking office, he has encountered “sexual perversion,” including an invitation to “come to an orgy,” and has seen individuals who publicly stand against illegal drugs “do a key bump of cocaine right in front of you.”

    Cawthorn, 26, said he was shocked by all of this, “being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 or 70.” He added: “I look at all these people, a lot of them that I’ve looked up to through my life — I’ve always paid attention to politics — then all of a sudden you get invited.” The clear implication is that these unnamed hedonists are colleagues of his in Congress.

    Fearful of losing support in his quest for the speaker’s gavel, McCarthy has been loath to punish or even meaningfully rebuke Cawthorn’s fellow loony-bin residents such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.), who both spoke recently at a conference organized by an avowed white nationalist. But Cawthorn’s allegations were so beyond the pale that McCarthy finally called him in and dressed him down. He told reporters later that Cawthorn “did not tell the truth,” that there was “no evidence” to support his claims and that his words were “unacceptable.”

    Does this mean the GOP is beginning to come back to its senses? Not really. McCarthy has said that Greene and Gosar, both of whom have been stripped of their committee assignments by the Democratic majority, will be placed on committees again if Republicans take control. McCarthy also tiptoes around the antics of such clowns as Rep. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), who called a fellow member of Congress “the Jihad Squad,” and Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), who is under investigation for alleged sex trafficking. The inmates are running the asylum.

    Over in the Senate, where Democrats need Vice President Harris’s tiebreaking vote to have a majority, we saw last week the disgraceful way Republican senators handled their questioning of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) tried unfairly to paint Jackson as lenient on child pornographers. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) asked whether she believed babies are racist. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) pressed her to define the word “woman.” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) angrily sought to hold her responsible for the way Democratic senators have treated Republican nominees in the past.

    Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has said Senate Republicans will not produce a legislative agenda ahead of the midterm elections, apparently believing it is dangerous to let voters know exactly what they might be voting for. On the other side of the Capitol, however, McCarthy is working on a “Commitment to America” set of proposals.

    I agree that some members of McCarthy’s caucus need to be committed, but not in the way he means.

    Looming over the whole Hot Mess, of course, is former president Donald Trump. From his Elba at Mar-a-Lago, Trump has been trying to boost the prospects of incumbents and challengers who support his “big lie” about the “stolen” election — and to end the careers of Republicans, such as Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who stand for the party’s traditional values.

    Trump recently pulled his endorsement from Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.), who is seeking a Senate seat, because Brooks — who went so far as to give a fiery speech at Trump’s Jan. 6 rally — has said it is time to move on from the 2020 election. How far out on the fringe do you have to be to get and keep Trump’s support?

    By making every race all about himself, Trump could be his (putative) party’s worst enemy. It would be beyond ironic if Democrats held on to their majorities thanks to his whims and grudges.“

    How Low Will Senate Republicans Go on Ketanji Brown Jackson?

    How Low Will Senate Republicans Go on Ketanji Brown Jackson?

    Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times

    By Linda Greenhouse

    “Ms. Greenhouse, the winner of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 through 2021.

    When Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination reaches the Senate floor soon, every Republican who votes against her confirmation will be complicit in the abuse that the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee heaped on her.

    Every mischaracterization of Judge Jackson’s record on the bench. Every racist dog whistle about crime. Every QAnon shout-out about rampant child pornography. Every innuendo that a lawyer who represents suspected terrorists supports terrorism.

    So far, only one Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine, has said she will vote to confirm Judge Jackson. The Republican senators who don’t disavow their colleagues’ behavior during last week’s confimation hearing will own it. All of it.

    Every Republican voting no will be Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, asking, “On a scale of one to 10, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion?” Each one will be Ted Cruz of Texas, distorting the argument in a law review note by the nominee to suggest slyly that beginning as a student she harbored an agenda of going easy on sex criminals.

    Each Republican will even sink so low as to be Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, moving her pen across the page as she read the right-wing talking points and demanding that the nominee define the word “woman.” The definition that came to mind, although not to Judge Jackson’s lips, was “a mature female who can maintain her composure while being badgered on national television by posturing politicians.”

    I have observed, and written about for this newspaper, every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since Sandra Day O’Connor’s in 1981, the first to be televised live. There have been good times and bad, obviously. The O’Connor hearing was one of the good ones. There were a few testy moments, thanks not to Democrats but to a few of the nominee’s fellow Republicans who thought her insufficiently dedicated to the anti-abortion cause. But the mood was decidedly one of bipartisan celebration for the barrier about to be broken by confirming the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, and the vote on the Senate floor was 99-0.

    Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, tried in her opening statement last week to summon such a sense of unity. “This entire hearing is about opening things up,” she said, noting that as the 116th justice, Judge Jackson would be the first Black woman. Senator Klobuchar continued, “We are a nation that must re-embrace the simple principle that unites us as Americans, and that is that our country is so much bigger in what unites us than what divides us.”

    It was not only sad but also shameful that the Judiciary Committee’s Republicans couldn’t rise to the occasion. Granted, the goal of their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has always famously been known to withhold as many votes as possible from a Democratic president’s Supreme Court nominee. (In 2016, of course, he deprived President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, of any vote whatsoever.)

    The last Democratic nominee to go through a full confirmation process was Elena Kagan in 2010. Named by Mr. Obama, she had been the first female dean of Harvard Law School and was serving as the first female solicitor general. She was nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, who at that point was arguably the most liberal justice. The court’s ideological balance was not at stake; in fact, there was some reason to think that she might be a bit to Justice Stevens’s right. There was no objective reason to oppose her. She was confirmed with only five Republican votes, down from the nine Republicans who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, Mr. Obama’s first nominee to the court, the year before.

    The reasons Republicans gave for opposing Solicitor General Kagan were standard fare. They portrayed her as a closet political activist who, in the words of Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, had failed to provide assurance that she would “change her political ways or check her political instincts or goals at the courthouse door.” One of her home-state senators, Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, who had introduced her at the committee hearing and was widely expected to vote for her, voted no at the last minute, having apparently discovered that she lacked judicial experience.

    While the opposition was tedious and vapid, it wasn’t mean. No one accused her of coddling pedophiles or terrorists. The senators were following their leader. It was just business.

    The difference between then and now is stark. The alternating question periods between Democratic and Republican senators induced a kind of whiplash. While the Democrats celebrated Judge Jackson’s accomplishments and the symbolism of her nomination, the Republicans oozed venom. Their collective fixation on her irrefutably mainstream sentencing practices in cases involving child sexual abuse imagery — a topic seemingly plucked from thin air because there was nothing of substance for them to complain about — verged on the unhinged.

    “Every judge who does what you are doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited,” Senator Graham exclaimed, evidently overcome with remorse for having voted less than a year ago to confirm her to the federal appeals court on which she now sits.

    It was inevitable that some Republican would bring up the mother of all confirmation battles, the defeat of President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987. It turned out to be Senator Cruz. “It is only one side of the aisle, the Democratic aisle, that went so into the gutter with Judge Robert Bork that they invented a new verb, to ‘bork’ someone,” he said.

    If Senator Cruz meant to justify himself and his fellow Republicans for “borking” Judge Jackson, he missed a crucial difference. In 1987, six Republicans joined with all but two Democrats to reject the Bork nomination for what the nominee had said and written. Judge Bork actually criticized a key measure of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he said embodied a principle of “unsurpassed ugliness.” He really did believe that the First Amendment protected only pure political speech and not other means of expression. He called the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a constitutional right to contraception, an “unprincipled” judicial overreach. That he would vote to repudiate Roe v. Wade when the opportunity arose was a given.

    In other words, the Bork hearing was really about Robert Bork and what impact he would have on the Supreme Court if confirmed to what was then the swing seat. The Republicans’ role in the Jackson hearing was not remotely about Ketanji Brown Jackson. It was about concocting a scary version of a Black woman to serve up to their base. In addition to associating her with crime and criminals, they repeatedly questioned her representation of Guantánamo detainees.

    Memories are short and selective. April 7 will be the fifth anniversary of the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Before he became a judge, he held a senior political position in the Justice Department during the presidency of George W. Bush. In that position, in 2006, he sent an email to a friend with the subject line “Elite Law Firm Pro Bono Work for Terrorists.” His email forwarded a blog post from the right-wing American Spectator deploring the growing involvement of prominent law firms in providing representation to Guantánamo detainees. His message read: “I thought you mind [sic] find this of interest. It seems odd to me that more hasn’t been made of this. See esp. list of firms below from Spectator blog.”

    His friend, whose name had been blacked out, replied to the email by saying, “The great fallacy here, of course, is that this work helps to protect the rights of Americans. By definition, the only rights at issue here are those of suspected alien terrorist enemies during time of war.” Mr. Gorsuch’s reply in turn: “Exactly.”

    The email exchange was among the documents the White House turned over to the Judiciary Committee at the time of the Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. During the confirmation hearing, Senator Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who now heads the committee, asked him about it, noting that Chief Justice John Roberts had spoken proudly about his own representation of unpopular clients during his legal career.

    Senator Durbin’s question penetrated, just for a moment, the nominee’s cool demeanor. “The email you’re referring to is not my finest moment, blowing off steam with a friend, privately,” he replied. “The truth is, I think my career is better than that.”

    Whether it has proved to be, whether the hotheaded administration lawyer has subsequently redeemed himself, is a judgment I’ll leave to others for now. But here’s a judgment I can make with confidence: If and when Senators Cruz, Graham and the rest of them seek redemption for their behavior last week, they won’t find it.“

    This Is Why It Took More Than 100 Years to Get an Anti-Lynching Bill

    This Is Why It Took More Than 100 Years to Get an Anti-Lynching Bill

    Bettmann/Getty Images

    Sign up for the Jamelle Bouie newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.

    “On Tuesday, President Biden signed a bill to make lynching a federal crime. Devised by a group of Black lawmakers in the House and Senate — Tim Scott of South Carolina, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Bobby Rush of Illinois and Kamala Harris of California (when she was still in the Senate) — the law comes into being after more than 200 failed attempts, over more than 100 years, to pass anti-lynching legislation through Congress.

    “Lynching was pure terror to enforce the lie that not everyone, not everyone belongs in America, not everyone is created equal,” Biden said, speaking to civil rights leaders, journalists and others during the signing ceremony at the White House.

    “Lynching is not a relic of the past,” said Vice President Harris. “Racial acts of terror still occur in our nation. And when they do, we must all have the courage to name them and hold the perpetrators to account.”

    Harris’s remarks help illustrate why it is that activists fought so long, and so hard, to make lynching a federal crime. A lynching is more than a violent act meant for a single individual. Past and present, lynchings are meant to intimidate an entire community — to reinforce hierarchies of race and class through brutal acts of communal violence.

    “Compared to other forms of terror and intimidation that African Americans were subject to under Jim Crow, lynching was an infrequent and extraordinary occurrence,” the historian Amy Louise Wood explains in “Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890—1940.” And yet, “despite, or even because of, its relative rarity, lynching had a singular psychological force, generating a level of fear and horror that overwhelmed all other forms of violence.”

    Lynchings were barbarous, defined by an extreme, often sadistic violence, including burning, sexual mutilation and the removal of limbs. “Whatever faults and failings other nations may have in their dealings with their own subjects or with other people,” the journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett wrote in “The Red Record,” “no other civilized nation stands condemned before the world with a series of crimes so peculiarly national. It becomes a painful duty of the Negro to reproduce a record which shows that a large portion of the American people avow anarchy, condone murder and defy contempt of civilization.”

    Lynchings were, by their very design, an affront to the rule of law, and one did not have to be a racial egalitarian, like Wells-Barnett, to want to ban the practice and punish its perpetrators.

    When, in 1918, the Missouri congressman Leonidas Dyer introduced his (and the nascent N.A.A.C.P.’s) anti-lynching bill to the U.S. House of Representatives, he specifically cited the extent to which lynching — and the “race riots” that inspired him to embrace the anti-lynching cause — degraded the rule of law and made a mockery of the Constitution.

    “The United States has, as all governments have, a political and legal interest in the lives of its citizens,” Dyer said during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:

    It would seem that open and notorious neglect or omission of this duty on the part of the State, by suffering lawless mobs to murder citizens for want of legal protection, may be declared an offense against the United States, and if so, that the United States may punish all persons who contribute to it.

    In 1922, the House voted to pass a version of his bill, 230 to 119. It then died in the Senate, a victim of the filibuster. So, what happened?

    To answer that, we have to think a little about the position of the South within the American political system at the time. Jim Crow disenfranchisement of Black Americans (and many whites as well) gave reactionary Southern elites an unbreakable grip on the politics of the region in a way they had not attained since before the Civil War. Facing little competition, Southern lawmakers could hold their seats for decades, which brought power and, crucially, seniority — the coin of the realm in the House and Senate.

    What’s more, Southern lawmakers acted as a bloc, both in Congress and within the Democratic Party, where they continued to reside and to which they would hitch their political loyalties until well after the Second World War. As the historian David M. Potter argued in his 1972 book, “The South and the Concurrent Majority,” the effect of all this was to give the Jim Crow South a kind of veto power over national policy, in a way that was not unlike the system of “concurrent majorities” envisioned during the first half of the 19th century by the pro-slavery theorist and long-serving senator John C. Calhoun.

    Here’s how it worked. Within the Democratic Party, thanks to rules at the time for choosing a presidential nominee, the South, when voting as a bloc, could veto any nominee deemed hostile to its interests. Within Congress, control of committees could kill legislation that threatened white Southern power and autonomy before it reached the floor, or force lawmakers outside the South to bend to their preferences. Any bill that somehow survived the House could be strangled in the Senate using the filibuster, which is what happened, again and again, to anti-lynching (and other civil rights) legislation.

    There is something a little funny here, if you have not seen it already.

    The reigning justification for institutions like the Senate or rules like the filibuster — or, for that matter, the entire edifice of American federalism — is that they protect the rights of the minority from the depredations of an overbearing majority. But it is in the story of the long and frustrated effort to make lynching a federal crime — to, in Dyer’s words, “protect the lives of citizens of the United States against lynch law and mob violence” — that we see the reverse. We see how the American system can, and often does, protect tyrannical and overbearing minorities, like the architects of Jim Crow, from the only power, the federal government, that can defend and enforce democratic equality across the entire nation.

    We should celebrate the passage and signing of an anti-lynching bill. It is, truly, a historic accomplishment. We should also pause to reflect not just on the long struggle to make this law a reality, but on the ways that our system itself was the primary obstacle to protecting the lives and livelihoods of its own citizens.“